I don’t think anyone is saying that.
I didn’t see anyone say that either. Lot’s of pro-choice people feel strongly about viability and want to set limits for when an abortion is available.
But that’s what we’re talking about. Those who claim “it’s a human baby” from conception.
I skimmed a lot of posts. Did someone claim that?
I think you just pointed out the logical inconsistency. We’re talking about philosophical consistency not points of legality. It used to be acceptable to beat your slave to death, or hang a black man for a crime that a white man got fined for. We changed that because it was inconsistent with equal human rights.
Police have strict guide lines about when they can use deadly force. If they kill a criminal to casually they may be guilty of a crime. If they willing shoot a defenseless innocent person they are not excused. That’s how some pro-life folks represent abortions. The killing of innocent defenseless babies.
I have a problem with the word “innocent” as you’re using it here. The babies are innocent of any moral wrongdoing, just as the runaway train is innocent. At the same time, both the train and the baby are “guilty” of doing what they’re accused of doing. The train really is running away and threatening your life. The baby really is where it’s not wanted and infringing on someone else’s rights.
I don’t think we’d say that you have to know that you’re infringing on someone’s rights in order for you to be actually doing it. That takes us back to the KKK example. Just because the KKK member doesn’t think you’re human and therefore you have no rights doesn’t make him right or make your rights immaterial.
Why don’t you take your sarcasm and shove it up your ass? Obviously you don’t have the balls to answer the question and that’s why you haven’t. You’re a real piece of work saying that a clump of cells takes precedence over a woman who has been raped.
Thank goodness women have men like you with great big thinking brains to make their decisions for them!
Stop, please! You’re frightening me. You tough guys on Internet message boards are so scary. I just pissed my pants.
Begging the question, sport. If that’s so self-evident, why is there even a debate?
No need to thank me.
State of mind is a factor only in determining is a punishment is warranted, or at least lessened. Abortion is a singular issue, complex and confusing to many. We are inundated with messages saying that it’s an undisputed right, that a fetus is merely a blob of tissue, etc. I am certain there are woman, desperate and misguided, who are certain they are doing nothing wrong.
I hesitate to respond to this, because I do see your point and I do think it’s analogous, and I’m pretty sure people will not respond kindly. I think, for example, that there were countless people who owned slaves who were otherwise decent, who believed they were doing nothing wrong. But they were. Could we even get them to understand they were participants in something wrong? Would that have any meaning? I don’t know.
I don’t see it as a partial commitment. I see it as a practical concession. I’ll take what I can today. We’ll try for the rest later.
I think there are already mechanisms–adoption, social services. I’d gladly pay more taxes for this.
To clarify, I want abortion banned. I don’t want women put in prison for it, for the reasons noted.
Mostly because a whole slab of people are pretending that the clump of cells is something it isn’t - due to a possibly deliberate conflation of what is and what will be, likely due to an unprovable belief that there is a non-physical entity lurking around handling the tasks of supporting identity, cognition, and emotion that the clump of cells is physically incapable of handling.
They don’t usually argue the last bit, though, instead stopping at conflating the clump of cells with a “baby” in a manner that is either borderline or outright incorrect. Generally this seems to be pulled off by being ambiguous about when the abortions under discussion are likely to occur, occasionally pulling this off via the manipulation of ambulatory goalposts - but that may just be my impression.
But you’re a clump of cells too. What makes you deserving of rights? I would assert that any human entity that will gain consciousness at some point is deserving of rights, but I concede that’s axiomatic. To state that an entity without the current capacity for thought (as an example) is without rights is likewise axiomatic.
Hmm, I see an amusing caveat/loophole - a fetus that is aborted before gaining consciousness is not in the set of human entities that will gain consciousness at some point, and therefore would not be due rights; therefore the two axioms could, technically, be considered equivalent for this discussion. 
A little more seriously, how many other ‘potentialities’ do you consider equivalent to the final state? Every person on the planet (with one supposes a few exceptions) is potentially a citizen of the US. Should they all be accorded those rights? Every child will eventually be old enough to drive, and will potentially get a drivers’ liscence. Should children therefore have urestricted access to cars? Every human will eventually be a corpse. Should we bury people alive?
Even putting aside the silliness, are there any other examples where ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’ are regularly conflated? Or does it make more sense that, if consciousness is the deciding factor for rights, just to assign rights when consciousness has been attained (to the best of our knowledge)?
Now, now, that’s cheating. 
I don’t think so. An example I have often offered is that of someone who temporarily flatlines his brain activity. This is deliberately induced sometimes, for certain operations. Sometimes it occurs with severe hypothermia. However rare this is, it does occur: someone is momentarily devoid of any brain function, a much larger clump of cells, who then gains consciousness. I’d assert–again, conceding this as axiomatic–that this person is still, well, a person, deserving of rights. One couldn’t kill this entity with impunity. This “conflation” seems to create a reasonable assumption of rights, ISTM. Do you disagree?
Re-gains conciousness. Already had it, gotten used to, temporarily interuppted by extreme circumstance. Big difference between was, and now isn’t (albeit temporarily) and never was and still isn’t.
. Um, regardless of your problem I’m using innocent correctly. “The baby” is not infringing on anyone’s rights.
You’re twisting the example. It doesn’t fit your application if I understand you. In the KKK example the black man they see as less than human would be “the baby” and it’s the pro choice crowd would be the KKK if the potential human is actually a person with rights.
The point is that pro life folks wouldn’t expect the same punishment of those who have or provide abortions as they might a member of the KKK killing a black man or Jew or Mexican or whomever.
Back off. This is Great Debates; you can pretty well expect to find opinions with which you disagree.
If you need to insult someone, take it to the BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Once more, I’m perfectly aware that intent or state of mind is a factor. That’s not the issue at all, so there’s no need to repeat it. The point is that even if the woman having the abortion sincerely believes she is doing nothing wrong and the doctor preforming it believes he or she is doing nothing wrong, in order for the pro-life position of it’s a human life from the moment of conception, to be logically consistent, they have to think that the woman and the doctor are killers and therefore deserving of punishment, regardless of what the woman and the doctor believe about themselves.
If a woman killed her infant out of depression should she go free? If a doctor euthanised a baby with birth defects should he be forgiven because he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong?
Again you’re off on a tangent rather than addressing the topic of the thread. If one person in our modern society owned slaves and treated them as property that person would wind up in jail guilty of a crime regardless of whether he or she believed they were innocent and justified. The point is the logical inconsistency for
pro-life advocates to claim a fertilized egg is a human being but still not advocate punishing woman who have abortions and their doctors.
Okay. But what you’ve conceded is that a potential human is not a human yet. You’ve conceded that a fertilized egg is or an early fetus is not really a baby and that means abortion is not killing a baby. After making that concession I doubt you can effectively step back later on.
fair enough
One couldn’t kill someone who had flat lined period, end of discussion, since they’d already be dead. So, yeah, I kinda disagree.
Meh. Canada has no abortion law, yet our society is stable and has not descended into the casual murder of toddlers, nor are we going extinct.
If Americans can’t handle a similar situation, it must be some flaw on their part. Probably too much religion.
Even if they would regain consciousness?
One can kill someone and not be a murderer. Intent, state of mind, these are all factors. You’re contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. If you believe state of mind is a factor as I described it–i.e., as something that can lessen or eliminate the need for punishment–how can you conclude that the only possible conclusion, the one and only one, for one who believes a life has been take is that the woman is a killer deserving of punishment? Makes no sense to me.
Depends on the circumstances in total. I can’t answer based on one sentence. But those factors should at least be considered for the mother.
You started that tangent, didn’t you? All that KKK stuff? And I agreed with you, such circumstances could be similar with regard to a person’s state of mind and base beliefs. Isn’t that what you asked? Seriously?
No, I haven’t. I concede that given a choice between an abortion restriction with a rape exception and no abortion restriction at all, I’ll take the former. I don’t have my ideal choice, or I’d select that one.
Not to someone who asserts that the absence of brain function means that there are no rights. This board, as an example, abounds with such folk. Someone who can’t suffer or think or be aware of their surroundings–that entity can’t be described as a person.
Why is “re-gain” an important distinction other than to permit abortions? With a permanently flatlined EEG, I’d speculate we both agree, that person is dead. Remove the life support, with grief but with a clear conscience. The fact that this person was once with brain functions carries no weight. None. What does carry weight is if he will have brain function in the future. Why does that carry no weight for someone unborn? “Future brain function only counts if you once had it” seems a meaningless distinction, one that serves one purpose. It protects the rights of the adult, but still permits abortion by providing a pointless exception that ignores the very definitions of “personhood” that some people assert.