Yes; I worded it a bit poorly.
That depends on how reasonable your reason for thinking that it isn’t a person is. Blowing up a machine that you only find out later was manned being at one extreme; shooting black people because you don’t think they have souls is another.
Claiming that a fetus is a person mean you have to throw out the definitions we use everywhere else, and rapidly leads to absurdities.
However that period of sapience is all-important. Even if one is sapient for only a second life must be preserved until that point is reached.
No since God has mandated against killing and we should wait out our natural spans of life on Earth.
Well, gosh! Why didn’t you say so sooner! I don’t know about the rest of the atheists, but shucks, for me that’s plenty of reason to do whatever you say!
Good point.
But what matters is that right now the dog has a mind, and the fetus does not.
They are very similar; both assert their right to use a woman’s body against her will. If anything the pro-lifers are worse since they want to do so for much longer.
And if you are wrong, what do you care? They served their function; a woman was hurt, and that makes you happy.
People aren’t murdered in abortions.
And I say that God sends Christians and the children of women forced to bear them to Hell and everyone else goes to Heaven. And that has just as much evidence as your claim.
But why?
Our life spans aren’t natural. We’re the result of nutritional knowledge, medical knowledge, and a generally more eased way of life. A life expectancy, in the US and over here in the UK, of near 80, is incredibly unnatural. And given that you’ve said just recently that the extent to which life should be preserved is dependent at least in part on what medical technology is able to do and avaliable, i’m not sure how you can claim that we are intended to wait out our natural life spans. You would seem to have already accepted, and in fact mandated as far as respect for life goes, unnatural life enhancements.
Were you expecting me to be opposed to that, or something?
I guess that makes you against war too?
I guess I have this extremely pervasive sense often when a discussion consistently goes from “It’s a child”, (my POV) to “We’re not ready”, or, “It’s my body!” or many other arguments that consistently ignore that central question.
I’ve pressed that on many occasions and while some Dopers—like Bryan Ekers here in this thread------ have come back to the question and said [in so many words] “I don’t care if it’s a baby (human) my rights are superior.”
A much smaller percentage have engaged the question as to when human life begins. The largest percentage, however, simply put up more arguments. For example----and it has been common---- to lead with [a variation] of “It’s my body” (a privacy/ self determination right) and add to that argument, “They’re too young”, and/or “The child will then live in poverty” and so on; in each instance ignoring the question as to whether this is a child or not.
I’m ok with that. However…it seems clear to me that we may then not be talking about the question of when life begins as much as talking about the relative merits of infanticide; in this context a variation of the death penalty.
IOW, by implicitly (or in many cases explicitly) acknowledging that this might be a human, we’re saying that my [singular] reason----- i.e. “It will mess up my plans” is a more compelling right than the right of this child to live"
Now it seems to me that “It will mess up my plans” is an ethically untenable position (vis a vis the life of another human) and so I’ve challenged those reasons as such.
Rather than going back to the central question, the most common answer has been to simply add more [equally ethically untenable] logs to the fire.
Now the argument isn’t simply that the [potential parents] plans would be messed up, but they’re poor and the child will live a miserable life…and, and…maybe the child may have birth defects, or maybe it’s a result of rape, or the spermicide failed, or, or ,or…
And really I’m fine with all of that. But if we shelve the discussion that life may begin at conception, and at least implicitly acknowledge that this might be a life we are ----at the very least-----running two parallel discussions: One that ignores the question of whether this is a life or not, and Two, under what conditions may we end the life of a human child.
While I disagree with Bryan Ekers and think his comments are ethically appalling, I can at least see that the issues have crystallized in his mind so that the question as to whether life begins at conception is irrelevant-----for [apparently, in his mind] even if it was a child, there are compelling reasons in his mind to end the child’s life.
Now he’s not the first to espouse those views, but there have been many more that seem clueless to those implications.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Please expand your thoughts.
You know, I don’t disagree with you, although I don’t understand how you haven’t then come to the conclusion that the only question in the issue of abortion [specifically] “When does human life begin?”
IOW, I believe I am quite capable of arguing the case from a pro-choice perspective: It’s not a baby. Period. Call it what you want, “Non vital tissue mass” or whatever. But it ain’t a baby. It’s not human. Now, if you want to argue with me about that we can. But our discussion will center on that; on when human life begins.
Because if I abdicate that position----even passively----- and [implicitly] accept that this might be a human, I’m no longer arguing for abortion rights as much as I’m arguing for instances of justifiable Infanticide Death Penalty.
Unless I held that view (and IMV it’s a pathetic commentary that many Dopers do) I would never concede that point to you.
The fact is, if it’s not a baby, questions about poverty, and rape, and maturity and intent, etc those arguments aren’t just inane, they’re meaningless. IOW, that fetus that was just aborted is qualitatively the exact same as a removed appendix.
And you won’t trick me into validating the fetus any more than you’ll get me to argue why an appendix should be discarded.
Indeed it does not. And that is why, I think, we all feel this viscerally.
And for those who believe this way I would only say this:
If it’s not a child—if it’s not a human being---- than making extraneous arguments have the [unintended, to be sure] effect of elevating the fetus to at least the potential for human life.
The moment the argument goes from “Abortions should be legal and safe” to “Abortions should be legal safe and rare” (a comment I trust you’ve heard from many politicians, trying to balance public opinions) you’ve opened the door to at least the possibility that this is a human life.
Yes, the rareness is desired because it’s a human life–THE WOMAN’S. You know, the person whose body you’re trying to coopt? Abortion ideally is rare because it’s not zero risk, it’s not zero expense, and it’s not zero pain for the only person who matters.
Surgery should be legal, safe, and rare.
Chemotherapy should be legal, safe, and rare.
Root canals should be legal, safe, and rare.
Abortion discussions on this board should be legal, safe, and rare.
The dog doesn’t have a sapient mind; the fetus will and the future sapience is all important.
I’ve had enough of your nonsense that I’m some misogynistic guy who enjoys seeing women suffer. I simply do not wish to see people murdered.
Fetuses are people as they will be sentinent human beings minus a relatively trivial chance nowadays (due to advanced medical technology) that it will be miscarriged.
Basically I believe anything that extends life is good as God supports technology to extend life on Earth.
Only if a war will be more terrible than if there is no war.
That’s not even clever.
Politician after politician have appeared at the alter of public opinion and waxed about their moral values (including inserting their particular religious beliefs) in the context of this issue of abortion being “rare.”
How nice for them. Really.
Is this “bring a bad argument to the dope” week at some school?
Apparently so!
Yeah, yeah. Snappity snap.
I would love to know why you think what a politician says is supposed to be some devastating comeback. You’ve done it twice, and it’s been really stupid both times.
Arsenio Hall says he loves rutabagas!
Groucho Marx shot an elephant in his pajamas!
This is the quality of your arguments. “Dick Cheney would say that! A politician said this! God says so!”
In whose world was anyone who wasn’t trying to believe in Santa convinced by arguments like this? I mean sure, it’s all you’ve got. I realize that, but Jesus Christ, can’t you dress it up a little? Give it a little pizazz? Maybe string things out a bit before you call in the big guns like “Kids Say the Darndest Things” or “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”?
I think maybe you should stop while you’re behind.
Yes, I’m sure that you’re winning, Mr. McCain.
Because it’s not much of question, except in the minds of people looking for an excuse to make abortion illegal. A fetus is only a person if you use a tailor made definition that we don’t use elsewhere, and one that quickly leads to absurdities if taken seriously. Do you oppose organ donations too?
Of course it is. So are all those egg and sperm cells that never fertilize each other. With cloning, so is every cell in my body. It doesn’t matter, unless the potential is going to be realized.
No, you don’t. Abortions should be ideally rare because they are an inferior form of birth control.
No; it’s irrelevant; nor is it anywhere near certain that it will have such sapience anyway.
I can’t read minds, all I can go is by how you act and what you say. And you talk just like someone who despises women, wants to hurt them as much as possible, but who doesn’t want to actually admit it. And really, in practical terms it doesn’t matter; if you act like you hate women, if you do what you can to hurt women, your motives make little difference.
And a fetus is not a person; the women you wish to oppress and kill ARE. So, yes you do want to see people murdered; as long as they have a womb. Because women WILL die if you have your way.
That doesn’t make them people. And a great many, perhaps the majority of conceptions miscarry, actually.
I’m pretty sure that you just gave him Kingship Over the Internets. I’m not sure how that works yet, but he’s winning!
Even if a women dies from an abortion how can it be a murder? It would be an accidental death. Also the number of fetuses saved will far exceed the number of women dead from illegtal abortions.
Even if nature miscarriges fetuses that doesn’t give us an excuse to murder them.