And I disagree....but for her own actions (in most cases) the life of "another" doesn't even exist. it doesn't get that choice, to begin with. he/she/it didn't ASK for the situation and did nothing to create the situation.
OK I'm going to try this again and hopefully my computer won't crash. In terms of undergoing metabolism and the ability to replicate yes. Every cell in my body is alive but that doesn't stop me from voluntarily killing millions of those cells daily by shaving, popping a zit or drinking scalding hot tea. I think its in how we define the terms. I believe we're talking about more than just metabolism going on . [/quote]You are correct in stating a fetus isn't quite considered a person. The reason birth certificates are not given at conception is because no birth has taken place. (stay with me) It is not because there is no life.[/quote] This is a critical distinction though because we don't give rights to a mass of cells we give rights to people and most of this debate is dealing with rights. What are the mother's rights and whether the fetus has rights. Merely saying its alive but not a person isn't good enough because I could create a skin culture from my cells and that would be alive but wouldn't be endowed with the same rights as a person. Under our system of law birth is the determination of personhood and a birth certificate is the legal record of that just as death is the dissolution of personhood and a death certificate is the legal record of that. Not exactly. Even with modern medicine there are still deaths of the baby during childbirth. I seem to recall if the child can take a breath outside the womb then it counts as live birth and legally a person even if the child dies right after. Saying there's a high probabiltiy of a fetus not coming to term isn't a restriction on changing birth certificates to conception certificate and granting personhood to fetuses. You and Mad Max have brought this up a few times and I understand the point. That said we don't grant rights and protections to natural biological processes we grant them to people. In fact we often work against natural biological processes because life, death and aging are all natural biological processes indemic to all species. We still seek to prolong our lives through technology and if we found a way to stop death I'm sure many would take it up. Doctors prescribe medicine to deal with menopause. Those are all natural biological process yet we try to stall them or do away with them. If you don't consider whether a fetus is a human though you gravely undermine your position. We routinely kill other animals for convenience and even sport. Under are laws any organism that isn't human has no rights. To say that a fetus isn't a human goes back to saying that it is a foreign parasite. Its a parasite that the woman had a hand in creating but that would be same as if she knowlingly ate tainted beef and got a tapeworm. I understand you consider the fetus to have a pre-human standing but again without rights that pre-human standing isn't subject to fundamental protections granted to people. In this situation there is only one person with rights, the woman, which is the justification of Roe. Its the woman's body and her's to do with. Legally everyone agrees that killing a baby after birth is murder because every standard agrees that personhood is granted at birth. Murder is the killing of a person. If kill a deer with premeditation that's not murder because a deer isn't a person. We can kill deer for sport and if they prove to be a disturbance even for convenience. This is the problem that I have with Roe is that while I agree that there is a derived right to privacy of one's own body, it skirts the issue of whether a fetus is a human. Having a bright line standard though would clarify the debate far more and for the pro-life side I don't see how you can have a blanket ban on abortion without declaring that personhood starts in utero. But that is absolutely the point. Its about rights and rights are only granted to people. We can kill animals, we can kill clusters of human cells but we can't kill people constitutionally except under due process. All of us have the power to take life and do so every day. Just by shaving, swatting a mosquito or even the normal functioning of your immune system. The pro-life argument cannot stand without saying that fetus are people. Absolutely not. We don't protect natural biological processes we protect people. If we did then doctors shouldn't be allowed to prescribe medicines lessening or even eliminating menopause. Now that is a very interesting point. Its one that I would be hesitant though in arguing it from a pro-life position. While we protect Californian Condors we still don't grant them right's so while we can't kill them out of hand we are still allowed to do all sorts of things to them. Since the protections aren't Constitutional any ban on abortion could be overturned legislatively and IMO still wouldn't stand the constitutional challenge since we're imposing onto the right of women to the use of their own body, which is a far different matter than whether you can use DDT or log a tract of forest. You end up back where you started having to overturn the precedent of Roe. IMO the only chance of having a ban on abortion has to be saying that fetus are humans and endowed with the same rights as the born. A ban on abortion is in essence a negative right on the woman, an obligation, that's a hard argument to make if her rights are the only ones at issue. You can't compel someone to give up their rights if the other party has no rights.
Let me give you a hypothetical. If I punch you really hard in the stomach and I badly damage your liver should I then be legally compelled to let you hook yourself to me so you could benefit from my liver? My own actions led to the situation and you didn't create it.
i'm missing this as a good analogy. you're talking about an unnatural process where i "hook" into you. i'm talking about how nature says babies are born. there is no other way. this is how human life develops. it just is. nature..God...whatever you want to call it. it just is.
don't we already say that? what's the name of the guy in California who was convicted for killing his unborn child?
If you reread my last post to Rhester I point out that we don't protect natural biologicial processes, we protect people. We work to prevent aging, menopause and all sorts of things that are totally natural. I understand what you're saying that its different than hooking someone up but it still applies in regard to what extent we go to infringe upon one person's rights to guarentee the rights of another. Your point that the mother has through voluntary action brought about the life of the child (and I will say child for now for the sake of personhood) and is therefore responsible for supporting that child even biologically is a good point whether its natural or not, (for instance if the embryo had been created through IVF which is most definately not a natural process). That said though my examples are meant to point out that we still put boundaries in regard to where the rights of one aren't infringed even if it costs the life of another. No we do not. The situation is muddled. While Scott Peterson was charged with double murder for killing his pregnant wife if Lacy Peterson had had an abortion she or the doctor performing it would not have been charged with murder. So the law currently says that if you kill a fetus under one circumstance its murder (killing a person so by logically the fetus has personhood) but if you kill a fetus under another circumstance it isn't (the fetus is not a person.) IMO even though we have criminal statutes that put fetuses in the person category overally the law doesn't recognize personhood since abortion is legal and we don't grant citizenship or other rights to fetuses. I was responding to Rhester who said that personhood isn't the issue its protection of fetuses to point out that without considering personhood for a fetus you go back to the Roe situation where the fetus is only considered an extension of the woman's body which undermines fundamental protection for the fetus.
This is exactly what is wrong with the state of law as it stands today. The unborn child's humanity is determined by the whim of the mother. How can an unborn child be a person if the mother wants it, but an inhuman extension of the mother if she does not? Either it is a person or it isn't, the will of the mother doesn't have anything to do with it. I want the Rockets to win the NBA Championship, but wishing doesn't make it so.
We are officially playing word games. That tree you keep running into is the forest. As long as you are using arguments that a zit and a fetus are analogus or that aborting a fetus is like shaving we cannot possibly even discuss abortion. I think it is one thing to understand my posts and respond and another thing to misrepresent what I say and reach for a rebuttal. If it is not simple enough to deal with abortion as a attack upon the human reproduction process we are making it fuzzy for everyone who is still interested. When humans reproduce they birth babies. Humans are the most valuable beings on earth. When un born babies die it is tragic and we call it miscarriage. When healthy un born baibes are pre-meditatedly killed it is worse than tragic and it shows that we care more about our own ideas of personal convenience, population control and making billions of dollars than we do about the precious gift of life. I don't understand why an argument about when someone is human, a person, or just a glorified zit has any bearing on what happens when a doctor is paid to ram a metal device inside the brain of an unborn child to kill it. I think if we are justifying killing babies because they are not human or they are not persons or they can't breathe air yet then our biggest problem is certainly not abortion. We have broken away from what nature itself teaches us- life is precious and reproduction must be protected. I just erased the rest of what I posted- it is not profitable to say any more. Those of us posting on this board do not have the final say if abortion is murder or a woman's right to her own body. He that judges those things will judge in truth and righteousness and my own opinions will be weighed in that court in heaven.
That's true. Perhaps everyone can save time by not talking about it anymore. Following your logic... That's a matter of perception. I think the world would do just fine without humans, in fact, it'd probably be a lot better. Tragic? That's arguable as well since millions of embryos die even after fertilization naturally. And your use of unborn + babies is an oxymoron. It should be 'fetus'. You seem to be adding in religion in your statement. You are also assuming that an embryo is alive, or at least as alive as you and me. At that stage of life, an embryo is less 'alive' than a fungus. I doubt you mind 'killing' a fungus. I would argue that we are more important than an embryo and we take priority. Also, there is the mistake in assuming that life begins a precise point, as if an embryo is the same as a fetus. It is a continuous growth. You can't say an embryo WILL become a fetus which WILL become human, thus it is equal to a human. NOPE, an embryo is an embryo. A human is a human. Using the logic you use, we should place teenages in adult courts because eventually they will become adults, thus they are equal to an adult. Uh, I don't think NATURE teaches us that. That's what religion teaches. Nature probably teaches the opposite: life is short, have sex often and unprotected.
Can anybody overturn this "science?" "Conception takes place at the moment when the two reproductive cells, the ovum of the mother and the sperm of the father, unite to form a single cell. That cell is a new human being, the offspring of the two persons who furnished the two reproductive cells. This is sound Biology and can be referenced from any reliable textbook. The time, after intercourse, when conception takes place will vary within a range of several hours, in individual cases. The claim that conception occurs at the implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall is originally an invention of the abortion-minded. More recently, in our day of embryonic experimentation, the technicians have borrowed the claim, to make their destruction of embryonic humans appear to be less reprehensible. In the science of Embryology, it is the embryo which implants itself into the uterine wall, a process called <b>nidation</b>, or "nesting." The embryo is programmed as an organism to do this, at the proper time, by its genetic information. <b>If the embryo were not a living organism before implantation, there would be no implantation</b>. As with another gestational event, the development of the placenta, the embryo is "in charge" of the pregnancy, remaining so until birth."
It is a no-win situation to try to determine where life begins because the two sides will never agree. I'm watching Colin Power right now opening Indy 500. "Our men and women in the armed services our serving all over the world to protect our freedom. And this freedom comes at a great cost and we should recognize that." The great cost = lives of Americans payoff = American freedom So sometimes it is okay to sacrifice life to save freedom but other times it is not?
Those men and women joined the military-- knowing the risks. An unborn child that is aborted had no say in that outcome.
The only freedom lost by outlawing abortion is the freedom to sacrifice the lives of the unborn. It is not okay to sacrifice life to save the freedom to sacrifice life. Do you really not see a difference between living under the rule of tyrants and terrorists and living in a country that is exactly like America today, only you cannot kill babies inside their mothers? Your comparison between the war in Iraq and abortion is rediculous. In fact, your whole freedom line of reasoning is rediculous, because the baby is losing far more liberty than the mother would by carrying it to term (an average of over 70 years worth, as compared to 9 months, less the time that has passed from conception to abortion.
First, I would like the link from which you copied this information. Then I will break apart this 'definition' one piece at a time.
Would you be willing to compromise and state that abortion will be legal, but tax dollars shall not fund it?
Rhester; I understand your frustration but believe me I'm not deliberately trying to frustrate you. If anything I'm doing the opposite by raising up fine points that I believe have to be considered if a blanket abortion ban could pass Constitutional muster. As you say our debates and discussions don't mean much since, at least as far as I know, none of us our political leaders or federal judges. Still these type of debates are enlightening and help to elucidate an issue. So debating this issue with you, Mad Max and others have helped me understand the pro-life position and appreciate it far more than I would have otherwise. Not saying that I now support a blanket ban but I can appreciate why that might be desired. So what I'm debating with you isn't a desperate attempt to tie you into rhetorical knots but to put your views to what will be the necessary logical tests that would be required. You rely on your passion and your faith but the problem is that you're relying on them to make a convincing arguments to others who don't share those beliefs. Thus you're flustered that someone can't just accept your point based on faith. You're never going to convince anyone who doesn't share your faith unless you can offer an argument that doesn't need your faith. The Roe ruling essentially says a fetus is a part of the woman's body. No more really than a zit or tapeworm and its up to the woman to decide what to do with it. That's not my reasoning that is the cold hard logic of Roe. To overturn that you have to give an argument that the fetus isn't that but actually a person, not a pre-person or a potential person but one that is endowed with rights. Your faith tells you that a pre-person deserves protection but not rights. That's not enough because our system grants rights and gives ultimate protection to people. Not clusters of cells, not biological processes and not pre-humans. You might find that frustrating but protestations of faith aren't going help your cause unless you can get past that and focus your argument on IMO the key question of when does personhood begin.
To follow up on my last point though even if personhood is legally established at conception that still might not result in a blanket ban on abortion as their are conflicts of rights between people, which is what I've largely been debating with Mad Max about. That also was what I was trying to find out in those questions I posed to pro-lifers, what sort of limitations, if any would the pro-life side but on a ban on abortion. The pro-choice people here have pretty much all agreed to limits on abortion so it seems logical to me to advance the discussion by seeing where the pro-life people would in regard to pregnancy occuring from rape, incest, threats to the life of the mother (if so what type of threats), viability, and quality of life for both child and mother. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe that where America is now there actually is a chance to make progress, towards reducing abortions, but I doubt that Americans on the whole will ever accept an absolutists position of blanket ban.
I dunno. It seems to me that the pro-choice crowd is just as absolute as the pro-life crowd. I guess it all depends on perspective. Because I am against partial-birth abortion, many have accused me of being pro-life. Lots of pro-choicers out there who are against a partial-birth abortion ban of any kind, against any limitations of late-term abortions of any kind, and against the double murder charge thrown at Scott Peterson. Laci's Law faced a lot of vociferous criticism from pro-choice groups.
