It would be if you hadn’t left out one very important part of what I said.
It’s not a human. It’s a small clump of cells.
Hardly. If they were absolutist, they wouldn’t be pro choice.
It’s called being able to understand what was written because I don’t have some weird idea about humans living inside of other humans.
Nope. At the point of fertilization, I was a fertilized egg. By chance, I latched on and grew into a baby. Had I not been lucky, I’d have washed away with all the other rejected cells.
A beginning is just that, it is not a completed anything. The beginning of a race is not a race, it’s merely where the racers started. The beginning of a drawing is not a drawing, it’s merely a few pencil strokes.
I didn’t say that. I began as a human the day I was born. Prior to that I was a fetus.
Most pro-choicers are not killing anything at all, and abortion is not killing babies. Science (no matter what you want to think) and the law have made the decision that a fetus is not a baby, as well as simple terminology. Now, if you want to believe it’s a baby from fertilization, go for it, but that doesn’t make it so and it doesn’t give you the right to dictate what others do.
Uh, no. I don’t believe it’s a baby but I am not going to try to change a law or picket someplace to try to influence everyone to share my beliefs. And I am certainly not going to be murdering anyone who says their fetus is a baby.
What’s sad is how pathetic your devotion to your delusions are. There is no soul. We’re mechanical and a fetus doesn’t have the capability of forming consciousness.
If I teleport Disney Land away safely and return it a day later while you are at work a thousand miles away are you upset? (Other than the by the knowledge that such feats are possible).
If I teleport it away for a day as you drive up with your smiling children, are you upset?
The fetus isn’t a person until it is conscious. Wanting to bring it into the world builds expectations in the mother. Dashing those expectations is painful.
Like most conservatives, you have trouble seeing the obvious.
Oh, so actually abortion is fine as long as the fetus can’t feel pain? So up to the 20th week (the earliest a fetus could possibly feel pain - is probably later). Good to know.
That is what you are trying to advocate. Pregnancy is no walk in the park and women have died from it. Yet you want to the government to change the laws so that all pregnant women have to put their lives at risk for a complete stranger.
Well, I just gave a cursory reading to the wiki pages for Roe v. Wade and Abortion in Canada and I don’t see “personhood of the fetus” (either to affirm or deny) playing a major role. The so-called born alive rule was used in some Canadian decisions, but it looks almost like an afterthought, something the courts could use to avoid making a ruling that a fetus was a person, and the primary focus was actually on the woman’s right to self-determination and, I figure, would have carried the argument even if the “born alive rule” wasn’t cited.
So basically, I going to have to ask for specifics, because I don’t see any reason to take your word for it that “fetus equals or does not equal person” played the major role in any significant abortion-related legal decisions. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that I’m not aware of it.
Do a lot of pro-choicers use a nonpersonhood argument anyway? Sure, they do. A majority? I don’t know, I doubt it. Was that argument ever the basis of a legal decision in the U.S. or Canada? I don’t know, I doubt it.
If these last two are so obviously true, they shouldn’t be hard to cite. Ultimately, though, I figure it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if a fetus is considered a person or not. It’s a mere sideshow compared to the main event, women’s rights, and I’ve yet to see a good reason why the state’s interest must or should override the woman’s. I can picture remote hypotheticals where this might change, but they uniformly involve a clear and present danger of human extinction, so nothing I’d consider relevant.
You use the concept of “right to life” as an axiom to avoid even considering whether that right exists. What “right to life”? The fetus isn’t even aware of itself. If it’s never born it will never know. What is the logical basis of what you appear to see as some absolute rule that once something is conceived it is a terrible tragedy if it isn’t born?
It’s just illogical sentimentality. And you want it to be unlawful to fail to indulge your sentimentality despite the effect of this indulgence being a burden on others.
And OMG your whole schtick about there being some insurmountable and prohibitive inconsistency in it being illegal to maim a fetus but legal to kill it is laughably stupid. For a start the whole idea couldn’t be more precedented: it’s legal to put your dog down but illegal to torture it, for example. Secondly, it’s all about utility: if a fetus isn’t wanted then the law should be practical and recognise the utility in allowing the fetus to be got rid of quickly and cleanly. There is no such practical purpose in allow a pregnant woman to get her sadist jollies by maiming her fetus. Indeed, speaking of utility, there is an obvious utility in making it illegal to maim a fetus that is then born maimed and becomes a burden on those around it.
Again, the idea that there must be absolute and rigid consistency of laws regarding a subject, for consistency’s sake, regardless of differing arguably relevant circumstances is a obsession of simpletons and fools.
The first sentence is false, as has already been demonstrated. The second sentence is meaningless.
What? You can’t be pro-choice and absolutist? You mean pro-choicers who assert that abortion should always be legal aren’t really pro-choice?
:smack:
Did you just, like, ignore the entire concept of pregnancy and the biogenesis?
A fertilized egg, also known as a zygote, is the (for lack of a better word) simplest form of a human being. We can go at this all day, if you so please, and you’ll be just as wrong as you were the first time.
The beginning of a race is not a part of the race? The first pencil strokes of a drawing are not contained in the drawing itself?
And what is a fetus? Fetus, which means ‘small child’ in Latin, denotes a stage of development while human, denotes a species. Prior to the day you’re born, you’re a fetus. Once you’re born, you’re a neonate, since you want to get technical. You’re always a human. You’re welcome.
And yet you assert that you say you care about science. Please. Anywho, assuming what you say is true, then women, by extension, must also have twenty toes, twenty fingers, four eyes, sometimes a penis and pretty much everything else which humans don’t normally have.
Great. So why do we have any laws again? We should leave people to do whatever they want.
(But oh, you’ll say that you were just talking about abortion, not everything!)
No, the subject at hand is actually you putting forth a set of criteria which, apparently, only apply in cases of abortion. Outside of it, you throw those criteria to the wind.
Well, now, this is just stupid. And incredibly so. Baby is a social construct, and means whatever the individual using it wants it to mean. The law doesn’t define who a baby is, and neither does science, though the latter does define a neonate. Science defines who is a human being. Unfortunately, the law has yet to catch up though, I can safely say it will.
And here goes the personal belief angle again. You know, pro-choicers should be barred from using this line unless they’re going to be consistent and apply said logic uniformly across the board, and not just abortion.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
What’s sad is how pathetic your devotion to your delusions are. There is no soul. We’re mechanical and a fetus doesn’t have the capability of forming consciousness.
[/quote]
Yeah, because I totally mentioned a soul.
If you did all of that with an eight year old, I wouldn’t care. What’s quite ironic is that you fail to see the obvious. You equate a fetus to cancer and/or a tumor, which is all fine and dandy (not really), unless that fetus is wanted, then its elevated to a status far higher than cancer and/or a tumor. Apparently, the will of the mother is magic and can change the biological status of the unborn at a whim.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
And OMG your whole schtick about there being some insurmountable and prohibitive inconsistency in it being illegal to maim a fetus but legal to kill it is laughably stupid.
[/quote]
Actually, it isn’t.
As I’m sure you’re well aware, dogs are also afforded more protections under the law than is your fetus in the way of animal cruelty laws. If there’s a fetus cruelty law on the books, I’d like for you to show it to me.
So an individuals inherent worth is decided by whether or not the mother, and society, wants them or not? Interesting…
You mean upholding her right to do to her body as she pleases isn’t practical?
There’s an obvious utility in making it illegal for the mother to kill her fetus, but you don’t seem to be too concerned with that.
Well, it’s a good thing no one has ever argued as much then, isn’t it?
I’m too lazy to look for Canada, but Sections IX and X are the relevant portions.
lol… Women’s rights is a (terrible) euphemism for abortion. When convenience it taken to trump the life of another, you know we’ve fallen into a moral blackhole
The point I made regarding dog protection law as you are either too thick to realise or too disingenous to admit is that there is precedent for allowing killing but not maiming of things. I did not suggest that there were actually fetus protection laws. Here’s a clue: if the best you can do is try to claim smartass debating points by faux misunderstanding my point so you can attempt to respond, you may have a substance problem.
Similarly, saying something is “interesting” is not an argument. Nor is saying there is an “obvious utility” while not pointing out what that utility might be. You’ve got nothing. When come back, bring substance.
By the way, yesterday I asked whether you were really attempting to suggest that your position wasn’t based on personhood/non-personhood. You didn’t answer. Why is that? Could it be that in reality your argument is fundamentally based on first defining a fetus as a person and then insisting there must be rigid consistency of laws regarding people? Could it be that in reality your insistence that since no one thinks maiming a fetus should be lawful, killing one shouldn’t be either is actually an insistence on silly rigidity and consistency of laws?
Fetus roughly means ‘offspring’ in latin, not ‘small child’. Repeatedly referring to embryos and fetuses as children is not doing anything for your case.
Are you basing this higher status solely on the fact that some women mourn the loss of their pregnancy when they miscarry? Because that’s stupid. Mourning doesn’t necessarily come from the loss of something tangible, it can come from the loss of your dreams for the future. Some women also mourn the ‘loss’ of false pregnancies (blighted ovum or molar pregnancy), because they wanted to be a mother and that dream is being dashed. Hell, I’m sure some women mourn when they are trying to get pregnant and the pee stick comes out negative. How do you explain that if the reason for their mourning is only the loss of something with the ‘biological status’ of a cute little baby?
What is the utility? Are we short of human beings?
Scientists, the government, apparently a majority of individuals.
Nope.
I didn’t say that.
No.
Nope.
Not according to scientists.
Yes. It does not follow however that a few pencil scratches are a drawing or a couple of steps is a race.
After birth, yes. Prior, no.
Do you honestly think those things look alike?
If you don’t leave enough of the discussion in for me to know what you are talking about, I am not going to bother to search it out.
Ditto here.
The subject at hand is abortion. Why would we be discussing criteria that apply to anything else?
Nitpicking bores me.
Since your whole argument is based on your personal beliefs on the subject, I fail to see why you have a problem with that “angle”. As for applying logic uniformly across the board, you continuing to try to change the subject isn’t doing much for your cause.
I disagree with your metric. Nobody is making the claim that the embryo is the same. It just meets the minimum criteria. And “all other things being equal” is about as rare as encountering 500 human embryos in the real world.
The abortion debate isn’t new. The reason it is intractable is that the pro-life side for the most part can’t compromise. They can no more accept abortion than they can infanticide, and as far as I know, nobody on the pro-choice side advocates the latter.
IMO, the best way to attack their side is education. Corrupt their young.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but these don’t claim what you say they claim. For starters, Section X doesn’t have any references to fetal personhood (though it does touch on fetal viability) and from what I can tell about Section IX, it’s not the pro-choicer who is claiming that a fetus is not a person, but rather making the claim that pro-life arguments based on fetal personhood have no legal precedence or foundation.
It may seem like a hairsplitting distinction, but I honestly think you’re mischaracterizing the pro-choice argument. It’s as though you’re implying:
[ul][li]Fetal personhood is a well-established concept.[/li][li]Pro-choicers abruptly argued that “fetuses aren’t persons” in deliberate and groundless defiance of this concept.[/li][li]All pro-choice arguments spring from this.[/ul][/li]
Did the concept of fetal personhood even exist before serious modern abortion legalization efforts? Roe Section IX points out that fetal personhood was not an established legal concept. I’d suggest that a pro-choicer who thinks personhood is relevant (I still don’t) discard “a fetus is not a person” and instead embrace “claims of fetal personhood are without foundation.”
Well, if it’s a mere matter of convenience, how many unwanted babies have you personally adopted? If it’s one, why not two? If it’s two, why not three? Surely you can handle the inconvenience of multiple adoptions.
Labeling isn’t impressive. Bring arguments. Try to consider the implications of an abortion ban. What do you honestly think would happen? If this truly is utterly irrelevant to you and the moral issue alone is paramount with no consideration needed for real-world results, I’ll ask you what I asked classylady earlier - would you be satisfied if all abortion was illegal but carried a permanently-fixed trivial fine, like a $5 ticket or something?
And what do you think are the practical results of a country falling into a “moral blackhole” ? What are the signs of it? What will happen in Canada? If nothing happens in Canada, but the U.S. would fall into a moral blackhole if it followed our example, doesn’t that suggest Americans are morally less sturdy than Canadians?
You know, for me to be too thick to realize a point you were making or to disingenuous to admit you made a point, you would actually need to make a point first. If the “legal precedent” you mentioned is really precedent, then why is it only applied to animals and not to humans? Why is there not a law which says that while you cannot kill (through non-abortion means) or maim your unborn child, you can abort it? How can a legal precedent be precedent if it doesn’t influence any other laws?
How quaint. Or should I say ironic?
I have nothing? Yes, you’re right. I mean, I guess I could have pointed out to you that the notion that an individual only has worth so long as someone else deems them to have worth to lead to a situation in which one group of humans are treated as inferior to another and deprived of rights afforded to all other humans. I guess I could have even bothered pointing out that thinking it better to eliminate someone who could be considered a burden on society to lead to a situation in where, say, one could rationalize killing off the poor, the elderly, the disabled and pretty much everyone else society can’t be bothered to provide for. But I figure, why bother?
Because you posted it a 4:56 AM my time, and at 4:56 AM, I’m asleep. And chances are, when I woke up and came to this thread, I was only looking for responses to the people I had previously responded to. But that’s a complete guess.
Could it? Yes. Is it? No. The only thing that matters is that it’s a human. Remember the concept of human rights? …No…? Can’t say that surprises me any.
I think you might want to try again.
Anyway, you kind of ignored a question I really wanted answered, so I’ll ask it again; are you saying that upholding a woman’s right to bodily autonomy isn’t practical?
Thank you for the correction, though that doesn’t really change much.
I’ve always wondered what this meant. Surely, pro-choicers can’t seem to think that they’re “winning” more converts than are dying off.
No, I base it solely on the fact that the individuals who are asserting that the fetus is equivalent to cancer and/or a tumor, or is just a small ball of cells, would never tell a woman grieving a miscarriage that it’s no big deal because it was equivalent to cancer and/or a tumor, and was just a small ball of cells.
Babies make people happy. More babies means happier people.
[QUOTE=curlcoat]
Scientists, the government, apparently a majority of individuals.
[/quote]
No, no, and most definitely no. Good luck with those citatioins.
Yup
Except you did:
^
So what are they then?
You didn’t? Then tell me how a human male and human female can come together to produce offspring which aren’t human themselves.
Just to help you out here, PZ Meyes does not equal scientists.
Really?
Oh? So what are you? You have to be something. You can’t be nothing, as nothing is hard to conceptualize.
If I were to lay in front of you twenty pictures of twenty different embryos, you wouldn’t be able to pick out the human.
Because logic, or the lack thereof, doesn’t exist in a bubble.
You’re the only one who’s mentioned personal beliefs.
It seems to be doing more to “help the cause” than whatever it is pro-choicers do (or don’t do).
It changes something because you were disingenuously trying to say “look, the word fetus means child! even Latin agrees with me!”
I honestly have no idea what this sentence means. Care to explain it?
This is genuinely the single stupidest pro-life argument I’ve ever heard in my life.
Babies make people who want babies happy. Unwanted pregnancy makes people who don’t want babies (or have had all their babies, or whatever) very, very unhappy. Unwanted babies who will spend their childhoods shuffled around the foster care system are probably not happy. Unwanted babies that grow up in abusive or uncaring homes or orphanages grow up into adults with serious issues that have the potential to make us *all *unhappy.
Prior to Roe v. Wade person was synonymous with human. Roe v. Wade was the one which separated the two.
Please do. It will make it so much easier to point out that SCOTUS once asserted the same things along the lines of Blacks and being citizens of the U.S.
Zero. And you know why? Because I didn’t make them.
Again, with this argument. As I pointed out before, and will continue to point out, it’s a red herring. I’m just going to quote myself:
You think a country has to fall into anarchy to have fallen into a moral black hole?
No, I mean because generally when one says offspring as it relates to humans, they tend to think of children.
You said arguments such as the one I made aren’t helping the cause. Well, at least in the U.S., older generations are generally more approving of abortion than younger generations, means it’s probably helping somewhat (since they’re quite common). The second part basically means that more pro-choicers die out than are born to replace them, meaning a slow but gradual shift.
Is it?
The fact that you took the time to write all that out made it totally worth it.
For one thing, that’s four sentences. It took me all of about two seconds to type that. So, congrats on your big victory there. For another, it’s good to know you were just yanking my chain and actually have no good reason why thousands of unwanted babies have any ‘utility’ at all, despite the fact that you clearly claimed that they do. Nice debating technique!
And you do know that being pregnant is more than just an “inconvenience” that one gets through easily in a brief period of time then goes right back to life as it was, right?
If we want to sloganize, how about this: every mother willing, every child wanted.
No woman forced to give birth when she is not mentally, physically or financially prepared or interested in doing so and no child brought into the world who will not have the benefit of at least one parent who is ready to commit to fulfilling that child’s needs, across the board.
