Religion/Abortion [Archive]

clarsct

26th December 2006, 03:01 AM

The same way Pro-abortionists aren't pro-choice, they're pro-selfishness.;) (I've never seen a pro-choice rally talk about seatbelt laws or drug legalization) The same way I've never seen a person speak about nuclear physics at a cross stitching convention. Why? Because they are unrelated.

My dilemma with the issue isn't a question of anti-woman, it is a question of when a fetus is a baby. It seems that birth is a horrible dividing line. Are premies considered alive? And a child at equal gestentional age yet still in the womb not alive? Viability outside the womb is equally difficult, because it is a question of our technology that determines it.
When does a person gain legal rights? When they are born. Actually, they don't gain full legal rights until about 18 or 21, depending. Most abortions happen at a stage where the fetus could not survive outside the womb, regardless of technology.

So, let's say choice is the real reason. Let's say that it is the sexual equalizer. The man and the woman both must make a choice for sex (fair). Not always the case, I might add...Then the choice to have the baby is given solely to the woman(fair, it is her burden). Yet, the choice for the man to support the baby isn't his, it's still the woman's. How is this sexual equality?

It isn't the woman's either, it is the court's. If she takes him to court for support, the court decides what he is going to pay, if anything. If you don't favor this, then feel free to propose new legislation, talk to your Congressman.

Bikewer

26th December 2006, 05:49 AM

I've always wondered what happens to the nascent "soul".

"All right, little soul, time to inhabit your body....Oops! Too late."

Back to the "soul bank" with you?

Instant heaven? How much could you appreciate heaven if you'd never been anything but a zygote?

joobz

26th December 2006, 08:13 AM

The same way I've never seen a person speak about nuclear physics at a cross stitching convention. Why? Because they are unrelated.
Wrong, they are directly related under the heading of Pro-choice. If someone is an advocate of freedom to choose what they do with their body, then that should extend to all forms of personal freedoms. Freedom to choose to wear seatbelts, freedom to do drugs, ...

The point being is that pro-choice and pro-life are window dressings. They are spin tactics. the issue is Pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

BTW, you made the assertion that pro-abortionists are anti-women. I can think of several pro-abortionists (friends and family) who are women who were heavily involved in the womens rights in the 60-70's. They feel strongly though that the fetus has rights as well. Your characterization was just wrong.

When does a person gain legal rights? When they are born. Actually, they don't gain full legal rights until about 18 or 21, depending.
This is a complete dodge of the question.
It is obvious that not all legal rights are imbued to the person based on age. But we also place special protections for children.(chid abuse laws, state child health insurance programs..) Seems that the dividing line between when an infant gets to receive these special rights and when they are considered just a mass of cells not worthy of consideration is a rather sharp line. Can I ask why you think this is acceptable?
Most abortions happen at a stage where the fetus could not survive outside the womb, regardless of technology.
Not true at all. I can easily see a time when we can support a child outside the womb at any gestational age. It's just a question of time, money and technological know-how.

So you really want to define line with a moving boundary based upon our technological ability?

Not always the case, I might add...
Of course, but that isn't what I'm talk stay on subject.

It isn't the woman's either, it is the court's. If she takes him to court for support, the court decides what he is going to pay, if anything.
again, not true. The court will always favor what is best for the child. That will always mean that the father pays. If the mother wants money from the father, she'll get it. (unless he's a deadbeat).

If you don't favor this, then feel free to propose new legislation, talk to your Congressman.
No, I agree with the fact that the child's welfare is the most important aspect and that the father must pay. What I point out is that giving sole rights of life and death of the fetus to the woman doesn't make things equal.

billydkid

26th December 2006, 09:45 AM

Thou shalt not kill.

Throw in the only god has the right to decide over life and death and abortion becomes difficult to square with most versions of christianity.

Oh right! Gotcha. I guess that's the reason that Christians have never killed anybody or burned anybody at the stake or tortured anybody to death or decimated entire populations. Thanks for the lesson.

JollyRoger

26th December 2006, 10:21 AM

I often wonder if any one considers the quality of life the child will experience. I am not one to decide for anyone but myself, however their are numerous factors in my opinion that come into play. Psychological and medical abnormalities that the child may suffer, the result of genetics or environmental factors ,financial instability. What kind of life can you supply this child with? Can you afford to bring the child up in an environment that does not breed mental illness? Will you have a healthy child that will grow up with a good education and become functioning part of the environment?

If I can not supply a safe and healthy environment for my child I will not have one. I refuse to contribute to poverty, overpopulation, or the paycheck of a psychiatrist, just because I wanted a kid. My bloodline is far to important to be carried on by someone who has a sixty percent chance of becoming what I spent more then half my life recovering from.

Darat

26th December 2006, 10:28 AM

...snip... (I've never seen a pro-choice rally talk about seatbelt laws or drug legalization)

...snip...

Out of curiosity do the "pro-life" groups on the whole campaign for the end to the death penalty?

joobz

26th December 2006, 10:35 AM

Out of curiosity do the "pro-life" groups on the whole campaign for the end to the death penalty?
I agree, they don't. What's your point?

l0rca

26th December 2006, 10:38 AM

Muslims want to kill me because I am an infidel.

Please tell me that's a bad joke.

Darat

26th December 2006, 10:52 AM

I agree, they don't. What's your point?

Don't understand your answer - I asked a question. I didn't make any statement to be agreed or disagreed with.

joobz

26th December 2006, 10:57 AM

I often wonder if any one considers the quality of life the child will experience.
So you advocate the "better off dead" viewpoint?;) Does this extend to anyone in bitter turmoil? Kill 'em all?
Sorry, I'm actually just being difficult. :o

I agree that quality of life and ability to raise a child in a healthy environment should be the logical consideration for anyone willing to be a parent. But this is easily addressed by considering adoption and welfare. In truth, I think that abortion is a societal desire to keep prices down. It keeps children out of the welfare system and thereby lessens the tax burden on the rest of us.

The primary issue is and always will be, when is a fetus a child? When does it become murder? All of the pro-choice arguments, all of the religious arguments, all of the women's rights arguments, all of the soul arguments, all of the quality of life arguments....fall away.
When is a fetus a child? There has to be a point and birth isn't it. That's a dividing line that is too flexible and arbitrary. Fertilization provides a clear distinction, but as mentioned earlier, dividing cell masses that are easily misscarried seems to be a poor point. Possibly attachment to the uterian wall, but that again is difficult to establish. For this reason, I think the trimester methodology may still be our best bet. 1st trimester, sure, 2nd trimester maybe, 3rd trimester never--unless...

joobz

26th December 2006, 11:01 AM

Don't understand your answer - I asked a question. I didn't make any statement to be agreed or disagreed with.
I didn't understand your question to begin with. Especially in context to my other posts. You are trying to assert that pro-lifers don't fight against the death penalty. and I agree. They are just as hipocritical with their missnaming as pro-choicers are. read my other post and see, I simply stand that the issue is between pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists. the terminology of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just windowdressing.

JollyRoger

26th December 2006, 11:15 AM

The primary issue is and always will be, when is a fetus a child? When does it become murder? .

I believe it is a part of the womens body until birth, only after the birth it becomes a independent life form, before birth it is nothing more then a collection of cells developing inside of the host body. So it would only become murder after the child is born

joobz

26th December 2006, 11:33 AM

not exactly but if its not alive how could it die
A fetus is alive. It's a growing mass of cells. and is therefore alive. The question is, is it alive enough to beconsidered a child? A similar analogy, a person brain dead, on life support is alive...but are they still human?

I believe it is a part of the womens body until birth, only after the birth it becomes a independent life form, before birth it is nothing more then a collection of cells developing inside of the host body. So it would only become murder after the child is born
Interesting. I can see your view. But then a fetus at 9months isn't a child. but a baby born premature at 6 months is?

I do not think it is correct to call it "part of the woman's body." though. To equate a fetus with a hand, organ, limb, blood... doesn't seem to jive with reality. It contains DNA from the father and would not be viable with out it. It isn't just a part of the woman's body.

Further, what is magical about birth that decides if it is part of the woman's body than it isn't?

KingMerv00

26th December 2006, 11:40 AM

I believe it is a part of the womens body until birth, only after the birth it becomes a independent life form, before birth it is nothing more then a collection of cells developing inside of the host body. So it would only become murder after the child is born

I think that is awfully arbitrary. Why does life depend on location? Inside mother = not alive, outside mother = alive?

billydkid

26th December 2006, 01:15 PM

Please tell me that's a bad joke.

Oh my, don't fret. I thought the tone was obvious. I was being facetious. Though there are undeniably muslims who would, indeed, like to kill me and any other infidel. By the way, what's the deal with Moslem/Muslim. I grew up only hearing about Moslems and didn't hear Muslim until Mohammad Ali turned into a black one.

billydkid

26th December 2006, 01:17 PM

Please tell me that's a bad joke. No, actually, it was a good joke. Won't something please think of the children!!!!!

l0rca

26th December 2006, 03:38 PM

rachaella

26th December 2006, 05:49 PM

I think that is awfully arbitrary. Why does life depend on location? Inside mother = not alive, outside mother = alive?

I have to say I agree, and I was a proud attendee at the "March for Women's Lives" and wear my souvenir shirt weekly to prove it. I have always been one for the when the fetus is viable it should be considered a human being, or at least be granted limited rights, but even this is becoming more and more difficult to determine since this is becoming earlier and earlier - but costlier and costlier financially, and the costs to the health of the child by keeping them alive have really yet to be fully determined. I wouldn't be comfortable with women just frivolously going about having D&X's at 8 1/2 months. However, this doesn't mean I support laws outlawing "late-term abortions", since I believe most are done for genuine medical purposes and not for simple selfishness. But getting back to the point - it does seem frivolous to determine life by location. However, the alternative does seem to force women to deliver babies and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that either. In my opinion, it is a very difficult issue, even for someone who is adamently pro-choice, but also a lover of babies.

Huntster

26th December 2006, 06:00 PM

....When does a person gain legal rights? When they are born. .....

Wrong: (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm)

Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws - 31 are state statutes and three are case law. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. At least 15 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or post-fertilization), indicated below with an asterisk (*).

thaiboxerken

26th December 2006, 06:03 PM

I think that is awfully arbitrary. Why does life depend on location? Inside mother = not alive, outside mother = alive?

Life doesn't, independence does.

And once again, Huntster muddles the thread about what should be legal or not with the actual laws written. It's like two people conversing if marijuana should be legal or not, then some other fool comes into the conversation with "it's illegal, therefore it should be illegal."

Huntster

26th December 2006, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by clarsct
....When does a person gain legal rights? When they are born. .....

Wrong:

Quote:
Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws - 31 are state statutes and three are case law. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. At least 15 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or post-fertilization), indicated below with an asterisk (*).

And once again, Huntster muddles the thread about what should be legal or not with the actual laws written. It's like two people conversing if marijuana should be legal or not, then some other fool comes into the conversation with "it's illegal, therefore it should be illegal."

The claim was that "When does a person gain legal rights? When they are born."

I have proven otherwise.

You are proving something, too, but it isn't anything you haven't proven and reinforced many times in the past....................

Do I need to type the words, Kenny?....................

thaiboxerken

26th December 2006, 06:30 PM

Fetal homicide.. is that protecting the rights of the mother or is it actually granting rights to the fetus?

JollyRoger

26th December 2006, 07:14 PM

what is magical about birth that decides if it is part of the woman's body than it isn't?

I was thinking about this earlier, what if the act of being born is the traumatic event that brings the unborn child into a state of consciously aware. It is new, conscious, aware, and independent from the mother and can be considered alive.

billydkid

27th December 2006, 10:25 AM

It was a joke contained in one sentence surrounded by a conjecture. Tone doesn't exist in single sentences so straightforward. The only thing telling it was a joke was the completely absurdity of the statement. I would immediately recognize it as a joke, however, if I better knew you, but all I have to go on is the experience of some very serious and stupid trolls.

I did give you the benefit of the doubt, though. :)

EDIT: after rereading it, I noticed it's not a surrounded statement, and humor was actually very obvious. But I'll leave this post up as an example of how dumb I am.

Hey, I'll give you a run for the money in the dumbness department any day. Once in a while I will make an alright post, but most of the time mine a pretty stupid. I can't compete with the big guns in here so I gave up trying. But I do have the advantage of not being afraid to appear as stupid as I might actually be. My best, BDK

ceo_esq

27th December 2006, 10:34 AM

Fetal homicide.. is that protecting the rights of the mother or is it actually granting rights to the fetus?

In some states, the laws focus on the mother as the victim. Other states treat the fetus as a victim in its own right, distinct from its mother. The applicable federal law (the so-called "Laci & Conner's Law") treats an unborn child as a separate victim.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 10:36 AM

Fetal homicide.. is that protecting the rights of the mother or is it actually granting rights to the fetus?

It has been illegal to murder a woman for a long, long time (pregnant or not).

Fetal homicide laws make it illegal to kill a fetus (whether or not the pregnant mother dies).

It's really quite simple, Kenny.

Why do you resist?

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 10:47 AM

Those laws are rather silly and more geared towards making people feel that it's more wrong to kill a woman if she's pregnant when it's really just killing one person either way.

aggle-rithm

27th December 2006, 10:56 AM

I was thinking about this earlier, what if the act of being born is the traumatic event that brings the unborn child into a state of consciously aware. It is new, conscious, aware, and independent from the mother and can be considered alive.

I don't think there's an abrupt line of demarcation between being unconscious and being conscious. It starts some time during development of the fetus and continues until about 20-25 years after birth.

Remember the lesson of Terry Schiavo: Being AWAKE and being CONSCIOUS are two different things.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 10:57 AM

Those laws are rather silly and more geared towards making people feel that it's more wrong to kill a woman if she's pregnant when it's really just killing one person either way.

Are you really that dense?

The law is there as a legal vehicle to convict people who kill babies in their mother's wombs.

baron

27th December 2006, 10:59 AM

By religion I am referring to Christianity since I don't know anything about other religions except that Muslims want to kill me because I am an infidel. Anyway, one of the arguments Christians make in condemning abortion at any stage at all is that the soul enters the body at conception. Never mind that there is no such thing as a soul, but if I understand correctly, the soul is indestructable so why all the concern about protecting the body? The whole jist of a certain segment of people calling themselves Christians is that this life is essentially pointless and our concern should be about what happens after we die. It seems to me, if you accept the premise that the soul enters the body at conception, then you are sparing the zygote the whole ordeal of living and giving them a ticket straight to heaven. Sounds like a deal to me.

I give this a silliness rating of 9.5

Your argument against the Christian position (leaving aside your bizarre statement about the perceived futility of life) does not require age as a parameter and therefore is equally applicable to the concept of murder as abortion. Boiling down your argument you therefore appear to be asking why Christians consider murder to be a bad thing if it gives the victim a "ticket straight to heaven". Which brings us full circle to the silliness aspect because surely you don't expect an answer... do you?

aggle-rithm

27th December 2006, 11:00 AM

Those laws are rather silly and more geared towards making people feel that it's more wrong to kill a woman if she's pregnant when it's really just killing one person either way.

It's also (judging from media coverage, anyway) more wrong to kill a WHITE pregnant woman than a pregnant Latino.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:00 AM

Life doesn't, independence does.

A child/fetus that is 8.75 months in development can probably survive outside of the mother. It is already independent (physically speaking).

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:02 AM

Fetal homicide.. is that protecting the rights of the mother or is it actually granting rights to the fetus?

Can a pregnant woman be prosecuted under those laws for killing her own unborn baby? If that is true, then the law is there to protect the fetus not the mother.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:04 AM

Huntster

27th December 2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
Those laws are rather silly and more geared towards making people feel that it's more wrong to kill a woman if she's pregnant when it's really just killing one person either way.
It's also (judging from media coverage, anyway) more wrong to kill a WHITE pregnant woman than a pregnant Latino.

What "media coverage" makes that statement accurate?

Huntster

27th December 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
Fetal homicide.. is that protecting the rights of the mother or is it actually granting rights to the fetus?
Can a pregnant woman be prosecuted under those laws for killing her own unborn baby? If that is true, then the law is there to protect the fetus not the mother.

Happens all the time: (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/preg/a/aa0301006a.htm)

Supreme Court Refuses McKnight vs. South Carolina Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand the homicide conviction of a South Carolina woman who was found guilty of killing her unborn child by continuing to smoke crack cocaine while she was pregnant.....

But, as a budding attorney, you probably knew that, didn't you?

You've gotta present evidence/proof to Kenny. He still won't listen/learn/understand/concede, but at least it shows everybody else what a fool he can be.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:35 AM

Happens all the time: (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/preg/a/aa0301006a.htm)

But, as a budding attorney, you probably knew that, didn't you?

Just in case this was a stab at my competence:

I suspected it but didn't know it. Law school rarely if ever discusses specific state laws. They change far too often and vary far too much between states for that type of study to be of any use. Instead, discussions usually revolve around broader concepts like burden of proof or constitutional issues that are common across the country.

aggle-rithm

27th December 2006, 11:36 AM

What "media coverage" makes that statement accurate?

Specifically, I was thinking of the Lacy Peterson case. It was all over the national news, even though an almost identical murder, a year earlier, was ignored. The woman in that case was a Mexican-American, I believe. She, too, was pregnant, and her body was discovered in the same body of water that Peterson's was.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
What "media coverage" makes that statement accurate?
Specifically, I was thinking of the Lacy Peterson case. It was all over the national news, even though an almost identical murder, a year earlier, was ignored. The woman in that case was a Mexican-American, I believe. She, too, was pregnant, and her body was discovered in the same body of water that Peterson's was.

Yeah, I think I heard something about that.

In a non-racial light, and with no love of the media, I'm glad they didn't run that bandwagon through town with horns blaring. I got damned tired of the Scott Peterson circus long before his conviction.

I hate it when the supposed news media turns news into drama...........

Huntster

27th December 2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Happens all the time:

But, as a budding attorney, you probably knew that, didn't you?

Just in case this was a stab at my competence:

I suspected it but didn't know it. Law school rarely if ever discusses specific state laws.

If you'll note, the story was about how the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a state case.

...discussions usually revolve around broader concepts like burden of proof or constitutional issues that are common across the country.

That's too bad. "The devil is in the details."

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 11:44 AM

Are you really that dense?

The law is there as a legal vehicle to convict people who kill babies in their mother's wombs.

No it's not, because when it's in the womb, it's not a baby. It's there to dictate the subjective opinion that killing a pregnant woman is more wrong than killing a man or non-pregnant woman.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 11:46 AM

A child/fetus that is 8.75 months in development can probably survive outside of the mother

But it's not surviving outside of the mother

It is already independent (physically speaking).

No it's not, it's still physically dependent on the mother.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 11:47 AM

Can a pregnant woman be prosecuted under those laws for killing her own unborn baby? If that is true, then the law is there to protect the fetus not the mother.

If a woman can be prosecuted for killing her own fetus, then it's simply an anti-abortion law.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:49 AM

If a woman can be prosecuted for killing her own fetus, then it's simply an anti-abortion law.

Aren't anti-abortion laws basically laws the give a fetus limited protections?

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 11:51 AM

Aren't anti-abortion laws basically laws the give a fetus limited protections?

No, it's enforcement of religious ideology upon people who don't subscribe to that religious doctrine.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:52 AM

But it's not surviving outside of the mother

But it could. That means your definition of human life is not dependant on physical characteristics. It is based on its location in 3 dimensional space.

No it's not, it's still physically dependent on the mother.

What do you mean by dependent?

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:53 AM

No, it's enforcement of religious ideology upon people who don't subscribe to that religious doctrine.

Only if you subscibe to your doctrine that life begins when the baby moves from point A to point B.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 11:54 AM

It's actively living inside of another organism, it's not independent.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 11:54 AM

It's actively living inside of another organism...

So do tape worms but they are considered seperate living things.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 11:56 AM

Yes, and tapeworms are parasites with no legal rights.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 12:02 PM

Yes, and tapeworms are parasites with no legal rights.

Tapworms don't get rights because it lacks a sufficiently developed brain.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:04 PM

Tapworms don't get rights because it lacks a sufficiently developed brain.

Fetus's have sufficiently developed brains?

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Are you really that dense?

The law is there as a legal vehicle to convict people who kill babies in their mother's wombs.

No it's not, because when it's in the womb, it's not a baby.

Whoops! You're actually correct.

That "baby" in the womb is legally a person or human being. That's how it can be homicide (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homicide)if you kill it:

–noun
1. the killing of one human being by another.
2. a person who kills another; murderer.

It's there to dictate the subjective opinion that killing a pregnant woman is more wrong than killing a man or non-pregnant woman.

Then how does a mother (who is not dead or killed) get convicted (supported by the U.S. Supreme Court) for activity that kills her unborn "not-a-baby"?

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:06 PM

If a woman can be prosecuted for killing her own fetus, then it's simply an anti-abortion law.

What an ideological idiot.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:07 PM

No, it's enforcement of religious ideology upon people who don't subscribe to that religious doctrine.

Incredible.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:07 PM

Calling a fetus a person is simply a religious dictation being forced onto people who don't share that view.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 12:08 PM

Fetus's have sufficiently developed brains?

That is a separate debate, one to which I'd be unable to contribute anything of value.

The real issue for this thread is that the fetus/child has the same level of mental development whether it is inside or outside the womb. It should receive rights based on its development, not its current location.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:10 PM

Yes, and tapeworms are parasites with no legal rights.

And "fetuses" (not "babies") are human, and have been legislated and adjudicated legal protections from murder and negligent homicide.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:11 PM

Calling a fetus a person is simply a religious dictation being forced onto people who don't share that view.

I linked that definition. It did not come from a religious dictionary or publication.

Further, a fetus is of human DNA. It is not canine, feline, pachyderm, or avian.

Get the clue, pal. You're more blind by reason of ideology and political partisanship than the religious people are.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:12 PM

That is a separate debate, one to which I'd be unable to contribute anything of value.

The real issue for this thread is that the fetus/child has the same level of mental development whether it is inside or outside the womb. It should receive rights based on its development, not its current location.

It should receive rights based on if it's living inside of another human or not.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 12:12 PM

And "fetuses" (not "babies") are human, and have been legislated and adjudicated legal protections from murder and negligent homicide.

I think you are attacking the wrong issue. He disagrees with the law so it does no good to repeat to him what it says. He is correct to think that the government cannot legislate truth.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:13 PM

I linked that definition. It did not come from a religious dictionary or publication.

Dictionaries are heavily influenced by religious people, just like the law is.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I linked that definition. It did not come from a religious dictionary or publication.
Dictionaries are heavily influenced by religious people, just like the law is.

And idiots are heavily influenced by political and ideological zealots.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 12:18 PM

It should receive rights based on if it's living inside of another human or not.

Why is that?

I think we agree that the fetus/baby is physically the same before and after birth. The fetus/baby is not inside the mother of its own free will (in fact it is probably there because of the MOTHER'S free will). The unborn certainly cannot be held responsable for the actions of others so it should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I do agree that an argument could be made in favor of abortion if the pregnancy endangers the mother.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:18 PM

I agree. I'm not influenced by any political or ideological zealots.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:19 PM

Why is that?

Because it is a growth inside of that being. I believe a person should have sole dominion over their own bodies, a fetus is part of that body.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 12:24 PM

Because it is a growth inside of that being. I believe a person should have sole dominion over their own bodies...

I would normally agree but a fetus is not simply part of the body after a certain stage in development. It is an entity capable of survival on its own and it contains an aware human brain that just happens to be inside the body of a woman.

Tricky

27th December 2006, 12:28 PM

As soon as we can agree on "what is a human", then the abortion issue will be moot. While some places have passed legislation to give certain fetuses some limited rights, others disagree.

To my way of thinking, it has to do with higher brain functions. In that sense, a brain-dead person is not human either and we have no obligation to keep them alive.

But I admit that any definition you give is fraught with difficulties and inconsistancies, so this debate is not likely to end soon. But I think I can state without much ambiguity that a zygote is not, and a newborn is.

baron

27th December 2006, 12:44 PM

Because it is a growth inside of that being. I believe a person should have sole dominion over their own bodies, a fetus is part of that body.

Ignoring the fact that DIY abortions are not particularly common-place, are you saying that it would be OK to abort up to nine months? Or during the birth, for that matter, but just before the umbilical cord is cut? After all, that arbitrary attachment is still there.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 12:46 PM

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:48 PM

I'm not influenced by any political or ideological zealots.

You are a political/ideological zealot. Your avatar clearly demonstrates that.

In your zeal to (what you believe to be) protect the abortion industry, you fail to grasp the obvious:

Fetal homicide laws have been on the books for a while now, and your sacred cow (industrialized abortion) has not been threatened by it.

Get over it. Not all women want abortions during each pregnancy, and take great offense when somebody kills the "thing" that is living in their womb.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:52 PM

I would normally agree but a fetus is not simply part of the body after a certain stage in development.

I don't agree, as long as the fetus is inside of the body, it is part of the body.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:53 PM

Ignoring the fact that DIY abortions are not particularly common-place, are you saying that it would be OK to abort up to nine months?

Yes.

Or during the birth, for that matter, but just before the umbilical cord is cut? After all, that arbitrary attachment is still there.

No, I didn't argue anything about attachment.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 12:54 PM

As soon as we can agree on "what is a human", then the abortion issue will be moot.

The scientific definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human) is:

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Any debate on that, Kenny?

Frankly, there will be no agreement on the definition of "human" politically or legally until the idiots are removed from the equation or simply ignored.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 12:55 PM

Agreed.

Thai, if we assume for the moment that the baby is human, does it loose its rights for being "dependent"?

A baby is human, a fetus is human, a zygote is human. The issue isn't about being human, it's about being a being.

volatile

27th December 2006, 12:59 PM

I don't agree, as long as the fetus is inside of the body, it is part of the body.

You're not a doctor, are you?

There is, and should be, a debate on abortion dates. I'm an atheist and very much pro-choice, but even I admit that you shouldn't have an abortion 5 minutes after you've gone into labour, or strangling a baby before the umbilical cord is cut!

Are you actually serious?

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:02 PM

I don't agree, as long as the fetus is inside of the body, it is part of the body.

Here are some scenarios. Tell me if the 9 month fetus/baby deserves protection:

1) Still in the womb. Umbilical connected to mother.

2) Still in the womb but umbilical cut.

3) Umbilical intact, head out.

4) Umbilical cut, head out.

5) Umbilical intact, 51% out.

6) Umbilical cut, 51% out.

7) Umbilical intact, 100% out.

8) Umbilical cut 100% out.

A baby is human, a fetus is human, a zygote is human. The issue isn't about being human, it's about being a being.

Does a zygote in a petri dish deserve full legal protection? According to you it should. It is outside the mother and human.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 01:02 PM

You're not a doctor, are you?

No.

There is, and should be, a debate on abortion dates.

I agree. You just don't like my position.

Are you actually serious?

Yes.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 01:05 PM

Here are some scenarios. Tell me if the 9 month fetus/baby deserves protection:

1) Still in the womb. Umbilical connected to mother.

2) Still in the womb but umbilical cut.

3) Umbilical intact, head out.

4) Umbilical cut, head out.

5) Umbilical intact, 51% out.

6) Umbilical cut, 51% out.

7) Umbilical intact, 100% out.

8) Umbilical cut 100% out.
[quote]

No, except for 7 and 8.

[quote]
Does a zygot in a petri dish deserve full legal protection?

No.

According to you it should. It is outside the mother and human.

It's not even in the equation of abortion, let's not muddy the waters.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:10 PM

If you'll note, the story was about how the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a state case.

That's too bad. "The devil is in the details."

So it was a dig at my competence?

Studying those details in school are impossible. Familiarity with state law comes from practicing in the state, taking specific state law courses (which I have not had an opportunity to take yet), or taking the state bar exam.

A lawyer cannot be expected to know the standing of every law in all fifty states, the federal government, and international law any more than you can expect a doctor to know the innermost workings of every body system. That's what specialists are for.

baron

27th December 2006, 01:11 PM

No, I didn't argue anything about attachment.

Yes you did, and here you are doing it ~

I believe a person should have sole dominion over their own bodies, a fetus is part of that body.

"Part of" clearly denotes attachment and equally clearly forms the basis for your point.

However, accepting that your put your point poorly, I am now at a bit of a loss what your argument is. KingMerv00 has saved me the bother of writing my own 10%... 50%... 99.9% scenario so I'll just ask, what is the precise point at which the bunch of cells that look remarkably like a human being actually become a real thaiboxerken-authenticated human being?

baron

27th December 2006, 01:13 PM

OK, you cross-posted. Ignore my previous question. I'm not sure I would want to continue a debate with someone who advocates killing babies.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:17 PM

No, except for 7 and 8.

Not to annoy you but what about 99.99999999999999999999% out? Absurd of course but you get the idea.

It's not even in the equation of abortion, let's not muddy the waters.

I'd say it is closely related. It is about the termination of potential human life.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 01:21 PM

Not to annoy you but what about 99.99999999999999999999% out?

Still eligible for abortion.

I'd say it is closely related. It is about the termination of potential human life.

Say what you want, but I don't agree that the issue is even close to being about petri dishes.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:27 PM

What if the mother puts the baby 0.000000000001% back inside after it is 100% removed? Does that mean abortion should be allowed again?

Huntster

27th December 2006, 01:28 PM

A baby is human, a fetus is human, a zygote is human. The issue isn't about being human, it's about being a being.

If it isn't alive, you can't "kill" it. Thus, homicide isn't possible.

It's alive. It has a heartbeat.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
If you'll note, the story was about how the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a state case.

So it was a dig at my competence?

Nope. At least not intentionally.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:31 PM

It's alive. It has a heartbeat.

The "heartbeat argument" is fallacious. Chickens have heartbeats but killing one isn't homicide. Chickens have no rights because of their brains, not because of their hearts.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:32 PM

Nope. At least not intentionally.

Ok then. I'll just chalk it up to misunderstanding.

Tricky

27th December 2006, 01:35 PM

Thai, if we assume for the moment that the baby is human, does it loose its rights for being "dependent"?
Not addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway.

Different humans have different rights. There are numerous age limitations and some mental capacity limitations on what different humans have a "right" to do. If you're counting fetuses as humans, then they have far fewer rights than most humans. But not all. For example, in some places, a brain-dead human has few if any rights. Even their right to live is assigned to their next-of-kin to decide.

Thus, one could say that a fetus with no higher brain functions has no "right" to be born. Rights are reserved for sentient entites.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 02:20 PM

If it isn't alive, you can't "kill" it. Thus, homicide isn't possible.

It's alive. It has a heartbeat.

I agree. If a fetus is alive or dead has nothing to do with the conversation.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 02:21 PM

What if the mother puts the baby 0.000000000001% back inside after it is 100% removed? Does that mean abortion should be allowed again?

Nope, because at that point she'd be violating the rights of a baby. 100% outside the womb = baby.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 02:26 PM

Nope, because at that point she'd be violating the rights of a baby. 100% outside the womb = baby.

If that baby were somehow reinserted into the womb, wouldn't it be dependent again on the mother?

Your position seems superstitious to me. The passage down the birth canal seems to grant human rights.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 02:31 PM

If that baby were somehow reinserted into the womb, wouldn't it be dependent again on the mother?

Would it? It's my understanding that human development goes forward. Re-inserting a baby into a womb would be going backward and would violate the rights of the baby.

Your position seems superstitious to me. The passage down the birth canal seems to grant human rights.

It's not superstitious, I'm just consistent in my reasoning. A woman should have full sovereignty over her own body and what is in her body.

I less than three logic

27th December 2006, 02:38 PM

If that baby were somehow reinserted into the womb, wouldn't it be dependent again on the mother?
I suspect putting a baby back into the womb would probably kill the baby and wouldn't exactly promote the mother's health either. Just adding my irrelevent :twocents:. :)

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 02:46 PM

Would it? It's my understanding that human development goes forward. Re-inserting a baby into a womb would be going backward and would violate the rights of the baby.

Your argument has nothing to do with child development, just child location.

It's not superstitious, I'm just consistent in my reasoning. A woman should have full sovereignty over her own body and what is in her body.

Your right to swing your hand ends at my nose. Your right to control your own body ends when there is another human's life involved.

A woman loses her right to terminate the pegnancy late in the process because she most likely caused the baby to be there and then waited 9 months. There are two thinking, living humans involved in this situation and a baby nine months in the making should have some rights to control their body as well. Giving them both conditional rights seems the prudent thing to do.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 02:47 PM

I suspect putting a baby back into the womb would probably kill the baby and wouldn't exactly promote the mother's health either. Just adding my irrelevent :twocents:. :)

I know. Just drawing things out to their absurd conclusions.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 02:52 PM

Your argument has nothing to do with child development, just child location.

And yours does?

Your right to swing your hand ends at my nose. Your right to control your own body ends when there is another human's life involved.

I don't agree. A person has sole dominion over their own bodies and that includes what is inside their body.

A woman loses her right to terminate the pegnancy late in the process because she most likely caused the baby to be there and then waited 9 months.

So you're not interested in development, just a time line.

There are two thinking, living humans involved in this situation and a baby nine months in the making should have some rights to control their body as well. Giving them both conditional rights seems the prudent thing to do.

A fetus is not a sapient being.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 03:02 PM

And yours does?

Yes it does. I believe that abortion is fine until the fetus' brain is sufficiently developed to carry out higher functions. When is that? I'm not exactly sure since I am not a professional. I do know that it occurs sometime between conception and birth. Probably around 6 months.

The major weakness of my argument is that it deals with fuzzy lives of consciousness. Unfortunately, I have to deal with the best information available and draw the line with caution. I generally err on the side of the child.

I don't agree. A person has sole dominion over their own bodies and that includes what is inside their body.

Well that argument only works if you agree with the premise that the baby isn't a person, since a person would have dominion of their own body.

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 03:06 PM

I generally err on the side of the child.

I err on the side of the host body, after all, the fetus wouldn't exist if not for it.

Oh, and my argument works even if the baby is a person, as no person should be able to live, unwanted, inside of another person.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 03:12 PM

I err on the side of the host body, after all, the fetus wouldn't exist if not for it.

The same thing could be said of your parents and you today.

Oh, and my argument works even if the baby is a person, as no person should be able to live, unwanted, inside of another person.

That would only be true if a person chooses to live inside someone else. A person who finds themselves violating a law but had no say in the matter isn't guilty of anything.

At nine months the baby could survive just fine outside of the mother. Why not remove the child and just put it up for adoption?

thaiboxerken

27th December 2006, 03:16 PM

That would only be true if a person chooses to live inside someone else.

Feel free to demonstrate that a fetus has the ability to make choices and then that line of argument will be valid.

At nine months the baby could survive just fine outside of the mother. Why not remove the child and just put it up for adoption?

That's a perfectly valid option for the host body to choose.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 07:13 PM

Seems like we are working under different premises. You think the right to control one's body is unlimited, I think that right is limited under certain rare circumstances.

I'm not sure what else to say.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 08:39 PM

The "heartbeat argument" is fallacious. Chickens have heartbeats but killing one isn't homicide.

Chickens aren't "persons" or "human beings". They're birds.

Killing chickens is fowlicide, not homicide. Hell, I do it all the time.

But when you kill the chicken, you stop it's heartbeat. That is when it is legally and scientifically dead/killed.

Chickens have no rights because of their brains, not because of their hearts.

Some chickens do have rights. Their brains have nothing to do with it.

For example, my chickens have the rights I and my local ordinances grant to it. You cannot come over to my chicken coop and kill my chickens.

The bottom line is that a fetus is human, and it is alive until you kill it. You kill it when you stop it's heart from beating. Whether that is legal in accordance with abortion laws or illegal in accordance with fetal homicide laws doesn't change the science of killing something, or what species that something is.

I less than three logic

27th December 2006, 08:43 PM

For example, my chickens have the rights I and my local ordinances grant to it. You cannot come over to my chicken coop and kill my chickens.
That seems more like your right not to have your property destroyed, or does your house have the right for me not to drive a car through the wall? Although, chickens do have some right, more now than before I would think. Due to animal cruelty laws and such, they seem to be afforded the right to die relatively less painful deaths.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 08:57 PM

Chickens aren't "persons" or "human beings". They're birds.

Killing chickens is fowlicide, not homicide. Hell, I do it all the time.

But when you kill the chicken, you stop it's heartbeat. That is when it is legally and scientifically dead/killed.

That is exactly the point I'm making. Humans have decided that the act of killing isn't wrong in and of itself. Only killing humans is worthy of punishment (animal cruelty aside). Why? Because humans are mentally advanced.

Some chickens do have rights. Their brains have nothing to do with it.

For example, my chickens have the rights I and my local ordinances grant to it. You cannot come over to my chicken coop and kill my chickens.

Those rights are only an extension of yours. The moment you abandon your property, those chickens lose all of the rights you gave them.

The bottom line is that a fetus is human, and it is alive until you kill it. You kill it when you stop it's heart from beating. Whether that is legal in accordance with abortion laws or illegal in accordance with fetal homicide laws doesn't change the science of killing something, or what species that something is.

An abortion in the first week doesn't stop a heart.

This "heart" thing isn't really important to the abortion issue. I'm just sick of those "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" bumper stickers.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
If it isn't alive, you can't "kill" it. Thus, homicide isn't possible.

It's alive. It has a heartbeat.
I agree. If a fetus is alive or dead has nothing to do with the conversation.

It doesn't?

Abortion is stopping the heartbeat of the fetus. By doing so, by English and scientific definition, you are killing it.

A human fetus is human. By killing it, by definition, one commits homicide.

That homicide might be legal (in the case of abortion laws) or illegal (in the case of fetal homicide laws).

Huntster

27th December 2006, 09:11 PM

...It's my understanding that human development goes forward....

That is commonly true.

What happened in your case is a wonder.

I less than three logic

27th December 2006, 09:12 PM

Abortion is stopping the heartbeat of the fetus. By doing so, by English and scientific definition, you are killing it.
Then by "English and scientific definition" heart surgeons are killing their patients on a daily basis, some multiple times a day. I suspect there is more to death than just stopping a heart. Perhaps a brain is involved?

Huntster

27th December 2006, 09:12 PM

I err on the side of the host body, after all, the fetus wouldn't exist if not for it.

The fetus would also not exist if the seed from the male were not a part.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
For example, my chickens have the rights I and my local ordinances grant to it. You cannot come over to my chicken coop and kill my chickens.
That seems more like your right not to have your property destroyed....

Apparently, that is the same regarding a mother's rights regarding a pre-born child.

If she wishes it to be removed, it is legally killed and removed from the womb.

If she wishes for it to live, and you kill it, you are subject to murder charges.

[quote]Although, chickens do have some right, more now than before I would think. Due to animal cruelty laws and such, they seem to be afforded the right to die relatively less painful deaths.

We've gone in that direction. Some if it is justified, but I'm afraid of abuse by zealots.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Chickens aren't "persons" or "human beings". They're birds.

Killing chickens is fowlicide, not homicide. Hell, I do it all the time.

But when you kill the chicken, you stop it's heartbeat. That is when it is legally and scientifically dead/killed.

That is exactly the point I'm making. Humans have decided that the act of killing isn't wrong in and of itself. Only killing humans is worthy of punishment (animal cruelty aside).

That's not true. Killing humans can be perfectly legal, even legally or religiously required.

And killing an animal (in certain places) can be illegal under any circumstances.

Welcome to law.

Quote:
Some chickens do have rights. Their brains have nothing to do with it.

For example, my chickens have the rights I and my local ordinances grant to it. You cannot come over to my chicken coop and kill my chickens.

Those rights are only an extension of yours. The moment you abandon your property, those chickens lose all of the rights you gave them.

Not all.

If you torture them, you might still be subject to law. Even in cases where you are legally allowed to kill, say, a stray dog, you'd better do it correctly.

We haven't even delved into wildlife (which is owned by "the crown"), when you may kill them, how you may kill them, what you must do with them after killing them, how you may transport yourself and the meat during the process of killing them, etc.

Quote:
The bottom line is that a fetus is human, and it is alive until you kill it. You kill it when you stop it's heart from beating. Whether that is legal in accordance with abortion laws or illegal in accordance with fetal homicide laws doesn't change the science of killing something, or what species that something is.

An abortion in the first week doesn't stop a heart.

I think abortion is wrong, at any stage.

However, unlike zealots, I'm willing to compromise. My point is the heartbeat.

The position of "the crown" is much, much later.

This "heart" thing isn't really important to the abortion issue. I'm just sick of those "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" bumper stickers.

Depends on your outlook.

And abortion stops a beating heart commonly after the 5th to 6th week of pregnancy.

Huntster

27th December 2006, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Abortion is stopping the heartbeat of the fetus. By doing so, by English and scientific definition, you are killing it.
Then by "English and scientific definition" heart surgeons are killing their patients on a daily basis, some multiple times a day.

Do you refer to those instances where the surgeon stops the heart for a period of time with the intention of starting it back up again?

I suspect there is more to death than just stopping a heart. Perhaps a brain is involved?

Maybe you're correct: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death)

Brain death is defined as a complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity. Absence of apparent brain function is not enough. Evidence of irreversibility is also required. Brain-death is often confused with the state of vegetation.

Traditionally, death has been defined as the cessation of all body functions, including respiration and heartbeat. Since it became possible to revive some people after a period without respiration, heartbeat, or other visible signs of life, as well as to maintain respiration and blood flow artificially using life support treatments, an alternative definition for death was needed. In recent decades, the concept of "brain death" has emerged. By brain-death criteria, a person can be pronounced legally dead even if the heart continues to beat due to life support measures. The first nation in the world to adopt the brain death as the definition of legal death was Finland in 1971. In the United States, Kansas had made a similar law at an even earlier date. (Randell T. (2004) Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 48(2): 139–44.)

That leaves a couple of important questions:

1) Can the brain activity in a fetus be measured?

2) If an indictment or conviction of the murder of a fetus under fetal homicide laws is sought by a DA, how is the death established?

Dark Jaguar

27th December 2006, 09:59 PM

It's always been a tough issue, but I think I'll make a few points.

While some pro-lifers are probably as anti-women as one can get, not all are. These are the people who would answer the hypothetical scenario of "what if you woke up hooked up to a patient finding out that only by staying connected for 9 months can that patient live" with "yes, and I'd consider it murder to walk away". I know plenty of "pro-lifers" who hold that very position, so it's not a good idea to muddy the waters by simply saying they are all male chauvinists. Also don't forget a number are women.

It's better to tackle what pro-lifers actually consider the issue to be, and that's if the rights of a fetus to live outweigh the rights of a mother to decide what to do with her body.

I've basically gotten to the point where I think that an embryo or zygote aren't even in the running for consideration. My reasoning is that they lack consciousness, were never conscious to begin with, and thus are merely cells. They are human if you define them by their DNA, but "human" isn't the issue for me, it's consciousness on the level of human beings, which they don't yet have, at all. Now, the sophisticated argument is "they have the POTENTIAL to be conscious". That actually worked on me for a time, but the obvious problem here is that this potential doesn't JUST lie with them. If one is to grant that potential = rights to keep that potential viable until it comes to exist, then logic dictates that this also applies to sperm and eggs, and more to the point, that the only way to be moral is to make sure to donate all eggs and sperms to labs so they can generate as many embryos as possible and allow as many lives to exist as possible. Anything less is murder. Further, neutering humans is tantamount to murder. Not genetically altering people to divide asexually, if that ever becomes possible, destroys a number of countless potential lives. Researching AI becomes imperative, as that is potential consciousness, and once it is successfully created then the only moral thing to do, in the "potential = rights to exist" moral standard, is to copy that program as many times as is possible and create as many robot bodies to house these copies as possible until the end of time, because every copy NOT made is a life destroyed!

Clearly, that moral standard is impossible to fulfill, and there's really no logical reason we should even just go for "coming close to fulfilling it" as some have tried to say. They aren't conscious so there's no life to snuff out, save that of some cells.

However, the moral standard of "once it is conscious, then it's wrong to kill it", I can't get past. I'd say that after, as far as current science is able to determine, the fetus attains awareness in there, which I understand is around the third trimester, then it SHOULD have a right to continued existence which trumps the rights of the mother's body.

So there's my stance as it stands right now. I see no reason at all why the arbitrary "at birth" moment should be selected as the moment it has rights.

Huntster

28th December 2006, 01:00 AM

...It's better to tackle what pro-lifers actually consider the issue to be, and that's if the rights of a fetus to live outweigh the rights of a mother to decide what to do with her body....

It's not just the rights of the mother or fetus.

The father should have some rights, as well.

Not to mention society.

I've basically gotten to the point where I think that an embryo or zygote aren't even in the running for consideration.

That's too bad.

My reasoning is that they lack consciousness, were never conscious to begin with, and thus are merely cells.

We don't know that.

They are human if you define them by their DNA, but "human" isn't the issue for me, it's consciousness on the level of human beings, which they don't yet have, at all.

We don't know that.

Now, the sophisticated argument is "they have the POTENTIAL to be conscious". That actually worked on me for a time, but the obvious problem here is that this potential doesn't JUST lie with them. If one is to grant that potential = rights to keep that potential viable until it comes to exist, then logic dictates that this also applies to sperm and eggs, and more to the point, that the only way to be moral is to make sure to donate all eggs and sperms to labs so they can generate as many embryos as possible and allow as many lives to exist as possible.

You neglect the fact that all sexual acts don't result in a fetus.

Anything less is murder.

No, it doesn't.

Further, neutering humans is tantamount to murder.

Even though the Catholic Church forbids birth control (outside of the rythym method), it still isn't "murder". It's a lack of faith and a sin, but it still isn't murder.

Not genetically altering people to divide asexually, if that ever becomes possible, destroys a number of countless potential lives. Researching AI becomes imperative, as that is potential consciousness, and once it is successfully created then the only moral thing to do, in the "potential = rights to exist" moral standard, is to copy that program as many times as is possible and create as many robot bodies to house these copies as possible until the end of time, because every copy NOT made is a life destroyed!

Crudely, inaccurately, and with lots of error, that is similar to the RCC position.

Basically, interfering with the natural system of reproduction with unnatural means is wrong.

By going to the extreme of ending a human life that has already begun is the extreme of that sin.

Clearly, that moral standard is impossible to fulfill, and there's really no logical reason we should even just go for "coming close to fulfilling it" as some have tried to say. They aren't conscious so there's no life to snuff out, save that of some cells.

I disagree.

Many "moral standards" are "impossible to fulfill."

We are all human.

That doesn't mean we should make them legal.

However, the moral standard of "once it is conscious, then it's wrong to kill it", I can't get past. I'd say that after, as far as current science is able to determine, the fetus attains awareness in there, which I understand is around the third trimester, then it SHOULD have a right to continued existence which trumps the rights of the mother's body.

That mirrors Roe V Wade, in a different path.

joobz

28th December 2006, 07:56 AM

So there's my stance as it stands right now. I see no reason at all why the arbitrary "at birth" moment should be selected as the moment it has rights.
I think your defining line makes more sense than "birth", but we still have Hunster's problem of how do we determine the cognitive awareness of the fetus? I do not know how accurate the video is(and knowing it is typical anti-abortion propoganda, i don't know if I can trust it), but that whole "Silent Scream" video shows a fetus (presumably in 8 weeks) pulling away as though in pain from being killed. Is that a sign of cognitive awareness? I don't know. I think that pain rejection can be a non-aware response, but I really am not sure.

Like I said, the key question is when does a fetus become a baby. It's Loki's wager all over again.
Fertilization is a clear marker. It's a step change from prior gamete state. But, beyond that, it's a gradual thing with no clear fetus/baby transition.

I would like to see the point where science finds no-awareness. Then subtract 1 month from that point for a conservative estimate. So if it is 6 months, then abortions can be allowable up to 5 months.

Dark Jaguar

28th December 2006, 08:55 PM

I haven't seen such a video. At any rate, Hunster, do you have any evidence at all that a frickin' embryo has any awareness? I can show you evidence that a 3 month old baby has awareness.

I'm not even taking your (my former) religion into account in this argument by the way. So argument about what your church believes don't factor into it, only evidence and reason do. You also seem to ignore my point. Not ALL sexual acts may result in a human being, but not ALL embryos result in a further developed fetus or a baby or a fully grown adult with debt and everything. So the 100% guarantee of life is stupid. I'm arguing with those who use the "potential for life is what matters" argument. If it's potential that's the issue, then that sperm and egg are potential and doing anything but creating an embryo out of it (which then must be sustained to the best of our ability) must then ALSO be held as immoral. If your cut off point is the moment an embryo is created, what's your reasoning? Since "potential" can't be it for the reasons I just described, it has to be something else. In your case, it appears to be because "church told you so". Not good enough for me. Heck, that's not even in the bible (if we were to even consider the bible as a source of evidence for or against some moral behavior). You may even bring up the "life is in the blood" quote but an embryo does not yet HAVE any blood, it's just a few cells, it has no need of blood just yet!

I'd say the whole "we should never do anything unnatural to our bodies" thing is tired old rhetoric (I should just rip out my fillings and break my glasses and ignore organ transplantation then?), but that's another topic entirely.

Anyway, it may not be a "clear" transition, but the best we as a species have EVER been able to go on in deciding anything is the best available evidence. Best available evidence says a zygote or an embryo or sperm or egg are not aware at all, nor are various later stages. From what I understand, the only evidence for any awareness seems to show up in the 3rd trimester. As awareness is my standard of cutoff, tempered by available evidence, that's the point where it ends for me.

I'm open to further evidence though.

qayak

28th December 2006, 09:27 PM

billydkid

29th December 2006, 09:55 AM

Here is a link to the article Abortion: Is It Possible To Be Both Pro-life and Pro-choice? written by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. A must read if you haven't already.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

I think the whole issue has been deliberately confused. There are some people who relish confusing issues so that no comprimise can be reached. As for myself, I am against abortion, but I am also pro-choice. The question really whether the state should be involved in these issues at all. I do believe that there should be a requirement that if a woman knows she does not want a child she is carrying and wants to abort it, she should have it done at the earlier possible time after conception. I also think morning after pills should eliminate the need for abortion altogether.

I less than three logic

29th December 2006, 10:08 AM

I also think morning after pills should eliminate the need for abortion altogether.
I’m not sure it would be able to eliminate the need completely, because I’m not sure it is 100% effective. Is it possible to take the morning after pill and still become pregnant, and if that should happen? Also, there is still the obstacle of the opposition to the morning after pill altogether.

Huntster

29th December 2006, 10:10 AM

I haven't seen such a video. At any rate, Hunster, do you have any evidence at all that a frickin' embryo has any awareness? I can show you evidence that a 3 month old baby has awareness.

Great. Show it. Not for my benefit, but for the benefit of others.

I don't like abortion at any stage, unless the mother's life or serious health is in danger.

I'm not even taking your (my former) religion into account in this argument by the way. So argument about what your church believes don't factor into it, only evidence and reason do.

Tell it to the court. I'm all for it.

You also seem to ignore my point. Not ALL sexual acts may result in a human being, but not ALL embryos result in a further developed fetus or a baby or a fully grown adult with debt and everything. So the 100% guarantee of life is stupid. I'm arguing with those who use the "potential for life is what matters" argument.

I like it.

If it's potential that's the issue, then that sperm and egg are potential and doing anything but creating an embryo out of it (which then must be sustained to the best of our ability) must then ALSO be held as immoral.

Okay.

If your cut off point is the moment an embryo is created, what's your reasoning?

Incremental righteousness. I'm willing to negotiate with those who are pushing for abortion without any restriction and with relentness fury.

Like Kenny.............

Since "potential" can't be it for the reasons I just described, it has to be something else. In your case, it appears to be because "church told you so". Not good enough for me.

Me, neither. The Church has taken a position. I've considered it, and I like it.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, your position is nearly identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to claim ownership of the position, knock yourself out. I still like it.

Heck, that's not even in the bible (if we were to even consider the bible as a source of evidence for or against some moral behavior).

That's right.

Lot's of RCC isn't specifically detailed in the Bible.

So?

You may even bring up the "life is in the blood" quote but an embryo does not yet HAVE any blood, it's just a few cells, it has no need of blood just yet!

I'm not aware of that.

When does a fetus have blood?

Is it after the heartbeat begins?

I'd say the whole "we should never do anything unnatural to our bodies" thing is tired old rhetoric (I should just rip out my fillings and break my glasses and ignore organ transplantation then?), but that's another topic entirely.

Yes. It is.

Strife

30th December 2006, 03:51 AM

joobz

30th December 2006, 09:11 AM

I never understood why some people think it’s okay to force a women to go through a pregnancy, but it's not okay to force someone to donate their organs after they are dead already. If we forced everyone to donate blood that would save lives too. If I need a new kidney, can I have one of yours?

I personally never cared if the fetus is alive. It doesn't matter, you can't force people to donate organs and blood to save people who we know are alive and aware for sure, so how can it suddenly be motivated in this case?
Personally,I don't know why we force people to feed thier kids after they have them. i mean, it's their money, they can choose to feed them or not.:rolleyes:

Your equivocation of the fetus as blood or organs is dead wrong. it isn't. the question isn't if it is alive or not(of course it's alive), the question is if it is a sentient individual deserving of the rights established by the state.

I'm with Dark Jaguar on this one, but I think i would prefer to err on the side of caution and establish an earlier time point than third trimester.

billydkid

30th December 2006, 11:43 AM

I’m not sure it would be able to eliminate the need completely, because I’m not sure it is 100% effective. Is it possible to take the morning after pill and still become pregnant, and if that should happen? Also, there is still the obstacle of the opposition to the morning after pill altogether.
Opposition to the morning after pill is just puritanical stupidity - based on the fear that somewhere, someone might be experiencing pleasure. There is still a very strong pleasure taboo in this country. If someone becomes pregnant they should have a right to an abortion if they want one, but it should be done at the earliest possible time it can be done. Why a woman would carry around a fetus for five months and then decide she wants to abort it is beyond me.

qayak

30th December 2006, 03:05 PM

Why a woman would carry around a fetus for five months and then decide she wants to abort it is beyond me.

That's the whole point of protecting the right to abortion: A woman's choice to have an abortion, at any point in the pregnancy, is beyond you, me or anyone else, except the woman making the choice.

joobz

30th December 2006, 05:38 PM

That's the whole point of protecting the right to abortion: A woman's choice to have an abortion, at any point in the pregnancy, is beyond you, me or anyone else, except the woman making the choice.

Wrong. there is a point where the right of the fetus also matters. the point where it obtains consciousness.

If we hold to the notion that there is a right to choose, then society also needs to provide a right to the father to "choose" not to support the fetus.

qayak

30th December 2006, 05:53 PM

Wrong. there is a point where the right of the fetus also matters. the point where it obtains consciousness.

And the courts made an excellent choice with the Roe-vs-Wade decision. However, if a woman needs a late term abortion, it still isn't for you or I to decide based on our morals. It is for the woman and her doctor to decide, inside the law. The law is pretty specific.

If we hold to the notion that there is a right to choose, then society also needs to provide a right to the father to "choose" not to support the fetus.

The father doesn't support the fetus. He pays child support.

joobz

30th December 2006, 06:11 PM

And the courts made an excellent choice with the Roe-vs-Wade decision. However, if a woman needs a late term abortion, it still isn't for you or I to decide based on our morals. It is for the woman and her doctor to decide, inside the law. The law is pretty specific. again, if there is consciousness, then there is a third party involved. But this is not about choice. That is a dodge.

The father doesn't support the fetus. He pays child support.
If the woman gets to decide that the fetus is a child, then father gets to decide to pay for it based upon his view of it being a "fetus or child". However, IF and ONLY IF we agree with the argument of choice is valid.

qayak

30th December 2006, 07:11 PM

again, if there is consciousness, then there is a third party involved. But this is not about choice. That is a dodge.

My own personal belief is that the woman gets to decide period. Until that baby is born, she can do as she pleases.

If the woman gets to decide that the fetus is a child, then father gets to decide to pay for it based upon his view of it being a "fetus or child". However, IF and ONLY IF we agree with the argument of choice is valid.

This has nothing to do with a woman's choice. What it has to do with is allowing men to skip out on their responsibilities. If men don't want to have kids, they should keep it in your pants or put a sock on it. Once the child is born, the two people share responsibility for it.

Your argument has no basis in logic. It is like saying that you get to choose which new car to buy so I should be allowed to get in to see the NY Yankees play, for free.

In fact, men can make a choice involving having kids and a medical procedure which is fully paid for. They can get a reversable vasectomy, play all they want and then when they are ready to have kids, they can get it reversed.

joobz

30th December 2006, 07:24 PM

My own personal belief is that the woman gets to decide period. Until that baby is born, she can do as she pleases.but not the man...interesting.

I guess sexism is only a one way street?

This has nothing to do with a woman's choice. What it has to do with is allowing men to skip out on their responsibilities. If men don't want to have kids, they should keep it in your pants or put a sock on it.
and this is the crux of it. It takes two as they say.

Your argument has no basis in logic. It is like saying that you get to choose which new car to buy so I should be allowed to get in to see the NY Yankees play, for free.
That's a poor comparison. The more accurate one is to say, If I buy the car, I have the choice to not pay for it. well I do, but there are laws against it.

Remember I don't claim that abortion is never allowable. But the whole concept that a woman has ultimate say without any responsibility to anything or anyone else is just crazy.

In fact, men can make a choice involving having kids and a medical procedure which is fully paid for. They can get a reversable vasectomy, play all they want and then when they are ready to have kids, they can get it reversed.And so does the woman.. What's your point?

qayak

30th December 2006, 09:36 PM

but not the man...interesting.

I guess sexism is only a one way street?

That's right, not the man and there is no sexism involved.

and this is the crux of it. It takes two as they say.

Yes, it takes two. First, they both have a choice to use protection. Once a woman is pregnant, it just takes her and so she has the choice. Once the baby is born, there is no choice for either.

Remember I don't claim that abortion is never allowable. But the whole concept that a woman has ultimate say without any responsibility to anything or anyone else is just crazy.

It is only crazy for someone with control issues. It is her body so she can choose to keep the child or abort it. That is the whole abortion issue in a nutshell. Some people feel they should have the right to tell women what to do with their own bodies.

And so does the woman.

It is irrelevent that women also have a choice to do this. You are simply trying to push all responsibility onto women.

Exactly what is your reason that men should not have to pay. We have already agreed that they had a choice to not make the woman pregnant. From your flippant little response above it can be inferred that you think women get pregnant to trap men and steal their money.

joobz

30th December 2006, 10:01 PM

That's right, not the man and there is no sexism involved.
your entire argument has been negated by this short sighted view. You have very little respect for women, because you feel it is impossible for them to treat men poorly. That laws can be unfairly biased in thier direction. Your view seems to undervalue women, not consider them equals.

Yes, it takes two. First, they both have a choice to use protection. Once a woman is pregnant, it just takes her and so she has the choice. Once the baby is born, there is no choice for either. I agree, but when the baby is/can be considered a conscious entiity, abortion is no longer an option. No matter what you wish to claim about "choice".

It is only crazy for someone with control issues. It is her body so she can choose to keep the child or abort it. That is the whole abortion issue in a nutshell. Some people feel they should have the right to tell women what to do with their own bodies.
off the mark again. Choice isn't the issue, it's whether or not the fetus is a person. you thinking that it is about male control, well

It is irrelevent that women also have a choice to do this. You are simply trying to push all responsibility onto women.

Exactly what is your reason that men should not have to pay. We have already agreed that they had a choice to not make the woman pregnant. From your flippant little response above it can be inferred that you think women get pregnant to trap men and steal their money.
I'm simply extending the choice argument to its absurd conclusion. If a woman's choices extend beyond the initial act, so must the man's. If it doesn't, there exists a unfair/unequal proportion of responsibilty. That's all.

I do not condone such a view becuase I do not agree with the choice argument. I think as long as the fetus is not conscious, then abortions pose no problem.

qayak

30th December 2006, 10:52 PM

your entire argument has been negated by this short sighted view. You have very little respect for women, because you feel it is impossible for them to treat men poorly. That laws can be unfairly biased in thier direction. Your view seems to undervalue women, not consider them equals.

You would have to demonstrate that the law as it stands is unfairly biased in women's favour. It isn't. You, like anti-abortionists, think that someone besides the woman and her doctor should have a say.

Abortion laws cannot be biased against men because it they nothing to do with men. It does not restrict anything men do.

I agree, but when the baby is/can be considered a conscious entiity, abortion is no longer an option. No matter what you wish to claim about "choice".

I do not fully agree with Roe-vs-Wade but I think it is a great compromise so I support it, 100%. In my personal view, abortion is strictly a matter of choice for a woman and her doctor no matter when it occurs. I think women are smart enough to figure it out themselves.

I'm simply extending the choice argument to its absurd conclusion. If a woman's choices extend beyond the initial act, so must the man's. If it doesn't, there exists a unfair/unequal proportion of responsibilty. That's all.

I don't see it as unfair at all. As soon as a man becomes pregnant, he will be allowed to make the same choice. Men and women are not the same and it is silly to think they should be treated the same when the difference is so great. In my area, women on the job do not have to lift as much as a man. Is that unfair, or is that a fair way to account for the difference in physical ability? Are abortion laws designed for the only gender that gets pregnant, unfair?

Your logic does not follow. Because a woman has the choice to choose to terminate a pregnancy does not mean that men should be allowed to decide not to pay child support. These are two completely different issues.

I have heard your argument before by national talk show hosts. They are trying to find a loophole for men to not have to pay for children they had a sperm in conceiving. Their strategy is to tie it to the abortion issue to give it respectability. They are under the misguided impression that because both are about choice, they are somehow related. They aren't.

Your argument is designed to appeal to adolescent males and boost ratings, not to address any injustice in society.

joobz

30th December 2006, 11:15 PM

You would have to demonstrate that the law as it stands is unfairly biased in women's favour. It isn't. You, like anti-abortionists, think that someone besides the woman and her doctor should have a say.
The only laws I think that need to be changed is the allowing of late term abortions. Paternity rights are a seperate issue.

Abortion laws cannot be biased against men because it they nothing to do with men. It does not restrict anything men do.

I do not fully agree with Roe-vs-Wade but I think it is a great compromise so I support it, 100%. In my personal view, abortion is strictly a matter of choice for a woman and her doctor no matter when it occurs. I think women are smart enough to figure it out themselves.

I don't see it as unfair at all. As soon as a man becomes pregnant, he will be allowed to make the same choice. Men and women are not the same and it is silly to think they should be treated the same when the difference is so great. In my area, women on the job do not have to lift as much as a man. Is that unfair, or is that a fair way to account for the difference in physical ability? Are abortion laws designed for the only gender that gets pregnant, unfair?
You keep ignoring the fetus. I know it's an uncomfortable issue, but there is a third party involved. Your desire to reduce the importance of a full term fetus is quite strange. Why do you feel that up to birth it's nothing. But magically becomes human at the moment of birth? That makes as much sense as saying a "soul" is created at conception.

Your logic does not follow. Because a woman has the choice to choose to terminate a pregnancy does not mean that men should be allowed to decide not to pay child support. These are two completely different issues.
You claim me as control freak. I state that giving ultimate life/death choice to a single person requires an even greater control freak.

I have heard your argument before by national talk show hosts. They are trying to find a loophole for men to not have to pay for children they had a sperm in conceiving. Their strategy is to tie it to the abortion issue to give it respectability. They are under the misguided impression that because both are about choice, they are somehow related. They aren't.

Your argument is designed to appeal to adolescent males and boost ratings, not to address any injustice in society.
I have no ratings to try and gain. I don't care if you wish to poison the well. The point stands that the choice argument is illogical. pro-abortionists use "pro-choice" as a guise just as much as anti-abortionists use "pro-life" as a guise.

I state again that the issue is when is a fetus deserving of rights. Birth isn't a terrible dividing line.

qayak

31st December 2006, 02:02 AM

The only laws I think that need to be changed is the allowing of late term abortions. Paternity rights are a seperate issue.

Then how did they get into a debate about abortion? Didn't you bring them in and try to claim that if a woman can decide to have an abortion, men should be allowed to decide not to pay for the children they fathered?

You keep ignoring the fetus.

No, I did not ignore the fetus. I am fully aware it is there. In case you hadn't noticed, one cannot have an abortion without a fetus. You just don't like the answer I gave but I will state it again, regardless.

I think that the choice to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor right up until birth.

I think women are smart enough to do what is right when it comes to their own bodies and the life growing inside them and I do not think I am a better judge than they are, so I mind my own business about it.

I think Roe-vs-Wade is a great compromise between no abortion and uncontrolled abortion so I support it 100%.

You claim me as control freak. I state that giving ultimate life/death choice to a single person requires an even greater control freak.

So women aren't able to make decisions on their own? You feel your decision will be better than theirs? I think that is bull. I think you want control of their body. I also think your decision will not be as good it will just be different.

A control freak is not someone who is allowed to make a decision on their own about their own life, it is someone who insists they get to make decisions about someone else's live.

I have no ratings to try and gain. I don't care if you wish to poison the well. The point stands that the choice argument is illogical. pro-abortionists use "pro-choice" as a guise just as much as anti-abortionists use "pro-life" as a guise.

Those national talk show jocks have ratings to boost and they do it by having you buy into their half backed ideas. The choice argument is not illogical at all. Pro-choice does not mean anti-life. It means that any woman has the right to be able to choose between carrying a fetus to term or terminating it the safest manner possible. That's the choice, not whether men get to avoid paying child support or not.

I state again that the issue is when is a fetus deserving of rights. Birth isn't a terrible dividing line.

I have already stated my view regarding this. I think it is important to keep late term abortions legal for women's health issues. I do not see late term abortions being the big problem that you claim they are. I do not see them being performed a lot and certainly no more than is medically necessary. Other people's health issues are theirs to decide, not mine.

I see abortion as a health issue for women, not as a religious issue or a political issue.

Roboramma

31st December 2006, 05:23 AM

I'd like to toss in my two cents to this debate.

First off, I agree with most of what Joobs has said. [edit: the following may or may not echo some of his points, and in some ways may seriously diverge from his opinions.]

If by some chance of evolution human pregnancy lasted nine years instead of nine months, and the fetus during that time went through similar development to what children do now (at least as to levels of consciousness and cognitive ability) then obviously a five year old abortion would be murder in every sense of the word. This is a point that I think it obvious and not really worth arguing.
Of course, that "chance of evolution" never happened. But I think it's important to realise that it's the characteristics of the organism that we're talking about killing that are important to the question of whether or not killing it is wrong.

Consciousness would be a pretty good dividing line if it were easily defined, but it isn't. Cows are conscious, but we don't have a problem killing them for food, for instance (I don't anyway). Maybe you'll disagree and say that cows aren't conscious. Do so, that's another point I'm not interested in arguing.

So the issue is a muddy one. It's not obvious from first looking at it when (or if) killing a fetus is wrong. So I think we have to try to get to the root of the issue.

The first question is to ask, "What is it that's wrong about killing people?"
My answer to that has to do with a certain combination of traits (including consciousness, but not limited to it) that humans possess. I think that these traits fall along a continuum, and that the "evil" (for lack of a better word) done by killing someone possessing them increases or decreases as they gain or lose those traits. Taking someone who is brain-dead off of life-support is, in this view, fine, as the organism no longer has the meaningful traits that we value.

I actually think that these properties should be divided up to look at which ones imbue a creature with value in which directions. The ability to experience pain, for instance, might be important in asking questions about how this creature should be treated, but might have little bearing on questions of voting rights.

In this view there is value in the life of a dog or a sparrow, but not in a zygote. In this view there is less value in the life of a newborn baby than in that of a five year old child, but more than in that of a 8 month along fetus.

I don't pretend that my view is fully fleshed out - what, for instance, exactly are these "valued" qualities? Why are they valued? - but at least it's capable of being fleshed out. With it we can ask, "When a fetus is five months along, are we doing more good than bad by allowing a woman the right to abort it? Does her right to choose trump the rights of this quasi-being?" I certainly don't have the answers to these questions right now, but the answers, with this view, do exist, and are amenable to investigation.

There are also some, perhaps uncomfortable, questions that it opens up. Questions whose answers might have seemed very clear before. For instance, if we decided that late term abortions should be allowable under some circumstances, we might also ask the question, "Should infanticide be allowable under other circumstances?" I would not necessarily answer "no."

This sort of analysis also gives us a way of looking at the question of animal rights. A fully grown gorilla is likely in possession of more of the value-laden properties of which I'm speaking than is any fetus, and perhaps as worthy of certain rights.

Moreover, for some questions, the answers are already clear. Before the brain has developed to the size of the brain of a caterpillar, should abortion be allowed? Certainly.

joobz

31st December 2006, 08:52 AM

Then how did they get into a debate about abortion? Didn't you bring them in and try to claim that if a woman can decide to have an abortion, men should be allowed to decide not to pay for the children they fathered?
Simply pointing out, again, that the choice argument is missplaced and stupid. that's all.

No, I did not ignore the fetus. I am fully aware it is there. In case you hadn't noticed, one cannot have an abortion without a fetus. You just don't like the answer I gave but I will state it again, regardless.

I think that the choice to have an abortion is between a woman and her doctor right up until birth.

I think women are smart enough to do what is right when it comes to their own bodies and the life growing inside them and I do not think I am a better judge than they are, so I mind my own business about it.

I think Roe-vs-Wade is a great compromise between no abortion and uncontrolled abortion so I support it 100%.

In order for full autonomy to begin at birth, you need to believe in magical thinking.

I don't have magical beliefs in this. Development is a gradual thing and there is a gray area where a fetus MUST transition into a fully protected individual. I think for humans consciousness is a good point to use. I'm open to others, just not a magical point like birth, when a viable birth can occur from 5-6 months to full term. a window that is 30-50% of the life span of the entity is so wide as to be meaningless. Why stop at birth then? Shouldn't the woman be allowed to decide to abort a 3 month old?

So women aren't able to make decisions on their own? You feel your decision will be better than theirs? I think that is bull. I think you want control of their body. I also think your decision will not be as good it will just be different.
you keep beating a straw man. This has nothing to do with control over a woman. It is all about the life of a third entity. An entity that contains slightly less than half it's genetic make up from the father.

A control freak is not someone who is allowed to make a decision on their own about their own life, it is someone who insists they get to make decisions about someone else's live.
exactly. And that is what abortion is all about. unless you believe in magical thinking that is.

Those national talk show jocks have ratings to boost and they do it by having you buy into their half backed ideas. The choice argument is not illogical at all. Pro-choice does not mean anti-life. It means that any woman has the right to be able to choose between carrying a fetus to term or terminating it the safest manner possible. That's the choice, not whether men get to avoid paying child support or not.Half baked? You keep arguing against something that I never said. I don't buy pro-life arguments. I don't buy the pro-choice arguments. It is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
For me I wish to keep the debate on that point. If you wish to keep using choice, I'll keep calling your argument meaningless.

I have already stated my view regarding this. I think it is important to keep late term abortions legal for women's health issues. I do not see late term abortions being the big problem that you claim they are. I do not see them being performed a lot and certainly no more than is medically necessary. Other people's health issues are theirs to decide, not mine.

I see abortion as a health issue for women, not as a religious issue or a political issue.
show me where a late term abotion is more useful than a c-section. And I do not make any claims that complications aren't valid reasons. Just that you call a spade a spade. Late term is more like murder. If it is done to save the life of the mother it is a justifiable murder and would be acceptable.

joobz

31st December 2006, 09:00 AM

Huntster

31st December 2006, 09:19 AM

....What it has to do with is allowing men to skip out on their responsibilities.....

Unbelieveable.

The woman has no "responsibility" to allow the child to live?

Huntster

31st December 2006, 09:21 AM

...It is only crazy for someone with control issues....

Who's the one with control issues here?

It is her body so she can choose to keep the child or abort it. That is the whole abortion issue in a nutshell. Some people feel they should have the right to tell women what to do with their own bodies.

If you'd notice, some here are concerned about the body of the fetus/child.

Roboramma

31st December 2006, 10:04 AM

However, as for equiviocating human and other animals, i disagree.
Humans are animals, that's true. We are no better, that is true. But I will always place humans above other animals, plants, bacteria.... That doesn't mean I don't value animals, just that I will always accept a human as better and will hold them to a higher standard. It is how I agree with animal cruelty laws and why we shouldn't try and arrest lions and wolves for murder.
Well, I'm not saying that humans and other animals are equal. I'm saying that humans and other animals should be judged on the same basis. The value that I put on human life, or human suffering, or human freedom, or whatever, is not put there because they are human per se, but rather because they have those properties that it just happens humans share. Which is why a zygote, though it may be human, doesn't deserve the same concideration.
Some other animals share some (though not all) of those properties, and deserve consideration for the same reasons that humans deserve considerration. But note, the degree to which they have those properties varies from one species to another. As I said, I wouldn't give gorillas the right to vote any more than I would give it to babies, and for the same reason.

Anyway, just trying to clarify in case that much wasn't clear, that I'm not saying humans and other animals are the same, or that they deserve the same moral consideration. Just that our moral consideration of one should be based on the same properties as it is for the other. While we are different from other animals, and that should inform our moral judgements, there is nothing magical about being human.

joobz

31st December 2006, 10:09 AM

Well, I'm not saying that humans and other animals are equal. I'm saying that humans and other animals should be judged on the same basis. The value that I put on human life, or human suffering, or human freedom, or whatever, is not put there because they are human per se, but rather because they have those properties that it just happens humans share. Which is why a zygote, though it may be human, doesn't deserve the same concideration.
Some other animals share some (though not all) of those properties, and deserve consideration for the same reasons that humans deserve considerration. But note, the degree to which they have those properties varies from one species to another. As I said, I wouldn't give gorillas the right to vote any more than I would give it to babies, and for the same reason.

Anyway, just trying to clarify in case that much wasn't clear, that I'm not saying humans and other animals are the same, or that they deserve the same moral consideration. Just that our moral consideration of one should be based on the same properties as it is for the other. While we are different from other animals, and that should inform our moral judgements, there is nothing magical about being human.
again, well stated. thank you for your posts.:)
I think i agree with your view. (still need to consider it a bit more);)

qayak

31st December 2006, 12:38 PM

In order for full autonomy to begin at birth, you need to believe in magical thinking.

No you don't. You just have to realize that any decision about this is going to be an arbitrary one. It is like saying that the age of majoriy is 18 in one area, 19 in another and 21 in yet another. These numbers are not based on anything, they are just arbitrary numbers based on judgements made by people who get to decide these issues. In the real world these distinctions are absurd and the courts even waffle by being allowed to raise children to adult court when they wish to.

The standards for abortion have been set and they are very good and work very well. Changing them will not make a better law, it will just satisfy a different segment of society.

I don't have magical beliefs in this. Development is a gradual thing and there is a gray area where a fetus MUST transition into a fully protected individual. I think for humans consciousness is a good point to use. I'm open to others, just not a magical point like birth, when a viable birth can occur from 5-6 months to full term. a window that is 30-50% of the life span of the entity is so wide as to be meaningless.

Why is birth any more magical than any point you wish to use? There are good reasons for having birth as the point and they have to do with a woman's choice to do as she wishes with her body which is what the right to abortion is based on. You want to start telling women all over again what they must do. Where does that slippery slope stop? When abortions are outlawed again?

Late term is more like murder. If it is done to save the life of the mother it is a justifiable murder and would be acceptable.

I don't see it as murder at all but this is the exact reason it needs to be kept legal. Thank you, that has been my whole point from the beginning.

qayak

31st December 2006, 12:51 PM

I don't pretend that my view is fully fleshed out - what, for instance, exactly are these "valued" qualities? Why are they valued? - but at least it's capable of being fleshed out.

Did you read the Sagan article I linked to? He goes through these "qualities" and offers up arguments for and against them. Great article.

In my area, late term abortions are only permitted when the health of the mother is at stake and, as far as I know, this is pretty much the standard. This is why I don't get Joobz' argument. He is arguing about a problem that doesn't exist. He has stated they should be available for health reasons which they are.

My point has been that the laws don't need changing because they already address all the issues.

joobz

31st December 2006, 01:24 PM

No you don't. You just have to realize that any decision about this is going to be an arbitrary one. It is like saying that the age of majoriy is 18 in one area, 19 in another and 21 in yet another. These numbers are not based on anything, they are just arbitrary numbers based on judgements made by people who get to decide these issues. In the real world these distinctions are absurd and the courts even waffle by being allowed to raise children to adult court when they wish to.
So it is all completely arbitrary? If we set the line at 1 year past birth as an acceptable point to off the individual, it would be equally acceptable?

The standards for abortion have been set and they are very good and work very well. Changing them will not make a better law, it will just satisfy a different segment of society. I do not see defining of life as something that is acceptably arbitrary. 18 and 21 are all clearly defined times. they are arbitary in what they mean, but they are equally weighed on all individuals. "Birth" can occur at any time over a wide gestational period.

Why is birth any more magical than any point you wish to use? There are good reasons for having birth as the point and they have to do with a woman's choice to do as she wishes with her body which is what the right to abortion is based on. You want to start telling women all over again what they must do. Where does that slippery slope stop? When abortions are outlawed again? "Choice" is a terrible argument. Choices have already been made.
The definition of when the developing life is considered important is the whole of the issue.

I don't see it as murder at all but this is the exact reason it needs to be kept legal. Thank you, that has been my whole point from the beginning. It is murder if it is a conscious life. your desire to ignore or minimize this point is completely irrational.

I haven't claimed to want to change laws. I'm only asking that the issue remains where it should be. When the views change it creates a setting to allow more irrational thought. Choice is just a terrible argument.

aries

31st December 2006, 03:56 PM

HI :)

When a fetus (child) gets legal rights is entirely up to US, meaning that it actually is up to the politicians (and the people) to decide this.

My personal opinion is that when the fetus is born, it's a baby, and thus it is a full fledged member of society, meaning that it is a person. It is not so hard to understand this. This was the position in the old days, say 50 or 100 years ago.

My position on abortion (provacatus) is that this decision best should be left up to the women, or the couple having the child. However, there could be times where I would advocate in favor of an abortion, i.e. if & when the child would be severly ill or be born with so many defects that it wouldn't get a good life. To be clear, it should still be the parent's decision whether or not they wanted to have this child...

As for the religious argument, I once a certain place in the old testament (as well as in the new, I think) where it clearly says that one is allowed to kill a child if it 'weak in the spirit' or something like that. You could then argue that if there were something wrong with the child/fetus, then abortion should be allowed.

Just to be clear: I'm for abortion, and for the woman's informed choice.

qayak

31st December 2006, 05:05 PM

So it is all completely arbitrary? If we set the line at 1 year past birth as an acceptable point to off the individual, it would be equally acceptable?

This is an absurd argument and I have refrained from addressing it. That you cannot see the problem with it and that you do not see the issue with applying the same nonsense to your argument leaves me wondering.

My reasoning is this. If people are allowed to infringe on a woman's rights in the least, they will try to completely infringe on them and eventually banning abortion. It is a slipper slope that has happened in the past.

You use a measure of "If A, then why not B." That can be applied to your argument as well. If we use you measure of 4-5 months, why not use the measure of 3-4 months? Or 2-3 months? . . . or moment of conception? Why not ban abortions?

I would rather err in favour of women's right to choose and believe that they are able to figure out the morality of the situation FOR THEMSELVES!

I do not see defining of life as something that is acceptably arbitrary. 18 and 21 are all clearly defined times.

18 , 19 and 21 are all ages of majority in various jurisdictions. If they were not arbitrary, there would only be one. That there are so many is proof that no one agrees on what defines the "age of majority." Each jurisdiction arbitrarily picks an age and uses it as the standard. They do not allow deviation, unless of course, it suits their purpose to charge a younger person in adult court. So, I live in an area with an age of 18 and I visit one with an age of 21, I am suddenly a kid again? Did I forget how to drink alcohol at the border? And vice versa, coming the other way, did I get a shot of maturity at the border?

You arbitrarily pick one time for life to begin for a set of reasons that I do not disagree with. I pick another set for different and equally valid reasons and that I believe more. The law picked another for its own reasons. In my view, although the law is not exactly what I want it to be, I think it is a very good compromise and I accept it, as do most other people.

"Choice" is a terrible argument. Choices have already been made.
The definition of when the developing life is considered important is the whole of the issue.

Choice is the only argument. It doesn't matter if other choices are made. It also doesn't matter that some dead beat can't choose not to pay child support. A woman's choice to do what she wants with her body is the primary concern in my opinion. Roe-vs-Wade didn't agree with me by the way.

It is murder if it is a conscious life. your desire to ignore or minimize this point is completely irrational.

Consciousness is not a decider at all. Aren't animals conscious?

Murder is defined as, the unlawful killing of one human being by another. By your definition, the hanging of Hussein is murder and killing in self defense is murder. Not true at all. Abortion is legal so it isn't murder.

I do not ignore it. I minimize it because I do not think it is the most important factor so I put it in its place of importance.

Thanks for the great discussion by the way. Happy New Year!

qayak

31st December 2006, 05:14 PM

When a fetus (child) gets legal rights is entirely up to US, meaning that it actually is up to the politicians (and the people) to decide this.

My personal opinion is that when the fetus is born, it's a baby, and thus it is a full fledged member of society, meaning that it is a person. It is not so hard to understand this. This was the position in the old days, say 50 or 100 years ago.

I agree 100%

My position on abortion (provacatus) is that this decision best should be left up to the women, or the couple having the child.

I agree again. And the only other person I would allow into the decision is the woman's doctor when advising on medical conditions.

To say that the father should have the right to force the mother to get an abortion or not get an abortion would seem to lead to others who have a biological stake in the family. Grandparents for example.

billydkid

31st December 2006, 05:55 PM

I give this a silliness rating of 9.5

Your argument against the Christian position (leaving aside your bizarre statement about the perceived futility of life) does not require age as a parameter and therefore is equally applicable to the concept of murder as abortion. Boiling down your argument you therefore appear to be asking why Christians consider murder to be a bad thing if it gives the victim a "ticket straight to heaven". Which brings us full circle to the silliness aspect because surely you don't expect an answer... do you?

If you accept the Christian premise that what matters is the afterlife and take that to it's logical conclusion then, yes, you would be doing a person a favor by murdering them. That is not my position. In fact, there are Christians who live essentially by this notion, choosing a life of sacrifice and misery in anticipation of the wonderful life they will have after death. The same sort of thing applies to Muslim suicide bombers. I think you will accept that the fundamental premise of Christianity is that this life is insignificant in comparison to the one we will have in heaven. And I don't think you really got what I was talking about. The argument made for prohibiting abortion at any stage is that the soul enters the body at conception. I do not see how this is pertinent to issue of whether or not abortion is permissible - you can't abort the soul no matter how hard you try.

joobz

1st January 2007, 10:08 AM

This is an absurd argument and I have refrained from addressing it. That you cannot see the problem with it and that you do not see the issue with applying the same nonsense to your argument leaves me wondering.

I agree it is absurd. But it is the logical extention of your argument. You place a magical line at birth between not-deserving rights and deserving of rights. and you equate the concept of voting and being allowed to drink as equal weight to being allowed not to be killed. I do not see these things in the same league at all.

My reasoning is this. If people are allowed to infringe on a woman's rights in the least, they will try to completely infringe on them and eventually banning abortion. It is a slipper slope that has happened in the past.

You use a measure of "If A, then why not B." That can be applied to your argument as well. If we use you measure of 4-5 months, why not use the measure of 3-4 months? Or 2-3 months? . . . or moment of conception? Why not ban abortions?

I would rather err in favour of women's right to choose and believe that they are able to figure out the morality of the situation FOR THEMSELVES!
Now this is an arugment I completely respect and understand. It is why I don't ask questions when there is no reason to consider the fetus as "conscious". I just hold to the notion that convienience shouldn't supercede the fetus' rights (if it is a conscious individual)

Consciousness is not a decider at all. Aren't animals conscious?
yeah they are. but they aren't human either. I place greater weight on a human conscious life than on a animal conscious life. BUt I'm an admitted speiciest.:)

Murder is defined as, the unlawful killing of one human being by another. By your definition, the hanging of Hussein is murder and killing in self defense is murder. Not true at all. Abortion is legal so it isn't murder.I'm not a laywer, so I'll take your word for it. But there does seem to be distinctions between murder/man slaughter... I was just lumping it all together.

Thanks for the great discussion by the way. Happy New Year!
Thank you, gayak. I too have enjoyed our discussion. I completely respect your views and opinions and look forward to more of your posts ini the future. :)

Huntster

1st January 2007, 11:17 AM

....Murder is defined as, the unlawful killing of one human being by another. By your definition, the hanging of Hussein is murder and killing in self defense is murder. Not true at all. Abortion is legal so it isn't murder.....

A sentence of death issued by a court is not legal?

Self-defense is not legal?

Yet "abortion is legal"?

Want to try that again, Perry Mason?

Huntster

1st January 2007, 11:25 AM

....To say that the father should have the right to force the mother to get an abortion or not get an abortion would seem to lead to others who have a biological stake in the family. Grandparents for example.

Nobody is arguing that fathers and/or grandparents should have the authority to "force the mother to get an abortion".

The anti-abortion side is simply pointing out the abuse of justice and righteousness by allowing abortion in the first place.

joobz

1st January 2007, 11:26 AM

A sentence of death issued by a court is not legal?

Self-defense is not legal?

Yet "abortion is legal"?

Want to try that again, Perry Mason?
Hi huntster, This isn't what gayak is saying. He is stating that my calling selfdefense and court issued death as murder is wrong. They are legal, so it isn't murder.

Huntster

1st January 2007, 11:28 AM

If you accept the Christian premise that what matters is the afterlife and take that to it's logical conclusion then, yes, you would be doing a person a favor by murdering them. That is not my position. In fact, there are Christians who live essentially by this notion, choosing a life of sacrifice and misery in anticipation of the wonderful life they will have after death. The same sort of thing applies to Muslim suicide bombers.

Do you have evidence of that claim?

Like "Christian suicide bombers"?

The argument made for prohibiting abortion at any stage is that the soul enters the body at conception. I do not see how this is pertinent to issue of whether or not abortion is permissible - you can't abort the soul no matter how hard you try.

Would you entertain the possibilitiy that some Christians (me) oppose abortion because it's, quite simply, snuffing out an innocent, helpless human life?

Huntster

1st January 2007, 11:32 AM

Hi huntster, This isn't what gayak is saying. He is stating that my calling selfdefense and court issued death as murder is wrong. They are legal, so it isn't murder.

Whoops!

Thanks for the correction. I'm scanning, not reading.

My bad............

billydkid

1st January 2007, 05:36 PM

Do you have evidence of that claim?

Like "Christian suicide bombers"?

Would you entertain the possibilitiy that some Christians (me) oppose abortion because it's, quite simply, snuffing out an innocent, helpless human life?

Since the earliest Christians times there have groups of acetic types, self flagelaters and such. There is a clear distinction between the earthly and the heavenly, the profane and the sacred at the heart of Christianity. The flesh is sinful. Don't accumulate your treasure here on earth and such. Christianity has always been an anti-nature religion, because nature like all earthly things are corrupt.

In the first post I think I said that one of the arguments Christians make against abortion is that the soul enters the body at conception - and that argument is made. I simply pointed out that the soul is not germaine to the issue being discussed. Also, I agree we should not snuff out innocent human life (although this whole "innocent" thing is kind of nutty, not that fetuses are not innocent, but what makes them innocent is merely the fact that they haven't experienced anything. I guess the moment we take our first breath we begin to lose our innocence. I guess in order to remain innocent we must try to stay in the fetal condition.)

Is a blastula an innocent, helpless human life? Not by any reasonable standard I can think of. Is a zygot the size of a brine shrimp an innocent, helpless human? How about one the size of a jumbo shrimp? As a general principle I also oppose abortion. That does not mean that I get to decide for other people whether or not they can have them. At a certain point I would agree that a fetus becomes human. I don't believe a woman should be allowed to abort a baby at 8 months except under special circumstance. The mere fact that a baby is inside of a womans body does not make it part of the womans body. I have no idea where the cutoff point should be, but I believe there should be one. There is a range of development when the fetus is clearly a baby and there is a range when it clearly is not. I think the issue should be to decide what is reasonable both in terms of the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother.

blutoski

1st January 2007, 07:10 PM

In the first post I think I said that one of the arguments Christians make against abortion is that the soul enters the body at conception - and that argument is made.

As an historical sidenote: even within the Catholic church, this has not always been the case. St. Thomas Aquinas published his opinion that only a third-trimester fetus was human, and the church accepted first-and-second trimester abortions without concern.

The reasoning behind this was Aquinas' examination of stillborns and spontaneously aborted fetuses. At the time, the naturalistic philosophy considered things to be part of a category if they resembled others in that category. First and second trimester fetuses did not resemble children, so were considered nonhuman.

Aquinas further enhanced this by speculating that the world had three kinds of souls: a vegetative soul, an animal soul, and a human soul. Humans had all three, and were given them in, respectively, the first, second, and third trimesters. Therefore, a third-trimester abortion was murder, but first and second trimester abortions were considered the moral equivalent of killing plants and animals.

This wasn't the end of the debate, though: there was always an element in the church that considered sperm to be sacred. This group were advocates of the homunclear theory. They were a minority until the invention of the microscope, and somebody claimed to see a little man curled up inside a sperm. From that point on, their argument was buttressed with "scientific evidence" and they have prevailed since, although the scientific argument has dropped.

So, this is a distinction between the Catholic and Protestant interpretation. Catholics have historical inertia protecting sperm.

Not to derail the thread, but there are entire books on this subject: it's not a new topic for moral philosophers. Be sure to look up arguments such as the Thomson to see that the question of whether a fetus is human does not necessarily inform whether or not abortion can be considered morally acceptable. Thomson has disengaged these questions.

blutoski

1st January 2007, 07:16 PM

Since the earliest Christians times there have groups of acetic types, self flagelaters and such.

IIRC: martyrs are held in high regard.

However, Christians are more apt to spare themselves and kill others for the cause. Martyrdom aside, suicide is considered a sin rather than an honour. Hypatia. Crusades. Inquisition. Old discussion.

Huntster

1st January 2007, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Do you have evidence of that claim?

Like "Christian suicide bombers"?

Would you entertain the possibilitiy that some Christians (me) oppose abortion because it's, quite simply, snuffing out an innocent, helpless human life?

Since the earliest Christians times there have groups of acetic types, self flagelaters and such. There is a clear distinction between the earthly and the heavenly, the profane and the sacred at the heart of Christianity. The flesh is sinful. Don't accumulate your treasure here on earth and such. Christianity has always been an anti-nature religion, because nature like all earthly things are corrupt.

Rubbish (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=1&SecNum=1&ChapNum=1&articlenum=0&ParSecNum=0&subSecNum=2&headernum=0&ParNum=32&ParType=a):

The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. 7

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change? 8

In the first post I think I said that one of the arguments Christians make against abortion is that the soul enters the body at conception - and that argument is made. I simply pointed out that the soul is not germaine to the issue being discussed.

In terms of legality, that is correct.

In terms of morality, it does.

Also, I agree we should not snuff out innocent human life (although this whole "innocent" thing is kind of nutty, not that fetuses are not innocent, but what makes them innocent is merely the fact that they haven't experienced anything.

What I mean by "innocent" is that he/she has no say in the matter, and is totally reliant on the laws of the land and morals of the mother.

Maybe "helpless" is a better term to illustrate the fetus.......

...As a general principle I also oppose abortion. That does not mean that I get to decide for other people whether or not they can have them....

That is true of me, as well.

But I do have a vote, I do have the right to petition government, and I do so.

At a certain point I would agree that a fetus becomes human. I don't believe a woman should be allowed to abort a baby at 8 months except under special circumstance. The mere fact that a baby is inside of a womans body does not make it part of the womans body. I have no idea where the cutoff point should be, but I believe there should be one.

I don't.

It has already become a legal/political game. Make it illegal, and let those who wish to engage in the practice do so in the closet, where the practice belongs.

I think the issue should be to decide what is reasonable both in terms of the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother.

That would be the obvious thing to do to arrive at a settlement which might prove reasonable to the majority, but the zealots on both sides will never be quieted completely.

The best thing to do would be the moral thing, then deal with the immoral........

thaiboxerken

2nd January 2007, 11:24 AM

The best thing to do would be the moral thing, then deal with the immoral........

You mean the christian thing.

Huntster

2nd January 2007, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
The best thing to do would be the moral thing, then deal with the immoral........
You mean the christian thing.

No, I don't.

Christianity really has little to do with it, even though Christians have much to do with it.

I guess you just wouldn't understand.

thaiboxerken

2nd January 2007, 08:18 PM

No, I don't.

Christianity really has little to do with it, even though Christians have much to do with it.

I guess you just wouldn't understand.

Yes, you mean christian. To you morality IS christianity and vice versa.

Huntster

2nd January 2007, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, I don't.

Christianity really has little to do with it, even though Christians have much to do with it.

I guess you just wouldn't understand.
Yes, you mean christian. To you morality IS christianity and vice versa.

Then I guess I'm a very immoral guy.

Unless you believe in Christianity and forgiveness of sin..............

kurious_kathy

3rd January 2007, 09:27 AM

Yes, you mean christian. To you morality IS christianity and vice versa.
Morality and Christianity are not the same thing. People can be plenty moral but all are still sinners when contrasted with Gods holiness. This is a whole spiritual awareness issue that can only happen when God opens someones heart and mind up to the spiritual truths that need to awaken ones soul.

And to make another point Christians come to the realization that we will be judged or rewarded according to the way we judged or treated others in this life. People need to strive to rid themselves of double mindedness and double standards. Can you see why Christianity isn't for wimps?

joobz

3rd January 2007, 09:56 AM

And to make another point Christians come to the realization that we will be judged or rewarded according to the way we judged or treated others in this life. People need to strive to rid themselves of double mindedness and double standards. Can you see why Christianity isn't for wimps?
A person can be moral but if they don't accept or even know of christ will go to hell.

Yet a christian who was completely amoral but was honestly sorry for thier actions before death will (presumably) go to heaven.

Isn't this a double standard?

thaiboxerken

3rd January 2007, 10:24 AM

What they really mean is that a person need not be christian to do the correct, christian, action. But, they will still go to hell.

Silly Green Monkey

4th January 2007, 10:47 PM

Morality is completely different from legality. Morals are an individual choice, which are then imposed on other individuals by force or by coercion. Legal rights and responsibilities are decided by a government and enforced on those who the government serves.

Human rights are not inherent, we grant them. Rights are granted to Persons. Persons are legally defined, and their rights are guaranteed by the government which grants the rights. A Person is a legal entity, not an inherent entity.

Those who grant the rights to Persons get to choose who they deem Persons. When the US was founded, only a small subset of humans were Persons. Morals were still applied to everyone, but most were not Persons. Even now, not everyone are Persons. Those who can not carry out their rights and responsibilities of being a Person are not expected to.

Does the US government say that the unborn are Persons, and therefore deserving of rights?

joobz

5th January 2007, 12:29 AM

clarsct

5th January 2007, 12:52 AM

Sorry I missed a goodly portion of all this, I kinda lost the thread somewhere along the lines......

joobz:
I am sorry, but I must, respectfully, disagree with you. Most of the Pro-Life material I have seen and read has had a lot more to do with controlling women than with protecting life. The same politicians who support an abortion ban seem to vote for the cutting of educational spending. If you're pre-natal, you're gold, if you're pre-school, you're f**ked. The welfare of the child means very little to these talking heads, I assure you. I am not saying this is your position, it is merely something I have noted, in general. For that reason, I cannot support these ......people.

My second argument hinges on a book called Freakonomics, in which there is a discussion of the massive drop in crime in the late 90's. From the data and the studies done, the author concludes that the drop in crime is due to Roe V. Wade. The unwantedness of the child is a direct indicator of whether or not he will turn to violent crime. I understand this is a controversial claim, and one you may have heard before, but I would recommend the book to you...there may even be a website, I am not sure.

And lastly, the rights of the living take precedence over the rights of the unborn. It's just the way I view things.

I consider you child support arguement to be spurious. The courts decide, and that's the way things are. If you're upset that the law favors the mother, then petition to have the law changed. The courts merely interpret the law. I fail to see how it enters into this debate.

joobz

5th January 2007, 01:20 AM

joobz:
I am sorry, but I must, respectfully, disagree with you. Most of the Pro-Life material I have seen and read has had a lot more to do with controlling women than with protecting life. The same politicians who support an abortion ban seem to vote for the cutting of educational spending. If you're pre-natal, you're gold, if you're pre-school, you're f**ked. The welfare of the child means very little to these talking heads, I assure you. I am not saying this is your position, it is merely something I have noted, in general. For that reason, I cannot support these ......people.
This is immaterial. The motives of others who claim pro-life are not my concern. One could also argue that the pro-choice movement is a for pure convenience and control of women over men. But this doesn't matter. The issue is: is a fetus a human life worthy of consideration? there must be a line drawn that says this life is worthy of protection, this one isn't. I think the line we draw for the fetus can also apply for brain dead people as well. Consciousness makes sense. (unless you start arguing what is conscoiusness). ;)
But to claim that Birth is the magical delineation between a person and a thing is just rediculous. With that thought, is a c-section delivery less alive then natural child birth? This is just silly.

My second argument hinges on a book called Freakonomics, in which there is a discussion of the massive drop in crime in the late 90's. From the data and the studies done, the author concludes that the drop in crime is due to Roe V. Wade. The unwantedness of the child is a direct indicator of whether or not he will turn to violent crime. I understand this is a controversial claim, and one you may have heard before, but I would recommend the book to you...there may even be a website, I am not sure.
I can't speak on this issue, but if this is the case, why not round up and kill all unwanted children that are still being born? Seems like it'd do us a whole lot of good.:rolleyes:

And lastly, the rights of the living take precedence over the rights of the unborn. It's just the way I view things. fair enough, but who says the unborn isn't alive.

I consider you child support arguement to be spurious. The courts decide, and that's the way things are.
same with abortion. Because it's a law makes it right? that's a poor argument.

If you're upset that the law favors the mother, then petition to have the law changed. The courts merely interpret the law. I fail to see how it enters into this debate.I'm not upset. I think this law is correct. The child's life is what matters. I'm simply stating that one argument follows logically from the other. It's the pure reason WHY the pro-choice stance on abortion makes absolutely no sense.

BTW, thank you for your post. I greatly admire your politeness.:)

Silly Green Monkey

5th January 2007, 01:27 AM

clarsct

5th January 2007, 02:03 AM

Just to blur the lines further:
Legal schizophrenia:
Abortion is legal, but if a man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach, and she loses the child, he will be charged for endangering child's life.
(as well as assaulting her)

Morality should not be legislated. The legal system is a good system for ethics, a poor system for morals.

joobz: I do try to be polite, until a person proves they do not warrant such treatment.

I understand that their morals aren't really attached to the issue, but their morals do force me into a course of action, and that course is currently pro-choice, at least politically.

Once again, living means they are a viable human infant or older that is not yet dead. Killing unwanted children would be reprehensible; aborting a fetus is not. These are morally different circumstances. Once a fetus can live on its own outside the womb, then abortion isn't an option. First trimester abortions are okay...third or later are not. There is a difference.
If this line seems arbitrary to you, then consider that the woman was raped. It isn't the kid's fault, but should we make the woman carry the child? Many pro-lifers say no.

Why? Why would that be?

Because we care for the living. Those who are here and making a difference, those who are thriving and surviving in the world at large.

We are biased. We are all pro-life, as it were. No one grouses about the rights of the dead, and you don't see many dead people grousing about the rights of the living.(anti-desecration laws are for the living, not the dead, BTW)

Is our focus wrong? I do not think so. Those who are thriving in the world are more important than those who are not. This is a practical belief that most of us hold almost instinctively. To construct some tortured arguement for the right of those not yet born into the world seems a bit flawed to me.

After all, if the yet to be born really have rights, then why isn't someone suing the hell out of people for polluting their enviroment, or running up their national debt? Isn't that intruding upon their rights? Do we not owe them our stewardship of this precious blue gem?

Huntster

5th January 2007, 09:26 AM

What they really mean is that a person need not be christian to do the correct, christian, action. But, they will still go to hell.

They seek Hell. They demand Hell. They want it:

HELL: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h)

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

joobz

5th January 2007, 09:31 AM

I don't think it's moral relativism. Legal definitions simply have no bearing on moral decisions, and vice versa. Anyone can say that the unborn are alive and must be protected, but they are not Persons under the law. Their not being Persons is not immoral, it's just a legal definition. Their legal status has nothing to do with whether or not their lives should be protected. Morality is individual, legal definitions are statewide. Laws don't make things right, they make them legal. That's the blurred line I tried to draw sharply in this thread.

I agree that a law doesn't make something moral, but most laws are based on societal morality.

You statement that "Their not being Persons is not immoral, it's just a legal definition" confuses me. It would be like saying "A slave not being equal to a whole person isn't immoral, it's just a legal definition."

How is this not a relativist argument?

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 09:37 AM

from thaiboxerken:

What they really mean is that a person need not be christian to do the correct, christian, action. But, they will still go to hell.
================================================== ========
from Hunster:

They seek Hell. They demand Hell. They want it:

HELL (per the RCC) = The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

This tidbit raised the completely trivial question in my mind about golf courses in the afterlife. Which would the tougher, the courses in Hell or in Heaven?

A good golfer loves a good challenge, so one might suspect the Heavenly Acres Golf Course to the the tougher layout. On the other hand, Pete Dye is said to be a sadistic golf architect, which would make him prime candidate to design The Satanic National Golf Links.

All I came up with is that one need not bring a one iron to Heaven, per the old Lee Trevino joke, :D and that in Hell, every putt would be downhill. :p

DR

Huntster

5th January 2007, 09:53 AM

This tidbit raised the completely trivial question in my mind about golf courses in the afterlife. Which would the tougher, the courses in Hell or in Heaven?....

I hate golf. I hope it will be left here.

.....All I came up with is that one need not bring a one iron to Heaven, per the old Lee Trevino joke, and that in Hell, every putt would be downhill.

If faith is required to achieve Heaven, no iron would be necessary in Heaven. One simply wills the ball to enter the hole, and the ball achieves it in accordance with faith.

BlackCat

5th January 2007, 01:36 PM

Just to blur the lines further:
Legal schizophrenia:
Abortion is legal, but if a man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach, and she loses the child, he will be charged for endangering child's life.
(as well as assaulting her)
There is a difference between abortion and the example you gave. The difference is consent. In abortion, the mother is consenting to having the fetus killed. In the example(presumably), she is not, and had planned to carry the child full-term. Of course, the line could be blurred by examples of "she was on her way to the abortion clinic, when she was hit by a drunk driver and subsequently miscarried." I don't really know what to say about that, and am not really here to argue about it.

Silly Green Monkey

5th January 2007, 02:17 PM

I agree that a law doesn't make something moral, but most laws are based on societal morality.

You statement that "Their not being Persons is not immoral, it's just a legal definition" confuses me. It would be like saying "A slave not being equal to a whole person isn't immoral, it's just a legal definition."

How is this not a relativist argument?

Having now looked up the definition, I'd say it was. Laws are based on societal morality, which is not only not constant across societies, it is not constant within society. At the time slaves were not considered Persons under the law, the morals held by society did not consider slavery wrong. We say it's wrong now, and have changed the laws to reflect that.

Laws do not enforce morality, however. Something being declared illegal is not automatically wrong, just as something not illegal is not right. We can say that the law is wrong or right, we can say that the actions are wrong or right, but what is legal or illegal is determined by the law. It is pointless to support a moral position with a legal definition.

skeptifem

5th January 2007, 03:02 PM

One could also argue that the pro-choice movement is a for pure convenience and control of women over men.

you could, but it would be a terrible argument.

skeptifem

5th January 2007, 03:04 PM

Just to blur the lines further:
Legal schizophrenia:
Abortion is legal, but if a man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach, and she loses the child, he will be charged for endangering child's life.
(as well as assaulting her)

i disagree. after all, consentual sex is legal, but rape is not, and I happen to agree with that notion. consenting to what happens in your body is important to most people. its just that there arent any better laws to prosecute under in the events that you discussed.

joobz

5th January 2007, 04:00 PM

you could, but it would be a terrible argument.
I fully agree. That's why I think clarsct and gayak's use of the pro-choice version is equally wrong.

kurious_kathy

5th January 2007, 06:23 PM

A person can be moral but if they don't accept or even know of christ will go to hell.

Yet a christian who was completely amoral but was honestly sorry for thier actions before death will (presumably) go to heaven.

Isn't this a double standard?
No God's free gift of salavation is only found through the power of the cross. Have you ever nelt before Christ hanging there on that cross for your sins? Until you do you'll never understand.

A person can and does repent at different times in there life. It's when a person comes to acknowledge Christ that makes them become re-born spritually to the truth of salvation.

God's word has the power to awaken ones soul when they truly decide to believe. Not a double standard, a new beginning. People truly do change when they come to know and follow Christ. And I'm not saying everyone who is a believer is perfect, but we start seeing things the way God sees them better and we truly want to walk away from a life of sin that is considered being wordly. Anyone at anytime can choose to turn to God for forgiveness.

joobz

5th January 2007, 07:20 PM

No God's free gift of salavation is only found through the power of the cross. Have you ever nelt before Christ hanging there on that cross for your sins? Until you do you'll never understand.
I'm not certain what you mean by this accusation. I'm Greek Orthodox (still, maybe...:o ) and am christian. I'm currently doubting very strongly the faith. Mainly because it makes no sense. Hearing your views on the subject has actually strengthen my questioning resolve.

According to you, all of the indians who never heard of christ, all of the Aztecs, All of the tribes that never heard of christ are instantly denied entrance to heaven and doomed to eternal torment because they weren't lucky enough to be alive when people knew of christ?

I know the common belief that god will make exceptions, but why? If he has these rules why make exceptions? But let's pretend he does.
1.) Why did god spread the word in such a horrible inefficient method? Giving his son in one location at one moment in time seems like a fairly poor choice.

2.) What about children raised in another faith? They are given an extra barrier to salvation than what is afforded to children who happen to be born of christian families. This seems extremely unfair. Even as a kid, I knew that if I was raised as a muslim, I'd be muslim. Purely out of love for my family first and foremost. God would punish such behavior, despite the tenet of Honor thy mother and father Seems like rejection of their faith is by and large one of thegreatest ways to "not honor them."

I was forced to change my belief that if god actually was this way, I hated him. I decided as a kid that this must have been wrong. So I created my own internal version of christianity that prevented god from being such a jerk. afterall, I did (do?) believe that god is love.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 01:29 AM

I fully agree. That's why I think clarsct and gayak's use of the pro-choice version is equally wrong.

Two different situations. No control is being asserted on any man when a woman is given a choice to have an abortion or not. However, restriction of choice is force and conrol over the woman.

joobz

6th January 2007, 09:14 AM

Two different situations. No control is being asserted on any man when a woman is given a choice to have an abortion or not. However, restriction of choice is force and conrol over the woman.
That was the second control situation i was refering to.
If a women choses to have the baby, she exerts control over the man by forcing him to legally care for the baby.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 09:33 AM

He should be at the mercy of the mother since he knocked her up. Again, the man is not doing much for the child if he doesn't want to. The most he'll have to do give a bit of money.

joobz

6th January 2007, 09:40 AM

He should be at the mercy of the mother since he knocked her up. Again, the man is not doing much for the child if he doesn't want to. The most he'll have to do give a bit of money.If the woman was an unwilling participant, or if we believe that women are not the emotional/mental equals to men, then I agree.
However, in the circumstances most prevalent, the woman is a willing participant.

I think the choice argument is just flawed becuase it tries to circumvent the importance of the "fetus is a person" debate. As though it is allowable to kill something else out of a convenience.

Huntster

6th January 2007, 09:49 AM

He should be at the mercy of the mother since he knocked her up.

And she should be at the mercy of the child since she got knocked up (unless she was raped).

Again, the man is not doing much for the child if he doesn't want to.

The laws are clear; he is legally required to financially support the child for 18 years, or more, and running to other states or even some nations to avoid the liability won't work.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 10:09 AM

And she should be at the mercy of the child since she got knocked up (unless she was raped).

A fetus is not a child.

Huntster

6th January 2007, 10:15 AM

A fetus is not a child.

It will become a child (just like how children become adults), unless (of course) somebody kills it.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 10:36 AM

It will become a child (just like how children become adults), unless (of course) somebody kills it.

What it may become doesn't matter.

joobz

6th January 2007, 10:44 AM

What it may become doesn't matter.
Very true. That's why I focus on what it is. Not all points in fetal development are equal. Current view states that third trimester is the dividing line. I ask that this get re-evaluated based upon modern medicine. If we use conciousness as the marker, is there newer data to provide insight into whether or not the line should be moved?

in the two extreme views, life begins at conception or at birth. The conception people have a leg up in the logic department.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 10:56 AM

in the two extreme views, life begins at conception or at birth. The conception people have a leg up in the logic department.

Who claims that life begins at birth? INDEPENDANCE begins at birth.

joobz

6th January 2007, 11:05 AM

Who claims that life begins at birth? INDEPENDANCE begins at birth.
what type of independance begins at birth?

Huntster

6th January 2007, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
What it may become doesn't matter.
Very true. That's why I focus on what it is.

And that is homo sapien. Human.

It can be no other.

What we're debating here is a matter of age.

joobz

6th January 2007, 11:30 AM

And that is homo sapien. Human.

It can be no other.

What we're debating here is a matter of age.
No-one ever said it wasn't human. At least I haven't. But all the cells in our body are human cells. that's not the issue.

I see no problem destroying a feritlized egg. Why? becuase it hasn't resulted in any consiousness yet. it hadn't reached a stage where it can start to be aware. Just like I would see no problem terminating a brain dead patient.

RandFan

6th January 2007, 11:44 AM

Very true. That's why I focus on what it is. Not all points in fetal development are equal. Current view states that third trimester is the dividing line. I ask that this get re-evaluated based upon modern medicine. If we use conciousness as the marker, is there newer data to provide insight into whether or not the line should be moved?

in the two extreme views, life begins at conception or at birth. The conception people have a leg up in the logic department.I disagree. I think it's like asking when does day precisely become night. I don't think it is at all possible to delineate when "life" begins (of course that depends on one's definition of "life").

In any event. Folks don't have a problem killing live cells on their bodies (removing warts for example). A wart is a combination of cells that have a complete compliment of DNA. Most folks don't have any hang ups about the fact that we regularly lose (involuntarily at worst) sperm and egg. It's just no big deal.

So, the fact that a sperm comes into contact with an egg means absolutely nothing to me. There is no argument that I know of to deem a single cell that is the result of meiosis human life. Following that, a blastocyst has fewer cells than the brain of a fruit fly. A fruit fly is a far cry from human life. Following that comes implantation and then the first trimester. I don't see any of these stages as life and I've yet to hear an argument that would compel me based on reason alone that it is human life. Sometime in the 2nd trimester the fetus crosses a threshold. I don't know precisely when that is. No one does. I can say, that to me, after the threshold is crossed then that is human life.

joobz

6th January 2007, 12:35 PM

I disagree. I think it's like asking when does day precisely become night. I don't think it is at all possible to delineate when "life" begins (of course that depends on one's definition of "life").

In any event. Folks don't have a problem killing live cells on their bodies (removing warts for example). A wart is a combination of cells that have a complete compliment of DNA. Most folks don't have any hang ups about the fact that we regularly lose (involuntarily at worst) sperm and egg. It's just no big deal.

So, the fact that a sperm comes into contact with an egg means absolutely nothing to me. There is no argument that I know of to deem a single cell that is the result of meiosis human life. Following that, a blastocyst has fewer cells than the brain of a fruit fly. A fruit fly is a far cry from human life. Following that comes implantation and then the first trimester. I don't see any of these stages as life and I've yet to hear an argument that would compel me based on reason alone that it is human life. Sometime in the 2nd trimester the fetus crosses a threshold. I don't know precisely when that is. No one does. I can say, that to me, after the threshold is crossed then that is human life.
I think you missunderstand my point. I think fertilization is a clear initiation point that is fairly consistent. I do not claim that it is a good definition for considering it a protected life. Birth on the otherhand is an event that can occur over a range of time during the course of fetal development. To state that life (or independance) begins there is wholly illogical.

RandFan

6th January 2007, 12:49 PM

I think you missunderstand my point. I think fertilization is a clear initiation point that is fairly consistent. I do not claim that it is a good definition for considering it a protected life. Birth on the otherhand is an event that can occur over a range of time during the course of fetal development. To state that life (or independance) begins there is wholly illogical.Fair enough. Thanks.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 02:57 PM

To state that life (or independance) begins there is wholly illogical.

Wrong, the heath of the fetus is still highly dependen the health of the host.

Foster Zygote

6th January 2007, 03:39 PM

Wrong, the heath of the fetus is still highly dependen the health of the host.

???

skeptifem

6th January 2007, 04:56 PM

And she should be at the mercy of the child since she got knocked up (unless she was raped).
I would say that having to pay out of pocket for a mistake montly (and thats as far as it legally has to go) is a much smaller life event than having something in your body that you dont want there that changes your body forever. I would imagine being forced into pregnancy is a traumatic event, much like being forced into sex is.

The laws are clear; he is legally required to financially support the child for 18 years, or more, and running to other states or even some nations to avoid the liability won't work.

It is not completely fair, but its as fair as its going to get unfortunatley. Biology isnt fair either, and thats what creates the whole problem. I wish there was a way for the situation to be fair to everyone, but when you look at the options the father losing out on some money is the most fair solution.

joobz

6th January 2007, 06:27 PM

Wrong, the heath of the fetus is still highly dependen the health of the host.
I"m not sure what you are driving at here.

The health of a 4 month old is still "highly dependant" on the mom. There isn't anything magical about the placental connection to the mother, otherwise surrogates wouldn't be possible. The placental mode of gestational development is merely a quirk of being a mammal. Once the ball gets rolling, we need to define life (or what is considered protected life) by the features of the entity being developed, not some arbitary goalpost like birth.

joobz

6th January 2007, 06:35 PM

I would say that having to pay out of pocket for a mistake montly (and thats as far as it legally has to go) is a much smaller life event than having something in your body that you dont want there that changes your body forever. depends on how much you make, where you work, what your Baby's mommy is like. I would imagine being forced into pregnancy is a traumatic event, much like being forced into sex is.Being forced to have really dangly earlobes is unfair as well. But if you use spacers, well there are consequences of actions. We can't ignore the fetus being developed either just because it is convienient.

It is not completely fair, but its as fair as its going to get unfortunatley. Biology isnt fair either, and thats what creates the whole problem. I wish there was a way for the situation to be fair to everyone, but when you look at the options the father losing out on some money is the most fair solution.
I agree, biology isn't fair. The fact that a fetus is completely ignored in this argument is the least fair. Again, I think we should be willing to reevaluate what we consider the key gestational point that define's a fetus as a protected individual. Birth is not only unfair, but an unjust dividing line.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 07:26 PM

We can't ignore the fetus being developed either just because it is convienient.

No, but the mother should be allowed to abort it for ANY reason. It is, after all, just a biological growth of her own body.

Foster Zygote

6th January 2007, 07:33 PM

No, but the mother should be allowed to abort it for ANY reason. It is, after all, just a biological growth of her own body.

But the fetus has its own unique DNA. The way you say "growth of her own body" makes it sound like the fetus is a tumor or something.

joobz

6th January 2007, 07:36 PM

No, but the mother should be allowed to abort it for ANY reason. It is, after all, just a biological growth of her own body.bolding mine.
No, it isn't. It contains nearly 50% of it's DNA from another source. It isn't at all a growth of her body. it is a seperate entity. I have no problem with abortion if this entity isn't progressed to any state that would make it conscious. However, to claim that anything goes up to the magical point of birth is illogical. As it was mentioned above, biology isn't fair. I don't claim that it isn't a difficult situation to be a mother. But it isn't fair to an entity developing if it had reached a stage of viability to be considered immaterial simply because it is convienient to the mother. If we allow this, there are many situations that we can innact killing as acceptable simply because of convienience. But we don't because we recognise the autonomy and rights of human beings.

The critical issue is what makes a person worthy of rights. Simply saying "birth" isn't an answer, it's a dodge. It is a moving goal post. You provide rights to premeies that aren't given to late stage briths. this is completely an irrational view.

thaiboxerken

6th January 2007, 07:54 PM

But the fetus has its own unique DNA.

So?

The way you say "growth of her own body" makes it sound like the fetus is a tumor or something.

To some women, it might be considered as such. Shouldn't they be allowed to make decisions about what they want to happen within their own bodies?

And no, joobs, it's not it's own separate entity until it leaves the womb. You keep accusing me of being illogical, yet you have not produced any evidence of this. You simply disagree with my view. I'm staying logically consistent. A person should have sole rights over their own body and those things that are growing within it. A fetus is not a person, it doesn't think, it's not it's own entity, it is a growth.

Foster Zygote

6th January 2007, 08:19 PM

So?

To some women, it might be considered as such. Shouldn't they be allowed to make decisions about what they want to happen within their own bodies?

And no, joobs, it's not it's own separate entity until it leaves the womb. You keep accusing me of being illogical, yet you have not produced any evidence of this. You simply disagree with my view. I'm staying logically consistent. A person should have sole rights over their own body and those things that are growing within it. A fetus is not a person, it doesn't think, it's not it's own entity, it is a growth.

So the fetus starts to think the moment it is born? Are you saying that there is a measurable cognitive difference between an infant 5 seconds before it is born and five seconds after? What evidence can you provide that there is any difference in an infants brain just prior to and just after birth? It seems to me that you are the one who has failed to provide evidence. I fully agree with Joobz that a zygote has no consciousness (present company excluded) but that a newborn infant does. The newborn certainly isn't thinking about much but it is conscious. What occurs at the moment of birth to cause an infant to suddenly become conscious? If you can't demonstrate some difference in the brain of an infant just before and just after birth then using the moment of birth as the point that defines the moment that consciousness begins is a completely arbitrary metric. Isn't it logical to assume that at some point between conception and delivery a baby's brain develops to the point that it becomes conscious? Until we can determine exactly when that occurs isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution?

joobz

6th January 2007, 08:28 PM

And no, joobs, it's not it's own separate entity until it leaves the womb. You keep accusing me of being illogical, yet you have not produced any evidence of this. You simply disagree with my view. I'm staying logically consistent. consistent, yes. logical, no. How is a full term 9 month old not alive and a 5 month premature birth alive? Do you believe that a 9month old fetus isn't a fully developed baby until it passes through the birth canal? again, where is the magic in birth?

A person should have sole rights over their own body and those things that are growing within it. A fetus is not a person, it doesn't think, it's not it's own entity, it is a growth.
Please explain how it's a growth, not an entity? Please explain to me what magical event occurs that makes a fetus wonderously alive upon birth, but still a "thing" in the womb? what property is embued into a fetus at the moment of birth that gives it all of these wonderful things like consiousness, functional independance, ability to think? Do C-sections impart these same miraculous features?

Huntster

6th January 2007, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And that is homo sapien. Human.

It can be no other.

What we're debating here is a matter of age.
No-one ever said it wasn't human.

Thaiboxerken tried. Check out his sig line.

Of course, he screwed it up...........

At least I haven't. But all the cells in our body are human cells. that's not the issue.

Yes, it is.

If it's alive (heartbeat), and if the pregnancy is intended to be terminated, the fetus must be killed.

By definition, that's homicide.

Period.

I see no problem destroying a feritlized egg. Why? becuase it hasn't resulted in any consiousness yet.

The "consciousness" game is a really neat way to inject doubt and uncertainty into the mix, but it's irrelevant.

When it has a heartbeat, it's alive.

In order to terminate the pregnancy after that point, the fetus must be killed.

That's homicide.

Period.

it hadn't reached a stage where it can start to be aware.

Some people don't achieve "awareness" even years after birth.

Just like I would see no problem terminating a brain dead patient.

I would.

Huntster

6th January 2007, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And she should be at the mercy of the child since she got knocked up (unless she was raped).

I would say that having to pay out of pocket for a mistake montly (and thats as far as it legally has to go) is a much smaller life event than having something in your body that you dont want there that changes your body forever.

What a lame excuse.

The woman is already pregnant, or she wouldn't need an abortion (like the old joke of "how pregnant is she").

The entire pregancy lasts 9 months. A financially liable parent is responsible for 18 years, and sometimes more.

I would imagine being forced into pregnancy is a traumatic event, much like being forced into sex is.

Nobody who isn't raped is "forced into pregnancy."

Quote:
The laws are clear; he is legally required to financially support the child for 18 years, or more, and running to other states or even some nations to avoid the liability won't work.

It is not completely fair, but its as fair as its going to get unfortunatley.

It isn't fair to a fetus/human to be killed in the womb, either.

Biology isnt fair either, and thats what creates the whole problem.

There are plenty of birth control measures out there. Multiple measures can even be taken.

To kill the fetus after conception as a belated birth control method is homicide.

I wish there was a way for the situation to be fair to everyone, but when you look at the options the father losing out on some money is the most fair solution.

What a bunch of crap.

If the father has to live up to his responsibilities, so does the mother.

joobz

6th January 2007, 10:29 PM

Thaiboxerken tried. Check out his sig line.

Of course, he screwed it up...........
the sig says sapient, meaning wise or aware not homosapien. It's a different issue.

Yes, it is.

If it's alive (heartbeat), and if the pregnancy is intended to be terminated, the fetus must be killed.

By definition, that's homicide.

Period.
Your sole view of life is heart beat? Does that mean someone on a pacemaker is only partially alive? What about people with artificial hearts? are they no longer alive?

I will say that I fully respect the idea of heart beat being a defining point in determining a fetus's status as an individual. it is a logical mile stone that can be equally weighed upon all fetuses. It makes more sense than birth. but mental functioning to me is the key defining feature of being human. A person who has only a beating heart but no longer has a live brain is not a person anymore. They are not there.

Huntster

6th January 2007, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Thaiboxerken tried. Check out his sig line.

Of course, he screwed it up...........

the sig says sapient, meaning wise or aware not homosapien. It's a different issue.

Correct. It's completely irrelevant to my statement.

He's mixing crap into the pool in order to cloud the basic facts.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yes, it is.

If it's alive (heartbeat), and if the pregnancy is intended to be terminated, the fetus must be killed.

By definition, that's homicide.

Period.

Your sole view of life is heart beat?

If the heart is beating, the biological entity is alive.

Correct?

Does that mean someone on a pacemaker is only partially alive?

Pacemakers don't create a heartbeat, and even if it did, that would mean the person with the stimulated heartbeat is still alive.

What about people with artificial hearts? are they no longer alive?

They're still alive until you turn off the artificial heartbeat.

I will say that I fully respect the idea of heart beat being a defining point in determining a fetus's status as an individual. it is a logical mile stone that can be equally weighed upon all fetuses.

As well as easily detected (as opposed to the "sapient" game).

It makes more sense than birth. but mental functioning to me is the key defining feature of being human.

Being "human" is species specific. Mental capacity has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A person who has only a beating heart but no longer has a live brain is not a person anymore. They are not there.

They are there biologically and physically. The heart is beating. They are alive.

Period.

clarsct

6th January 2007, 11:08 PM

What about before they have a heart?

joobz

6th January 2007, 11:33 PM

If the heart is beating, the biological entity is alive.
Beating heart is the indication of a functioning circulatory system. Why does this system supercede the pulmonary system as the key to life? You need to breathe to live. or the digestive system,you need to eat to live?
I would state that all of these systems are in place as a support structure for the central nervous system, where your central consiousness lies. IT is this consiousness that makes you/you. I agree it is a fuzzy line to draw and do not doubt that beating heart is easier. But should simplicity be our driving force?

Being "human" is species specific. Mental capacity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
HUman was the wrong word. I mean cognitively viable.

clarsct

6th January 2007, 11:54 PM

Beating heart is the indication of a functioning circulatory system. Why does this system supercede the pulmonary system as the key to life? You need to breathe to live. or the digestive system,you need to eat to live?
I would state that all of these systems are in place as a support structure for the central nervous system, where your central consiousness lies. IT is this consiousness that makes you/you. I agree it is a fuzzy line to draw and do not doubt that beating heart is easier. But should simplicity be our driving force?
Hmmmmmmmmm.

What about brain structural development? Is there a certain point where we can draw a line and say there is NO chance that the fetus has a consciousness?
This is different from defining where consciousness begins. This is defining what level of brain structure it takes to support the higher functions, then drawing a line below that point where it, definitively, cannot occur.
(Experiments could be conducted in monkeys or somesuch.)

joobz

7th January 2007, 01:16 AM

Hmmmmmmmmm.

What about brain structural development? Is there a certain point where we can draw a line and say there is NO chance that the fetus has a consciousness?
This is different from defining where consciousness begins. This is defining what level of brain structure it takes to support the higher functions, then drawing a line below that point where it, definitively, cannot occur.
(Experiments could be conducted in monkeys or somesuch.)
That's a good suggestion. perhaps when the frontal lobe reaches some level of development. (or perhaps that doesnt happen until years later).
The interesting and potentially confounding issue, is the level of deformability the brain can endure at birth.

clarsct

7th January 2007, 02:02 AM

Well, IIRC, most mental retardation is due to relatively minor changes in the brain.

Most major brain deformations aren't viable, many are purged naturally during the 7th month.

It would have to be researched, but I am much more comfortable with a line drawn by science than a line drawn by feelings.

Huntster

7th January 2007, 11:00 PM

What about before they have a heart?

My personal opinion is that they are still human, and if they weren't alive, one wouldn't need to kill them.

However, for the sake of reasonable compromise, I'd go along with elective abortion before a heartbeat is detected if the father consents.

Huntster

7th January 2007, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
If the heart is beating, the biological entity is alive.

Beating heart is the indication of a functioning circulatory system. Why does this system supercede the pulmonary system as the key to life? You need to breathe to live. or the digestive system,you need to eat to live?

If you can't breathe, your heart will eventually stop beating.

Then you die.

If you can't gain enough nourishment, your heart will eventually stop beating.

Then you die.

See the trend here?.......

I would state that all of these systems are in place as a support structure for the central nervous system, where your central consiousness lies.

There are plenty of people who have no consciousness. They're virtual vegetables.

But their heart continues to beat, and they are therefore still alive.

Sorry. That's just the way it goes.

IT is this consiousness that makes you/you.

My biological existence is quite seperate from my soul. That's religion, my friend.

I agree it is a fuzzy line to draw and do not doubt that beating heart is easier. But should simplicity be our driving force?

Simplicity is golden when dealing with simpletons like Kenny.

kurious_kathy

9th January 2007, 12:05 PM

It isn't fair to a fetus/human to be killed in the womb, either.

There are plenty of birth control measures out there. Multiple measures can even be taken.

To kill the fetus after conception as a belated birth control method is homicide.
Agreed. As we are told in Proverbs 24:11-12...

Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
If you say, "See, we did not know this,"
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?

Did you know the week of January 20th is Sanctity of Life Week?
We as Christians are asked to keep praying for an end to abortion.

drkitten

9th January 2007, 12:26 PM

I"m not sure what you are driving at here.

The health of a 4 month old is still "highly dependant" on the mom. There isn't anything magical about the placental connection to the mother, otherwise surrogates wouldn't be possible.

Not quite. The health of a four month old infant is highly dependent on someone, but not necessarily the mother or even the surrogate mother. It's easily possible, for example, for a single father to take care of such an infant whose mother has died in childbirth--- or even for a series of people to take care of such an infant.

The health of a four-month old fetus, on the other hand, is absolutely dependent upon the mother (or surrogate mother); we have no way at present of performing a fetus transplant.

joobz

9th January 2007, 03:56 PM

Not quite. The health of a four month old infant is highly dependent on someone, but not necessarily the mother or even the surrogate mother. It's easily possible, for example, for a single father to take care of such an infant whose mother has died in childbirth--- or even for a series of people to take care of such an infant.

The health of a four-month old fetus, on the other hand, is absolutely dependent upon the mother (or surrogate mother); we have no way at present of performing a fetus transplant.
True, but then that means you are defining protected life by the mode of nutritional supply. Do you suggest that then that a better definition between fetus/baby is the point when a baby could survive without umbilically derived nutrition/growth factors?

I would think this mode of definition reasonable except it seems to create even more problems of definition.
1.) Presuming we are or will be at a level of techonology that can support such fetuses outside the womb, Would it be acceptable to terminate a premie at an equivelent gestational stage where it is allowable to kill a fetus in the womb?

2.) If at any equivalent point, it is considered unlawful to kill the premie, then what is special about the womb location that makes it allowable?

3.) What is special about this method of nutritional support that renders the fetus at a lower status? Lack of independant kindey, stomach, and/or heart function? Can we use the same criteria to patients with organ failures?

Huntster

9th January 2007, 04:42 PM

....Did you know the week of January 20th is Sanctity of Life Week?

I knew it was in January sometime.

We as Christians are asked to keep praying for an end to abortion.

Yup. I do almost daily.

drkitten

9th January 2007, 05:37 PM

True, but then that means you are defining protected life by the mode of nutritional supply.

No, I'm not. The uterine environment provides a whole host of other factors necessary for the survival/growth/development of the fetus.

That's why preemies tend to die even when their nutritional needs are met (for example, via IV feeding). Because they're not independent.

joobz

9th January 2007, 07:13 PM

No, I'm not. The uterine environment provides a whole host of other factors necessary for the survival/growth/development of the fetus.

That's why preemies tend to die even when their nutritional needs are met (for example, via IV feeding). Because they're not independent.
What I stated was not just nutrtion but I had also included growth factors and waste elimination. But I see this distinction as again inherently artifical. The same exists with much of the functioning of internal organs. THey too providing signaling that isn't avaible when their functioning ceases.
As to your second point in the first post, but it still becomes a question of technology. If we can perform "fetal transplanation" or ex vivo fetal gestation, then it can regain it's independant status?

Darth Rotor

9th January 2007, 07:20 PM

However, Christians are more apt to spare themselves and kill others for the cause. Martyrdom aside, suicide is considered a sin rather than an honour. Hypatia. Crusades. Inquisition. Old discussion.

"No poor dumb bastard ever won a war dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." -- G.S. Patton, Jr. (Attributed, in any case)

Works for me, be ye a "Christian Soldier" or simply a man in ranks. Charlamagne figured it out.

DR

kurious_kathy

9th January 2007, 08:54 PM

No, but the mother should be allowed to abort it for ANY reason. It is, after all, just a biological growth of her own body.Spoken just like a man who doesn't know the difference.

FYI Your Life Before Birth

48 hours You produced a hormone which let your mom know she was pregnant.

5-8 days You implanted on your moms uterine wall.

20 days Your spinal cord, nervous system and brain foundation were established.

21 days Your heart was beating.

40 days Your brain waves could be recorded and your bones were forming.

8 weeks You could turn your head and suck your thumb and respond to pain. And in the US you could have been aborted until the moment you were born!

Now aren't you glad your mom chose life?

thaiboxerken

9th January 2007, 09:19 PM

Now aren't you glad your mom chose life?

I can say that I wouldn't be disappointed AT ALL if she didn't.

kurious_kathy

9th January 2007, 10:44 PM

I can say that I wouldn't be disappointed AT ALL if she didn't.
Now how in the heck can you say that? Don't you value your own life?

I want to share this link to a very special letter written by Barry Adams called "The Fathers Love Letter" You"ll need to scroll down the page a bit to read it's context but it is very special if you'll take the time to read it.
http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/atsdirect.storefront/45a47d8e0068b1d7271f45579e7c0718/Product/View/41668

clarsct

10th January 2007, 12:35 AM

Well, KK, he wouldn't be around to be disappointed, now would he?

There is no wretchedness in nothingness.

thaiboxerken

10th January 2007, 04:54 AM

Now how in the heck can you say that? Don't you value your own life?

I want to share this link to a very special letter written by Barry Adams called "The Fathers Love Letter"

If I was dead, I wouldn't be disappointed at all, neither would I be happy.

However, even if I believed i heaven and life-after-death, like you... wouldn't I be in "heaven" if I was aborted as a fetus?

If I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church. Your link doesn't work anyway.

billydkid

10th January 2007, 07:53 AM

I knew it was in January sometime.

Yup. I do almost daily.

How's that praying thing going? Making any progress convincing the big guy?

drkitten

10th January 2007, 08:03 AM

But I see this distinction as again inherently artifical.

Well, you're allowing your ideology to cloud your vision.

As to your second point in the first post, but it still becomes a question of technology. If we can perform "fetal transplanation" or ex vivo fetal gestation, then it can regain it's independant status?

Of course. I'm surprised you should even think the point needs raising. Medical ethics has always held that one should use the latest/most effective treatments available. Lobotomy, for example, is actually a highly effective method of controlling certain forms of mental illness -- as is electroshock therapy. But neither of them are considered ethical today, because there are other techniques that are less harmful all around and just as effective.

If it becomes possible to perform a fetus-ectomy without killing it, that will change the abortion quetsion, because there will be a technique available that is less harmful all around and just as effective. But I'm not going to insist that twenty-first century physicians follow twenty-fourth century medical practices.

joobz

10th January 2007, 11:52 AM

Well, you're allowing your ideology to cloud your vision.
Things seem murky, I guess you are right.:)
but i do not know what ideology you are refering to. I am simply asking when a fetus is grated viable status. It seems that consciousness provides a method of distinction that is independant of technology. the only problem is again may be defining when consciousness happens.

What's your take on the conjoined twin issue? If you had conjoined twins where one is clearly dependant upon the organs of another, is it ethical to kill the one if the independant twin doesn't want to support it anymore?

Of course. I'm surprised you should even think the point needs raising. Medical ethics has always held that one should use the latest/most effective treatments available. Lobotomy, for example, is actually a highly effective method of controlling certain forms of mental illness -- as is electroshock therapy. But neither of them are considered ethical today, because there are other techniques that are less harmful all around and just as effective.
If it becomes possible to perform a fetus-ectomy without killing it, that will change the abortion quetsion, because there will be a technique available that is less harmful all around and just as effective. But I'm not going to insist that twenty-first century physicians follow twenty-fourth century medical practices.

Of course it needs raising, because it is a critical issue.
We aren't discussing disease based interventions, we are discussing when a fetus is granted protected status. Such a situation should be based upon the gestational status of the fetus not upon level of technological capability. Your definition of fetal independance based upon technology would raise the question of whether it would be unethical to let a person ever die if they can be downloaded to a computer.

Huntster

10th January 2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I knew it was in January sometime.

Yup. I do almost daily.

How's that praying thing going?

Great!

Making any progress convincing the big guy?

God?

He doesn't need convincing of anything, and if He did, I'm not the right guy to be doing it.

The prayer is so that the big, bad, folks in black robes get convinced of the error of their ways.

But some of them have hardened hearts.

billydkid

10th January 2007, 03:05 PM

Great!

God?

He doesn't need convincing of anything, and if He did, I'm not the right guy to be doing it.

The prayer is so that the big, bad, folks in black robes get convinced of the error of their ways.

But some of them have hardened hearts.

Are you really convinced that the justices who support Roe v. Wade are doing so because they are heartless? I find it hard to believe you really think that. I have already said I share your dislike of abortion, but there really are two honest sides to the issue - not just humane people and baby killers. I certainly believe a woman who becomes pregnant and the man who contributed have a responsibility toward the life they started. I believe if they do not want a child it should be terminated well before it could reasonbly be called a baby.

I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but I do believe a woman (and the man involved) have a right to decide to end a pregnancy in it's early stages if they do not want a child. To me, that is the more complicated issue - mother's rights vs. those of the father. One might argue that it is highly irresponsible for couple to produce a pregnancy without wanting a child, but it happens and it happens to decent, responsible people. I don't think I have the right to dictate to them whether or not they can terminate the pregnancy - as reasonbly soon as they are able.

Unlike some, I do believe that unborn children have certain natural rights, but you can not reasonably argue that the fertilized egg is a child or a shrimp sized zygote is a child and so on. There is a fair sized window where you can argue that you are not killing anything that could honestly be called child by an abortion. I think to take the position that all abortion should be outlawed is unreasonable. Also, it is certainly better to have abortions be legal and safe versus the alternative.

As far as this prayer business - isn't the whole idea in praying for things that you want to influence God in someway or change God's mind about something? If not then what would be the point? Do you think it is reasonable to suppose that, if there is a God, he is going to be persuaded of this thing or that by one's wishes or desires?

drkitten

10th January 2007, 03:16 PM

Things seem murky, I guess you are right.:)
but i do not know what ideology you are refering to. I am simply asking when a fetus is grated viable status.

Then my answer should be pretty clear. The fetus is granted viable status when it becomes viable -- that is, when it is capable of independent survival.

We aren't discussing disease based interventions, we are discussing when a fetus is granted protected status.

Oh? Less than a paragraph ago, we were discussing when a fetus is granted "viable" status.

Such a situation should be based upon the gestational status of the fetus not upon level of technological capability.

I don't see why this should be the one area of medical and legal ethics into which the issue of technology does not enter.

Your definition of fetal independance based upon technology would raise the question of whether it would be unethical to let a person ever die if they can be downloaded to a computer.

And if that ever happens, that question will in fact be raised, by better ethicists (and in higher profile journals) than you or I.

Huntster

10th January 2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
...The prayer is so that the big, bad, folks in black robes get convinced of the error of their ways.

But some of them have hardened hearts.
Are you really convinced that the justices who support Roe v. Wade are doing so because they are heartless?

Nope.

I think they did it initially for reasons of ideology (which is evidence of stupidity, IMO), then have ruled to support it (or at least defend it's basic premise) ever since because of hardened hearts, which (in the end) is "heartless".

I find it hard to believe you really think that. I have already said I share your dislike of abortion, but there really are two honest sides to the issue - not just humane people and baby killers. I certainly believe a woman who becomes pregnant and the man who contributed have a responsibility toward the life they started.

I agree 100%.

I believe if they do not want a child it should be terminated well before it could reasonbly be called a baby.

I disagree, but am willing to negotiate an acceptable timeline with the other members of our society.

To me, that is the more complicated issue - mother's rights vs. those of the father.

I can agree with that.

One might argue that it is highly irresponsible for couple to produce a pregnancy without wanting a child, but it happens and it happens to decent, responsible people.

I again agree. Therefore, it isn't necessarily a "highly irresponsible" act to become pregnant without wanting a child.

I don't think I have the right to dictate to them whether or not they can terminate the pregnancy - as reasonbly soon as they are able.

Others don't think that society has the authority to tell them what they can or cannot smoke.....

But society does it anyway, don't they?

Unlike some, I do believe that unborn children have certain natural rights, but you can not reasonably argue that the fertilized egg is a child or a shrimp sized zygote is a child and so on.

A fertilized egg is alive, and it is human.

Correct?

There is a fair sized window where you can argue that you are not killing anything that could honestly be called child by an abortion.

Sure.

I've seen people try to argue all kinds of things on this forum.

I think to take the position that all abortion should be outlawed is unreasonable.

And I say that abortion is wrong; each and every time it occurs.

However, I've also written several times that I'm willing to negotiate a timeline. That's being "reasonable", isn't it?

Is Kenny more "reasonable"?

Now you folks want me to "bless it" when it occurs before the "reasonable" timeframe, even when that "reasonable" timeline still hasn't been agreeable to society?

Sorry. That ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Also, it is certainly better to have abortions be legal and safe versus the alternative.

Bullspit. That's an apologist/opportunist argument, compliments of NARAL and other extremists.

If that were true, the government should be distributing pure narcotics instead of forcing addicts to obtain them from bootleggers and smugglers.

As far as this prayer business - isn't the whole idea in praying for things that you want to influence God in someway or change God's mind about something?

That's the version children are taught in Sunday School 101. Some folks never graduate that level.

It is also understood as "sacrifice". Thus, my prayers might balance out the sins of other humans.

Or, conversely, the overwhelming sins of others can drown my pathetic prayers..............

See Genesis: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis18.htm)

Then the LORD said: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave, that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me. I mean to find out." While the two men walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham. Then Abraham drew nearer to him and said: "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty? Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty, so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike! Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?" The LORD replied, "If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." Abraham spoke up again: "See how I am presuming to speak to my Lord, though I am but dust and ashes! What if there are five less than fifty innocent people? Will you destroy the whole city because of those five?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "if I find forty-five there." But Abraham persisted, saying, "What if only forty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it for the sake of the forty." Then he said, "Let not my Lord grow impatient if I go on. What if only thirty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it if I can find but thirty there." Still he went on, "Since I have thus dared to speak to my Lord, what if there are no more than twenty?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "for the sake of the twenty." But he still persisted: "Please, let not my Lord grow angry if I speak up this last time. What if there are at least ten there?" "For the sake of those ten," he replied, "I will not destroy it." The LORD departed as soon as he had finished speaking with Abraham, and Abraham returned home.

Later: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis19.htm)

Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old--all the people to the last man--closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them." Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, "I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don't do anything to these men, for you know they have come under the shelter of my roof."
They replied, "Stand back! This fellow," they sneered, "came here as an immigrant, and now he dares to give orders! We'll treat you worse than them!" With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But his guests put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door; at the same time they struck the men at the entrance of the house, one and all, with such a blinding light that they were utterly unable to reach the doorway.
Then the angels said to Lot: "Who else belongs to you here? Your sons (sons-in-law) and your daughters and all who belong to you in the city--take them away from it! We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those in the city is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

If not then what would be the point?

1) To please God
2) To pass the Test of Faith

Do you think it is reasonable to suppose that, if there is a God, he is going to be persuaded of this thing or that by one's wishes or desires?

Maybe, and maybe not.

I think it is more reasonable to suppose that those who seek God's will might likely also find happiness.

If it is against God's plan to terminate pregnancies after conception (and I believe that), then I seek God's will.

It may not come in my lifetime. It might not even come in several lifetimes.

But it will come. The Supreme Court cannot stop it. Nor can anyone else.