"…Here’s the real problem: there are only two ways to look at this issue:
Dogmatically: Human life begins at conception…
Practically: Human life does NOT begin at conception…"
Whereas the second part of your statement is logically true, it is true only for those who frame the matter as an arguement about whether or not “life” begins at conception.
Is there any doubt that life “begins” at conception? OK, perhaps a bit: perhaps a zygote isn’t what what we have in mind when we speak of a living being. But somewhere in the first trimester, “viable” or not, it is–as much as a worm, a frog, a germ, a flea, or a geranium is a living thing.
But the issue for the general public isn’t when “life” begins, but rather when the growing lifeform is (what we mean by) an individual human being. Chromosomes are not the issue: the issue is the development of the “brain” to that degree of sophisticated operation that characterizes a human-as-human. (I myself frame the issue somewhat differently.)
For that reason it is not irrational to suggest various points during the course of pregnancy at which the womb occupant deserves protection.
Well, there are pro-lifers who support the death penalty, which some abortion supporters sieze on as a criticism. However, the pro-lifers in question are making an obvious distinction between innocent and non-innocent life (in this case, individuals guilty of heinous crimes).
Personally, I have no strong convictions on the death penalty; however, if I were to support it, I would only do so for mass murderers and the like. In other words, I would only support the death penalty when the ultimate goal is still to preserve and protect life.
Since uninvited death is decidedly inconvenient, I’d say yes.
As I said several times in this thread, life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without life, no other rights can be exercised. This places its importance far above mere convenience.
Again, civilized people do not kill other people in order to make life more convenient for themselves.
I’m genuinely puzzled by that remark. Where and how did you draw that conclusion? Why in the world would anyone claim that things which do not kill us directly are all inconveniences?
Well, because when two women in this thread mentioned serious consequences in their lives of becoming pregnant, they were informed that the life of the embryo/fetus is more important than their convenience.
Since they described repercussions that included:
serious health issues, both mental and physical
serious social issues
serious financial issues, and
serious emotional issues
I wonder what’s left?
In an attempt to get our terminology straight, is it your position that the difficult situations the women face are a matter of convenience?
Is every reason for abortion aside from saving the life of the pregnant woman, a matter of convenience? I’m trying to understand the extant use of that term.
That’s a premise, FTR, not shared by more than a handful of pro choice folks. I’m not claiming that they are the majority of pro choice folks…but I’ve listened to many pro choice folks on this board claim that life does not begin until sometime after conception.
EJsGirl…in this thread said:
Then we had leaper…in this thread who said
We then had poster Alien2022 claim in this thread that
I challenged him/her to cite…
he/she then posted
But then went on to argue that because “brain death” is the “definition” of death, that “brain life” must be the definition of “life”
:rolleyes:
And that’s just recent abortion related threads…I’ve come across this astonishing biological ignorance in dozens of different posts.
So it’s not like we can all just start from a basic consensus of when life begins…a fair number (I’m not saying a majority…or even a plurality) of pro choice folks don’t have a clue on that.
My personal opinion is that a human life become protected life (i.e. it’s morally wrong to kill it) when it gains self-awareness and consciousness. I also believe that because humanity is so unique and sacred, it’s good to a keep a little bit of wiggle room and birth seems like a pretty intuitive cut-off point. A newborn baby cannot understand herself or the world much better than my cat (who I am free to kill as long as it is humane) but in general it’s a bad idea to go knocking off newborn babies or people in comas and the whatnot, so birth seems reasonable.
But that doesn’t matter. I don’t care if it is David Letterman growing in my belly. That human life is sucking my blood, making my body go through permenant changes, threatening my mental health and will soon cause me to go through one of the most painful experiences a human can expect to ever feel. Now if some guy walked into my bedroom and said he was going to do some home-style plastic surgery to permanently disfigure me, feed me drugs that would make me noxious and half-crazy for nine months, and top it all off by shoving a baseball bat into my intimate areas, I think I’d be justified in taking some pretty drastic actions in self defence. Nobody on Earth would expect me just to sit there and take it- especially under penalty of law!
So why is it that a pregnant woman is expected to go through any sort of hellish situation imaginable (unless, apparently, it is garenteed to cause her death) for the sake of a fetus? A person’s right to control the bounderies of their bodies and the destiny of their physical being is more sacred than the right for someone to exist off of someone else’s blood. I don’t know what else to say. Anything else is a world of slavery. My body and it’s bounderies belong to me, no matter what decides to take up residence there. I can’t imagine a world where others control my bodily integrity. Theres no other way to say it.
Guys, I’m brand new here, but I just have to ask a simple question:
If we can all agree that for each and every one of us:
a) there is a continuum of time that our life did not exist,
b) there is a singular point in time that our life began to exist, and
c) our life will exist until such time that our death occurs, then
if our life did not begin at the “singular point in time” known as conception, then at what exact point in the aforementioned time continuum did it begin?
Well, I think it’s point (b) that we don’t all agree on. At the moment of my conception, my genetic pattern was established, but the resulting organism as yet had none of my thoughts, memories, or personality (although the potential pattern of some part of of my personality may have been established). Heck, I don’t even remember many important events in my life–learning to walk or talk, for example. Conversely, if I am the victim of some sort of dementia, or spend the last portion of my biological life in a coma, much or all of what makes me me may die before my body does. (And since I’m willing to be an organ donor, other bits of me may survive what just about everyone would consider to be my death.)
Are you saying then, that there exists neither a finite point in time that a human being comes to be alive, nor a point that the human being’s life ends?
There is certainly a point before which time a human being is not yet alive, and there is certainly a point after which time a human being is definitely dead. But the whole debate about abortion in part results from the fact that there isn’t an easy to pin down finite point at which we can say “a human being comes to be alive”. There are similar debates about the point of death involving organ donation, turning off life support, “heroic measures”, and “brain death”.
And therein lies the flaw with the supposition of those who would support the manual termination of an ovum at any time beyond the point of fertilization. If “there isn’t an easy to pin down finite point” that life begins, then the termination of pregnancy cannot be guaranteed by anyone to NOT be what would be considered murder by commonly held standards.
In other words, if one cannot accurately pinpoint the beginning of a life, then, concerning abortion, how can he be certain in the knowledge that he is not guilty of terminating a life?
…participating in an “intellectual” debate on a “messageboard”, if there really is nothing (n your mind) to debate.
I, of course, was pointing out the “foolishness” of claiming that an embryo has “decided” to take residence in a uterus. It’s one of the fallacies of the violinist analogy.
As far as my role in “making the decision”, that statement ignores current law that says that the state (my representative for purposes of this discussion) can play a role in the regulation of abortions (see Webster and Casey)
(Even Roe provided limited regulation, especially in the 3rd trimester).
