The Ugly side of Pro-Choice....

[PeteAtoms]

However, in the case of a fetus, the DNA is ALREADY THERE, and if left alone, it will grow into a child.

So you admit a fetus is not a child, only a potential child. So what the heck is the problem with abortion? I can understand if you are arguing about potential life being holy and God wanting potential life to fulfill whatever its destiny is, but from a realistic standpoint, I don't see how you can argue that abortion is murder, manslaughter, neglect, etc, because we aren't talking about a person here...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Most pro-lifers do not even recognize a "human right to life" anyway though, even if you hold statements like that above as true. Babies do not work, and so they have no right to eat.

The version I use, from 2 Thessalonians (I believe) is "Whoever is not WILLING to work, let him neither eat." This specifically includes only those who are UNWILLING to work, and intentionally so. So a fetus, a disabled person who cannot work, or an elderly person who cannot work, all have a right to care.

Now, WHERE THEY WILL GET THIS CARE is a valid question, but they should get it.

So you admit a fetus is not a child, only a potential child

No, I just worded it that way for the benefit of you pro-choicers, and in hindsight, I apologize for doing so.

 

[Traitorfish]

The version I use, from 2 Thessalonians (I believe) is "Whoever is not WILLING to work, let him neither eat." This specifically includes only those who are UNWILLING to work, and intentionally so. So a fetus, a disabled person who cannot work, or an elderly person who cannot work, all have a right to care.

Now, WHERE THEY WILL GET THIS CARE is a valid question, but they should get it.

What about single mothers?

 

[El_Machinae]

I would probably say they were dead then and so it would be fine to take them off support and let them die.

I fully agree. This is why I take exception to the idea that it's the life that matters. To me, it's clearly something to do with the brain. Heartbeats, muscles, etc. are all distractions. We care about the brain

However, in the case of a fetus, the DNA is ALREADY THERE, and if left alone, it will grow into a child.

I agree that the DNA is already there. And I agree that the fetus will grow into a child. (And we agree that babies are worthy of rights). However, the difference I hold with you is whether the fetus will 'naturally' grow into a baby. It won't grow into a baby all on its own. It needs a wash of nutrients and hormones, in specific combinations, or it will die. IF it's given this wash of nutrients and hormones, it will grow a 'baby brain' that - eventually - will gain a baby's sentience.
But this is the same as the headless body! IF the headless body is given a wash of specific nutrients and hormones, then it will grow a 'baby brain' that - eventually - will gain a baby's sentience.

Importantly, even if you're responsible for the production of this headless body's state, you're still not responsible to 'regrow' the brain. There's no moral onus to do so. Now, if you chopped off the head yourself, you'd go to jail. Even if you 'regrew the brain' so that there was a newborns brain on the still-living body, you'd still be considered a murderer.

The problem in the debate is that much of the debate is regarding the essence of humanity. The problem, of course, is that biology has really strong information regarding essence but we don't instinctively incorporate that information. The 'naturally' doesn't matter, that's a distraction. Whether we do something 'naturally' or artificially doesn't change what our moral onus is after the consequences are realised.

 

[Truronian]

Does it destroy life after conception, or does it merely stop it from conceiving in the first place?

What's the scientific significance of conception? As far as I can tell it's just an arbitrarily selected step in the reproductive cycle in which gametes fuse.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it is a new lifeform once the gametes fuse.

 

[MobBoss]

I thought I could show you that people misusing or fraudulent use of credentials isnt impossible, especially on the internet. I dont know if you get that, or your just playing dumb.

Now wait a second.

You want to post fraudulent medical degree and licensing documents out on the web, for everyone to see, for the purpose of performing illegal abortions, fully knowing that the medical profession is one of the most regulated and monitored professions in existance....

And you think I'm playing dumb?

Ok.

Please note that I am not saying fraud is impossible. I'm not. But you were making comments as to you, yourself, personally, and what was on 'your website'. I called you on it and you have been found wanting. Carry on.

 

[NickyJ]

Most pro-lifers do not even recognize a "human right to life" anyway though, even if you hold statements like that above as true.

This has no base whatsoever.

Babies do not work, and so they have no right to eat.

So are you saying we go out and ax some newborn babies? In fact, lets kill some 2 year olds too, because they can't work either. And how about the elderly? They can't work so that means they shouldn't eat. And lets kill the crippled too.

So if I remove a foetus from the womb, place it on a table-top, and then come back once it has reached nine months of age, I will find a baby?

Did you even read his post? He said that if left alone it will grow into a child. Removing a fetus is not leaving it alone.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

People are going to do abortion whether its legal or not. The difference is if its legal the woman doesnt have to go to an unsafe back alley.

 

[Truronian]

Well, it is a new lifeform once the gametes fuse.

Not necessarily. The sperm and ova could be incompatible; or the zygote could later split and result in two lifeforms. Or the zygote could fuse with another and result would be effectively half a lifeform...

 

[Traitorfish]

Did you even read his post? He said that if left alone it will grow into a child. Removing a fetus is not leaving it alone.

You really believe that carrying a pregnancy to maturity is something which occurs without the mother's involvement?

 

[El_Machinae]

Not necessarily. The sperm and ova could be incompatible; or the zygote could later split and result in two lifeforms. Or the zygote could fuse with another and result would be effectively half a lifeform...

Something can be a unique lifeform and still change. A yeast cell is a unique organism, even though it might eventually split to form two lifeforms. A bacteria is a unique lifeform, even though it might later go and fuse with another bacteria. Obviously, then, 'what it is' will change. But that's all just labeling. An embryo is a unique organism. Heck, even if the DNA is not compatible, the organism is still alive (until it dies).

It's all labeling, but I don't see a reason why we cannot say that 'fusing' is an important metaphysical event.

 

[NickyJ]

You really believe that carrying a pregnancy to maturity is something which occurs without the mother's involvement?

Correct. How is letting the child grow unimpeded involvement?

 

[Communisto]

Correct. How is letting the child grow unimpeded involvement?

Wow... I dont even.. know how to respond to... what?

Your relationship with your mother must be messed up.

 

[Traitorfish]

Correct. How is letting the child grow unimpeded involvement?

You don't really understood pregnancy, do you?

 

[NickyJ]

You don't really understood pregnancy, do you?

I understand. But you still haven't said how letting the child grow unimpeded until it is born constitute involvement.

 

[GhostWriter16]

People are going to do abortion whether its legal or not. The difference is if its legal the woman doesnt have to go to an unsafe back alley.

Three points:

1. If abortion is murder, this is justified. And if the woman dies, well, its rough justice in a sense.

2. What if this was the case with infanticide? My point being: If you change jurisdiction, let's say we gave it to the States, and they allowed abortion, that state would be guilty of negligence, if we ban it and the woman does it anyway, she and the doctor are guilty of murder, but the Government is NOT guilty, since they are doing what they can. But if we allow it as a government, we are guilty of negligence and failure to protect the unborn.

3. How practical enforcement of a law is should have nothing to do with it, whether or not it is worth enforcing should. For instance, only roughly 2% of reported rapes are false, yet only 2% of reported rapists are convicted. "Oh, well we should legalize rape then" NO! You ban it, and punish them if they get caught, if they don't, but we are doing everything within reason to do so, we are not responsible.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Correct. How is letting the child grow unimpeded involvement?

Just wait until you get a girl pregnant

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just wait until you get a girl pregnant

Didn't I tell you something about convenience already? You're proving my point

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Didn't I tell you something about convenience already? You're proving my point

If you did, I didn't read it. I drop out of threads where people equate one side to murder, and abort any chances of civil conversation. So please, enlighten me, denominator.