No, I don’t. My point was that any law would have to be based on sound ethics and science, and that having a law that is based on the mere arbitrary point of birth is neither. The fact that, as a matter of fact, this rarely happens is irrelevant.
Obviously I am in full agreement that the vast majority of elective abortions do not in fact result in the killing of a human - if you read the thread, you’d know that.
Oh, and “sometimes” usually doesn’t mean “in general”, at least in my vocabulary.
Honestly, this misplaced snarkiness just goes to prove another point - that people on this issue often simply divide themselves into warring camps and refuse to even attempt to listen to what the “other side” is really saying. Or even to realize who is on their side.
I understand - but those who do want to dictate because of their beliefs should appreciate the potential fallout. There are plenty of people out there who believe that killing animals to eat meat is just evil, and that animals should have rights also. If one really believed that fervent beliefs should be enforced, they should support bans on various types of food raising.
For anyone objecting that I’m equating animals to babies, that’s exactly what the radical vegetarians are doing. I think they’re wrong, but I can’t prove it - just like they can’t prove they’re right and “pro-life” types can’t prove they’re right.
That’s a risk you run when you play Devil’s Advocate. So far, you’ve confused at least two of us into thinking you were supporting arguments you were making.
Twice now, once to me and once to her, you’ve said, “but no no no, I’m on YOUR side”. And frankly, I don’t care enough about it to go back and pick apart the posts again and figure out where our communication fell apart.
I wasn’t being snarky, I was attempting to point out that if you are attempting to illustrate a “pro-choice” point of view, you’re arguing an extremist point that doesn’t reflect the reality of a “pro-choice” point of view.
Look, I agree with you in the “sound ethics and science” department, but waving about the “killing humans” line subverts both, in part by lending gravity to the notion that there’s a human involved.
But you’re forgetting about freedom. Government officials, doctors, etc, can have stricter ethics imposed on them, but the bar has to be very high before ordinary citizens can be prohibited from doing what they feel is important in order to live their lives.
Which is precisely why I brought up the “show me societal harm” argument. The constitution is formulated as an exceptional method of governance. The government only intervenes in an individuals life when there is a societal imperative to do so. What is the societal imperative to intervene in the case of abortion? “Because it’s wrong” doesn’t cut. Semantics about when a fetus ‘deserves’ protection doesn’t cut it. Show me the reason for restricting freedom in this case. Show me the good outcomes that it’ll produce and the bad outcomes it’ll avert.
All these arguments are why I’m a very reluctant “pro-choice”, if we must use labels. It helped me to better organize my thoughts, even if my end stance is the same. Good show people… carry on.
For those who believe that a pregnancy is a human being deserving of rights, right from the start, is there any point in the process where you agree that the mother’s right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy is paramount?
I swear to all and sundry, I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m just trying to get a clear picture of this viewpoint. I’m not asking about where drawing the line for legal purposes, just where you, personally, draw the ethical line about when a pregnancy is human and deserving of the consideration of rights–on whatever level.
If I’m reading correctly, it seems that for this group, it’s all about potential–a conception which has the potential to become a pregnancy which has the potential to become an embryo which has the potential to become a fetus which has the potential to become a baby has some rights, that at least in part are based on the same rights that a baby has, correct?
Okay, so let’s back up from there.
Before she has sex, does the woman have the right to decide whether or not to have babies?
Do you believe that egg and sperm, separately and housed in ova and testes, have rights?
Do you believe that egg and sperm immediately after an act of sexual intercourse involving a male-female couple have rights?
Do you believe that sperm in the moment after ejaculation and on their way to an active egg have rights?
Do you believe that a sperm and egg united in the fallopian tube have rights?
Do you believe that a sperm and egg traveling down the fallopian tube have rights?
Do you believe that a sperm and egg, floating around the uterus and searching for a place to implant have rights?
Do you believe the egg has rights once implanted?
Do you believe the egg has rights once cells start to divide?
Start to divide and die off in a replicating cycle?
Becomes visible to the naked eye?
Somewhere else in the spectrum?
I’m curious to know two things: where do you confer rights to the “potential” as distinct from the mother and father? And where do you believe those rights trump the will of the mother?
cmyk, I appreciate that you’re reluctantly pro-choice and have serious ethical qualms about it, so I am honestly curious about your answers… but please know I’m not trying to beat my beliefs into you or anything. I appreciate that you’ve given the topic a lot of thought.
Sometimes I wonder if the “life begins at conception” crowd really understands the mechanics of fertilization, conception, and early gestation, and why they draw the line at conception, when it’s a good deal later that a viable pregnancy is established and certainly a good deal further along than that when you have something greater than what-if “potential”.
A good majority of us pro-choicers would rather not see abortions have to take place. But the fact of the matter is that they’re going to happen because as much as people crow about reasons why they should not, there will be women out there that would rather die than keep a pregnancy.
For that reason alone, keeping it safe, affordable and accessible is benefit enough to society to outweigh the moral dilemmas, if any, we may face with respect to the fetus. On the other hand, respecting the choices of living, breathing women who, for whatever reason, find themselves in an untenable situation is not asking for a great leap of moral sacrifice.
First, it was mostly a response to the apparent attempt to claim that the fact that a malignant tumor is dangerous made it non-human. I was trying to make the *Reductio ad absurdum
point that if you are going to make the claim that a partially independent piece of living tissue of human descent qualifies something as a human life, then a tumor qualifies. It’s the fact that we have minds that makes us of more moral value than a lump of cells.
And as an aside, a fetus isn’t just passively dangerous. One of the major reasons pregnancy is so stressful is because it and it’s extension the placenta are constantly fighting a hormonal/microbiological war with the mother’s body. The fetus keeps trying to take more resources; the mother’s body tries to stop it. And even outside of that, pregnancy has been connected to long term problems like lupus and other autoimmune problems ( due to leftover fetal cells spreading throughout the body, it’s thought ).
Right, I don’t think there’s any sane person who would say they wish abortions would happen. I don’t think there’s any pro-choice person who is happy they have to occur in the first place, but until comprehensive sex education and affordable and accessible birth control is the rule and the standard, abortions will continue to happen at the rate that they do. I’m not saying comprehensive sex-ed and widely available, cheap or free birth control would stop abortions, but it sure would reduce the number in huge amounts.
Instead of focusing all the ammo and energy on the argument for or against the ethics of abortions, every single one of us should be focusing on the dissemination of honest, comprehensive, and medically accurate information on how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, as well as providing the supplies to make it possible. Until we get rid of “abstinence-only” sex education and arm people with knowledge, it’s a losing battle. Unfortunately, many of the same people who insist on the humanity of a zygote are the same people that froth at the mouth over telling teenagers about condoms.
I’d say “nearly all” rather than a good majority. After all, an abortion is either a medically inferior form of late birth control, or the result of something really wrong with a pregnancy the woman wants. Either way, it’s an example of something having gone wrong; women don’t have abortions for fun.
Well, you know, it shouldn’t have to be said. But I didn’t want someone to come along and accuse me of overgeneralizing with an “all” statement. However, I don’t doubt there are some people out there who would consider themselves pro-choice because, frankly, they couldn’t care less about what a woman does with her own body and are not concerned in the least with the subject of the abortion.
So, mainly I was trying to avoid speaking for everyone with whom I’ve not met.
In support of this, the NY Times Magazine had an article about a year or so ago about how some of the “pro-life” crowd was preparing for their next assault - on birth control. Some but not all of the people interviewed were Catholics. The arguments to be used were lies about the danger of the pill, etc. I’m sure some “pro-lifers” are concerned about the supposed humanity of the fetus, but it seems there are some other things going on also, or they’d be doing everything they could to prevent even a perceived need for abortion.
Okay, so let’s back up from there. Coolness.
Before she has sex, does the woman have the right to decide whether or not to have babies? Of course, be that as it may, when a male and a female have sex, they are entering a contract with nature not to be too surprised when she becomes pregnant. Birth control or not (since we all know it’s never 100% safe).
Do you believe that egg and sperm, separately and housed in ova and testes, have rights? Absolutely no, no more than I do a tooth, or a banana.
Do you believe that egg and sperm immediately after an act of sexual intercourse involving a male-female couple have rights? Nope.
Do you believe that sperm in the moment after ejaculation and on their way to an active egg have rights? Nope.
Do you believe that a sperm and egg united in the fallopian tube have rights?
Do you believe that a sperm and egg traveling down the fallopian tube have rights?
Do you believe that a sperm and egg, floating around the uterus and searching for a place to implant have rights?
Do you believe the egg has rights once implanted?
Do you believe the egg has rights once cells start to divide? I see this as part of a process. The sperm is undergoing penetration of the egg wall, on a mission to dump it’s genetic data into the egg to merge their respective genetic material into an ovum. All of this are the mechanics of cellular life, not to be confused with human-life itself. And that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? Where and when does this transformation take place
Start to divide and die off in a replicating cycle? **I think we should start looking into the issue here, rather than just write it off as a bunch of cellular mechanics. The very same chromosomes that form an individual are at work here.
There is a metamorphosis underway. **
Becomes visible to the naked eye? Probably.
Somewhere else in the spectrum? …
Despite a lot of the assertions on this board regarding the “humanness” of a zygote, I still remain cautious. I am a passionate proponent of science, physics, biology and even philosophy. Not to say I’m extremely knowledgeable, but I love all that hard science stands for. We want to lines, borders, and graphs. We desire our world to be quantifiable. I put a incredible degree of weight in evidence, but I see no particular point to say “AH HA! There it is, that’s the point when we become human, and deserve inalienable rights.” The reason I’m so reluctant to offer a point where we may offer rights, is because I don’t think we can find one that will satisfy the convictions of the religious, agnostic, and atheist. I’m looking for a lowest common denominator, yet everyone else seems to be searching for what might turn out to be an illusion on the grander scheme of things.
Der Thris points out that if you grind a painting down, all it’s constituent elements are still there, but the painting ceases to exist. He seems to argue we are a pattern of our biology. Okay, I’m down with that. But when, exactly, does that pattern emerge and deserve rights. Everyone seems biased toward the recognizable. Well, that certainly doesn’t look human. Doesn’t behave human. I hold that, regardless of appearances, it still is human.
In the end, we’re going to need to keep laws off of the issue to prevent even more destruction. The reality of the matter is that once a woman becomes with-child, their lives are intertwined. I know it may not seem that way to a lot of people, and a lot of women are horrified by the prospect, but that’s what we, as humans, must deal with.
I completely understand those points. I consider myself pretty familiar with the process. Hopefully my answers above will offer some insight into my crazy way of thinking!
Ah. I didn’t catch that claim. I find it difficult to believe that someone could logically make such a leap to that conclusion.
OK, I understand that.
I think your previous statement could easily be construed that you are trying to argue that the medical systems of pregnancy that can and do cause harm to the mother are in some way a conscious attack by the fetus. Yes, this is obviously crazy, but stranger arguments have been made. (I’m not making this argument, mind you.)
The fact is that the body is designed to deal with these conflicting battles between mother and fetus during a pregnancy, though in some cases, compromised bodies can’t handle pregnancy and the usually very low risk pregnancy becomes a life-threatening one. In those cases, reasonable people generally value the life of the mother over the fetus, regardless of how they define personhood.
However, one can make the argument that full-term pregnancy and childbirth predisposes women to long-term health risks (e.g. cervical cancer, IIRC) that some may prefer to avoid. This should not justify denying they should be allowed to enjoy sexual intimacy with their spouses or demonizing them for unintended conception.
The more extreme anti-abortionists are so blinded by ideology that they rely on their slippery slope justification for denying all elective abortion, often citing God as the ultimate arbiter of one’s fate. Those people, frankly, make me sick.
Please. Let’s not twist words here. You were the one asserting that a tumor is just as much alive as a human. I argued that a tumor can only be viewed alive on par with that of any other human organ, and is not itself a human. In fact, all I said was, a malignant tumor actually proves itself to take lives, I didn’t imply that because it was dangerous made it non-human, therefore anything dangerous must be non-human. That’s all you buddy.
