Pro-Choice / Pro-Life Retread

[Lord Mhoram]

Fist,

Why can't there be a dividing point, as I suggested?

[Fist and Faith]

Because I don't feel there is one. I feel that we are always changing, growing, possibly improving; and that this process starts at conception. You're right about the things that make us people/separate from the animals, and that we can't find the dividing point for where it begins. As I said, that's because there isn't any such point. We can't even truly define what we mean.

But why should we only give rights to someone who we all agree has reached that undefinable stage? That's obviously what's going to happen, right from the moment of conception. I'm not being stubborn or difficult just to argue. I'm truly at a loss trying to understand why you don't see a fetus as a person. You say it's life, but not human life. It couldn't possibly be any kind of life other than human, so what kind of life is it?

[Plissken]

See, and that's where all the qualifiers do nothing but "obfuscate" the issue.

Think about it for a minute. Can a "person" biologically be anything other than "human"?
No! Therefore "human" and "poerson" is the same thing.

Is a human zygote/fetus "human"? Yes! Therefore it is also "person."


And the definition of murder?

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.

(That's American Heritage. Merriam-Webster sustitutes "person" for "human.")--again....they are the same thing.

So it's really quite simple. A zygote/fetus is "human" or "person", whichever term you prefer, therefore aborting said zygote/fetus is by definition murder.

So basically, we have "legalized murder."

All these "not alive until" "not human until" "not a person until" is just (as I and others stated early on) a way to try to dehumanize the act as a justification.

You want to choose abortion? Go ahead, you have a right to choose. But at least stop tryingto justify it by calling it anything other than what it is: murder.

So, if potential mother does something foolish, like fall off a ladder, if the zygote survives it's what? Reckless endangerment? If she miscarries is it manslaughter?

We wouldn't want to call these "crimes" by anything other than what they are, after all...

[Fist and Faith]

Regarding my post from the previous page:

I know this is a forum for the religious and the philosophical, but we're never going to get anywhere talking about definitions of consciousness, sentience, etc. Not in this framework. The only way to define it is, as Mhoram pointed out, the point at which the fetus leaves the body. It is a line of demarcation, no more real than time zones, but we have to agree to draw the line somewhere.

I do not have to agree to draw a line anywhere. I say a human being's journey begins at conception, and this person should be considered the unique being s/he is from that point on.

That was the point of my whole thought experiment, by the way (not that many people participated, but hey). For most of us, we wouldn't consider contraception to be murder, even though it is the intentional prevention of a human being coming into existence. If we could see time differently... On a long enough timeline, a person who chooses to never have children is a mass murderer.

Bah! There is no unique DNA involved in what you're talking about. Sperm and unfertilized eggs will never develop to the point where any of us would consider them to be human beings, or people, or whatever. I won't bother debating the moral shortcomings of guys who have wet dreams.

We can't mandate procreation; we can't regulate its results. Not with the limited way we see things. There's a better way, sure, but I think it requires the participation of society rather than the rigid control of the individual.

Now THAT I agree with! The whole "it takes a village to raise a child" idea. When girls are brought up believing that they are glorious beings, that they can wait until they know it is what they want; when boys are brought up believing that they are not less than any other boy if they have not had sex by age X; when all know that, even if they DO mess up and there's a pregnancy, they will NOT be abandoned, disowned, or beaten (even if they do have to listen to a bit of yelling ) - THEN we'll be done with these debates. And, in nearly all cases, it takes more than just the parents to accomplish all this.

I truly did not intend the first two parts to seem as dismissive and combative as they look. My italics were not meant to be anger, just emphasis. Even my "Bah!" was good-natured when I typed it, though that's not really clear, is it... And poor wording on "I won't bother debating..." A fuller explanation would have been better. Something like: Can we possibly consider guys who have had wet dreams - among the natural parts of life (not just for humans, either) - to be murderers?

Sorry, Syl. No bad feelings were intended.

[Prebe]

but you can choose which will be saved, you choose the fetus.

This was done in the good old days, where the woman (wife) was just a vessel for breeding heirs for the all important husband. We are about a century away from such despicable discriminative behaviour. Wake up in 2005 Fist!

If any man chose his baby over his wife in connection with birth or in the prenatal state, I would consider him an uncivilised, egocentric psycho.

[Prebe]

Bah! There is no unique DNA involved in what you're talking about.

Bah! Wrong. It is during meiosis (the formation of ovum and sperm) that the recombination occur, and the unique sperms and ova are formed. The nuclear fusion in fertilisation is nothing more than an addition.

Spoiler

The uniqueness is created in the shuffling of the genes between the two chromosome homologues in the synaptonemal complex during 1st meiotic division.

Another one of those pesky boxes form the lousy know it all braggart

[Cail]

Prebe, call me an uncivilised, egocentric psycho, 'cause if it came down to my wife or my daughter, I'd choose my daughter every time, without hesitation. No doubt my wife would do the same thing.

And LM, I agree with Fist. I can't see why you insist on drawing a line. I'm not trying to jump on you, but I just can't see any logic to your viewpoint (other than what I've said; it's a crutch).

That being said, how about this;being pro-choice, how do you feel about....
-1.3 million abortions a year in the US?

-No more than 2% done because of danger to the mother (which I think everyone agrees on) or rape or failed birth control?

-Children who can't get their ears pierced without the signature of a parent, but they can have an abortion without?

In other words, do you agree with the current abortion-on-demand policy?

[[Syl]]

Yeah, I was taken back a little, but it's all good. It's just a philosophical thing for me. I won't cry if abortion is made illegal, even if I think it will cause a lot of problems. But, hey, we're human and problems are what we're all about. Of course, this stance is a pretty easy one for me; I'm a guy.

[Lord Mhoram]

Fist, Cail,

On why I want to draw the line: I feel the mother should have the right to abort the fetus if she so wishes. I cannot support this stance if I cannot find it morally justifiable. Looking at it from the point of view of what I've been saying, which btw I'm not just spouting out of my ass - it really makes sense to me, pro-Choice seems very simple to me.

Cail,

That being said, how about this;being pro-choice, how do you feel about....
-1.3 million abortions a year in the US?

A large number, to be sure. Like I said, I'm not really in favor of abortions, per se, just the right to have them, and those 1.3 abortions are instances of people rightly excercising their rights. However, I'd like very much to see this number drop, as it should IMO.

-

No more than 2% done because of danger to the mother (which I think everyone agrees on) or rape or failed birth control?

If what you're saying is that most abortions should be done because of danger to the mother, then I agree.

-Children who can't get their ears pierced without the signature of a parent, but they can have an abortion without?

I didn't know this. Abortions at a certain age, say 18 and under? should definitely have the consent of the parent. But that's a different debate.

In other words, do you agree with the current abortion-on-demand policy?

In theory, I do. But in practice, I feel it's a sad state of affairs.

[Plissken]

-Children who can't get their ears pierced without the signature of a parent, but they can have an abortion without?

I didn't know this. Abortions at a certain age, say 18 and under? should definitely have the consent of the parent. But that's a different debate.

In other words, do you agree with the current abortion-on-demand policy?

In theory, I do. But in practice, I feel it's a sad state of affairs.

I've pretty much said everything I'm going to on this subject, and LM seems to be doing a capable job (as usual).

On this point however, I feel obliged to point out that these laws aren't just some liberal conspiracy to make sure we don't have to get ID at our McLiberal Abort-O-Mat Drive Thrus (or whatever you Cons think our goal is), it's to protect young girls from parental abuse. Basically, there were just too many Christian Conservatives layin' the Righteous Smackdown on their newly preggers lil' Jezebels - and quite a few of those Jezebels were impregnated by Daddums. So, rather than make Jezzy wait for the courts to decide if she needed to be emancipated or put into fostercare, it was decided that it was best to let her have the option of making this decision on her own.

Of course, if she felt safe talking to her parents about such an important, life-altering decision, there's no law preventing it - kinda makes you wonder what the internal parenting diagnostic is reading when someone is outraged by this concept.

[Prebe]

Prebe, call me an uncivilised, egocentric psycho

I suppose we're even then. You did after all call me a murderer

You did notice, I suppose, that i wrote: in connection with birth or in the prenatal state?

If I was pressed to choose between my son and my wife today (he is 8 months), I might be in doubt. But when my wife was at the operating table having her C-section, I wouldn't have hesitated a second to sacrifice the baby over her. Mostly because my wife I know and love. I didn't know the baby back then. It is really that simple for me.

But in evolutionary terms you are of course giving yourself maximum fitness in the situation, as saving your child would save half of your genes, while saving your wife would save non to a few.

[Fist and Faith]

Wanna hear something funny? I actually think abortion should be legal. I've been arguing how I feel about things, and how I wish everyone felt. I'd love to be so persuasive and charismatic that, even if abortion is legal, it's never done.

But abortions have always happened, and always will. If it's illegal, women will, as they always have, find ways to make it happen. Those ways have often been dangerous, and the women have often died. Some may have read the thread where I argued against capital punishment, so they shouldn't be surprised that I don't want the woman to die because she aborted her baby.

So that's my reply to this:

This was done in the good old days, where the woman (wife) was just a vessel for breeding heirs for the all important husband. We are about a century away from such despicable discriminative behaviour. Wake up in 2005 Fist!

If any man chose his baby over his wife in connection with birth or in the prenatal state, I would consider him an uncivilised, egocentric psycho.

I've never said I wanted my views to be law, and I'm not saying the husband should be the one to choose between the mother and baby. I'm just saying how I would choose if I was pregnant, and what I think a parent's role/responsibility is.

And actually, imo, there are extremely few Always situations when humans are involved. If a woman already has children, and is then faced with the decision to live or let her fetus live, I think she has a greater responsibility to the children who already know, love, and depend on her, and would spend the rest of their lives having lost their mother.

[Furls Fire]

Ah these topics do seem to spin and spin.

I would just like to say, being a woman and a mother of 6 biological children, if it came down to my life or the life of my unborn baby, I would have Russell chose the baby. And he knows this, and he agrees with this. And now, if it came down to my life or his life or the life of one of our children. We would both chose them. And THAT includes our adopted children as well.

There is no greater gift and nothing as precious as a child. That child should be cherished from the moment he/she is concieved. There is no greater joy in this world than hearing the laughter of your children.

Yes, I agree some abortions are necessary. But, this policy of abortion for convience is outrageous to me. Throwaway children. And yes, I understand Syl's concerns and agree that if abortion was made illegal there would be more babies found in dumpsters, more unwanted children abused, and woman going back to butchers or using coat hangers. So, because of that, I don't think it should be made illegal. And I don't know where the middle ground should be.

Yet, I personally and morally and spiritually believe that abortion is murder. And if I could, I would take all those unwanted children into my heart and home. Children are gifts.

[Prebe]

I had you figured all along Fist . Good post. I do agree with most of your points.

As for the choise discussed, someone has to make it. The "sick to death" mother is probably not going to be able to. And even if she was, euthanasia is illegal! Now there's a catch I just realised:

We will have to legalise euthanasia if the principle of parental sacrifice is to be kept! Cail, do you hear me ?

[Cail]

Prebe, there is no logical connection between the two. As a parent, I would happily lay down my life for my child, pre- or post-partum. My wife would do the same. That's called sacrifice and love, not euthanasia.

Plissken, your explaination makes no sense. You're telling me that the (lack of a ) parental consent is to protect children from being parented? Because, as you know, part of parenting is teaching your kids morality and values. In addition, the statistics do not support your assertion that poor doe-eyed underaged Southern belles are being impregnated by their redneck fathers. Nice generalization, though.

[Prebe]

Sacrifice, yes. But there are many practical problems:

In the event of a grave danger to mother and fetus during birth, where only only one will survive, who gets to decide who goes? and who pulls the trigger so to speak? And how will we go about making set of laws governing this situation?

[Cail]

I have never met a mother (or a father, come to think of it) that would choose her life (or his) over that of her (his) child.

[Prebe]

Which answers my question?

[[Syl]]

I have. A friend of mine was told by her doctor that she could never have kids. Not that she was incapable, but if she did, it would kill her. Had to do with the shape of her uterus.

A couple years later she met this guy, married him, raised his daughter together, and all that. Well, I called her up one day and she sounded fairly upset. They had just come back from the hospital. Despite the fact that they'd always used contraception (not certain, but I think it was depo)... She's still alive.

[Prebe]

My question Cail? It is quite straight forward.

The reason I am pestering you is, that when using as rigid a logic, as you do, to explain you viewpoint (and to lable others), I feel that you must be prepared to explain how to work out the different scenarios that life might throw our way. I am simply trying to get through that this subject is so many faceted, and such a nasty mixture of ethics, law and feelings, that using an easy argument such as "Life begins at conception" and "A zygote must be proteced at all costs" simply does not cut the cheese in all cases.

Syl: I think that even Cail would have accepted an abortion in the case you mention. Or am I wrong? According to Cail's reasoning I suppose I might be.