[QUOTE=erie774]
So, “At what point does abortion become the causing of the death of a human being?”
[/QUOTE]
In my opinion, arguably, pretty much from the beginning, just as me refusing to donate a kidney can become “causing the death of a human being.” The death of the embryo/fetus/human being is not the goal of abortion, in my thinking. The end of the pregnancy is the goal. If the one could be done without the other, I’d support that.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It isn’t necessary in any absolute sense (NOTHING is necessary in an absolute sense), it’s just how humans have evolved. We’re evolved to survive in communites rather than as individuals. Our own biology and brain structure compels us to preserve those communities. You might as well ask why it’s necessary for bees to live in hives.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I’m following you, but let’s get more specific. I propose that our laws against murder are too broad. We should allow parents to kill their children as long as the children are, say, less than 6 years old. On what basis would you oppose such a law?
[QUOTE=wm–]
:dubious: Hey man, don’t blame me, I voted for Kerry. Being pro-life =/= worshipping George Bush or any other “leader” you’d like to name.
As for the rest of your post, I’m not even sure how to respond. If I disagree that rounding up and murdering 100,000 men is a great idea, I must be a misogynist?
[/QUOTE]
I’m aware of that. I’m aware (as I said) that many pro-life posters on this very board are (or appear to me to be) motivated entirely by the honest conviction that abortion is the murdering of human life, and that they have no problems with female emancipation, the sexual revolution, or any of this other “peripheral agenda”.
[QUOTE=erie774]
Diogenes, can you please expand on this? I know that you have probably stated your reasoning countless times, but I really would like to see it again. Is it a human being when the cord is cut? When the incubator with the screaming member of species Homo is wheeled from the room? When it is capable of coherent, cogent conversation? Sometime between fertilization and decomposition? When it joins the SDMB? 
I know that this probably sounds a little smart ass but I really would like people to give me their clear definition of the start of life. With those definitions, I can get a better view on how people delineate between what is the removal of tissue and what is the death of a person.
By the way, thank you all for participating. I am a newbie member of the board and have enjoyed reading your debates. Now I am participating and enjoying the repartee and especially loving the intellectual discourse. Reminds me of bull sessions I used to have with old buddies over adult beverages, many years ago.
[/QUOTE]
First, I think the designation “human being” is the wrong one and that the question is really about whether the entity is a PERSON and is entitled to legal rights of personhood rather than if it merely belongs to the species homo sapiens.
In my opinion, the fetus is not entitled to rights of personhood until it is no longer inside another person’s body. I think that even a full grown adult does not hav a right to live inside another person’s body without that person’s consent. My position is that a woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body. This procedure almost always occurs before the fetus can survive outside the womb but if, theoretically, a woman wanted to remove the fetus in the third trimester (something which virtually never occurs electively and elective third trimester abortions are already illegal in most states anyway) then there is no Constututional reason why the state would not have the right to remove the fetus intact, keep it alive and grant it rights of personhood.
Before that (and especially in the cases of first trimester abortions which make up 90% of all abortions), I simply don’t see the entity as a person deserving of any rights – certainly not any rights which should override a woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy or reproductive freedom.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
I’m aware of that. I’m aware (as I said) that many pro-life posters on this very board are (or appear to me to be) motivated entirely by the honest conviction that abortion is the murdering of human life, and that they have no problems with female emancipation, the sexual revolution, or any of this other “peripheral agenda”.
[/QUOTE]
Um, I guess it’s nice to know that you’re not actually accusing anyone here of being part of the patriarchal conspiracy or whatever, but if that’s the case, why bring it into the discussion at all?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not sure I’m following you, but let’s get more specific. I propose that our laws against murder are too broad. We should allow parents to kill their children as long as the children are, say, less than 6 years old. On what basis would you oppose such a law?
[/QUOTE]
It would violate the constitutional rights of the victims.
[QUOTE=wm–]
Well, mine is conception. (Surprise!)
[/QUOTE]
Hey, that makes a lot of sense! 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It would violate the constitutional rights of the victims.
[/QUOTE]
Really? If there were an amendment permitting this act, it wouldn’t trouble you?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It would violate the constitutional rights of the victims.
[/QUOTE]
How does one derive the rights embedded in the constitution? Does one do that without reference to philosophical questions? Do we not allow slavery because it would lead to a destablized society, or do we not allow it because it is morally repugnant to allow one human being to own another human being?
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Really? If there were an amendment permitting this act, it wouldn’t trouble you?
[/QUOTE]
Of course it would trouble me, but that would just be tough shit for me.
I asked a couple on their 50th anniversary: “How are you still so happy and in love after 50 years of marriage” and the guy answered: “great sex” It kinda made me a bit uncomfortable to hear 70 year olds mention sex but apparently after viagra, he stopped noticing how much of a bitch she was and she stopped noticing how much of an asshole he was. Apparently sex can overcome a multitude of character flaws.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
And I believe it is morally wrong to deprive yourself and your spouse of a major aspect of a healthy, loving relationship.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=John Mace]
How does one derive the rights embedded in the constitution?
[/quote]
They derive from a premise that human beings have certain innate rights. Is this premise philosphical? I don’t think it particularly is. I think it’s more of a pragamatic premise designed to facilitate the most stable and productive society.
As much as possible, yes.
We do it because we have decided that all people are entitled to the same rights. Slavery may strike us as aesthically “morally regugnant” but the reason it’s illegal is simply to preserve that first pragmatic principle of equal rights for all people.
Which means you’re serious in thinking that I should give up sex until I’m nearly 60 years old.
That’s an awful lot you expect people to give up. Who’d be able to get married and maintain lifetime abstinence?
Do you mourn tampons then? Because some of those contain fertilized eggs that never implanted.
And I agree with you.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
First, I think the designation “human being” is the wrong one and that the question is really about whether the entity is a PERSON and is entitled to legal rights of personhood rather than if it merely belongs to the species homo sapiens. .
[/QUOTE]
But “person” is defined as:
NOUN:
Previously I gave definitions of human (member of genus Homo) and life. The “entity” qualifies as a person by dictionary definitions.
By the way, I love that you keep referring to the “entity” You would make some of the best Hallmark cards for expecting parents.
“Congratulations! I hear you are expecting an entity!” :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think that even a full grown adult does not hav a right to live inside another person’s body without that person’s consent.
[/QUOTE]
Neat trick! Saw that in Being John Malkevich.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
My position is that a woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body. This procedure almost always occurs before the fetus can survive outside the womb but if, theoretically, a woman wanted to remove the fetus in the third trimester… then there is no Constututional reason why the state would not have the right to remove the fetus intact, keep it alive and grant it rights of personhood.
Before that… I simply don’t see the entity as a person deserving of any rights – certainly not any rights which should override a woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy or reproductive freedom.
[/QUOTE]
So this “entity”, as you call it, has no rights of “personhood” until it is out of the womb. There are no protections for it, anything can be done to it by the mother. We will have to rethink child protection laws. Currently, babies are taken away from mothers if they are born with drugs in their systems. It is considered a form of child abuse in some states. This has to stop since it interferes with her “bodily autonomy”.
Again, I don’t want to seem rude, but I would appreciate clarification. Thanks.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
In my opinion, arguably, pretty much from the beginning, just as me refusing to donate a kidney can become “causing the death of a human being.” The death of the embryo/fetus/human being is not the goal of abortion, in my thinking. The end of the pregnancy is the goal. If the one could be done without the other, I’d support that.
[/QUOTE]
Some folks would say that the abortion is also to end the life of the child, in that they don’t want to see the child raised by anyone else either.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
They derive from a premise that human beings have certain innate rights. Is this premise philosphical? I don’t think it particularly is. I think it’s more of a pragamatic premise designed to facilitate the most stable and productive society.
As much as possible, yes.
We do it because we have decided that all people are entitled to the same rights. Slavery may strike us as aesthically “morally regugnant” but the reason it’s illegal is simply to preserve that first pragmatic principle of equal rights for all people.
[/QUOTE]
Why is a stable and productive society desirable? What do we call the field of inquiry that would lead us to that determination?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Of course it would trouble me, but that would just be tough shit for me.
[/QUOTE]
So if there’s an amendment banning abortion, you’ll accept this and move on?
[QUOTE=catsix]
That’s an awful lot you expect people to give up. Who’d be able to get married and maintain lifetime abstinence?
[/QUOTE]
Well, the obvious counter is that you expect the unborn to give up quite a bit in your philosophy (from my perspective).
[QUOTE=erie774]
“Congratulations! I hear you are expecting an entity!”
[/QUOTE]
I witnessed a conversation like this once at a party, between two acquaintances, one of whom recently found out she was pregnant.
“So do you know if the baby is a boy or a girl? What are you going to name it?”
“The FETUS is a boy. We don’t know what we’re going to name the FETUS yet.”
She and her husband were happy and excited about the pregnancy, but they were extremely picky about referring to it only as “the fetus,” never as a “baby” or “their son.” It was honestly pretty unsettling.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Why is a stable and productive society desirable? What do we call the field of inquiry that would lead us to that determination?
[/QUOTE]
I should add that I don’t accept your premise that constitutional rights are derived from a desire to form the most stable and productive society possible. If that were the case, we’d probably design a police state. But even if I accept your premise, for the sake of argument, you are still falling back on a philosophical position.