First, I'd like to see evidence that induced abortion is a tiny fraction of the number of fertilized eggs which abort through natural means.
Second, apples and oranges. Murder vs. death by natural causes.
First, I'd like to see evidence that induced abortion is a tiny fraction of the number of fertilized eggs which abort through natural means.
Second, apples and oranges. Murder vs. death by natural causes.
Your rights supercede the rights of the fox, although PETA would differ with me.
And yet there it is, enshrined in our Constitution.
I'll leave that to others. Can we agree that it's at least a significant number?
Does it bother you that there is very little research into preventing this "death by natural causes?" We spend billions on research for cancer and heart disease; why is practically nothing spent on preventing these millions of deaths, especially since survivors would have their entire lives ahead of them, instead of just a few years, or maybe a decade or two?
To be fair, it's mainly the Declaration of Independence that enshrines natural law explicitly. The Constitution is pretty much silent on where our rights come from, though of course the views of the framers were pretty well documented.
Jeremy
Last edited:
You're dodging the question.
If a woman is sexually active, she is very likely passing fetilized eggs every month. Especially if she is using the pill, which mainly keeps the mucous levels such that the egg fails to implant.
There are actually Christian groups who oppose birth control for this very reason (at least they are consistent). But even using the rhythm method may simply mean that the egg is fertilized in an inhospitable place during its journey out of the body.
So if you really do regard human life as begining at conception, then you really have no choice but to also oppose birth control, or indeed any sex without pregnancy...or be a hypocrite.
I have no idea.
Pre-natal care is a huge health industry. I guess you've never been around a pregnant woman under a doctor's care.
As you said yourself, it is there in the 9th Amendment.
ETA: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Retained by the people. Not granted to them.
Edited again to add: Look at how all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are worded. "The right of the people...shall not be infringed" That is explicit language saying option 2 (or 1), and clearly not option 3.
Last edited:
That is not consistent with how condoms work.
I suppose a person who believes it is a human being from the point of conception would have to be opposed to any birth control method which prevents a fertilized egg from surviving. But not all birth control works that way.
That's true, but it's not what I'm talking about. Pre-natal care only addresses the health needs of a fetus that has already implanted. It does nothing for the millions of fertilized eggs that do not implant, or miscarry too early to be noticed.
Almost no effort is made to save the lives of these "humans" who are never given a chance to live. And the effort that is there is pretty much exclusively geared toward fulfilling the selfish desire of the woman to have kids, not as an attempt to save the life of the unborn. Perhaps with the correct application of hormones, or some other treatment, more of these "humans" could be saved, and not swept out to their deaths every month. Who cares if it's inconvenient for the woman -- haven't you been arguing all along that saving a life takes precedence over a woman's right to control her own body?
ETA: That's tongue in cheek, obviously, but only a little. It really is strange to us pro-choicers that people can be moved to the point of tears by the "murder" a million "babies," but dismiss millions of other "deaths" with a wave of the hand. Are those deaths any less tragic because they're from natural causes? Does the word "natural" mean we are exempt from our moral responsibility to try to save them?
Well, not explicitly. From a "social rights" perspective, the purpose of the 9th Amendment is to give the courts the authority to make decisions without being bound strictly by the Constitution. In other words, where a natural law person might say the courts "discovered" the right to privacy, I would say they "invented" it, using the authority given to them by the 9th.
Well, now it gets complicated. Like I said before, it's well known that the framers favored the "natural law" view. But a "social rights" person like myself would point out that the natural law justification is simply the means by which our society explains why it chooses to grant certain rights.
In other words, just because the framers say that our rights come from on high doesn't make it true.
Jeremy
Last edited:
Condoms tear, so one would still be running the risk of "murdering the unborn."
Or, in a more rational world, we could just admit that the whole "life begins at conception" idea is unworkable in the real world. Nothing in nature indicates that idea is true. Nothing.
Condoms are notoriously unreliable as birth control, although, to be fair, a lot of the unreliably comes from improper use (mostly from buying the wrong size or insufficient lubrication).
If I recall, the mean time between failures for typical condom use is about five years, meaning the average sexually active woman can expect to have several children in her lifetime if her partner(s) use condoms exclusively.
Jeremy
Last edited:
But condoms prevent fertilizations that would otherwise have taken place. Arranging circumstances so that a conception never happens is morally equivalent to murder, just as a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to a newborn because it would otherwise become one.
This is precisely why that conception of "morality" has been abandoned by reasonable people.
Not sure what you mean by that, but problems with fertility are also a big industry. And I know the Catholic Church, for one, is opposed to these fertility programs which create a multiple of embryos which are destroyed.
But it is the framework in which an awful lot of precedents have been determined.
So why are most pro-choice people opposed to late second/third trimester abortions? For moral reasons.
ETA: And statements like that are what lead religious people to believe atheists have no morals.
Only religious people with no reading comprehension skills.
Go back and read my post again. And then read it again, carefully.
Czarzy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 293
Do you think that it is human because of
1) DNA
2) a soul
3) both DNA and a soul
If there is something else besides either of those, please elucidate.
BTW Conception has historically meant from the time the blastula implants in the wall of the uterus. So do you think that a zygote being propelled through the uterine tubes is not human and magically becomes one at implantation? If not magically, then what is the mechanism?
Try running the idea that a fertilized egg is not alive past your high school biology teacher, and see if you don't get a retroactive F for the class.
Life begins at conception, but you've been badgering Luke to try to get him to say that all life is of equal value, whether it's a single fertilized egg that has not yet atttached to the uterus or one that is about to be born.
Just because we admit that something is alive from the moment of conception doesn't mean we mourn the loss of a fertilized egg the same way we mourn a six-month miscarriage.
Sperm are alive.
And your last sentence is exactly my point!!!!!!!!! A six month fetus is FAR more human than a 2 week old one. I am glad you get it.
The whole "moment of conception" idea is utterly bogus; it's all part of the process of creating a human being. There is no magical "moment."
Czarzy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 293
Life CONTINUES in the sperm, the egg, the zygote, the blastula implanting at conception etc, .....
Let me fix that ....
Statements like that are what lead rational people to be convinced atheists have no morals.
Back on topic: Choose Life, your mama did.