Ugh.

Disgusting.

Ladies & gentlemen, we are now through the looking glass.

"If my parents' doctor knew what he was doing then I wouldn't be here today."

"Barak, please vote to cut medical education funding now."

This whole argument is a lie. It is not possible for Obama to go back and have his way so she has no right to use that argument.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/executive-summa.html

right. he doesn't want to kill babies in the womb, he wants them to grow up so he can kill them in iran, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, or georgia.

>> ^imstellar28:
right. he doesn't want to kill babies in the womb, he wants them to grow up so he can kill them in iran, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, or georgia.


Exactly.

Fundies and hard-line Republicans only care about humans in fetus form. Once you're out of that womb, they don't give one shit.

I always thought that human life is more valuable the harder is to create it. A baby everyone is able to do it pretty much... A smart well educated 18 years old guy/girl not so much. Get this shit right people!

Are you serious? We're talking about people here! The Holocaust killed 11 million people. Abortion in just the US alone since 1973? Around 35 million. Now that's what I call a holocaust.

^god is clearly pro-abortion: the infant mortality rate is ~50% worldwide. how many babies has he killed in the past 5,000 years since he made eve out of adam's rib...hmm?

I think that her upper lip was stabbed by the coat hanger.

>> ^furrycloud:
Are you serious? We're talking about people here! The Holocaust killed 11 million people. Abortion in just the US alone since 1973? Around 35 million. Now that's what I call a holocaust.



I personally agree... And I think families and parents who would also be inclined to agree should try to raise their own children to value human life and not view abortion as a form of birth control. But it is NOT the governments job to forcefully instill that value on everyone... It is a personal moral and religious issue, and one the federal or even state government has no buisness in. I've always found it ironic that the party who claims to want smaller government (honestly does anyone realy believe that anymore?) is 'pro' arguably the single most personally invasive policy in the history of our country.

^The gov't absolutely has the right to judge what is murder and what is not. We call them law-makers for a reason. The nation has a right to decide its values.

And yeah, I'd rather be given the choice to live or die myself, thanks. If a person wants to enlist in the military, he/she has that choice. No aborted baby has ever had any choice whatsoever. BTW 90% of all Downs Syndrome children are aborted. Eugenics anyone?

I have never met an adopted person who would rather have been aborted. Have you?

Fetuses are either people or they're not; if they are they have rights, which should be protected by the government; if they aren't, which they aren't, then they don't.

The stupidity of pro-lifers is bad enough. The stupidity of someone who thinks that killing what they stupidly consider to be a human life is a personal moral choice is completely off the charts.

Children should be raised to believe the correct position, which is that life is sentient thought and self-awareness. A baby has no more rights than a rat. A fetus has no more rights than a tumour.

If I agreed with your argument Gorillaman... doesn't that point only become valid if you can tell me the precise moment a human becomes self aware or sentient?... I've seen nothing to indicate one way or the other... and by that virtue alone... I would rather error on the side of caution... and hope all people would respect the life... or even potential for life...

Black and white exist on a spectrum, science and pseudoscience exist on a spectrum, left and right politics exist on a spectrum, but they are not indistinguishable.

To err on the side of caution would be to limit abortions to, say, a year or two after birth. Not psychopathically to defend the rights of something which is clearly empty and has none.

>> ^imstellar28:
^god is clearly pro-abortion: the infant mortality rate is ~50% worldwide. how many babies has he killed in the past 5,000 years since he made eve out of adam's rib...hmm?


Hmmm, yes... Let's blame God for this and hope that the blood of millions won't be on our hands.

If you want to talk abortion worldwide, we're looking at more like 40 million a year. Conservatively. That's in just one year. At least we in America are a first world country with progressive beliefs; so much better than the rest of the world.

I've always thought it was funny how a person can disagree completely with the death sentence and be all about saving the whales, but when it comes to a human life, someone that they, God forbid, might have to take responsibility for, would rather just take a life.

"clearly empty"

Based on?... what your saying so? The rest of that was basically nonsense... in the end unless you can tell me the exact moment a human becomes self aware... I fail to see how in one state it's a 'tumor' and in the other it's a person... In the end that is the fundamental issue... and you haven't shed an ounce of light on that except to say ' It is so because i say it is... '

Basically nonsense? I was trying to illustrate, for your edification, the false continuum fallacy, which is the foundation of your argument.

>> ^furrycloud:I've always thought it was funny how a person can disagree completely with the death sentence and be all about saving the whales, but when it comes to a human life...


Yeah, well for anti-choicers when it comes to a human life, they only protect fetuses. Once that baby's out of that womb, tough shit.

I always found it funny for christianists and anti-choicers who are against abortion, but for the death penalty and most often pro-war.

Well i wasn't familiar with that argument but after reading about it i fail to see it's relevance...



Your trying to tell me that aborting a fetus is the moral equivalent to excising a tumor, on the basis of it having the same level of sentience...


I don't know how you can have it both ways. It isn't a 'heap' of wheat... something IS sentient or it is not. Your own statement states that is the fundamental principle.



My argument is not an argument at all... I just want to know what makes you so sure that a fetus isn't self aware? You are confident beyond any doubt... on this issue I am certainly not... hence my question... the "continuum fallacy" i don't even see as applicable. Unlike wheat... when a human becomes self aware... they do in fact become... 'self aware'... When... 'nothing' becomes something... you seem to base your argument around it... and all I'm asking is how you know that enough to it's OK to exercise this tumor... vs. it's no longer OK this is now a human.

Have you ever seen a baby function at a higher level than the animal? No, because like animals, babies are nothing more than bundles of instinct. A fetus' brain is even less developed.

So... your saying a newborn is effectively not a 'life' by that definition...

Couldn't you catagorize the extremely handicapped as well that way?... When does it become murder?... thats all i'm asking... in your mind... You describe terminating a pregnancy as if it were removing a tumor... and really don't seem to think anything more of a newborn?... I want to know when does it stop being ok? Again not attacking your position... just want clarification.

>> ^furrycloud:
Are you serious? We're talking about people here! The Holocaust killed 11 million people. Abortion in just the US alone since 1973? Around 35 million. Now that's what I call a holocaust.


Good. Imagine 35 million more fucking people in this dumb fucking country. That's 35 million less parking spaces. 35 million more cars in traffic. Some percentage of 35 million people sucking on welfare, getting in bar fights, stealing shit from your home. 35 million people...good riddance.

^ Yeah, rottenseed, but with a 51%/49% girl/boy ratio, think of how many rad chicks that possibly excludes...
Anyways, the debate about abortion will not be solved anytime soon; not here, not ever. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
or Soranus vs. Ovid.
The despicable part of this particular sift is the 'Swift boating' method to enrage all you zealots out there, like shooting fish in a fucking barrel.

With that MrFisk i completely agree...

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^furrycloud:I've always thought it was funny how a person can disagree completely with the death sentence and be all about saving the whales, but when it comes to a human life...

Yeah, well for anti-choicers when it comes to a human life, they only protect fetuses. Once that baby's out of that womb, tough shit.
I always found it funny for christianists and anti-choicers who are against abortion, but for the death penalty and most often pro-war.


Interesting how if you think about it, that seems to be a hell of alot more "pro-choice". Those people chose to commit crimes, which is why they're even being considered for the death penalty. Those people chose to be soldiers. All I'm saying, is maybe we should wait until all those babies are old enough to make they're own choice. I bet most of them would choose not to be killed.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^furrycloud:
Are you serious? We're talking about people here! The Holocaust killed 11 million people. Abortion in just the US alone since 1973? Around 35 million. Now that's what I call a holocaust.

Good. Imagine 35 million more fucking people in this dumb fucking country. That's 35 million less parking spaces. 35 million more cars in traffic. Some percentage of 35 million people sucking on welfare, getting in bar fights, stealing shit from your home. 35 million people...good riddance.


That's a pretty ridiculous argument. It's also very possible that one of those dead babies might have been destined to cure cancer, or solve global warming, or invent a cheap solar cell. In fact, of 35,000,000 people, you're just about guaranteed to have a few people of great influence, charity, and genius. And there are other countries in this world, btw. Maybe you'd be happier in one of the other ones.

On the topic of war and the death penalty: these are decisions made by adults. Adults who commit serious crimes get death as a penalty. They made a choice and they face the consequences of that choice. The same is true in war. People are responsible for the outcomes of their choices. What crime has the baby committed that deserves death? If you abort a child, you take away all the choices they will every make. Again I say, I have never met someone who was adopted who would have rather been aborted. Would YOU have rather been aborted? Is there one single person reading this thread that would rather have never been born? Can ANYONE here honestly claim they'd rather have been aborted? And those that, as adults, decide they'd rather be dead have the choice to kill themselves. The aborted baby has no such choice. So pro-abortion IS anti-choice. Give the child the choice. Millions of people globally are incapable of having their own child. Newborn candidates for adoption are quite sought after in western nations, enough so that many adopt foreign newborns. In my eyes there is no justification of killing a child who could be offered a chance at life. The fact that people are now having abortions to weed out the bad crop is terrifying. What is this? "Brave New World?"

Fetuses = persons means miscarriage = homicide, anybody here supporting that?

The law says not born = not a person, simple criteria, other options for criteria exist, but nobody is really talking about implementing them.

We could go with brain waves, so then we are all legally obliged to be vegans ( I already am, so that's okay with me)

We could go with "sentience", which, as already mentioned humans are not born with.

We could go with chromosome count, in which case folks with downs syndrome don't count.

We could go with conception, thereby resulting in the complete state regulation of all female reproductive systems. Did she ovulate? Did it fertilize? Did it implant? Did she miscarry? These are all facts that the state MUST know in order to protect fetal human life, and the last two are, at least, man-slaughter, so get ready for a massive rise in the female inmate population.

Here's a nice little hypothetical I like to throw out: Let's say I see you in public being and asshole ( don't say not me, we have all done it) and I retaliate by jumping on your back and sucking your blood, which I now use as my only form of sustenance. We are both clearly human, we both clearly have human rights, I am clearly being a parasite, and it has clearly happened as a consequence of something you have done. Do I have the right to parasitize you? Do you have a right to stop me, even if your stopping me causes my death? Do you, in effect, have a right to self defense which over rides my right to enslave you? If so, how can a ball of cells over ride your rights, when an acknowledged person can not?

Fisk is spot-on.

The abortion issue is too big a vote-getter for the GOP that they'll never want to see Roe v Wade overturned. They have no intention of losing their biggest wedge issue, and discussing otherwise is a practice in futility.

She's got a right to her butterface, too!

I think personally... I would call myself pro-life if not for instances like rape and abuse... supporting a law that would punish a woman who already had to suffer a horrible crime... it's just inconcievable to me... and thats just a line i can't cross Doc... for the most part I agree with what your saying... But i still say this is a personal and family moral issue...

It's interesting what you say Volumptuous... give me a few years... i'm justn ot that cynical yet... but it's hard to argue it isn't one of their best rallying cries...

I will say again that I agree... this add represents the very lowest level of propoganda in a campaign... which is of course why it will appeal to so many.

>> ^Januari:
Couldn't you catagorize the extremely handicapped as well that way?... When does it become murder?

Mentally handicapped? Absolutely.

Precisely defining the essential qualities of humanity isn't quite my area, but I'd say something along the lines that when a child, or anything else, is capable of abstracted experience AND self-defines as an individual, that would be the earliest point at which it gains 'human' rights.

So to put that in perspective... in your mind... dropping a newborn into the ocean.... or shooting a severely handicap person... would be equivalent to stepping on a bug, as they are basically less than human and have no rights?

Provided it was your own newborn, otherwise you may be violating the property rights of its parents.

pro-liberty or anti-abortion. make your choice because you can't have both. you can only believe in one of these two things and remain logically consistent:

even if you give babies "rights" what right would you give them? the "right to survive" is not a human right--how can you ensure one man's survival, without enslaving another man? there is no such thing as the "right to enslave"

people have the right to pursue the means which enable their survival. how can you give the baby the "right to survive" without infringing on the mother/father's right to not chose to support him?

all human babies are essentially born "pre-mature" --that is they cannot function without the help of others. most animals are not like this. if you have a problem with it--write a letter to god and complain.

>> ^imstellar28:
all human babies are essentially born "pre-mature" --that is they cannot function without the help of others. most animals are not like this. if you have a problem with it--write a letter to god and complain.


=]

I like you.

^You have the inalienable rights to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to choose whether you live or die unless you sacrifice that right by committing a serious crime or unless someone takes that right from you by murder or war. The right to choose to live is FAR greater and more significant than the right to convenience and financial security.

Also, I don't know where you're getting your data on animals, but it's bunk, TONS of animals are born without the full capacity to survive on their own. Think of as many animals as you can and count. You'll find a great deal of them require care after birth/hatching. I'll make a short list. ALL birds, all primates, and ALL mammals. (All mammals statement is pending review).

You say you can be only either pro-liberty or anti-abortion. I say pro-liberty and anti-abortion are synonymous. The child's liberty is forfeit when it is killed. What can be more selfish than ending a life for convenience? Those who abort a child because of incest or rape I can understand even if I don't like it, but abortions of convenience are detestable to me and about 45% of this nation. But even in extreme cases, the mother should at least consider taking the child to term and offering it up for adoption. Again I say, I've never met an adopted person who regrets life and I've known several. And, if they did, they have the choice of ending their lives when they see fit. No one has ever been able to argue against this point to me. No one.

In addition, some abortions performed by Planned Parenthood have been confirmed to be "induced birth" abortions where the birth of the child is induced chemically, then the child is left to die on its own afterward. FFS. That is murder! You might as well throw the baby in the dumpster. More pre-mature babies have been born and survived! JEEZ!

The only comfort I can imagine in all this is the Christian belief that children under the "age of accountability" who kick the bucket get a free ticket to be with God forever.

One more thing: "Fetuses = persons means miscarriage = homicide" is not a sensible statement. A more clear and true statement is "Fetuses = persons means miscarriage = accidental death." The mother did not intend that the fetus die and she did nothing to cause it. If she did, than perhaps it would be homicide or man-slaughter, but in most cases, the mother did nothing to cause the death. I have a sister-in-law who suffered a miscarriage. She was at least temporarily inconsolable as was my brother. Their grief was as if they lost a child, because they DID. (now they have several btw and they're brilliant parents).

As for sentience, who the heck knows what a baby is thinking in or out of the womb? And as for chromosome count? Who cares? I've met several downs syndrome and several mildly retarded (MR) individuals (my parents work in social work) who have lived happy and productive lives.

Also Dgandhi, babies are not parasites, they are offspring. They might require a mother to allow them growth for nine months, but they are not an attack by an assailant (except in the case of rape I guess). They are a choice by [hopefully] responsible individuals and definitely by adults (or those who are sexually mature) nonetheless that requires attention and care to manage. If mom doesn't want to raise them, she can offer them up for adoption and many people will be in line to adopt him/her at a young age. I've known both adopted men and women and people who have giving children up for adoption. The former and the latter were both thankful and not regretful.

^ALL mammals eh?

How about elk? Within hours an elk calf can run with the herd.

Your misinterpretation of "the right to life" is the source of almost every problem we have had in the last 100 years--including our current economic crisis. Crazy to think that philosophy could affect the economy eh? I can explain this to you, but we would have to do it somewhere else than here because its going to take a while. Alternatively, you could just read "free to chose" by Milton Friedman--he explains it pretty well.

To keep it simple and on topic--you claim:

1. liberty is "the right to chose" (i agree)
2. humans have "the right to life" and you interpret this to mean, everyone has the right to survive-right?

rights are contracts between men, thus men must ensure human rights.

1. if you place a baby in a room full of people, that baby will die unless cared for.
2. if the baby has the right to survive, someone must take care of it.
3. if nobody wants to care for the baby, by your logic, they are all violating the baby's right to survive.
4. the only way to ensure the baby's right to life in this situation, would be to force one of the people to take care of it.
5. forcing someone to care for the baby would ensure its right to survive, but at the same time violate that person's right to chose.

that is why anti-abortion is not compatible with a pro-liberty stance.

I'll edit it to read "most mammals" to please you. I have yet to find a person who would have rather been aborted than live. On second thought, don't elk still breast-feed? Herd yes, mom yes? Educate me. Kindly point out the mammal(s) that don't breast feed or don't require any motherhood after birth.

If a room is full of people and one baby, the person who produced said baby is responsible for it. To imply that everyone in the room is responsible is ridiculous. No one argues that, however, I imagine that several people in the room would find themselves up to the challenge and would save the child rather than see it dead. Rights, by USA standards are NOT contracts but are inalienable, that is, they are impenetrable and untouchable. That is what our constitution says in brief. These "inalienable" rights are just that, in absolutely untouchable without changing the constitution.

"Force" someone to take care of it? Have you seen the list of people who want to adopt infants? It's huge. If a woman is willing to carry a child for 9 months and birth it, and put it up for adoption, it will likely live a fantastic and fulfilling life according to record. Do you want to take that opportunity from them?

DAH! You keep editing your post, a crime I'm also guilty of so I won't blame you.

Forcing someone to deal with the consequences of their actions is in no way a crime or a violation of liberty. You could also say, a man dislikes his boss and consequently murders him, should he be held responsible. I've said that I understand the rape and incest claims to abort. If you're trying to win me over to the convenience-based abortion camp, you've got a mountain to climb, because I've made my opinion clear on that.

^so the baby has conditional rights? it only has the right to survive if someone is in the room which produced it? this is getting complicated...

yes. force. if nobody wants to take care of it, you would have to force someone, against their will, to take care of it. i'm not saying it wouldn't be "despicable" as judged against our societal values, but value judgments have no bearing on the logical inconsistency of your position. I do understand why you think it is despicable, but why not leave it at that? Why not utilize social ostracism to achieve your goals, rather than physical force?

maybe my hypothetical is unlikely, but do you deny that it is possible? if not, all that is needed to prove a position inconsistent is a single situation in which it logically breaks down--which i just did.

... a lot happening on this board.

I think the strongest pro-choice argument is grounded in the issue of gender equality. Accidental pregnancies happen all of the time (contraceptives can fail, temporary lapses in judgment can occur,...), but you'll have a hard time convincing me that having a child is an equal burden shared between parents, especially in 'one-nigh-stand' or similar situations where the father can simply check-out (and suffers no health impairment).

Another strong pro-choice argument is that taking away legal abortions has historically driven the demand underground, and caused significant hardship to women who were simply unlucky. These hardships disproportionally effect poorer families looking to terminate an accidental pregnancy, as poorer families are often less knowledgeable about family planning and contraceptives, and as wealthy families can still afford to either send the woman out of the country for the procedure or employ a doctor willing to become a criminal for a price. The strong Catholic country of Mexico recently legalized abortion, precisely because of the severe hardships that were occurring to women undeterred by issues of legality having disastrous 'back-alley abortions'.


I think the strongest pro-life arguments drive at the somewhat arbitrary definitions of when legal termination of a pregnancy can occur and when termination by choice of the mother is voluntary manslaughter (or when, or if, termination brought about by an assailant is involuntary manslaughter). Conceding that the morality of terminating the "natural" process of reproduction at later stages is eventually inappropriate opens the door to argue that termination of the natural process purposely by any external means is equally amoral, as they give the same result.

I would gladly force a mother to care for her child. And a Father. If she/he does not, she/he better have a freaking good reason not to. Would you be happy if she aborted her child because it is half black or half Oriental? I see only logical inconsistency of your position my fellow sifter. If abortion is allowed on a convenience level, should not the father have a say? Think about that for a few minutes.

I'm one of the apparent few who support Obama and bend further to the left than the right on most issues, yet am pro-life. So these comments provide a glimpse "across the pond" to see how otherwise like-minded people reason and speak, and I have to be honest; in this case, it's not particularly encouraging.

It's truly unfortunate that the many people who I agree with on most issues can be so tragically wrong on this one. And yes, just to blow a few minds, I'm also anti-war and anti-capital punishment. People are too quick to assume they know everything about someone based on a single opinion.

>> ^Doc_M:
I would gladly force a mother to care for her child. And a Father. If she/he does not, she/he better have a freaking good reason not to. Would you be happy if she aborted her child because it is half black or half Oriental? I see only logical inconsistency of your position my fellow sifter. If abortion is allowed on a convenience level, should not the father have a say? Think about that for a few minutes.

Its okay that you are okay with gladly forcing a mother to care for her child. You have every right to hold that position, but you must understand that it is not compatible with liberty. I understand where you are coming from, I really do, its an emotional subject. If I met a girl who used abortions as a method of birth control, and got abortions every other month I would shun her (shunnn), but its her right to do that. There are a lot of powerful actions I can take: I can refuse to interact with her, refuse to buy her goods, refuse to sell her my goods, etc.

But tell me, as much as I don't like it, what could the father possibly say? What right does he have to inflict his will on the mother? He can do all in his power to convince her why she should/shouldn't get an abortion but it ends there. As far as I am concerned the father has only two options: to offer care for the child, or not to offer care for the child.

^Xax

I agree with you on a lot of issues, I believe--although its unfortunate to hear about the Obama thing . Can you point out where I am going wrong in my argumentation? If my reasoning is fallacious I would be more than happy to understand how.

>> ^imstellar28:
I agree with you on a lot of issues, I believe, although its unfortunate to hear about the Obama thing . Can you point out where I am going wrong in my argumentation? If my reasoning is fallacious I would be more than happy to understand how.

I'll just share my take. I consider myself pro-liberty and pro-life, but I have no problem with the government holding parents accountable for failing to care for their children. I support holding people to account for criminal activity, even if that restricts their liberty. So you could argue that my stance, by "forcing" parents to be responsible for their children's care (or rather, discouraging them from or holding them account for not doing so), is not 100% pro-liberty, and you'd be right.

I'm okay with being less than 100% pro-liberty. I'm primarily libertarian, but not entirely. I do see a benefit to having some form of government and/or natural law.

^Makes sense. What do you think about these alternatives to governmental intervention:

1. increase birth control usage by reducing governmental regulation (i.e. make it over the counter, and cheaper to produce)
2. develop more female and male birth control products
3. rely on values instilled by families to encourage family planning
4. foster a culture which highly regards those who adopt children, and remove the restrictions on adoption.

I think one of the most detrimental effects governmental regulation has had on our lives is that it disrupts our social cohesion. Jobs that once were performed by brothers, sisters, parents, neighbors, coworkers, and friends are now performed by faceless governmental officials. These jobs (caring for your parents at old age, providing for your children, helping your friends through hard times) are what foster relationships, and when you transfer all these jobs to the government what you are left with are broken families and poor relationships with your fellow man.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Makes sense. What do you think about these alternatives to governmental intervention:

They're all fine ideas, and I support them, but even if they were put into place, there would still be a need for governmental intervention of some degree. I agree that governmental regulation is out of control and detrimental for the most part. I'm totally down with a much smaller, less-powerful, less-restrictive, less-controlling government.

This is a little off topic... and maybe I'm being a little naive... but i had no idea how convoluted this issue really was... I mean yes... I'm talking about the six or seven people who posted here... but such a huge array of opinions between what is so commonly thought of as a pro-life vs. pro-choice... If nothing else it was certainly an interesting read...

>> ^Doc_M:
Again I say, I've never met an adopted person who regrets life and I've known several. And, if they did, they have the choice of ending their lives when they see fit. No one has ever been able to argue against this point to me. No one.

Wow, that's annoying because I remember slapping you down on that bullshit some time ago and I bet I'm not the only one. I've never met anyone who wishes their parents used contraception, therefore contraception should be illegal?

At the time abortion or contraception is used, the subject does not yet have any rights. They may develop them in time, but that potential is not the same as possession.

What's the difference between jumping on a trampoline and jumping on a pile of dead babies?

You have to take your shoes off to jump on a trampoline.

>> ^gorillaman:
>> ^Doc_M:
Again I say, I've never met an adopted person who regrets life and I've known several. And, if they did, they have the choice of ending their lives when they see fit. No one has ever been able to argue against this point to me. No one.
Wow, that's annoying because I remember slapping you down on that bullshit some time ago and I bet I'm not the only one. I've never met anyone who wishes their parents used contraception, therefore contraception should be illegal?
At the time abortion or contraception is used, the subject does not yet have any rights. They may develop them in time, but that potential is not the same as possession.


Gorilla, With contraception, no life was formed, with abortion, a child was formed and killed, a child that could have lived was denied its choices and its rights as a human. We simply disagree when life starts. No need to get smarmy about it.

For I'mstellar:
There is a definitive difference between pure liberty and American liberty. The USA offers limited liberty. It says, you can do what you want unless you violate someone else's rights. If you kill another person, you have violated their rights. If a conceived child is a person, abortion violates their rights and is not comparable to the child-baring conditional pain. The bottom line in all these abortion arguments is exactly what Gorilla is arguing, when does life begin. Bible believing Christians think conception. Many others think birth, Gorillaman and his cohorts think later than that. If we can't agree on it, we will never agree on when a person gains rights as a person. It becomes (has become) an academic discussion.

You must realise your argument is ridiculous, since you've abandoned it in favor of 'life starts at conception', which has nothing to do with the wishes of adults who might have been aborted.

You need to learn from your mistakes and stop using the argument I quoted.

This thread is exactly like the entire issue: One Big Fucking Joke. The GOP will never take away abortion rights in this country, so anyone who considers themselves anti-abortion better get used to it, or do the only thing you can, which is bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors.

And please stop using the "pro-life" moniker. It's false. It's a lie. Everyone is "pro-life". Some are "anti-choice", and others are "pro-choice".

Gorilla, we're just going to disagree on this forever. My argument is not lame or ineffective. It is not a mistake I should learn from. BOTH arguments are clear and valid. I was trying to be polite by simply agreeing to disagree, but I see that you are not willing to accept such polity. Therefore, it's not worth continuing the discussion.

Some are pro-abortion and some are anti-abortion, don't give me this pro-choise, pro-life BS. If you think Pro-life is an invalid moniker, than Pro-choice is equally invalid. And obviously bombing an abortion clinic is hypocritical and soooo 1985. psh.

Well I can see I was wrong. No-one has been able to argue that point with you because you absolutely will not listen to reason.

I will never 'agree to disagree' on any issue of human rights.

>> ^Doc_M:
The mother did not intend that the fetus die and she did nothing to cause it

Do you have the results of a criminal investigation to back that up? You are not treating a fetus like a person, accidental deaths of persons require police investigation. Should your sister in law be taken into custody and subject to forensic testing, and psychological evaluation to determine weather she, through negligence or intent, contributed to the death of a fetus?

Also Dgandhi, babies are not parasites, they are offspring.

Fetuses are parasites, you may not like the implication of that fact, but the words have meaning, and my use is in line with that meaning.

Babies are offspring, the distinction, both in language, and law, is birth, I already addressed the consequences of using other criteria.

I've known both adopted men and women and people who have giving children up for adoption. The former and the latter were both thankful and not regretful.

I would be "thankful and not regretful" if you would give me all your money, but preference is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Just as you seem to want to conflate baby and fetus you are conflating preference and morality.

Some are pro-abortion and some are anti-abortion, don't give me this pro-choise, pro-life BS

If you are seeking a neutral tag, try abortion-criminalization, and abortion-decriminalization. Many, probably most, people who want abortion to remain decriminalized also would prefer if fewer abortions were preformed.

I personally, unlike most folks, don't think a glob of fertilized cells has any rights or value. Even given that fact, I would be happy to reach a compromise of criminalizing abortion when there is brain activity, which starts ~20weeks from conception, because brain activity signifies that something like a person may exist. I would not agree to extend person rights to a 20wk fetus, even with brain waves, on the grounds that it is a parasite, and that it's death should not render the mothers body a crime scene.

I don't disregard you concern, I simply think that you have extended your concern to the point of absurdity by going all the way to conception. It makes no more or less sense to go all the way back to gamete maturation, in which case men end millions of lives a week, and non-pregnant women kill 8-16 "babies" a month, whether they become pregnant or not. It's all life, conception is no different from gamete maturation, or any other biological process.

Life does not begin at conception, life on Earth began once, ~3billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since.

^you can assign whatever cutoff you want, but whatever cutoff you assign will be arbitrary and there is no getting around it. the morality (and thus legality) of an issue cannot be derived from arbitrary decisions.

ironically, it is the "pro-abortion" stance which revolves around a single statement being true: "the right to life" (*the proper interpretation). without this right, no other rights are possible.

*the proper interpretation of the right to life is: the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life.

As I've said, this is the reason your "pro-life" argument is falling apart against scrutiny--you are misinterpreting "the right to life" to mean "the right to survive" and that is absolutely incorrect.

If you disagree with my definition please provide a single counter-example which shows it is logically invalid. Also, please provide any alternative definition and I will gladly demonstrate why it is incorrect.

Sometimes, mothers eat their young!

PLEASE, let us consider this very nourishing alternative to abortion!

YOU have a RIGHT to your baby's deliciousness!

^Human rights are not derived from animal behavior. A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Rights are thus a sort of "social contract" between men (or at least the same species).

To look at it any other way would be to claim a lion violates an antelopes "rights" when he eats him for food. If you did this, you would make it impossible for a lion to survive while acting morally. And to remove "choice" from morality is to negate the meaning of morality altogether.

>> ^imstellar28:
the morality (and thus legality) of an issue cannot be derived from arbitrary decisions.

The issue, in not "right to survive", as you suggest, but moral relevance. The basis for moral relevance is always arbitrary. We do not assign moral relevance to all life ( microbes, etc), nor to all human cells ( finger nails, appendix, cancer), nor all minds ( cows, dogs, chimps). There exists no innate discrete criteria for moral relevance.

We, at some point define a group we call persons, and that is the criteria we use. The question is simply can we agree on a definition, or do we abandon any criteria for rights and justice?

At some point in the continuum of life we acknowledge a distinct person, and we have responsibility as a consequence of that acknowledgment. An analogy would be that you and I decide to do something together, such as pick fruit from a tall tree, in which my participation is necessary for your safety, let us say I am holding the rope you are hanging from. I have the right not to get involved, or to back out while we are getting the ropes ready, etc, but once I am holding you 50ft of the ground with a rope your moral relevance overrides my freedom to abandon you. You do not have a right to have me hold the rope, but I do not have the right to let go either.

^dgandhi
"An analogy would be that you and I decide to do something together, such as pick fruit from a tall tree, in which my participation is necessary for your safety, let us say I am holding the rope you are hanging from. I have the right not to get involved, or to back out while we are getting the ropes ready, etc, but once I am holding you 50ft of the ground with a rope your moral relevance overrides my freedom to abandon you. You do not have a right to have me hold the rope, but I do not have the right to let go either."

You are missing a very, very subtle concept which is critical to the outcome of your example. In this situation, the two people made a social contract: that one would pick an apple while the other held a rope. To violate this contract is to commit fraud. Verbal contracts of this nature are made on a daily basis. When you walk into a fast food restaurant you pay them money on the terms that they will deliver you food shortly. If they took your money, but provided you with no product, they would be committing fraud or theft. The same is true of this example in which one agrees to pick an apple whilst the other agrees to hold a safety rope.

Thus, if you follow my viewpoint, the apple picker has the right to be supported by the rope, and the rope holder has a moral/legal obligation to hold the rope--precisely because both have entered into this voluntary, social contract.

If you follow your viewpoint, the outcome is inconsistent: the rope holder is obligated to hold the rope, but at the same time, the apple picker has no right to be supported by the rope.

It was an interesting example, and really took a very subtle nuance to logically work through.

^dghandi
"The issue, in not "right to survive", as you suggest, but moral relevance. The basis for moral relevance is always arbitrary. We do not assign moral relevance to all life ( microbes, etc), nor to all human cells ( finger nails, appendix, cancer), nor all minds ( cows, dogs, chimps). There exists no innate discrete criteria for moral relevance."

As far as this point, there is one instance where this might arise: if all the evolutionary intermediates between apes and men were still alive. It would probably be pretty hard to determine who is "a man" and who is "an ape" based off of their mental, physical, or even genetic makeup. Luckily we don't have this problem because all the intermediates are extinct--thus we can easily distinguish between a "man" and an "ape". However--even if they were not extinct, there is but one criteria to distinguish which is which, and that criteria is not arbitrary: reproduction. Species are the set of animals who can successfully reproduce--thus as hard as it might be from appearance, it would be possible to separate the two.

Recall my definition of a right: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Rights are thus a sort of "social contract" between men (or at least the same species).

It is only logically consistent to apply "rights" and thus, morality, to your own species. Thus, we define rights in terms of a social contract between men. Every other species is in competition with you. Again, to apply this in any other manner would be to say that a lion cannot morally eat an antelope. Likewise, it would mean that humans could not morally eat plants or animals--and there is no way to reconcile that with "the right to life".

>> ^imstellar28:
You are missing a very, very subtle concept which is critical to the outcome of your example. In this situation, the two people made a social contract: that one would pick an apple while the other held a rope.

I don't discount contract, but you assume that we have already determined who/what may enter such a contract. The entire point is that we agree that such contracts exist, and that they function by moral rules about which we agree, but the who and how are in dispute.

If we take Doc_M's position that a fertilized egg is a person, and that person is acting in a very clear and definite manner, "attempting" to grow a new human, and the mother elects to assist this process for some period of time, say 5months. If the fetus is a person, then by their joint action they have entered into an implicit social contract, it is not different from my example. If the fetus is a person it has the contractual obligation of the mother to carry it to term, just as I am required to stick around until you get down from picking apples.

Species are the set of animals who can successfully reproduce--thus as hard as it might be from appearance, it would be possible to separate the two.

Speciation is an abstraction based on the religious presupposition of types, it's not as clean as you seem to want it, "species" lines get crossed all the time, the mule is a textbook example. This position also means you would side with Doc_M on personhood at conception, since that's part of the species continuum you use as criteria, making that choice has a long list of absurd consequences.

Your further assertion that morality is only within species, is an arbitrary choice just as much as any other. The fact that predator and pray, as individuals, have conflicting interests in no way forbids morality from effecting other interactions between members of disparate species. Please explain to me why a member of another species, say little green men from mars, should be a priori denied moral relevance.

^If we take Doc_M's position that a fertilized egg is a person, and that person is acting in a very clear and definite manner, "attempting" to grow a new human, and the mother elects to assist this process for some period of time, say 5months. If the fetus is a person, then by their joint action they have entered into an implicit social contract, it is not different from my example. If the fetus is a person it has the contractual obligation of the mother to carry it to term, just as I am required to stick around until you get down from picking apples.

I would agree, if it were possible to prove the mother and fetus voluntarily entered into a contractual agreement. However, I do not know how the fetus could possibly chose to voluntarily enter such an agreement. Moreso, even if somehow could, the mother still has to voluntarily agree.

Speciation is an abstraction based on the religious presupposition of types, it's not as clean as you seem to want it, "species" lines get crossed all the time, the mule is a textbook example.

This is actually not true, speciation is not abstract or based on religious presupposition of types. A species, by definition, is a set of animals which can produce fertile offspring. Mules are sterile, which is why horses and donkeys are considered different species.

Please explain to me why a member of another species, say little green men from mars, should be a priori denied moral relevance.

This is a more difficult question, as I assume they would be conscious beings. I was wrong to define rights in terms of species. I should have defined rights in terms of sentient beings. Given that morality requires a conscious choice, it would appear that only sentient beings have rights?

>> ^imstellar28:
I would agree, if it were possible to prove the mother and fetus voluntarily entered into a contractual agreement.

Reconsider my fruit picking example, assume that we share no language in common, how do you "prove" the contract in this case? If you can't, am I morally free to let go of the rope?

Mules are sterile, which is why horses and donkeys are considered different species.

You just moved the goal posts. You said reproduction, donkey -> mule -> horse is a reproductive connection, now you say sterile does not count, so sterile offspring of humans are a different species? Also consider that not all mules are sterile, so where do the offspring of mules (which are often genetically indistinguishable from horses) fit in your equation?

Given that morality requires a conscious choice, it would appear that only sentient beings have rights?

And there my friend is the rub, who decides who is "sentient", and what are the criteria? Do we exclude members of a generally sentient species who are not themselves sentient? None of us are functionally sentient while asleep, or in a coma, do we abandon our rights when we go to bed and regain them in the morning?

^dgandhi
1. I could form a social contract with someone who speaks Spanish--although we might have to use hand gestures (a form of non-verbal language), for example. I could not enter into a contract with someone who has no language, which is what you are insinuating about the fetus.

2. I didn't move the goal post I was just overly-brief with my definition the first time around. Here is the biological definition: "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." I paraphrased this, but what I gave was the official biological definition.

3. Sentience, as it is relevant to "rights" or "morality" can be clearly defined. What is most relevant here is conscious choice. Human beings are the only species yet discovered that can exhibit a conscious choice. As far as whether we would lose our rights while we are sleeping: no. Because we gained "the right to life" the moment we gained sentience--that is, the moment we became a part of mankind. This is getting a bit convoluted, and we are straying a bit far from our original example--its interesting to examine this as it pertains to aliens, or evolutionary intermediates but it is really impractical at this point in human existence. Still, I don't think the logic breaks down in these circumstances.

Can you imagine not giving babies their basic health care?

>> ^imstellar28:
although we might have to use hand gestures (a form of non-verbal language)

So by which hand motion do I clearly undertake a contractual obligation to hold the rope? Gesture is just an extreme case of language which shows the inherent vagueness in communication. How is the clear, predictable activity of a fetus not just as clear a communication of it's intent? On what grounds do you disregard it's action, but consider the waving of my hand an unambiguous indication of mine.

Here is the biological definition: ...

I understand the words definition, I am challenging your understanding of the word as it applies to reality, where the lines are not as clean as you appear to need for your arguments to hold.

Sentience ... can be clearly defined.

If you can do so without resorting to circular definitions, I would be happy to hear it.
sentient -> mankind -> sentient ... seems a bit strained.

Given an arbitrary object, how do you test it for sentience, make sure your test works for humans passed out cold in a drunken stupor.

^dgandhi

1. Specialization is extremely black and white. Two animals can either breed or they can't, how is that an arbitrary definition? You can argue what you would call animals that can breed...but "species" is the label that was chosen to describe the answer to that yes or no question. Just like the word "bipedal" is a label for the answer to the question of whether an animal walks on two legs or not. Do you think bipedality is arbitrary?

2. I haven't read much about sentience because its just not practical. There is only one sentient species on earth. Do you argue that? I can attempt to answer your question, but honestly, anything I say about sentience from this point is just going to be talking out of my ass.

>> ^imstellar28:
Two animals can either breed or they can't

Mules can VERY rarely breed with horses, and we only know this because we force them to associate in captivity. How do you intend to exhaustively determine if any other great ape species CAN (not does, CAN) breed with humans? What if it's possible with chimps, say 0.003% of pairings, would that mean that chimps must be given full legal rights? If it it does why? If it doesn't why not?

Do you think bipedality is arbitrary?

Bipedal also has gray areas, but even if it did not it could still be arbitrary relative to rights or moral relevance. If you can explain WHY or HOW bipedality is relevant to sentience, then it would not be arbitrary.

There is only one sentient species on earth. Do you argue that?

Yes, you have an A=A argument here. If you define sentient as human, and say humans are sentient it is mathematically valid, it just does not happen to be meaningful. Until you can point out WHY we can call humans (all humans?) sentient, then you have not really said anything.

What makes you morally distinct from a fetus, or koko the gorilla? If you can't answer that question, in a way that works for the general case, your assesmet of who is morally relivant is completely arbitrary, which is fine with me, since that was my point to begin with.

^i'm not defining sentient as human i'm defining sentient as an animal which possesses consciousness--i.e. it is "self aware". Use whatever definition of sentience you want, just be sure to provide it. Do you think humans are the only sentient animals?

>> ^imstellar28:
i'm defining sentient as an animal which possesses consciousness--i.e. it is "self aware"

Many great apes and cetaceans(dolphins etc) pass the mirror test for self awareness. Unless you mean something else, which is what I am trying to get at, sentient -> conscious -> self-aware -> sentient is still circular unless we define some testable criteria.

If the mirror test is our criteria, adult dolphins, chimps and european magpies qualify, 1yr old human children do not. Is this the criteria you wish to use? If so do you require every individual to pass the test or do we generalize by species? If we generalize do we include pre/post/non-self-aware members of these species, and if so WHEN do we include them ?(conception?)

^We can use whatever criteria you want, we just have to keep our definitions consistent. Visual self-awareness and cognitive self-awareness are two different things.

To be extremely specific--I am going to define sentience as the subset of animals that can make conscious (voluntary) choices. Can you give me a list of animals you feel can make conscious choices?

I think you are looking at this in really abstract terms, and it is interesting to talk about, but its just not practical. Maybe 0.003% of chimps are conscious and .000003% of humans aren't but its not practical to test every single chimp just like its not practical to test every single human. We assume all humans are sentient like we assume the sun is going to rise tomorrow--even though there is really no guarantee of either. We assume all kinds of things on a daily basis, because its impractical to do otherwise. That does not mean that the logic breaks down...because we could test every human at every second to see if they were conscious yet or not if we had the resources to do so. As it stands, we give 1 year old babies the benefit of the doubt--we assume they are sentient (even if we can't test for it) because we know adult humans are sentient.

Going back to our original argument, and applying this to fetuses--my point was that even if they did have rights (lets assume they do, even if its not true) it doesn't matter because the mother can make a conscious choice not to support the fetus. Now technically, she doesn't have the right to kill the fetus, only to withdraw her support of it. As far as the physical implementation of various abortions, some of them may technically violate the fetus's rights as it is directly killing it. Likewise, once it is born technically the mother could let it starve to death (gruesome, I know, but it wouldn't violate anyone's rights) but we don't do this way because we consider it "inhumane."

>> ^imstellar28:
^We can use whatever criteria you want

That is a deffinition of arbitrary, which you said the criteria can not be.

Can you give me a list of animals you feel can make conscious choices?

All mammal, and birds, most reptiles, some insects.

because we know adult humans are sentient.

You still have not managed to assert HOW you know this.

...doesn't matter because the mother can make a conscious choice not to support the fetus.

Hence my tree analogy, I can elect at any time to chose not to support you by holding the rope. Absent explicit contract, in both cases, murder by negligence is excused in your system.

I concede that the intricacies of consciousness in animals and humans are not fully understood, and that animals may have many traits we have long been considered "uniquely human." Animals rights is another discussion, however.

We can both agree, in practical terms, what a homosapien is--so lets leave the discussion to focus on homosapiens for the time being okay?

That said, "murder by negligence" is a contradiction in terms. Negligence implies negative (a lack of) action, while murder implies positive (active) action. This is a thus an incorrect label.

If a man is starving on the street, you have no moral obligation to feed him. In the same way a mother has no moral obligation to sustain her baby--before or after it is born. Our physical method of reproduction obfuscates this fact, because the baby grows inside the mother. Would you say the father has an obligation? If so, how could he know he was even the father (prior to DNA testing). If humans reproduced as other animals do, where the mother ejects an egg, and the father ejects sperm and the zygote grows on its own outside either parents body--it would be easier to see why your premise is incorrect.

>> ^imstellar28:
So lets leave the discussion to focus on homosapiens for the time being okay?

No, because your humans -> sentient -> humans argument contradicts you assertion that the criteria for who may/not be considered to have rights must not be arbitrary.

That said, "murder by negligence" is a contradiction in terms.

So letting go of the rope in the fruit picking example (sans language) is not murder. If that's the consequence of your position, I declare your position absurd.

... it would be easier to see why your premise is incorrect.

If the world were not as it is, then my position may be incorrect, to assert that it would be clearly incorrect under non existent circumstances does not help your point, we are not talking about "if the world were like this" we are talking about what makes sense based on how the world is.

It appears to me that you are making an "objectivist" argument that everything is contract, I will ignore the fundamental absurdity of that for a minute, and apply it to the issue at hand.

Contracts, as the tree/rope example illustrates, are agreements based on expressed intent, of which language is only a special case of an action which expresses an intent. A zygote implanting in a womb wall also, through action, expresses intent, more clearly I would argue, then intent can be expressed in language. Deciding to not withdraw support for this zygote over a few months also expresses intent, if even just acceptance, of the clear objective of the zygote. Through a period of sustained cooperation the mother enters a contract of implied support, just as the rope holder does, even if he never says "I'll keep holding the rope until you get down". Without this kind of implied contract (sort of a base case social contract) none of the basic human cooperation that any society requires are possible.

^dgandhi

Deciding to not withdraw support for this zygote over a few months also expresses intent, if even just acceptance, of the clear objective of the zygote. Through a period of sustained cooperation the mother enters a contract of implied support

While I do not believe the fetus can choice to enter into a contract, for the sake of argumentation I will go along with the assumption that the fetus does chose to enter into a contract with the mother--after all, why wouldn't it, unless it was suicidal? However, you still have to prove the mother voluntarily enters into the contract as well, and thus far, your entire argument hinges on the above premise: namely that her carrying the fetus for several months implies consent.

Let me illustrate why this is false, by means of example:
A woman has been spending an hour of her time, each day, driving down the the supermarket and buying goods to take down and pass out to a homeless man she passed on the street one day. The man is very thankful and gladly accepts her donation. She has been doing this for the past 2 months, but recently has lost her job. Because of her situation, she no longer has the funds to support the homeless man, and stops donating. She never had any sort of contract with the homeless man which stipulated that she had to support him, she just did it out of the kindness of her heart. Would you say she has the choice to stop buying him food?

>> ^imstellar28:
She never had any sort of contract with the homeless man which stipulated that she had to support him

The homeless man is not hanging from a rope she is holding, which is why my example more aptly illustrates the complexity of the situation. Even with the rope I could hand it off, the mother can not, the fetus can not survive, at all, without her cooperation.

In the absence of an explicit contract to hold the rope until you get down how is letting you fall to your death different from aborting the fetus (assuming it's a morally relevant party)?

^I wasn't comparing it to the situation with the rope, I was comparing it to the situation she is in with the fetus.

>> ^imstellar28:
^I wasn't comparing it to the situation with the rope, I was comparing it to the situation she is in with the fetus.

Which is why your analogy does not work, she is not in a position of solitary continuous, necessary support, such as the rope example, she is only intermittently involved with the homeless person.

If the rope example did not correlate to the fetus situation it would not be useful, but you pull out a situation which clearly does not correlate and then try to draw conclusions from it. You do this instead of using the example that correlates, suggesting that you are trying to avoid the obvious consequences of dealing with the problem as it is, since you insist on making the argument based on how it is not.

How is letting go of the rope different from aborting the fetus?