Questions for pro-lifers

[toddjh]

Statements like that are what lead rational people to be convinced atheists have no morals.

Let me fix that...

Statements like that are what lead reactionary people to unfairly generalize about an entire group of people based on the actions of a small minority.

Jeremy

 

[Mark]

Let me fix that ....




Back on topic: Choose Life, your mama did.

So did Saddam Hussein's mother. Another in a long line of emotional, yet semantically meaningless "Right to Life" cliches.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Taking of life is justified within human judgement. Self defense is an example, a judgement we make allowing for the destruction of your attacker.

When the white man encroached on Indian lands, here in America, he slaughtered all that was dear to the Indian. If they couldn't get at the one who was raping the land they went after those settlers incubating in their cabins more voracious, rapacious white men.

You realise you just gave the green light to modern terrorism, by allowing that it is moral to kill an innocent third party if you can't get a crack at the person you really want to kill?

When an invader (a rapist) violently takes what is precious to you, against your will, and leaves behind someone to rule your life, taxing you without relief - we allow that you have a right to reclaim what is left of what was yours. For a woman, that would be her body.

That's how I justify it, Kevin.

Your argument is that if I raped you, that would make it okay for you to kill a baby afterwards if it made you feel better.

Claiming that we can murder people as a kind of ritual sacrifice to make us feel better by symbolically "reclaiming what is left of what was yours" is not consistent with modern ethics. If someone squats in your house, you can't shoot an innocent person to make them go away. If I steal your car, you can't shoot an innocent person to get it back. If I rape you, you can't murder an innocent baby so you feel less raped.

The problem remains. How can you justify allowing abortion if and only if it is the product of rape, if you really believe fetuses are morally equivalent to adult human beings? The fetus is not the rapist, it is an innocent third party. In no other instance do we allow people to kill innocent third parties to make themselves feel better about being the victim of a crime.

 

[American]

My experience was seeing girls (mostly single catholic girls) having babies young and being fairly poor, but raising them with no regrets and plenty of envy/resentment toward college-y girls who hate the idea of having kids because it would interfere with their weekly binging/pot smoking/slutting-all-over-Boston lifestyle. The "I'm a student!" excuse is also BS, as many single mothers manage to take classes and earn a degree. (They are just very tired and don't have time to party. Boo-f-ing hoo.)

It is just that lifestyle that N.O.W. seeks to protect through the culture war; they directly target and undermine the values and beliefs of young single mommies, on the feminist doctrine that selfish and educated women make better human beings.

I know plenty of girls in both groups.

One is beautiful, the other vulgar.

 

[Czarzy]

Your argument is that if I raped you, that would make it okay for you to kill a baby afterwards if it made you feel better.

My argument is that if I were raped, a better alternative to me, the rapee, would be that my body was not required by non-rapees, because of their disinterested morality, to continue the existance necessary by my body of the embryo/fetus: a life-form that is non-cognizant. How about implanting this life-form into your body instead and requiring your body to use its resources to bring it into separate existence?

Will you agree personally to carry that life-form to birth if scientific technology enables that to be a possibility? If not, why not?

 

[Atlas]

You realise you just gave the green light to modern terrorism, by allowing that it is moral to kill an innocent third party if you can't get a crack at the person you really want to kill?

I don't think modern terrorism was waiting for a GO light from me. Still, I think it is one of the arguments in the Islamicist world that they can kill any American for our trespass on Arab lands. If their accusations were valid it would give them the moral force they claim. That is, if the Mongol hordes attack your town you'd probably fight back. You might blow up the building they're in even if they have their women in there with them. Maybe their leader isn't with them.

That said, I wasn't really arguing the case on moral grounds. I was talking justification. The physical and mental wellbeing of the rapee is paramount. I think you'd agree and allow the women to choose what is best. You are projecting a pet bias.

You originally asked for an anti-abortion perspective. I am anti abortion in the same sense suggested by BPSCG. At some point during a pregnancy abortion becomes wrong. The day before it would normally be born perhaps. Don't you agree? Are you really so pro-abortion? Do you wish the human race would step up the pace of abortions?

Your argument is that if I raped you, that would make it okay for you to kill a baby afterwards if it made you feel better.

Not just a baby - the one growing in the rapee's womb.

Let me be very clear, if you raped me I'd probably try to kill ya. I don't think people decide about moral outcomes in the throes of rage. But even more to the point, ain't no damn way I'd carry your child to term. I'd just feel icky bein a man and all.

Claiming that we can murder people as a kind of ritual sacrifice to make us feel better by symbolically "reclaiming what is left of what was yours" is not consistent with modern ethics. If someone squats in your house, you can't shoot an innocent person to make them go away. If I steal your car, you can't shoot an innocent person to get it back. If I rape you, you can't murder an innocent baby so you feel less raped.

If someone invades my home and squats in a room I can call the professionals who will evacuate the contents of that room of the living entity squatting there.

Furthermore, if the invader's actions result in me feeling threatened, I can kill him.

But I know what you saying. If a fertilized egg is an innocent baby to me then removing it from the womb is an act of murder. Only a few posters here accept that point of view. I am against abortion for other reasons. When I weigh it as a behavior of our species I do not feel it promotes or perfects us as a species or leads us toward an honorable destiny. I don't think war, capital punishment or euthanasia do either, and yet there are circumstances when I think they are preferable to the alternatives.

Death is an ugly business, it takes many forms. I don't kill bugs just to kill them. Most of us are pro-life in the general sense of being for life. And I believe most of us would prefer a happy alternative to abortion. A million a year is a number suggesting we have embraced it as an inconsequential aspect of modern living. The propagation of the species is consequential. I wish the human species could control its hormonal urges better so that abortion was not a first preference alternative.

 

[peptoabysmal]

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.

You do realize that the reciprocal to this argument is that you have no choice but to morally accept the killing of anyone at any age... or be a hypocrite?

The so-called "Laci and Conner's" law contains an exclusion for abortion. If a person kills a pregnant woman, that person may stand trial for double homicide. The definition (of a human life for this law) is this:

`(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

The exclusion is:

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Is it a hypocrisy to define one stage of life for murder and another for abortion? Why should it be hypocrisy to believe that life begins at fertilization and believe that viable life is terminated if destroyed after it is attached to to the uterine wall?

Laci and Conner's Law

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

My argument is that if I were raped, a better alternative to me, the rapee, would be that my body was not required by non-rapees, because of their disinterested morality, to continue the existance necessary by my body of the embryo/fetus: a life-form that is non-cognizant. How about implanting this life-form into your body instead and requiring your body to use its resources to bring it into separate existence?

Will you agree personally to carry that life-form to birth if scientific technology enables that to be a possibility? If not, why not?

Me? Definitely not, since as far as I am concerned the continued existence of an early-term fetus has no moral value whatsoever beyond whatever pleasure it might bring to its creators.

If it has become unclear, my point is and has always been that it is philosophically inconsistent to believe that a fetus counts as a person, but that abortion is sometimes okay anyway (for reasons other than saving the life of the mother). You can have one or the other, but not the two together.

 

[Kerberos]

And yet there it is, enshrined in our Constitution.

So what? Would you believe the Earth was flat if the Constitution said so? Or That God existed? Writing something in the Constitution doesn't make it true.

ETA: I just read your discussion with toddjh on this and he is correct in pointing out that the constitution doesn't really endorse option 2. I agree that it is probably inconsistent with 3, but it doesn't make any judgement between 1 and 2. The declaration of independence however does and since it's written by much the same people it's reasonable to assume they mean the same, so even if we were to accept the blatantly fallacious argument that the constitution was an authoritative source on this, you'd have to go with option 1, not 2.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't think modern terrorism was waiting for a GO light from me. Still, I think it is one of the arguments in the Islamicist world that they can kill any American for our trespass on Arab lands. If their accusations were valid it would give them the moral force they claim. That is, if the Mongol hordes attack your town you'd probably fight back. You might blow up the building they're in even if they have their women in there with them. Maybe their leader isn't with them.

Round and round we go. Where we get an answer to the short, simple question I posed nobody knows.

You can't equate killing people as a side effect of military action with going out of your way to kill a specific fetus.

That said, I wasn't really arguing the case on moral grounds. I was talking justification. The physical and mental wellbeing of the rapee is paramount. I think you'd agree and allow the women to choose what is best. You are projecting a pet bias.

What bias am I projecting?

For the record, my question is all about the moral grounds. So I'm only interested in justification if it's moral justification for killing a being you believe to be as morally valuable as an adult human.

You originally asked for an anti-abortion perspective. I am anti abortion in the same sense suggested by BPSCG. At some point during a pregnancy abortion becomes wrong. The day before it would normally be born perhaps. Don't you agree? Are you really so pro-abortion? Do you wish the human race would step up the pace of abortions?

Actually, I don't attach a great deal of value to a child's life for its own sake until it's developed a fair bit past the point of birth. Babies are incredibly valuable to their parents, of course, which is reason enough to look out for their wellbeing.

I think abortion is a terribly inefficient form of contraception, but I am no more against abortion than I am against people driving SUVs. Which is to say that I really wish they would choose more efficient alternatives, but I don't condemn them from a moral high horse either, and I certainly don't consider them murderers.

Not just a baby - the one growing in the rapee's womb.

If you think that makes it okay to kill them, I'd like to hear how it does so.

If someone invades my home and squats in a room I can call the professionals who will evacuate the contents of that room of the living entity squatting there.

Furthermore, if the invader's actions result in me feeling threatened, I can kill him.

Round and round. These are not equivalent situations. The fetus is not threatening you.

But I know what you saying. If a fertilized egg is an innocent baby to me then removing it from the womb is an act of murder. Only a few posters here accept that point of view. I am against abortion for other reasons. When I weigh it as a behavior of our species I do not feel it promotes or perfects us as a species or leads us toward an honorable destiny. I don't think war, capital punishment or euthanasia do either, and yet there are circumstances when I think they are preferable to the alternatives.

In that case, where's your beef? My question is quite specific. It is addressed to people who do think that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human adult. If you don't, the question is not addressed to you at all.

 

[El Greco]

Believe what you like; the fact is that the entire argument revolves around what's "good" for the mother or "good" for the fetus. That's a moral evaluation, no matter how you sanitize the terms, and no matter what side you're on. It's a moral dilemma, plain and simple.

It's a moral dilemma because society's collective morals on this subject have not yet crystallized. As long as it remains a "moral dilemma" with ethics -and not cold logic- dictating our opinions, there's little point in dicussing it.

Yes, but you're assuming that perpetuating the species is a good thing. How, exactly, are you arriving at that? Certainly the universe in toto will not be affected one way or the other by our extinction or overpopulation.

But that's just it - how do you arrive at the "best interests" (as a theoretical, let alone as a reality) without some kind of ethical yardstick? Some outcomes are more desirable than others; what makes them so?

The species wants its perpetuation and on this basis I speak. Someone may wish the destruction of humans based on a sick personal moral code, but I think it's quite safe to assume that the overwhelmingly vast majority will not agree with such moral codes. I assume that the best interests of society are the "well-being" of the majority of its members. We don't even need to argue what exactly that "well-being" may be, since I'm not trying to philosophize or preachify here; I am merely observing the way societies form their morals. But even if we want to discuss what that "well-being" may be, guess what: We can only do so meaningfully if we rely on our logic and not our emotions or morals.

So the question becomes not "what is right and what is wrong" but "how will the majority achieve their well-being". You are free of course to question whether the goal should be the society's "well-being", but we will not go far this way.

I agree. But they are real nonetheless, and inescapable in this or any other social issue. Judgements are made, alternatives are weighed. Ethics - whatever your source and whatever you call them - determine how you read those scales.

Of course. Ethics determine how you read those scales. But when we try to discuss this subject there's only one way to argue: Based on cold logic and not on ethics. How are your or my morals going to change if not by re-evaluating them under the prism of logic and reason ? Unless they're never going to change, in which case there is no point in arguing.

 

[Mark]

You do realize that the reciprocal to this argument is that you have no choice but to morally accept the killing of anyone at any age... or be a hypocrite?

No, I realize that is more anti-choice, emotional hyperbole. As I (and others) have pointed out, the "Life begins at conception" argument is absurd. The whole thing is a process...in fact, even fertilization itself has several stages! Which one is the magical, mystical moment when the 2 cells are an actual human being?

A 6 month fetus is more human than a 2 hour fetus. There is no magical moment.

 

[Jocko]

Sperm are alive.

So are blood cells. How many innocent lives did you end while shaving this morning?! Point is, sperm by themselves have no more potential than your toenail clippings, so please leave this silly line of "reasoning" behind.

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."

That's all gospel according to Mark; please separate your opinions from established facts and quit counting on others to do it for you, please. If there is no moment of creation, is there a moment of death? I'm pretty sure most people think there is, even if they disagree on where it happens.

How, exactly, is a 6-month fetus "more human" than a 2-week collection of cells? Because it looks more human? That's a scary measurement. Care to elucidate a bit on this?

 

[Jocko]

Is it a hypocrisy to define one stage of life for murder and another for abortion? Why should it be hypocrisy to believe that life begins at fertilization and believe that viable life is terminated if destroyed after it is attached to to the uterine wall?

Laci and Conner's Law

What worries me about this kind of easy acceptance with the paradox is that the fetus' rights are determined entirely by the mindset of the mother. If Laci had been killed on the way to an abortion clinic, there could be no second prosecution, could there?

I don't like anyone else's whims/beliefs/caprices determing my rights or status. Either the fetus is human or it is not. The mother's decision can have no possible bearing on that determination.

Or, apparently, it can. Very sad.

 

[Mark]

So are blood cells. How many innocent lives did you end while shaving this morning?!



That's all gospel according to Mark; please separate your opinions from established facts and quit counting on others to do it for you, please. If there is no moment of creation, is there a moment of death? I'm pretty sure most people think there is, even if they disagree on where it happens.

How, exactly, is a 6-month fetus "more human" than a 2-week collection of cells? Because it looks more human? That's a scary measurement. Care to elucidate a bit on this?

Your first line was very funny!

But more seriously, have you ever held someone's hand while they are dying? I have. And there is no "moment of death." (Despite what we see on TV shows) That, too, is a process.

A 6month old fetus is more human (do I even have to say this?) because it has an almost completely developed body and brain...as opposed to a 2 hour fetus which is still only 2 cells. "Looks" have nothing to do with it.

Anti-choice people keep looking for magical moments and absolute black and white, but they just don't exist.

 

[Jocko]

It's a moral dilemma because society's collective morals on this subject have not yet crystallized. As long as it remains a "moral dilemma" with ethics -and not cold logic- dictating our opinions, there's little point in dicussing it.

I'm still waiting for you to make a call either way without resorting to some external measurement of worth, value, and rectitude. It's not an opinion, it's a demonstrated fact. Look back over the last six pages if you want more proof.

The species wants its perpetuation and on this basis I speak. Someone may wish the destruction of humans based on a sick personal moral code, but I think it's quite safe to assume that the overwhelmingly vast majority will not agree with such moral codes. I assume that the best interests of society are the "well-being" of the majority of its members. We don't even need to argue what exactly that "well-being" may be, since I'm not trying to philosophize or preachify here; I am merely observing the way societies form their morals. But even if we want to discuss what that "well-being" may be, guess what: We can only do so meaningfully if we rely on our logic and not our emotions or morals.

So, even the immoral have moral codes. Just like I said. I never said we all have the SAME moral code, merely that everyone follows one. Your example only bolsters my position.

It's also interesting that you feel that the majority of people believe it is a good thing to perpetuate the species, when about 60% of them (Americans, anyway) also believe it should be possible to LIMIT the perpetuation of the species.

So the question becomes not "what is right and what is wrong" but "how will the majority achieve their well-being". You are free of course to question whether the goal should be the society's "well-being", but we will not go far this way.

I'm not saying that at all, merely observing that "well-being" is measured in some way that logic alone cannot provide. Logic is a means, morality is the destination. Without a desirable outcome, there is no reason to pursue it... logically or otherwise.

Of course. Ethics determine how you read those scales. But when we try to discuss this subject there's only one way to argue: Based on cold logic and not on ethics. How are your or my morals going to change if not by re-evaluating them under the prism of logic and reason ? Unless they're never going to change, in which case there is no point in arguing.

No argument intended; I merely asked for a solid argument against killing that does not rely on some form of ethical code. I'm still waiting.

 

[Jocko]

Your first line was very funny!

That must be why you didn't actually address the point, then.

But more seriously, have you ever held someone's hand while they are dying? I have. And there is no "moment of death." (Despite what we see on TV shows) That, too, is a process.

As a matter of fact, I have, and I disagree. Dying is slow. Death is instant, in my experience. Appeals to pure emotion aren't advancing the debate, by the way.

A 6month old fetus is more human (do I even have to say this?) because it has an almost completely developed body and brain...as opposed to a 2 hour fetus which is still only 2 cells. "Looks" have nothing to do with it.

Neither can survive outside the womb. Therefore, by one measurement at least, they are the same. You're taking this as a false dilemma, as if two cells will remain two cells forever. Without accounting for potential, as Luke has been patiently explaining, the argument is pointless.

Two dozen dead cells in a clinic or two billion dead cells in a coffin; what's the difference? Your argument claims there is none.

After all, we're ALL going to die sometime. Everyone's final potential is exactly zero.

Anti-choice people keep looking for magical moments and absolute black and white, but they just don't exist.

For someone so incensed at perceived poltiical propaganda, you sure do love to load your terms. And the problem isn't that there isn't a defined moment, merely that you choose not to believe in the possibility.

That's your choice. I fully support it. Am I still anti-choice?

 

[Furious]

So are blood cells. How many innocent lives did you end while shaving this morning?! Point is, sperm by themselves have no more potential than your toenail clippings, so please leave this silly line of "reasoning" behind.

Actually, I still want to explore this.

First, the shaving is accidental killing; you were not intentionally killing the blood cells and they tragically died as a by product of an action that was not intended to kill them. As Luke pointed out, its silly to concern onselves with natural deaths by things like cancer when we are talking about the callous killing of potential human life.

However, using a condom or pulling out during intercourse serves no purpose other than to kill the potential life embedded in the sperm.

Secondly, sperm serve no function in the body other than for reproduction. They are not the same thing as blood cells or toenail clippings. Toenail clippings and blood cells do not have the cellular structure for swimming into the fallopian tubes and fertilizing an egg and do not contain half of the DNA intended to make up half of the offspring's DNA. No one attempts to kill off their blood cells or toenail clippings intentionally and there are not entire industries dedicated to doing so.

Sperm are quite clearly potential human life more than other types of body cells and have special status for that reason so can we leave your silly line of "reasoning" behind.

 

[Mark]

That must be why you didn't actually address the point, then.



As a matter of fact, I have, and I disagree. Dying is slow. Death is instant, in my experience. Appeals to pure emotion aren't advancing the debate, by the way.



Neither can survive outside the womb. Therefore, by one measurement at least, they are the same. You're taking this as a false dilemma, as if two cells will remain two cells forever. Without accounting for potential, as Luke has been patiently explaining, the argument is pointless.

Two dozen dead cells in a clinic or two billion dead cells in a coffin; what's the difference? Your argument claims there is none.

After all, we're ALL going to die sometime. Everyone's final potential is exactly zero.



For someone so incensed at perceived poltiical propaganda, you sure do love to load your terms. And the problem isn't that there isn't a defined moment, merely that you choose not to believe in the possibility.

That's your choice. I fully support it. Am I still anti-choice?

Pardon my compliment. I won't let it happen again.

I strongly disagree about a moment of death. What else can I say? I am sure it was a very emotional time for you and I don't want to argue with you about it. All I can say is, I have been with 3 people when they died (including my wife) and it was indeed a process (a surprisingly peaceful one I might add). I never saw an exact moment of death; maybe your experience was different.

A 6 month old fetus can definitely survive outside the womb. Where did you ever get the idea they can't? It's dangerous...but it happens all the time.A 2 hour double cell zygote can't even be seen without a microscope.

Your statement that I am claiming no difference bewteen a 2 celled zygote and fully developed human being is the complete opposite of what I am saying. There is a HUGE difference! One is a human being, the other is a zygote on its way to becoming a human being. Your attempt to reverse my position is...well, I find it hard to believe you just missed my point so utterly.

 

[Jocko]

Pardon my compliment. I won't let it happen again.

Keep the compliments, work on the comprehension.

I strongly disagree about a moment of death. What else can I say? I am sure it was a very emotional time for you and I don't want to argue with you about it. All I can say is, I have been with 3 people when they died (including my wife) and it was indeed a process (a surprisingly peaceful one I might add). I never saw an exact moment of death; maybe your experience was different.

SIGH... as I said above. Reasonable people can disagree about such things without assuming nefarious agendas behind every opinion... and that's all these are, opinions. I'm trying very hard to get you to recognize that, because you seem to think your opinions are established facts. They most certainly are not.

A 6 month old fetus can definitely survive outside the womb. Where did you ever get the idea they can't? It's dangerous...but it happens all the time.A 2 hour double cell zygote can't even be seen without a microscope.

So there is no difference between a 6-month fetus and one carried to term? Is viability your measuring stick? I'm just trying to get at what makes you so cocksure that you've got everything figured out.

Your statement that I am claiming no difference bewteen a 2 celled zygote and fully developed human being is the complete opposite of what I am saying. There is a HUGE difference! One is a human being, the other is a zygote on its way to becoming a human being. Your attempt to reverse my position is...well, I find it hard to believe you just missed my point so utterly.

Yes, your point is that Mark gets to define and redefine the terms of a debate at will, particularly when cornered in his own arguments. Oh, I got your point, and rest assured others got it as well.

Look: If a zygote is just a zygote, without regard to its potential, then where do you draw the line of what is human? An infant? A toddler? A child? A teen? An adolescent? We draw all sorts of lines in development cycles; at what point does a human being become a human being to you?

An infant cannot survive on its own. Sure, it can breathe, but it can't feed itself. Is that any more of a human being to you than a first-trimester fetus? Why? Both are doomed to death unless supported to fulfill their potential.