Indeed.
Of course I could be as cute and wonder about the “irony” of pro choice vegetarians or pro choice animal rights activists :rolleyes:
Not exactly sure what point gaspode is trying to make here…
:rolleyes: Not even worth yet another response.
**
Well.
No.
Not
At
All.
See here?
Yes, the website is a pro life website. However, the testimony though is from a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee.
Okay, godogsgo, perhaps we have a misunderstanding. I shall try to explain my reasoning as clearly as possible.
First of all, I never said that sperm or eggs were human, simply that they amounted to exactly half of a human, by your own definition. By what logic would you dispute this?
Second, I would suggest that, if one takes the view that humans are fundamentally different than animals, not just another species, the fact that we are consciousness is the dividing line, and thus, how conscious a person is determines how human a person is. If you would take the view that humans are simply a species of animal and not fundamentally different, this would not apply. I hope I stated myself clearly enough.
First of all, when did I, personally, cite a pro-choice source in this argument? You have apparently made a false assumption about my actions. Also, I would not reject the argument, simply the source. You supplied an faq for a pro-life group. They assert that most abortions are performed between 8 and 13 weeks, however they do not provide statistics to back this up, simply assertions. Why didn’t you provide me with actual statistics, rather than assertions from a pro-life group?
I’m not sure why I’m still here. The conversation clearly isn’t going anywhere.
Oh well.
beagledave, there is a distinction between robertliguori’s “when does human-ness begin” and the question “when does life begin.” If you want to define the begining of life as “the point at which a biological entity begins to follow its genetic map and take steps towards becoming fully formed” then it probably begins at conception.
So what?
Does your definition get you anything? Do you really think anyone would smack their foreheads and say, “I was so mistaken, you are totally right”?
Throughout this thread, people have been struggling with words, and thrown out some concepts such as self awareness, human-ness, sentience, etc. Do you really not understand what they are trying to say? Are you really struggling with it all? Is this all over your head?
At various point between fetilization and a newborn child, things happen. Brain activity starts at some point. Organs are fully developed at another. Viability begins at another. Chances for survival are dramatically increased at another. Etc. Etc. Do you really care which one of these points the various pro-choicers hang their hats on? Does “winning” the argument that “the genetic map is fully formed at conception” get you anywhere closer to your goal?
Oh, and Mandos, the “half a human” tangent is a straw man. Many things cannot be divided. Just because you have, say, half of a plane, it doesn’t mean the plane will fly half as fast or half as high. Half a plane won’t fly at all. Some things are useful only when they have all of their components intact.
—Also Mandos, my logic does no include sperm and egg cells. they do not represent human life. No sperm cell by itself will ever develop into a human. Same is true with an egg.—
No zygote, by itself, will ever develop into a fetus.
I see you have picked the rather pointless “human” road.
—Third, Mandos, ah Mandos, Mandos, Mandos, since when is sentience what sets a human apart? Is not a mentally hadicapped person still human?—
Sure: but what does their humanity, BY ITSELF, have to do with anything? What are the specific qualities and capacities that give things moral value?
The proper DNA? That DNA set in a certain medium? Why? What gives this concoction moral value? What, in your mind, gives a fetus more moral value than an adult chicken, a rather mentally simple creature which. nevertheless, exceeds it in virtually every possible capacity that people consider to be moral?
I also support abortion where you know that the child will be very phycially handicapped like siamese twins or with great birth defects.
as for birth control, a lot of them have side effects and although I use them…I had a lot of boyfriends that told me they were prolife but that they didn’t want to wear a condom b/c it didn’t feel right.
how does carrying a baby for 9 mos and delivery plus 18 yrs of maintanence feel to you
Well of course the quotes I provided addressed both issues. For example:
**
The “so what” is that in this thread and others with robertliguori, I have provided several cites that support the notion that new human life is created at conception. He (and other posters) says that the description of an organism as “human” (as opposed to canine, porcine etc…) is not a biological notion. “Personhood” is a philosophical idea conferred by society. Whether an organism is human or not is a biological notion.
**
Nope been down this road in other threads a bazillion times before. The fact that other people are incorrect about biology doesn’t mean that “it’s all over my head”.
The cite I provided in earlier thread is here, That cite and the one I provided in this thread show that I’m on pretty solid footing in claiming that most mainstream embryologists/biologists would agree that a new human life is created at conception. I had invited robertliguori to provide cites of mainstream embryologists who claim otherwise. He still declines to do that
**
I’m not sure what you think “my goal” is. Certainly one of the goals of the SDMB is fighting ignorance…So yeah I hope I’m doing a little bit of that.
I’m well aware that different pro choicers have different points at which they would grant “rights” (that would trump reproductive “rights”) to the developing z/e/f. Those arguments are “personhood” arguments.
I am pro-choice, ie pro-abortion if it’s needed and wanted by the women, and also anti-forced-abortion ie if a pregnant woman wants to carry a terribly handicapped child to term, or if she wants to sacrifice her own life to carry a child to term, that’s her choice too.
The reason I am pro-choice is twofold. Firstly, I believe abortion is a personal moral issue and it should be up to a person’s own conscience.
Secondly - believe it or not - I do believe a foetus is “human”. So is a fertilised egg. It may only be a “potential” human, but the chance is there. Despite that, I think it is OK to kill it. I believe the life of something small, insustainable outside the womb, potential, call it what you will, IS less important than that of a mother who does not want it, for whatever reason.
For a host of practical reasons I believe abortion should be made available to every woman from every background, race and religion, in every country.
I also believe that abortion is a difficult and sad choice for any woman - or parent, let’s not forget there’s a man involved too, assuming he’s stuck around - and that better birth control and family planning is preferable. But I also recognise that “accidents happen” and so birth control isn’t foolproof.
I don’t know whether or not I would have an abortion. I have nothing against having one personally, so theoretically, yes, I would. Realistically speaking it would depend on who the father was, how I felt when I was pregnant - as I am sure it is impossible to imagine how you would feel until you are.
Just as it is impossible for anyone to fully understand what a particular pregnant women is going through. Which is why she should be given her own, dignified, safe, legal choice to do what she will with her pregnancy.
Thanks to eveyone who posted in response to me!
I think I understand the pro-choince (and pro-life) view(s) a little bit better. If you want to continue tearing my past posts apart, please feel free to do so.
Even though I may not agree with some opinions stated, I have to respect that we are all entitled to our own opinions, and the more we try to convince another to, “change sides” the more stubborn he/she becomes. I won’t continue arguing over what I said becasue I already found the answers to my questions.
That said, I won’t stop trying to reduce the amount of abortions that people have every year,and even though I would like to see it made illegal, that may not be a reality anytime soon.
Both sides of the argument have validity since it is based on each person’s opinion on which is more valuable, a person already alive, or a “group of cells” that will become fully grown.
For me, I have chosen my side and no amount of banter, insults or persuasion will change my viewpoint, and I hope everyone can be as sure about their opinion as I am.
I am leaving the discussion for now, but if anyone still wants to argue/discuss this with me I will be more than willing.
Once again, thanks to everyone who espressed their opinions to better strengthen my own!
GDG
Seems to me that have actually altered your position somewhat in that you have gained insight into how the ‘other side’ think; You stand a far greater chance of being heard in a debate if you can accurately state the position of your opponent ([mis]quoting someone there, but I don’t know who).
I’ll finish off by saying that, due to (bad)personal experiences and my religious views, my personal opinion is that abortion is at best a waste and at worst, a moral injustice, but I recognise within myself that this isn’t a position that I came to as a result of factual analysis, neither is it a position that I can impose on someone who holds a different set of values, especially as I am not able to experience and understand the fullness of their situation. I hope this goes some way toward explaining my ambivalence on the subject.
That’s pretty much what I was trying to say earlier, except put far more effectively.
I will continue working against your goal. Nothing personal(?). If I have my way, you will never see that reality.
Thank you. See that people? Its absolutely true. Why do we keep beating ourselves against the rocks over abortion? I’m not going to change my mind either-- I think I just like to argue. 
I realise this may be nothing more than an attempt to neatly wrap up and withdraw from the debate, but I do find that statement a little sad; casting aside the contentious nature of the subject in hand for a moment, consider the rationality of this approach; it is not terribly likely to deliver you any new, hard truths. It makes the difference between debate and sermon.
Well the point of any debate like this is not to convince the opponent to change side. That won’t happen. A debate serves to purposes:
- It gives you insight to the reasoning of your opponent, and may help you later, when stating your case to an impartial party.
- It may sway the part of the audience who is unsure about their own standpoint. If someone is leaning towards pro-life, a good debate may convince that person to take a stand.
So in it’s own way, a thread like this is democracy at work.
Well, you might not change your mind, but sometimes people do.
Consider such prominent individuals as Norma McCorvey, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Sandra Cano and Eric Harrah, to name a few. I’ve posted links to their stories before, but I don’t have time to do so again today. A simple web search should provide you with information on how and why they changed their minds, though.
JThunder, the fact that Norma McCorvey changed her mind does indeed prove that people can change. My somewhat facetious response to godogsgo13’s refusal to change his mind is flawed. Nuts and bolts aside, why should the fact that Norma McCorvey reversed her opinion after nearly 30 years of guilt and browbeating by prolife advocates matter to me? Here’s a little insight to McCorvey’s current mindset…
Yup, that sounds like a rational person espousing a valid moral priciple to me. “there’s no children, because they’ve all been aborted.” Woof, try living with that for 30 years! No wonder she’s recanting. She believes she is somehow responsible for every aborted child in America.
<Prolifers shout: “Well, she is!!!”>
<Prochoicers shout: “So what?!”>
… and here we are again.
Oh, for pity’s sake. You’re making it sound as though Norma McCorvey’s conversion was misguided, on the grounds that she has these episodes of emotional torment. Talk about ridiculous. This is yet another example of pro-choicers attacking the person, rather than the arguments presented.
Moreover, even if you dismiss Norma McCorvey’s reversal, what about Dr. Bernard Nathanson? Remember, he was one of the FOUNDERS of NARAL, and an outspoken advocate of abortion. He switched sides due to scientific evidence, rather than any religious experience. (In fact, he remained an atheist for years after becoming a pro-lifer.)
Apparently the lesson here is
–emotional reaction to previous abortions by pro choice women: understandable , shouldn’t be mocked or scorned.
—emotional reaction to previous abortions by pro life woman: fair game for scorn and ridicule.
(Of course the facts of her conversion are just a wee bit different than p@cific@812 chose to paint the picture).
Is the message on social policy issues: Don’t try to change people’s minds, because it’s a waster of time, everyone has already made up their minds?
Somebody better pass that message along to the folks huffing and puffing about the pledge of allegience (which enjoys a MUCH higher approval rating that Roe v Wade)…or trying to have states legally recognize gay marriages see here, which at 67% has much disagreement that Roe)
Funny, I don’t see those same folks posting to pledge debates or gay marriage debates informing them that “the law is not on their side” (as in this thread) , or that the public has made up their mind (as I have heard in plenty of GD debates on abortion)
Hypocrisy much?
Double arg. Look, beagledave, I’m a person (hopefully). I don’t have the right to invade your home or other property, and if I do, you have every right to evict me. Leaving aside what the embryologists say (and the argument about personhood was covered previously) you have the same right to evict people from your body.
And for the people who have read beagledave’s cites in the past and have learned how informative they are:
The first was a bunch of people stating that human life began at conception. Whoopee. No reasoning at all. Yes, that’s a sentance fragment. I don’t care
The next one was a prime example of “It’s true because I say it is.”
[plug for personal favorite abortion debating tactic]
Look, the arguments on the second cite are equally valid when discussing cancer. Cancer has the requsite number of chromosomes, can survive outside a womb, and has DNA different than that of it’s host. Cancers are not people. A line of reasoning that states that X is a class of Y because of Z fails when A, which is definitly not part of Y is also Z. Bwahahah.
[/plug for personal favorite abortion debating tactic]
Well fine…asking whether a “right to life” trumps “reproductive rights” is a legitimate argument. (Asking whether ANY one right trumps another is a legitimate argument…in that respect there is nothing special about the abortion debate). Of course that’s not the point you made earlier in this thread (or the previous thread). You said that whether an organism is human or not, is a social question. I provided cites of several leading embryologists or medical doctors who have testified otherwise. And you have provided…oh that’s right, you have provided zip to defend your claim. Still
**
Psst…those “bunch of people” are embryologists and medical doctors. And your expertise in this matter would be? Oh, that’s right…you did well in high school biology. :rolleyes:
**
Specifically show me where any of the cites I have provided use that line of reasoning. Be very specific in what you are referring to. In other words, show me the quote that you are referring to.
(Of course the sheer irony of any of your arguments has been that you have provided NO cites to back up your claims. Still.)
Seriously robert, have you not taken notice of the sheer number of people who have trouble with your approach to this (and maybe other) topics? I’m not talking about a difference of opinion about abortion, I’m talking about your problems representing the position. I’m specifically referring to other pro choice people who don’t think you’re really representing the position that well.
Look back here for an example of what I’m talking about.
We can debate and disagree on various aspects of this issue, but at least use some intellectual honesty in the debates. Please.