Life does not begin at fertilization...

[ppfizenm]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I don't disagree with this. But "belief" is not scientific fact, and I don't think a voter requires an advanced degree in science to understand or evaluate your view.

Im getting at that the issue should be decided by a group of people with different perspectives but have reasonings for those beliefs backed by training in the area they advocating from.

 

[BHaus9]

Im getting at that the issue should be decided by a group of people with different perspectives but have reasonings for those beliefs backed by training in the area they advocating from.

Is it the case that our political representatives are more qualified to vote on the issue? If not, I see no problem putting this to referendum, though I would agree if you think we need more in the way of public education.

 

[kduck]

Im getting at that the issue should be decided by a group of people with different perspectives but have reasonings for those beliefs backed by training in the area they advocating from.

I dunno... Ideally, since this issue deals with life and reproduction (which everyone is affected by) I don't think that people without specialized training or education should be marginalized. That isn't to say that everyone who has decision power shouldn't learn more about the issue, only that it's a bit elitist to say that those who haven't had special training (i.e. regular people) shouldn't have a say on laws concerning reproductive rights.

 

[Camy99]

My body, my choice.
My house, my rules.
My country, my laws.

...Why no, I don't see the selfishness in this at all.
When parents have ridiculous rules within their household, we have all sorts of names for them from helicopter to straight-up abusive. Yes, an 18-yr-old can leave and take care of themself but a 5-yr-old can't. Their life is mostly in the hands of their parents until social services comes in and determines whether the parents are actually bad or just neurotic. In the same way, an unborn is not "fully alive" enough to do/say anything.
That's all I ask for with abortion, a "social services" to come in and say--no, you made this child, you will have this child, it will not hurt you, you're being horribly selfish, have the thing and we'll take care of it from there.
I hate that abortion is taken as the easy way out. Even the whole "Not having it cuz I can't take care of it" is bull. There's always a way. You won't live in luxury maybe, or it'll have to be adopted, whatever but killing it shouldn't be the ultimate solution.
The ONLY time it should be okay is in health reasons, but even then, if you knew you couldn't handle pregnancy, um don't get pregnant?
So I'm pro-life but mostly pro-regulation.

 

[Sephiroth]

Is it the case that our political representatives are more qualified to vote on the issue? If not, I see no problem putting this to referendum, though I would agree if you think we need more in the way of public education.

We don't put everything to a referendum for a reason. Our constitution and laws are set up to prevent tyranny of the majority. The idea is that just because 50+1 % of people want something a certain way doesn't mean we can/should enforce that on everyone. So if you really think about it, having any social issue put to referendum doesn't make much sense probably the majority of the time, because if having the majority decide what we should do were ok, then we wouldn't need any of the protections given by the constitution. So really it would be something that legal scholars and courts well informed on the issue (which in this case would include experts on human development) should decide.

But I agree with the last part across the board.

 

[kexy]

The ONLY time it should be okay is in health reasons, but even then, if you knew you couldn't handle pregnancy, um don't get pregnant?
So I'm pro-life but mostly pro-regulation.

Not in cases of rape? Or failed contraception? Or when the woman didn't know that pregnancy was especially risky for her until after she became pregnant? Or when the fetus has tragic genetic defects (e.g., Tay Sachs?) or terrible congenital diseases or disfigurations?

 

[Oo Cipher oO]

I dunno... Ideally, since this issue deals with life and reproduction (which everyone is affected by) I don't think that people without specialized training or education should be marginalized. That isn't to say that everyone who has decision power shouldn't learn more about the issue, only that it's a bit elitist to say that those who haven't had special training (i.e. regular people) shouldn't have a say on laws concerning reproductive rights.

Well said. We need to be careful to avoid a paternalistic attitude.

 

[Simplify]

The idea is that just because 50+1 % of people want something a certain way doesn't mean we can/should enforce that on everyone.

That is exactly how our system is setup. Does this come as a surprise to you? A great many issues in our society fall on very thin margins of majority. In these cases the majority does indeed impose its will on the minority--nothing groundbreaking about this concept.

 

[NickNaylor]

Yes! I'm so relieved this didn't pass...👍

Edit: On a side note, does it frustrate anyone else when people spout the idea that "a new life begins at conception" is a scientific fact?

Almost as irritating as people saying life doesn't begin at conception as scientific fact.

 

[Camy99]

Not in cases of rape? Or failed contraception? Or when the woman didn't know that pregnancy was especially risky for her until after she became pregnant? Or when the fetus has tragic genetic defects (e.g., Tay Sachs?) or terrible congenital diseases or disfigurations?

I wrote that post assuming people had read my previous post where I mentioned rape. I also said IF she knew she couldn't handle pregnancy.
The terrible diseases thing.. might as well kill the kids that are alive with it right now then, huh? So, no to the last one. Especially since sometimes these predictions are wrong. Part of my argument comes from my POV that everyone has a purpose even if it is short-lived; you don't know how that diseased 1,2, or 5-yr-old can inspire someone else to change the world.

 

[BHaus9]

My body, my choice.
My house, my rules.
My country, my laws.

...Why no, I don't see the selfishness in this at all.
When parents have ridiculous rules within their household, we have all sorts of names for them from helicopter to straight-up abusive. Yes, an 18-yr-old can leave and take care of themself but a 5-yr-old can't. Their life is mostly in the hands of their parents until social services comes in and determines whether the parents are actually bad or just neurotic. In the same way, an unborn is not "fully alive" enough to do/say anything.
That's all I ask for with abortion, a "social services" to come in and say--no, you made this child, you will have this child, it will not hurt you, you're being horribly selfish, have the thing and we'll take care of it from there.
I hate that abortion is taken as the easy way out. Even the whole "Not having it cuz I can't take care of it" is bull. There's always a way. You won't live in luxury maybe, or it'll have to be adopted, whatever but killing it shouldn't be the ultimate solution.
The ONLY time it should be okay is in health reasons, but even then, if you knew you couldn't handle pregnancy, um don't get pregnant?
So I'm pro-life but mostly pro-regulation.

It's not always possible to foresee complications with pregnancy...

Furthermore, your entire diatribe rests on the assumption that an "unborn child" is just that - a child, i.e. a human being - but that's the entire point under discussion. What you call selfism is, to others, a desire for freedom/privacy. Why SHOULDN'T I reserve the right to do as I please with my own body PROVIDED I AM DOING NO HARM TO OTHERS? I understand you will say this last premise - the unharmfulness one - is violated in the case of abortion, but it rests on you to show me that an embryo/fetus/whatevere is a "someone" to begin with. Until this is done, it's somewhat selfish of YOU to constrain the way that I behave just to satisfy your biased sense of justice.

Lastly, not all people who have intercourse are trying to get pregnant, just as not all people who smoke are trying to get cancer. Should lung cancer patients with a history of smoking be denied treatment? inb4ahumanbabyisnotacancer

 

[ppfizenm]

Is it the case that our political representatives are more qualified to vote on the issue? If not, I see no problem putting this to referendum, though I would agree if you think we need more in the way of public education.

I should have clarified there. I was advocating only for that group to decide on a definition of life; not saying they should have a say on abortion. That's what this bill failed to distinguish between. All my comments have been on a definition of life.

I don't think the average american should have a say on what constitutes life. Abortion is a different issue.

 

[kexy]

That's all I ask for with abortion, a "social services" to come in and say--no, you made this child, you will have this child, it will not hurt you, you're being horribly selfish, have the thing and we'll take care of it from there.

1. It takes two people to make the child, and the woman might not always have been willing.
2. It WILL hurt the mother. It will hurt her socially, physically, psychologically, financially, and professionally.

Even if the fetus is a person with all the rights thereof, including the right to life, fetuses--like other people--don't always have the right to what is needed to sustain life. For example, I have the right not to be killed, and I might even have the right to food, shelter, and basic medical care, but that doesn't mean I have the right to one of your kidneys, even if I will die without it. Pregnancy is an extreme burden, especially in our society. Even if the fetus is a person with a right to life, it may not have a right to use the mother's body, especially in cases of nonconsensual sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

 

[BHaus9]

We don't put everything to a referendum for a reason. Our constitution and laws are set up to prevent tyranny of the majority. The idea is that just because 50+1 % of people want something a certain way doesn't mean we can/should enforce that on everyone. So if you really think about it, having any social issue put to referendum doesn't make much sense probably the majority of the time, because if having the majority decide what we should do were ok, then we wouldn't need any of the protections given by the constitution. So really it would be something that legal scholars and courts well informed on the issue (which in this case would include experts on human development) should decide.

But I agree with the last part across the board.

That is exactly how our system is setup. Does this come as a surprise to you? A great many issues in our society fall on very thin margins of majority. In these cases the majority does indeed impose its will on the minority--nothing groundbreaking about this concept.

I never advocated putting "any social issue" to public referendum. However, where it is practical do so, I think it is desirable to have as many people as possible vote on issues that a) require no special expertise and b) have broad impact.

And as simplify said, I feel like democracy is, almost by definition, tyranny of the majority.

 

[kduck]

I should have clarified there. I was advocating only for that group to decide on a definition of life; not saying they should have a say on abortion. That's what this bill failed to distinguish between. All my comments have been on a definition of life.

I don't think the average american should have a say on what constitutes life. Abortion is a different issue.

This assumes there is some attainable answer to what constitutes life, or more specifically human life. But as previous posters have argued, science can't answer this question for us, and it comes down to a question of belief and where we arbitrarily draw the line; and I believe average Americans are just as entitled to have a say on where that line goes as anyone with special training or education. Am I terrified about the potential consequences? Yes, but this is what democracy calls for - for the average person to have some kind of say on important issues.

 

[Sephiroth]

That is exactly how our system is setup. Does this come as a surprise to you? A great many issues in our society fall on very thin margins of majority. In these cases the majority does indeed impose its will on the minority--nothing groundbreaking about this concept.

In much of public policy, sure. However, that is not the case when it comes to individual liberties - that's why the bill of rights was made. I'd bet that over 50% of the US population would like to impose some laws regarding religious practice that vioalte the 1st amendment (and I don't necesarily mean something highly oppressive, just something that violates state-church separation), but they can't because of the aformentioned constitutional amendment. When we're talking about an issue of individual rights, saying "put it to a vote" often doesn't make sense. I'd say that's the case here as well, though fortunately the majority of voters stand on the side of individual rights on this issue anyway.

 

[ppfizenm]

I never advocated putting "any social issue" to public referendum. However, where it is practical do so, I think it is desirable to have as many people as possible vote on issues that a) require no special expertise and b) have broad impact.

And as simplify said, I feel like democracy is, almost by definition, tyranny of the majority.

I see the definition of life as an intellectual issue and abortion as a social issue. This bill linked them in a way that made me feel that the general public would have a say on an intellectual issue.

 

[BHaus9]

I should have clarified there. I was advocating only for that group to decide on a definition of life; not saying they should have a say on abortion. That's what this bill failed to distinguish between. All my comments have been on a definition of life.

I don't think the average american should have a say on what constitutes life. Abortion is a different issue.

Ah, understood. To me the questions are almost inseparable, but I grant I never considered the possibility of people upholding abortion even if this would legally mean "kililng a person."

 

[Sephiroth]

And as simplify said, I feel like democracy is, almost by definition, tyranny of the majority.

Indeed it is, which is why I'm glad we don't live in a true democracy.

 

[BHaus9]

In much of public policy, sure. However, that is not the case when it comes to individual liberties - that's why the bill of rights was made. I'd bet that over 50% of the US population would like to impose some laws regarding religious practice that vioalte the 1st amendment (and I don't necesarily mean something highly oppressive, just something that violates state-church separation), but they can't because of the aformentioned constitutional amendment. When we're talking about an issue of individual rights, saying "put it to a vote" often doesn't make sense. I'd say that's the case here as well, though fortunately the majority of voters stand on the side of individual rights on this issue anyway.

But the whole point is that, pending classification of a fetus as a "human being," this no longer is an issue of individual rights. The whole purpose of law is to arbitrate wherever individual liberties come into conflict, and if a fetus = human, abortion very much encroaches on someone's liberties.

 

[ppfizenm]

Indeed it is, which is why I'm glad we don't live in a true democracy.

I wasn't going to bring that up but thanks for saying it.

 

[Camy99]

It's not always possible to foresee complications with pregnancy...

Furthermore, your entire diatribe rests on the assumption that an "unborn child" is just that - a child, i.e. a human being - but that's the entire point under discussion. What you call selfism is, to others, a desire for freedom/privacy. Why SHOULDN'T I reserve the right to do as I please with my own body PROVIDED I AM DOING NO HARM TO OTHERS? I understand you will say this last premise - the unharmfulness one - is violated in the case of abortion, but it rests on you to show me that an embryo/fetus/whatevere is a "someone" to begin with. Until this is done, it's somewhat selfish of YOU to constrain the way that I behave just to satisfy your biased sense of justice.

Lastly, not all people who have intercourse are trying to get pregnant, just as not all people who smoke are trying to get cancer. Should lung cancer patients with a history of smoking be denied treatment? inb4ahumanbabyisnotacancer

Again, as I replied before to someone else, I said IF the mother knew she couldn't handle it (age, for example whether too young/old).

The bolded part: I think at the end of it all, that's the argument. While some still go back and forth about whether it's okay to kill an unborn the underlying thing here is, is it a someone. I'm not going to lie, I don't know how to PROVE to you that it is with out getting all emotional about it. Maybe I'm too tired to think of a good example, but I'll let us agree to disagree for now. Although honestly, after a few months, there is clearly a baby in there, for you to still deny it as a person is just ridiculous.

The smoking thing, oh God. Okay, no they shouldn't be denied treatment. A small, small part of me wishes so but as someone who aspires to work in the pulmonary fields I wouldn't (though I would give a stern talk pre-treatment....). But that still shows how irresponsible people are. You KNOW smoking can lead to cancer, just like you KNOW that unprotected sex (if it wasn't rape blablabla) can lead to pregnancy. Going through with it anyways until the last minute asking for a way out is what I've been taught my whole life as irresponsible.
But before you say it, yes I also KNOW that eating McD's and not working out, can lead to obesity. And if I were to get obese from it, and then get diabetes, one of the first words thrown my way will be 'irresponsible' even if I decide to take the easy way out with surgery.
Either way, with the last two examples, it's affecting the self and not others (although smoking does affect others....), with abortion you are directly stopping a life. Whether it's alive at the time of abortion, or in the process.

1. It takes two people to make the child, and the woman might not always have been willing.
2. It WILL hurt the mother. It will hurt her socially, physically, psychologically, financially, and professionally.

Even if the fetus is a person with all the rights thereof, including the right to life, fetuses--like other people--don't always have the right to what is needed to sustain life. For example, I have the right not to be killed, and I might even have the right to food, shelter, and basic medical care, but that doesn't mean I have the right to one of your kidneys, even if I will die without it. Pregnancy is an extreme burden, especially in our society. Even if the fetus is a person with a right to life, it may not have a right to use the mother's body, especially in cases of nonconsensual sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

1. Again, with the rape thing. For the last time, I'm not for rape. You can't be serious right now. I'd like to think I've made it clear by now that there are exceptions and this is one of them.
2. Abortion can also hurt a woman physically, psychologically, and sometimes socially (Not many women walk around bragging about their abortions for a reason...). And I don't think it "hurts" professionally or financially. 'Hurt' is the wrong word. Every family is 'hurt' by an addition of a child because it is added costs. Overpopulation is a big deal, because it 'hurts' the economy for all these children to be born. It "Adds a responsibility", "makes things more difficult", it's "a bump in the road", but it's not oh-so-end-of-the-world (unless, I say again, it's rape/unhealthy blabla) that it should be killed.


Oh and the Wikipedia link, good read! I like to understand in a calm manner why people are pro-choice, besides the usual phrases people yell or write on signs. My objection is the "Responsibility" one. And the responses, in my opinion, are quite weak.

 

[Simplify]

In much of public policy, sure. However, that is not the case when it comes to individual liberties - that's why the bill of rights was made.

You said that the judiciary should make these decisions. The will of a group of 9 people imposed on a population is even more tyrannical than that of a simple majority. The judiciary doesn't make law. They interpret law as written and uphold the constitution by striking down laws that run afoul of it. The idea that the judiciary makes law is a relatively new misconception about our system of government that is borne out of total ignorance for the intent of a judiciary in the first place.

 

[phltz]

The ONLY time it should be okay is in health reasons, but even then, if you knew you couldn't handle pregnancy, um don't get pregnant?

Exactly. If people have some sort of problem that a doctor could help them with, it's only appropriate if the problem could not have been forseen or prevented ahead of time.

If you knew you couldn't handle diabetes, um, don't eat so many cupcakes?
If you knew you couldn't handle fractured ribs and pelvis, lacerations, and dislocated shoulder, um don't ride a motorcycle?
If you knew you couldn't handle lung cancer, um, don't smoke so many cigarettes?
If you knew you couldn't handle asthma, um, don't grow up in a cheap apartment with a lot of dust/roach dander in the air?
If you knew you couldn't handle getting shot, um, don't enlist in the military?

 

[Sephiroth]

But the whole point is that, pending classification of a fetus as a "human being," this no longer is an issue of individual rights. The whole purpose of law is to arbitrate wherever individual liberties come into conflict, and if a fetus = human, abortion very much encroaches on someone's liberties.

Then your talking about what ppfizenm is referring to, which is an intelectual matter and is also completely independent of what the majority of the population thinks.

You said that the judiciary should make these decisions. The will of a group of 9 people imposed on a population is even more tyrannical than that of a simple majority. The judiciary doesn't make law. They interpret law as written and uphold the constitution by striking down laws that run afoul of it. The idea that the judiciary makes law is a relatively new misconception about our system of government that is borne out of total ignorance for the intent of a judiciary in the first place.

I didn't say that they would be writing laws. It is, like most things of this nature, something that would probably be settled in court after the law was challenged, and hopefully reach a sufficiently high court. So to that end, the law itself plays a rather strange role (this is all in the hypothetical scenario in which such a law is passed), but either way the process seems rather suspect.

 

[BHaus9]

Then your talking about what ppfizenm is referring to, which is an intelectual matter and is also completely independent of what the majority of the population thinks.

I still fail to see how this is an "intellectual matter" ... whatever that actually means. If you're suggesting that the answer to when "personhood" begins rests in scientific reasoning, informed by data or calculations or something, I disagree 100%. I just can't see this as a case where having a more fully developed understanding of embryology will bring you any closer to a definitive solution. You can tell me over and over again that holding a PhD in developmental biology makes you more qualified to comment on the matter, but I've yet to see one example of how that education would prove useful in this discussion. There's not a meter you can jam into a cluster of a cells to measure "life intensity." And the decision to use some alternative measurement as an approximation is going to be founded in an opinions/beliefs without scientific basis.

Simply put, I don't think science is the least bit equipped to tell us whether a fetus is a "person." Science can describe organisms, but it can't rank them.

And once again, if the populace at large isn't qualified to vote on "intellectual matters," who is? A secret panel of scientists? Should you have to complete an IQ test during voter registration? Or do our representatives in Washington have the understanding of science you require?

 

[kduck]

And once again, if the populace at large isn't qualified to vote on "intellectual matters," who is? A secret panel of scientists? Should you have to complete an IQ test during voter registration? Or do our representatives in Washington have the understanding of science you require?

👍

 

[FrkyBgStok]

not sure if serious... if you are serious, see GoSpursGo's sig

Lol. I know. It is from the Big Lebowski. Definitely not serious.

 

[gettheleadout]

Almost as irritating as people saying life doesn't begin at conception as scientific fact.

I know what you're getting at here, but I would agree with you on that as well, because I would never make such an equally ludicrous claim.

 

[Sephiroth]

I still fail to see how this is an "intellectual matter" ... whatever that actually means. If you're suggesting that the answer to when "personhood" begins rests in scientific reasoning, informed by data or calculations or something, I disagree 100%.

Fortunately, that's not what I'm saying at all. Intellectual doesn't mean epistemic. What defines a person is a philosophical question, and one the depends largely on non-epistemological principles. Science/epistemology can provide information that may be useful in making such judgements, but cannot give us the answer. (For example, material dualism used to be prominant in philosophy, but is now very rare due to scientific discoveries).

But being a philosophical issue, argument ad populum is a formal fallacy, so having a vote on it would be quite absurd.

In actuality, there may be (in fact, likely is) no single defining moment in which we go from "not-person" to "person", but instead these things work on a continuum. Just like how you don't suddenly obtain better judgement the day you turn 18, we make arbitrary dilineations for practical purposes. Such would be the case for this notion of "personhood".
I personally believe it would depend on a cetain level of brain activity, so knowing about human embryonic development would be quite useful, and would then say the point in development (time-wise) at which more than 1% or .1% or whatever% of cases reaches that brain activity threshold is when i would make that label (so that it would work for 99% or 99.9%, etc.). Now, the very religious, to my knowledge, make their argument based on the belief in a soul being the defining characteristic. Now a soul certainly seems like a binary state - either you have one or you don't. Why they say it happens at conception I'm not sure (is there some bible verse for this?), but I would then have to ask them to sit in front of a video of a sperm swimming to and burrowing into an ovum and ask the exact moment at which it acquires a soul. Regardless, that isn't a matter that could be settles epistemically, and is certainly not anything that should take part in legislation, so that really seems pointless.

However, we do have legal precedent for establishing legal personhood at birth - your citizenship status can depend upon where you were born. Logically, if personhood begins earlier, than becoming a citizen should depend upon where you became a person (e.g. were conceived).

 

[kduck]

Now, the very religious, to my knowledge, make their argument based on the belief in a soul being the defining characteristic. Now a soul certainly seems like a binary state - either you have one or you don't. Why they say it happens at conception I'm not sure (is there some bible verse for this?), but I would then have to ask them to sit in front of a video of a sperm swimming to and burrowing into an ovum and ask the exact moment at which it acquires a soul. Regardless, that isn't a matter that could be settles epistemically, and is certainly not anything that should take part in legislation, so that really seems pointless.

This is actually an interesting point. I can't speak to what evangelicals think about this, and I realize that they are the primary people arguing this in America. However, if you actually press the Catholic Church/Pope to go beyond "life begins at conception," they will admit that they do not know for certain when the soul enters the zygote/embryo/fetus. However, their stance is that to be certain that humans are not being murdered (i.e. just to be safe...) they are against anything that harms a fertilized egg, including IVF.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

People use the "I knew you before you were born" verse to argue that life begins at conception, however, like many verses in the bible, this verse is taken out of context and is talking about a prophet being chosen.

Prolife vs prochoice breaks down to freedom of speech. I would personally not condone abortion however it isnt my right to tell others what is right or wrong. Therefore I am prochoice.

And being pro choice does not mean pro abortion. Thats like, "I gotta get my girlfriend pregnant so I can make her abort. Woohoo."

 

[ppfizenm]

This is one of the reasons that I included religious scholars.

Their is a bible verse that goes Life is in the blood so you could take it as life beginning when the fetus is endued with blood I think around 28 days (though I am not certain about that time frame).

 

[gettheleadout]

People use the "I knew you before you were born" verse to argue that life begins at conception, however, like many verses in the bible, this verse is taken out of context and is talking about a prophet being chosen.

Prolife vs prochoice breaks down to freedom of speech. I would personally not condone abortion however it isnt my right to tell others what is right or wrong. Therefore I am prochoice.

And being pro choice does not mean pro abortion. Thats like, "I gotta get my girlfriend pregnant so I can make her abort. Woohoo."

Seriously. I don't understand why people think personal objection to the practice of abortion precludes one from respecting the right of others to make a different choice.

 

[UnbrokenThread]

Seriously. I don't understand why people think personal objection to the practice of abortion precludes one from respecting the right of others to make a different choice.

It is not about choice, it is about life. People have the right to stop others from killing. This is no different.

 

[ppfizenm]

Seriously. I don't understand why people think personal objection to the practice of abortion precludes one from respecting the right of others to make a different choice.

Probably for the same reason people who object to gay sex don't want gays getting married.

 

[I'm No Superman]

"The way I punish my kids is with the morning after pill. Because I believe life starts with the erection." ~ Daniel Tosh

 

[matt30]

There are a few good theories that justify abortion. One is the intruder theory. Women have complete autonomy over their bodies and any unwelcome presence can be justifiably removed with appropriate force. In the same way a person can remove someone from their house even if, at first, they were invited in.

Another is based on the theory of mind. When a system (biological, including animal, or mechanical) becomes sufficiently complex, and has the ability to be sapient, it is vested with certain rights. The entity need not be self-aware but it must have the present ability to be self-aware.

Another theory suggests that rationality is the key characteristic of "humanity." Since all rational beings rationalize in the same way (1+1=2 no matter who the reasoner is) all humanity is essentially the same "thing" at the core. Since acting against one's own interest is irrational, every rational being must be given some degree of respect.

I think "life" in the technical sense of distinguishing biological processes from non-biological processes is one of the least relevant policy factors.

 

[gettheleadout]

It is not about choice, it is about life. People have the right to stop others from killing. This is no different.

That is your opinion.

Probably for the same reason people who object to gay sex don't want gays getting married.

But that's not even what I'm saying; in that case, the person who objects to a behavior holds the position that the behavior should be restricted. That shouldn't mean they believe support for restriction of a behavior is necessarily included with objection to it.

For example, I object to behavior X. Should this necessitate that I support restriction of others' ability to engage in behavior X? Of course not.

 

[elblackwell]

It is not about choice, it is about life. People have the right to stop others from killing. This is no different.

I recently watched a video where a guy asks those protesting an abortion clinic what they think should be done to women who get abortions if abortion became illegal(i.e. what they are protesting for). Most people hesitated and he kept asking: would you lock them up for life, maybe even give them the death penalty (after all they killed a person). In the end, they didn't know, which goes to show that even in the minds of those who believe that abortion is murder, there is still doubts regarding the fetus's right to life or it's personhood status.
By the way, this thread has surprised me in the quality of the discussion and lack of insults!

 

[UnbrokenThread]

I recently watched a video where a guy asks those protesting an abortion clinic
what they think should be done to women who get abortions if abortion became
illegal(i.e. what they are protesting for). Most people hesitated and he kept
asking: would you lock them up for life, maybe even give them the death penalty
(after all they killed a person). In the end, they didn't know, which goes to
show that even in the minds of those who believe that abortion is murder, there
is still doubts regarding the fetus's right to life or it's personhood status.

There are still doubts about a lot of things in life. This is good. It means people are thinking. Listening, trying to comprehend, and analyze.
As for what would be a good punishment? Well, it would not just be the woman. The man is at fault too. A lot of people forget that.
I can't say I have thought about it much, and I thank you for bringing the issue to my attention. My stab at it would be this:
They should both have to take safe sex classes, and meet with a probation officer. This would be during, and after a short time in prison (seperate from the general population). If a second offense occurs, then longer sentences. I will have to think about this more. I am not sure if the sentence fits.

Edit: Some exception will be made in cases of health problems, rape, etc.

By the way, this thread has surprised me in the quality of the discussion and lack of insults!

I would expect no less. I have lurked around here for a year or so, and have always been pleasantly surprised by the quality of the people here.

 

[alexandertg6]

I think the bill is a totally frivolous waste of resources due to a lack of consideration on the part of the writers. I dont know what the exact laws are now, nor does it particularly matter to me currently as I am in no danger of needing one. I have ethical qualms with abortion after the fetus could survive on its own for the sole purpose of birth control (excluding cases of sexual abuse/rape/incest/health threats for the mother/serious extenuating circumstances... ), but I have far more ethical concerns about a law forcing women to bare children of rapists or ectopic pregnancies. Just my $.02.

 

[mishaS]

I still fail to see how this is an "intellectual matter" ... whatever that actually means. If you're suggesting that the answer to when "personhood" begins rests in scientific reasoning, informed by data or calculations or something, I disagree 100%. I just can't see this as a case where having a more fully developed understanding of embryology will bring you any closer to a definitive solution. You can tell me over and over again that holding a PhD in developmental biology makes you more qualified to comment on the matter, but I've yet to see one example of how that education would prove useful in this discussion. There's not a meter you can jam into a cluster of a cells to measure "life intensity." And the decision to use some alternative measurement as an approximation is going to be founded in an opinions/beliefs without scientific basis.

Simply put, I don't think science is the least bit equipped to tell us whether a fetus is a "person." Science can describe organisms, but it can't rank them.

And once again, if the populace at large isn't qualified to vote on "intellectual matters," who is? A secret panel of scientists? Should you have to complete an IQ test during voter registration? Or do our representatives in Washington have the understanding of science you require?

+1 To this. The whole debate, and the idea of attaching person-hood at an arbitrary time seems completely silly to me. This definition for instance:

I believe life begins when the body is capable of sustaining brain growth and development unassisted ie when a child can survive outside of the womb with medical assistance. Consrquentially I feel the legal definition of death is when no brain activity remains and cannot be restored.

What does unassisted mean? Is a premature child, incapable of surviving without extreme medical care not a person? Can it to be killed on a whim? For that matter what of the 1 year old, or 20 year old who are completely dependent on medical intervention for life? Can they to be killed for being burdens without their consent? If death is no brain activity, and life is self sustaining brain growth, what limbo does this place the fetus which has brain activity yet cannot survive on it's own? I also think the comparison to the arbitrary age of 18 is not wholly congruent in that age limits are not based on an abrupt change of child to adult, but rather the assumption that by 18, or 21, or whatever, most people will have the faculties and wisdom to make important decisions for themselves while the fetus to person line is one which is wholly black and white.

My personal belief is that a person is the conscious being, who has thought, personality, memories, and individuality. A person therefor is not limited to being a human, and a human is not necessarily a person. The mind is the person, and the human is the body. I would also say argue that the zygote, by its potential, and it's indivisibility, a human; there is a stark line between sperm/egg and zygote unlike any other developmental stage. Looking at humans in a persistent vegetative state or with with severe dementia, their right to life is protected, and as such it seems to me that by current legal standards, consistency should have those rights extended to the fetus.

Further, from an ethical standpoint, looking at the value most people place on life - it is an extreme good so to speak - it would seem that the weight of an individuals whole life would outweigh in terms of good than the 9 months of bad a mother would suffer in carrying the fetus (and possibly more in the case of a rape/incest). With that said, for pragmatic reasons, I am for abortion legally, despite my belief that it is grossly immoral.

 

[StoicJosher]

Personhood starts when you dont require another person to eat and breath for you.....you know those essential human functions.

Hell couldnt you make the argument that masturbation is essentially genocide? I mean where does this stop?

Exactly. Till that point, the fetus is essentially a parasite.

But ultimately, I think the decision about WHICH particular developmental milestone to designate as the beginning of "humahood" has to be arbitrary, or at the very least, unamenable to scientific inquiry. Sure, you can demonstrate when a fetus is viable, and once you've decided that viability outside the womb is a preriquisite for personhood, that's useful information to have. But how is science going to tell you that viability outside the womb is what makes for a "valid human life" to begin with? Hell, if we're going to use brain activity or respiration or limb development as our measure of worth, there are quite a few adults I should be able to off without consequence.

Exactly. This is what pisses me off about people who say if death is loss of brain activity and heart beat, life should be the start of this. I can see a lot of old people being left to die that way.

My body, my choice.
My house, my rules.
My country, my laws.

...

1. Why no, I don't see the selfishness in this at all.

When parents have ridiculous rules within their household, we have all sorts of names for them from helicopter to straight-up abusive. Yes, an 18-yr-old can leave and take care of themself but a 5-yr-old can't. Their life is mostly in the hands of their parents until social services comes in and determines whether the parents are actually bad or just neurotic. In the same way, an unborn is not "fully alive" enough to do/say anything.
That's all I ask for with abortion, a "social services" to come in and say--no, you made this child, you will have this child, it will not hurt you, you're being horribly selfish, have the thing and we'll take care of it from there.
I hate that abortion is taken as the easy way out.

2. Even the whole "Not having it cuz I can't take care of it" is bull. There's always a way. You won't live in luxury maybe, or it'll have to be adopted, whatever but killing it shouldn't be the ultimate solution.
The ONLY time it should be okay is in health reasons, but even then, if you knew you couldn't handle pregnancy, um don't get pregnant?

So I'm pro-life but mostly pro-regulation.

1. Selfish? Maybe - but how does that factor into the discussion?

2. Easier said than done. We definitely need to add more people to this world. 7 billion is definitely not enough. We would much rather have grown adults with feelings, emotions, memories, thoughts, ideas live (possibly in poverty), probably go into crime and slowly suffer and die than toss out a bunch of cells that can't even get the oxygen they need for survival without a host's help. (and don't tell me stories of this one friend who was an orphan and made it - the majority don't)

I see the definition of life as an intellectual issue and abortion as a social issue. This bill linked them in a way that made me feel that the general public would have a say on an intellectual issue.

👍👍

When you combine the two, **** hits the fan.

The bolded part: I think at the end of it all, that's the argument. While some still go back and forth about whether it's okay to kill an unborn the underlying thing here is, is it a someone. I'm not going to lie, I don't know how to PROVE to you that it is with out getting all emotional about it. Maybe I'm too tired to think of a good example, but I'll let us agree to disagree for now. Although honestly, after a few months, there is clearly a baby in there, for you to still deny it as a person is just ridiculous.

..............................................................................................

2. Abortion can also hurt a woman physically, psychologically, and sometimes socially (Not many women walk around bragging about their abortions for a reason...). And I don't think it "hurts" professionally or financially. 'Hurt' is the wrong word. Every family is 'hurt' by an addition of a child because it is added costs. Overpopulation is a big deal, because it 'hurts' the economy for all these children to be born. It "Adds a responsibility", "makes things more difficult", it's "a bump in the road", but it's not oh-so-end-of-the-world (unless, I say again, it's rape/unhealthy blabla) that it should be killed.

But dont you think the woman should have the choice to choose between which kind of "hurt" she wants? And why doesn't it hurt professionally or financially? I think there was a recent time magazine article that showed that mothers actually had it worse off than non-mothers.

 

[Camy99]

+1 To this. The whole debate, and the idea of attaching person-hood at an arbitrary time seems completely silly to me.

Further, from an ethical standpoint, looking at the value most people place on life - it is an extreme good so to speak - it would seem that the weight of an individuals whole life would outweigh in terms of good than the 9 months of bad a mother would suffer in carrying the fetus (and possibly more in the case of a rape/incest). With that said, for pragmatic reasons, I am for abortion legally, despite my belief that it is grossly immoral.

That's my point! Yeah it's gonna suck, but it sucks for every mother--willing or not. Granted it'll be possibly worse for one who doesn't necessarily want the child. But if she is able to, then denying this ability just because she doesn't feel like it is just... a bit ridiculous. Especially since it's not like she got pregnant out of the blue (except for the extreme cases). Abortion has gone from a useful practice when necessary, to just a simple way out.

 

[StoicJosher]

That's my point! Yeah it's gonna suck, but it sucks for every mother--willing or not. Granted it'll be possibly worse for one who doesn't necessarily want the child. But if she is able to, then denying this ability just because she doesn't feel like it is just... a bit ridiculous. Especially since it's not like she got pregnant out of the blue (except for the extreme cases). Abortion has gone from a useful practice when necessary, to just a simple way out.

Very true. Every son of a carpenter should be a carpenter and every member of a mafia family should definitely go into the mafia. Of course it is gonna suck if they don't want to do that, but it is gonna suck for everyone in the family -so all is fair.

 

[Camy99]

Very true. Every son of a carpenter should be a carpenter and every member of a mafia family should definitely go into the mafia. Of course it is gonna suck if they don't want to do that, but it is gonna suck for everyone in the family -so all is fair.

What a logical comparison.

Excuse my sarcasm but, really? What even...

 

[kduck]

That's my point! Yeah it's gonna suck, but it sucks for every mother--willing or not. Granted it'll be possibly worse for one who doesn't necessarily want the child. But if she is able to, then denying this ability just because she doesn't feel like it is just... a bit ridiculous. Especially since it's not like she got pregnant out of the blue (except for the extreme cases). Abortion has gone from a useful practice when necessary, to just a simple way out.

You act as though every pregnancy goes perfectly, and as though all women have someone to support them and feed them in the event that they become unable to care for themselves due to complications. But this isn't the case for many women - they don't have financial or medical support. Bad things happen to women during pregnancy - who are you to decide that a woman has to go through those risks for the sake of some cells that will at some point turn into a person?

 

[StoicJosher]

What a logical comparison.

Excuse my sarcasm but, really? What even...

My point is, it is the choice of the woman. The woman should be allowed to decide if she wants to carry a fetus (read parasite) for nine months and then feed, clothe, take care of it for a good 18 years of her life.

 

[Camy99]

You act as though every pregnancy goes perfectly, and as though all women have someone to support them and feed them in the event that they become unable to care for themselves due to complications. But this isn't the case for many women - they don't have financial or medical support. Bad things happen to women during pregnancy - who are you to decide that a woman has to go through those risks for the sake of some cells that will at some point turn into a person?

sigh, guessing again you didn't read my previous posts. I should stop replying here, or every time I do I should quote myself. I've said that I understand (I don't like it, but understand), abortion being used when it will be unhealthy for the woman.
And then I don't think financial support should be grouped with health. Saying you stopped something because it could kill you (or something else health related) is very different than saying you stopped something because it could make you poor. One's a bit more materialistic--yes, unfair, difficult, so on and so forth but at the end of the day still materialistic.
...I was going to continue with my previous paragraph until I read "sake of some cells". That's our difference. Not abortion or women's choice, but the importance these "some cells" have. Compared to the vastness of the universe, we are all just a bunch of cells too. So how do we quantify value of these cells? THAT is the question.