FILL IN THE BLANK: It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________ (belief, evidence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is your attempt to evade the ultimate character of the life that exists and is living (whatever stage it is in) that clouds the issues.
Quite the opposite in fact. My attempt is to decloud the issue by removing this arbitrary and variable definition of the word "life" that people against abortion use. "Life" is a word they change to fit whatever the argument is, and it is a moving goal post for them. And that suits them very well.
Instead I choose to focus on the fact that if we are going to talk about "life" in the context of abortion then what we are talking about is a life with "rights" and simply suggesting the zygote of fetus is "alive" says literally nothing about whether it has "rights" or whether there are any moral issues surrounding it.
Simply being "alive" is irrelevant. Morality and rights are tied to a lot more than simply being alive, and as such I see no arguments from anyone on here suggesting we need have any moral qualms or rights issues directed towards the fetus at certain stages in it's development. Lots of things are "alive" in this world and we do not attribute the same rights and moral concerns to them, so clearly "life" is not the defining characteristic in this discussion despite those that pretend it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
No matter what label you assign to the stages of life . . . the LIFE is human!
This is the very best example of what I mean by meaningless definitions of words like "life" and "human". So what if it is human? So is a cancer cell. So is the dirt I can pull out of my nose with my finger. So is a corpse. All of this contains human DNA and are essentially human. Simply arbitrarily assigning the word "human" to something does not magically mean it is worthy of moral and rights issues.
Something more has to be appealed to than merely being human and it is that something more than people on the anti choice side avoid discussing because to do so undermines their entire position. As soon as you clarify exactly what it is you are trying to protect, and exactly what it is you mean by "human" in the context of a discussion on abortion, the ground literally falls out from under anti abortion arguments. So they instead keep words like "alive" and "human" vague in order to avoid this.
Yes the fetus is part of the "human" life cycle, but it has no connection yet at all with what we often mean by "human" such as humanity, subjective experience, consciousness and more. Not only does it not have these things but before 20 weeks it does not even have the things that produce these things.
I repeat my analogy to Radio. If the things like human consciousness were likened to radio waves, then the people worried about abortion before 20 weeks are worrying about not only a stage where the waves are not being produced by the broadcasting tower.... the broadcasting tower itself has not even been built yet.
Quite the opposite in fact. My attempt is to decloud the issue by removing this arbitrary and variable definition of the word "life" that people against abortion use. "Life" is a word they change to fit whatever the argument is, and it is a moving goal post for them. And that suits them very well.
Instead I choose to focus on the fact that if we are going to talk about "life" in the context of abortion then what we are talking about is a life with "rights" and simply suggesting the zygote of fetus is "alive" says literally nothing about whether it has "rights" or whether there are any moral issues surrounding it.
Simply being "alive" is irrelevant. Morality and rights are tied to a lot more than simply being alive, and as such I see no arguments from anyone on here suggesting we need have any moral qualms or rights issues directed towards the fetus at certain stages in it's development. Lots of things are "alive" in this world and we do not attribute the same rights and moral concerns to them, so clearly "life" is not the defining characteristic in this discussion despite those that pretend it is.
This is the very best example of what I mean by meaningless definitions of words like "life" and "human". So what if it is human? So is a cancer cell. So is the dirt I can pull out of my nose with my finger. So is a corpse. All of this contains human DNA and are essentially human. Simply arbitrarily assigning the word "human" to something does not magically mean it is worthy of moral and rights issues.
Something more has to be appealed to than merely being human and it is that something more than people on the anti choice side avoid discussing because to do so undermines their entire position. As soon as you clarify exactly what it is you are trying to protect, and exactly what it is you mean by "human" in the context of a discussion on abortion, the ground literally falls out from under anti abortion arguments. So they instead keep words like "alive" and "human" vague in order to avoid this.
Yes the fetus is part of the "human" life cycle, but it has no connection yet at all with what we often mean by "human" such as humanity, subjective experience, consciousness and more. Not only does it not have these things but before 20 weeks it does not even have the things that produce these things.
I repeat my analogy to Radio. If the things like human consciousness were likened to radio waves, then the people worried about abortion before 20 weeks are worrying about not only a stage where the waves are not being produced by the broadcasting tower.... the broadcasting tower itself has not even been built yet.
All you really present is the old "viability" argument Nozz.
Let me ask you this: What if medical technology were developed that would let them take the egg from a woman right after it was fertilized at conception (or after IVF), put it into some sort of artificial womb, and bring it to full term viability that way. Would that change your opinion about abortion?
That would be no different than any other human being whose viability has been compromised for some reason, and medical treatment sustains them until their viability hopefully returns.
All you really present is the old "viability" argument Nozz.
Probably better to re-read what I wrote as I very much avoid viability as the basis for my position. I do this for a variety of reasons. Firstly I am not sure what viability has to do with "rights" etc.
Secondly viability changes all the time as our medical technology increases. The way things are going I doubt it will be very long before we can maintain a zygote from fertilization to "birth" with very little if any assistance from the presence of a mother.
So for a base argument for abortion rights I see very little use of "viability" arguments and they are unworkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Let me ask you this: What if medical technology were developed that would let them take the egg from a woman right after it was fertilized at conception (or after IVF), put it into some sort of artificial womb, and bring it to full term viability that way. Would that change your opinion about abortion?
As I said, since viability has no relevance to how I reached my opinion on abortion, such a medical development would leave my position entirely unchanged.
Probably better to re-read what I wrote as I very much avoid viability as the basis for my position. I do this for a variety of reasons. Firstly I am not sure what viability has to do with "rights" etc.
Secondly viability changes all the time as our medical technology increases. The way things are going I doubt it will be very long before we can maintain a zygote from fertilization to "birth" with very little if any assistance from the presence of a mother.
So for a base argument for abortion rights I see very little use of "viability" arguments and they are unworkable.
As I said, since viability has no relevance to how I reached my opinion on abortion, such a medical development would leave my position entirely unchanged.
Here Nozz, let me use something on you that you use on others all the time: Just because you say you have or haven't done something, doesn't then magically mean you have or haven't done it.
You can SAY..."I am, as you can see COMPLETELY avoiding the subject of “viability” here which I find is shaky ground with steadily improving medical science. I reiterate therefore, viability is NOTHING to do with my thesis."...but that doesn't magically mean you don't, or that it doesn't.
MOF, you just trade off PHYSICAL viability, for MENTAL viability: And that's ALL you base your position on.
See Nozz, the thing you are STILL avoiding...is the near UNIVERSAL consensus of the current science specific to the matter (embryology, biology, genetics, etc)...that says at conception there is created a life completely SEPARATE and DISTINCT from any other life (including the mother) that exists...AND that that life is human life. Thus creating a new human being.
My position is...any "rights", or "protection under the law", a human being is granted by a society, should be given to ALL human beings, regardless of development, condition, or location.
The only person on the board that presents a logical and reasonable argument to allow legal abortion, is Mystic (which would figure)...and that is the argument that only "members of society" are to be protected by the rights/laws that are granted or enforced by a society...and you don't "gain membership" into the society until you are born.
I feel you "gain membership" once you exist as a human life separate and distinct from any other human life...and that has been scientifically proven to occur at fertilization (conception). So I disagree with his argument...but at least his premise is logical and reasonable.
It is ME, not YOU Nozz...that "eliminates the issue viability"...physical or mental.
At least I agree with you when you say that it should not be a factor...it's just that only I don't factor it...you do.
"Here Nozz, let me use something on you that you use on others all the time: Just because you say you have or haven't done something, doesn't then magically mean you have or haven't done it.
You can SAY..."I am, as you can see COMPLETELY avoiding the subject of “viability” here which I find is shaky ground with steadily improving medical science. I reiterate therefore, viability is NOTHING to do with my thesis."...but that doesn't magically mean you don't, or that it doesn't."
But the same applies to yourself. You find dismissing viability 'shaky ground' but that doesn't mean that 'magically' it has become so. When one is looking at early stages of embryology, then viability can also look like shaky grounds to use for the 'no abortion at any time after conception' argument. bot the Nozz and to me. It looks like a false arguing from the reasonable to the unreasonable in order to justify an unreasonable argument, not to say prejudice.
If it is not, then Nozz is quite correct in saying that whether the embryo is brought to babyhood in a womb, a test - tube or a Harrod's bag is neither here nor there.
You can SAY..."I am, as you can see COMPLETELY avoiding the subject of “viability” here which I find is shaky ground with steadily improving medical science. I reiterate therefore, viability is NOTHING to do with my thesis."
I know only say it but I very clearly explain it too. To portray me as having just said it as if that makes it true is very disingenuous. I very clearly explain my position and it has nothing to do with viability and I explain clearly why I think viability a bad basis for building an opinion on abortion.
Maybe if you actually read my posts and the link to my essay which I linked to on a number of occasions you would know this, but ignoring it all and then pretending I did nothing but espouse my position as if that was enough, is remarkably disingenuous and clearly false to anyone who actually extended their attention span long enough to actually read what I wrote.
The position I in fact work from is that "rights" are not something we assign based solely on something being distinct and alive. If it were then you would be assigning the same rights to trees and cows.
Rights are also not something we assign to DNA merely because it is human DNA. If it was you would be assigning the same rights to Cancer Cells.
As such I see nothing in a fetus at 20 weeks to assign rights TO and therefore I see no reason to have any moral or rights based qualms with terminating them if the woman so wishes. That position is entirely seperate from how viable the fetus is at any given time and whether it is being brought to term in a womb or in a mechanical incubator of human design.
"Here Nozz, let me use something on you that you use on others all the time: Just because you say you have or haven't done something, doesn't then magically mean you have or haven't done it.
You can SAY..."I am, as you can see COMPLETELY avoiding the subject of “viability” here which I find is shaky ground with steadily improving medical science. I reiterate therefore, viability is NOTHING to do with my thesis."...but that doesn't magically mean you don't, or that it doesn't."
But the same applies to yourself. You find dismissing viability 'shaky ground' but that doesn't mean that 'magically' it has become so. When one is looking at early stages of embryology, then viability can also look like shaky grounds to use for the 'no abortion at any time after conception' argument. bot the Nozz and to me. It looks like a false arguing from the reasonable to the unreasonable in order to justify an unreasonable argument, not to say prejudice.
If it is not, then Nozz is quite correct in saying that whether the embryo is brought to babyhood in a womb, a test - tube or a Harrod's bag is neither here nor there.
No 'QUIPA...I don't find "dismissing viability *shaky ground*"...MOF, I don't consider "viability" at all, in ANY way what-so-ever.
While OTOH, Nozz says he doesn't...but, he actually does.
He just trades physical viability for mental viability in his argument...to justify aborting before a certain gestational time period.
I say, to be fair and just...once you have a separate and distinct human being (and it's been scientifically proven that a separate and distinct human being exists once conception occurs)...if your society grants rights/laws to human beings...ALL should have them, regardless of physical or mental development/viability.
My position is the only true non-prejudicial position.
I say: All you have to be is a human being...and you should get the same rights and protection under the law as any other.
ANY other criteria, or consideration, is what's demonstrative of prejudice.
I know only say it but I very clearly explain it too. To portray me as having just said it as if that makes it true is very disingenuous. I very clearly explain my position and it has nothing to do with viability and I explain clearly why I think viability a bad basis for building an opinion on abortion.
Maybe if you actually read my posts and the link to my essay which I linked to on a number of occasions you would know this, but ignoring it all and then pretending I did nothing but espouse my position as if that was enough, is remarkably disingenuous and clearly false to anyone who actually extended their attention span long enough to actually read what I wrote.
The position I in fact work from is that "rights" are not something we assign based solely on something being distinct and alive. If it were then you would be assigning the same rights to trees and cows.
Rights are also not something we assign to DNA merely because it is human DNA. If it was you would be assigning the same rights to Cancer Cells.
As such I see nothing in a fetus at 20 weeks to assign rights TO and therefore I see no reason to have any moral or rights based qualms with terminating them if the woman so wishes. That position is entirely seperate from how viable the fetus is at any given time and whether it is being brought to term in a womb or in a mechanical incubator of human design.
First Nozz...I DID read it all.
Second...you DO base your argument on viability...MENTAL (consciousness, awareness, etc) viability.
Your comparison to "other things that are also distinct and alive" (like trees and cows) is bogus...we are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS here.
You can give rights and protection to trees and cows to whatever degree your society gives them rights and protection...and do the same for human beings.
Also..."separate and distinct human being" is just that...a "separate and distinct human being".
Cancer cells (WHAT!, no "snot" comparison this time? Yer slippin'!), just because they have human DNA, don't qualify as "separate and distinct human beings"...while science has proven that is what you have once conception occurs.
Comparing living human beings to living trees, living cows, or living cancer cells, is not reasonable.
Neither is it reasonable to use the mental (or physical) development/viability of the human being as a basis to deny rights or protection under the law and justify snuffing him/her at will, for any reason.
Indeed. I do forget reading is not the same as understanding. Your interpretation of what I am saying is indistinguishable from not having read it due to your (possibly willful) misunderstanding of it.
Again my position has nothing to do with viability. Viability also has nothing to do with consciousness. I suggest you look up the term in a medical dictionary and try to understand it better.
My position is not based on the viability of anything, but the very existence of something. I think "human rights" are inextricably linked with the faculty "human consciousness" itself. Something that is entirely devoid of that faculty..... nothing to do with having it a bit or having a badly used application of the word "Viable" version of it.... I am talking about lacking it ENTIRELY.... for me therefore has no basis upon which to assign "human rights".
You would not talk about how "viable" a fetus that does not even exist is would you? If it does not exist, then to discuss it's viability is a nonsense. Similarly since consciousness does not exist at any level at all at the stages I am talking about, your application of the word "viable" to it is a nonsense, entirely your error and has nothing to do with the position I actually hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Your comparison to "other things that are also distinct and alive" (like trees and cows) is bogus...we are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS here.
Then it is not "bogus" because that is exactly my point. You just made it for me. We are talking about "human rights" and as such I do not see that calling something "unique" or "alive" is enough to base "human rights" on. Nor is merely containing human DNA.
Whatever we appeal to as a basis for the assigning of rights and moral concerns, it is clearly more than life, uniqueness or human DNA. When you define what that something is, you will likely find that a fetus at 20 weeks development simply does not have it, which is likely why people such as yourself jump through hoops to NOT define it explicitly but hide it behind hand waving.
No 'QUIPA...I don't find "dismissing viability *shaky ground*"...MOF, I don't consider "viability" at all, in ANY way what-so-ever.
While OTOH, Nozz says he doesn't...but, he actually does.
He just trades physical viability for mental viability in his argument...to justify aborting before a certain gestational time period.
I say, to be fair and just...once you have a separate and distinct human being (and it's been scientifically proven that a separate and distinct human being exists once conception occurs)...if your society grants rights/laws to human beings...ALL should have them, regardless of physical or mental development/viability.
My position is the only true non-prejudicial position.
I say: All you have to be is a human being...and you should get the same rights and protection under the law as any other.
ANY other criteria, or consideration, is what's demonstrative of prejudice.
The problem here is that "physical viability for mental viability" is the same as 'trading viabilty for actual humanity' or 'trading organic life for human life' or trading actual human life in any reasonably meaningful way for technical life on paper simply to support your rather extreme rejection of termination at any time.
If you then insist a blob of cells - or even one cell, once fertilized - is a 'human being' then of course it follows that it is entitled to the same rights as any other human. But, to repeat you previous point, just because you say so doesn't magically mean that it is. If it isn't then that should never automatically override the rights of the host.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uo
