What is it with you Dopers? NOW it's a LIFE?

The BBQ Pit
81

Post 69? That’s not your post. Was that just a typo or is something screwy going on here?

And sorry trandallt if you felt that I was accusing you of flaming me. I was speaking of… wait… who was that guy?

Now to your question. Now follow me here. The idea that the fetus is not a baby is a relatively new one. This might be a WAG but I think it’s pretty safe to say that even before we had the idea of birthdays humans felt that the swollen belly of a pregnant woman contained a human baby. When was it figured out that the gestation period of humans is 9 months? Seriously, I’m asking cause I don’t know. My guess is that it was known for quite some time before history began. Since we connected sex with pregnancy so easily it was just a matter of counting and waiting for one woman to have sex just once and give birth 9 months later. So why did they choose the day of birth to be the celebratory date? Why not the day the couple had sex, or the missed period, or when the woman started showing? Figure that out and I believe you will have your answer to why we don’t need to issue conception certificates and give funerals to miscarried babies. Sorry if you are unsatisfied with my answer. Honestly, I don’t know the answer. Conception certificates and funerals for miscarried babies just don’t sound right. But I suspect that this is just cultural conditioning. If we were brought up to treat the missed period as the celebatory date for a baby, or 9 months before birth as the celebratory date, we might have funerals for miscarried babies.

82

But I did actually say that it’s a human cell. See, you are just being argumentative for pride’s sake. Had you seen that I said both, you wouldn’t have replied. You just thought you could catch me in an error. Instead I caught YOU and you think you can catch me again with a bit of logical wrangling and using “confusing” words like “operative” instead of “important” or “obtain” instead of “be established”. Why can’t you people speak clear English? Why do the intelligent have to show off by making things harder to read?

83

Have you considered the problem may be you? The reason why you think no one reads the thread is because they are not understanding what you’re trying to say. This is because you don’t express yourself in a clear manner.

Educated people don’t use vocabulary to confuse the ignorant. We use it because specific words provide a clearer meaning. Much like painters use many different shades of the same color. There is a subtle but important difference between synonyms. You might have better luck around here if you owned and used a thesaurus.

Oh, hey, I just remembered I’m in the pit. So, also:

Fuck off. This is the one place on the damn internet where smart people get to converse with other smart people without some half-wit going “Waaahhh, you’re using big words, stop showing off!” Knock it off or take your poor vocabulary elsewhere, because we’re not going to dumb down for you.

84

And the first choice was made by the schmuck who now wants to avoid the responsibility for his CHOICE.

85

Sorry prisoner it was post 61 not 69. My mistake.

As to the "human cell’ vs. “human life” dispute, what you are doing is called equivocating. You are assigning two definitions to one object and choosing whichever definition suits your purpose. It is improper debating technique. I could call a knife a “knife” or a “shiny metal thing”. If it is placed beside a spoon and fork and I ask for the “shiny metal thing”, which one would you give me? Once it has been defined as a knife it is pointless to attach the less specific definition to it.

Let’s cut to the chase. Is a fertilized egg a human being?
If so, why is it not treated as such? Your example of the birthday as the celebratory day does not address the issue of death certificates for miscarried fetuses. A death certificate is not a celebratory document. It is a legal document. I am talking about equal protection under the law. If a nine month old human ( born naturally) goes missing the day after its birth, every effort is made to find it. If a one month old human goes missing (by miscarriage), no effort is made. Why not?

  If not, when does it become a human being?
86

Oh yes, the beauty of the English language is in the subtle difference between meanings. So tell me does this sentence make sense?
“The higher order description of “human” must obtain.”
Obtain what? Sounds like a sentence fragment to me. You have to really stretch the definition of obtain to be able to understand how it’s used. Why not just say…
“The higher order description of “human” must take precidence.”
That’s a lot clearer.

Maybe it would make more sense in context.

“You can be described as a gathering of cells. Is that sufficient to describe you? I think not. The higher order description of “human” must obtain.”

No. No help from context. Still have to search for additional meanings for “obtain” in order to understand why it was used.
“The higher order description of “human” must take precidence”
is a much more clear and direct way of saying the same thing.

Sokay, I found it eventually.

No, I’m not “equivocating”. I didn’t just jump to the conclusion that cell=life. I showed how the fertilized egg is a life. It’s a living cell independent of its host. The host doesn’t need it for the host to survive. Some pro-choice advocates consider the egg a sort of parasite. But that’s neither here nor there. The point is that it is independent of the host. That’s not to say that it can live without it’s host. A tapeworm can’t live without the host, neither can a fetus, so it’s a life, as much as a tapeworm is. Remove it from the environment and it stops maturing. In other words, it dies. Only in its natural environment can it prosper. It has all of the characteristics of a life: its cells multiply, it requires nutrition, it is independent of the host, it dies outside of its natural environment. It’s a life. So pro-choice dopers, make up your mind, is it a life or not?

I believe so.

I told you, I don’t know. And I have history to back me up. People have ALWAYS (until recently) thought that the child in the womb is a human being. So that’s why they aren’t treated equally. They have ALWAYS not been treated equally. And no birth certificate, no death certificate. As far as the government is concerned, legally, the baby doesn’t exist until birth. (Look to history to explain why. I doubt you’ll find a reason.) So no death certificate until the child is born. But just because the baby isn’t legal doesn’t mean that to the mother, father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, and the strangers that see the pregnant woman that the life in her belly is not a baby. It doesn’t change the fact that until recently everybody accepted that it was a baby.

87

Ok to continue, I think I have an example that might help with the birth certificate question. Let me make a comparison. Do you know what an implied warranty is? It’s a warranty that simply states that something is what it is designed to do. So if I go on Ebay and I sell you a sound card, and the sound card doesn’t play sound, then it’s obviously not a sound card. There are many different legal precidents set about this. Sure you wouldn’t complain about the implied warranty being violated because it’s just easier to prove that I didn’t mention that the sound card didn’t produce sound. Anyway we can bring the idea of implied warranty to a house. A house under construction isn’t (by implied warranty) a house. Ok so when does a house become a house? When you can live in it. Legally, when does this happen? When the certificate of occupancy is given. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not possibel to live inside the house before the C of O is given. The birth certificate is given when the baby is legally complete, not while it’s being built. But just as the unfinished house is a structure, the unfinished baby is a life.

88

[QUOTE=prisoner6655321]

Look here for the definition of obtain.

You lost me here.

If you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, why are you not campaigning for new laws that recognize it as such? Do you not care that they die like animals in the field? Women had “always” been second class citizens until they weren’t anymore. The Earth was “always” flat until it was round. An appeal to precedent is no good when the precedent can be shown to be wrong.(Sigh) I had really hoped that **Bricker ** might come back and help me figure this out, but it appears that it is not to be.

89

This is exactly what I mean by equivocating. First you call it a house, then you call it a structure. An unfinished baby is a “life”, but is not “legally complete.” What exactly do you mean? Is “humaness” conferred with “legal completeness”? Is the unfinished house a house or not? Would you live in a house that consists of only a foundation and exterior walls? If an unfinished baby is a life, is it a human life? If so, is it of a different class than a “finished” baby?" You really need to define your terms and stick with them in order to advance a coherent argument.

90

That’d be you, when you posted an OP implicitly accusing all pro-choice Dopers of being hypocrites.

91

Then you’d better define equivocating. (You asked me to define my terms. Define yours.)

Are you trying to tell me that a house isn’t a structure?

No. All something has to have to be human is human DNA, which a fetus does have. As far as the government is concerned, and this is what your question is about, an unborn baby is not “legally complete”. We issue C of O’s when the house is complete. We issue birth certificates when the baby is complete. How can you not understand the corellation between a house and a baby?

If you paid attention to my implied warranty statements you would see that it depends on whether or not it can be used as a house.

Would I or could I? It would have to have a roof, but I’ll just pretend you meant that as well. You CAN live in a house with only walls, roof, and foundation, so yes, it’s a house, but not legally since it doesn’t have a C of O. Legally you can’t live in a house that doesn’t have a C of O.

It has human DNA, right? It’s alive, right? So yes, obviously, it’s a human life. And maybe it is of a different class than a finished baby. I did define my terms pretty well, than you very much. You just like arguing.

And I shouldn’t have to tell you that this C of O, house and baby thing is only part of the discussion spawned by your questions.

92

Granted. But at least posted with evidence, controversial as it is. You may agree with DtC, but he presented no evidence. The jury would have to acquit because no evidence was presented.

93

There’s actually quite a big difference between “controversial” and “stupid.” One hint: when you’re the only person on your side of the “controversy,” it’s probably more the latter than the former.

94

All right. Let me try to explain what’s going on here, and I’ll try to clarify the big words so your brain doesn’t asplode.

Pro-choice means just that. Pro-CHOICE. Not “pro-abortion” or “fetuses-aren’t-life” or “let’s-kill-cute-widdle-baby-snookums-for-the-hell-of-it”.

The pro-choice and pro-life lobbies have something in common; they both believe in taking responsibility for your actions when it comes to a pregnancy.

Now, clearly, if you’re a destitute (read: “really really poor”) woman and can’t afford a child, the most responsible thing to do is not have sex. The pro-choice lobby doesn’t dispute that.

For most couples in a committed, loving relationship, total celibacy (celibacy=“not having sex”) isn’t exactly a realistic goal. And the best and most carefully used birth-control methods can fail. (And if you’re in a not-so-loving relationship, having sex may sometimes be unavoidable. I hope I don’t have to spell that one out for you.)

The fact that you are now pregnant does not change the fact that you can’t afford a child.

The choice you now have is to give the child up for adoption, keep it and muddle through as best you can, or get an abortion.

Here is where the two sides diverge. (Excuse me; “split off in different directions.”) The pro-life people would like to help make the choice FOR you, by eliminating (“getting rid of”) option three by making it illegal, because they believe that taking responsibility NEVER means deliberately killing the fetus. The pro-choice people would rather see you make that choice for yourself, even if they don’t necessarily agree with your final decision. They also believe that in certain situations, the most responsible thing to do can be to end the pregnancy.

Now, this is the fun part:

ABSOLUTELY NONE of this contradicts any of the reactions in the other thread; the very reactions you’re pitting here. The woman in the other thread made her CHOICE, and the pro-CHOICE people are respecting her CHOICE. Likely, many of them are silently applauding it right along with the pro-life people. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether any of the participants in the thread believe abortion is right or wrong. Now that she has made her CHOICE, the consensus (“majority opinion”) is that the young man in question must face his RESPONSIBILITY. Had she decided on an abortion, the pro-CHOICE posters would have been telling him it’s her CHOICE, so he should face the consequences of that decision, whatever they would be.

If you wanted to start yet another pro-life vs. pro-choice discussion (lord knows there haven’t been enough of THOSE), you should have gone ahead and done that. The truth is, there IS no hypocrisy in that thread. You’re trying to prove it by listing posts where people say they’re pro-choice, but in this situation aren’t telling the guy to get his girlfriend to have an abortion. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s EXACTLY in line with the pro-choice mentality. It’s the woman’s decision, not anybody else’s.

Your “evidence” is a load of equine manure (“horse crap”). Either you are so obtuse (“thick-headed”) you can’t see that, you are being deliberately obtuse because you don’t WANT to see that, or you just saw a handy excuse to start up another episode of endless debate. It’s clear this thread has now degraded into a “when is a baby a baby?” argument complete with swearing and insults, so I guess you got what you REALLY wanted. Congratulations, you gluteal chapeau.

95

AIDS has DNA. So does cancer. And the cells are alive and dependent upon a host. Should we therefore allow them to thrive, because killing them is murder? Get real.

Since we’re going to get around to presenting this eventually, here’s Justice Blackmun’s interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case:

Higher brain functions are recognized at 26 weeks of pregnancy. A brain stem is not even apparent until 8 weeks. Until that time, it’s no more a “human life” than a vegetable on a life support system with a flat lined EEG.

And, while we may like to argue, it’s not the only reason we take this stance. We’re doing so with the hope of you possibly seeing things from a different perspective.

96

To Jenoraph’s masterly piece, let me add: the attitude taken towards most “pro-life” groups toward the mother is nothing short of despicable. It’s much more mealy-mouthed than the following, but the following is a blunt restatement of the view:

“A woman having sex is clearly a slut, with no morals whatsoever. Therefore she should be punished for her fun, by being forced to take responsibility for the baby she spread her legs without thought that she might have.” That she may be married and the couple unable to provide for a child, that she may be twelve and molested, that she may be a victim of date rape, guilty of nothing more than trusting too much the guy she agreed to date – none of that matters. She sinned, and boy, we’re going to make her pay for it."

Obviously, this is going to provide a simply wonderful environment and a warm, loving household for the child that she must bear, because she cannot abort it. But retribution has indeed been accomplished, she’s paying the price for her sin, and the illegitimate child, who of course is guilty of being born to people who couldn’t stay abstinent and therefore worthy of our contempt, will pay the price along with her.

Welcome to Lex Talionis justice, as meted out by people who claim to be Christian.

97

and… a…blah. blah. blahbiddyblahblah. doesn’t have anything to do with the OP nor the hijack by trandallt.

What AM I pitting here? It’s in the title, plus the 4th post. I’m pitting the fact that y’all say it’s not a life, then you say it’s a life. Then I pit that you claim that you have to be willing to accept the consequenses of a baby when you have sex then you complain when a pro-lifer says the same thing.

Now I’m not saying that you don’t agree sex comes with responsibility, but that you get all complainy when a pro-lifer’s answer is sex comes with the potential for creating a baby. And in the discussion that began all of this, you did the exact same thing, say that before you have sex you have to be willing to live with the chances that a baby might come from it.

Sound like a contradiction? See the evidence? It’s right there. I gave the links. They are right there. The contradiction is plain as day. Where is your argument about that? I’ve been looking for it for 3 pages. Haven’t found it yet.

Well, I was trying to pit you guys for contradicting yourselves, not get another argument about abortion going.

Maybe I’ll pit you guys again for not arguing about the OP.

How can you come to that conclusion and fail to see the obvious response: They’re not human. Plus they kill US. Duh. How can you geniuses not see this?

We better not. I’ll ask the mod to close this discussion if it begins. Totally off topic. I’ll say again. STAY ON TOPIC!

Why all of a sudden did we decide to start arguing about the reasons for abortion? I freaking humored ONE person’s nearly on topic question, which WAS directly related to the OP, not indirectly like whether or not abortion should be legal. Next time trandallt I’m not going to answer a nearly on topic question in the discussion. Start a new one, link to it, and I’ll answer it there.

When you guys can stick to the subject, respond to the questions and evidence I present without resorting to namecalling and rage, (like in my recent question Can someone explain the history of Roe v. Wade? Thank you for that one. I appreciate it. Excellent discussion.) then I’ll entertain some different perspective. Right now, you all are having a different argument than the one I am having.

Polycarp, your additional comments are off topic so don’t warrent a response.

98

Like it or not, that is IN FACT the clearest answer you’re going to get. Whether a fetus is destined to become a baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother’s choice to keep it or not. By simple logic and biology, it can’t BE otherwise. If the mother keeps it, time will eventually make it a baby. If she doesn’t, it never has the opportunity to become a baby. The legal system has to draw lines somewhere, but such lines are necessarily arbitrary because there IS no naturally occurring, well-defined “not-a-baby-yet/ok-it’s-a-baby-now” toggle switch. Obviously, the crux of the dispute (and your own argument, whether you realize it or not) is over where those lines are drawn.

You’re looking for a black and white answer in a shades-of-grey world. Guess what, you’re not going to get it, and neither is anyone else. Tough titties. Condemning people for understanding that there are shades of gray borders on insanity - if you insist on only seeing things that are black or white, you’re never going to see ANYTHING.

Which appears to be exactly what you’re doing in this thread. Good DAY, sir.

99

No, It’s not. Stay on topic, which is not over when a baby becomes a baby. (except for the hijack). It’s whether or not you guys flip flop on this issue.

You either think that you should be willing to accept the possibility that a baby will result in having sex, or you don’t. Black or white. There is no grey there. You either accept your responsibility for your actions, or you don’t. You can’t flip flop.

Actually, you all just refuse to admit that you argue one point to serve your ends, then argue the opposite when THAT serves your ends.

100

There is no flip-flop. Persons who chose to engage in actions that could result in conception and birth of a child are expected to act responsibly as regards the consequences of their acts. For many people, abortion is a responsible decision when the prospective child cannot be given a decent life.

As for whether or not it’s a life, being alive does not equal being a human being does not equal being a person. Catch the distinction – Entamoeba hystolitica is unquestionably alive – and I will cheerfully poison it every chance I get, before it infects and kills a human. As I attempted to suggest in an earlier post here and in other threads, there’s a progression from gamete to adult human being, with rights and responsibilities increased as one progresses towards adulthood. I did not expect Jordan at age three to make clear decisions about where he could play and where it was too dangerous – I told him where to go and where not to go, and then watched to make sure he did. At age eight, he has a bit better judgment. His uncle, now thirty-two, I treated quite differently at fourteen than at eighteen, or at thirty.

When faced with a difficult decision in this all-too-imperfect world, you attempt to make the best decisions possible for all concerned, including the potential person. But you don’t conduct funeral services over a pair of boy’s underpants that someone had a nocturnal emission in, and you don’t enforce your personal theology about whether a fertilized egg is a “person” or not on a woman with the same dignity and rights as you.