Abortion

[palerider]

A fetus in the embryonic stage is not yet a human being. After that, they are people.

That is a very easy thing to say. Proving it in any real way is a different kettle of fish.

You made the claim now prove it. Prove that metamorphosis is part of our developmental cycle and we "become" human beings after having been "something" else. Your entire argument rests on that premise and you can no more substantiate it than you can leap over tall buildings.

 

[palerider]

Firstly, a question: Is it desirable for society to protect the wellbeing of its members?

That is a question that has no bearing on the issue. Perhaps it might have been a relevant question at the time of the writing of the constitution, but once the concept of protecting the right to live was legislated and voted into law, the rules were set. At this time, if you want to change the rules, you must change the constitution and forfiet your own right to live in the bargain.

The first position holds that it is desirable for society to protect human life or the life of a human being (using the same definition laid out in earlier discussions). The second position hold that it is the self or the conscious mind that is desirable to protect.

The first is real and may be proven. The second can no more be proven or corroborated than any other part of the ether. The conscious mind is nothing more than a product of maturation and your right to live is not based on your level of maturity.

Naturally, the logical implication of this position most readily apparent is that one must object to abortion in all instances at all times.

Not true. While the right to live outweighs any other right that another may invoke, that right does not trump the right to defend one's life. I may justly kill another human being if that other represents an imminent threat to my own life. Of course, if I do it, I damned better be able to prove self defense in a court of law.

Now, this begs the question of whether a child born without a head or or without a brain is to be kept alive (in the purely biological sense of the term) and, if so, why.

You mistake the right to live with a non existent right to be kept alive. There is no constitutional demand that extraordinary measures be taken on your behalf if you are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope for your recovery exists. Letting one die if no reasonable hope of recovery exists is an entirely different kettle of fish from killing.
.

That most persons will not take the argument to this extent seems to imply that, despite their language (calling themselves 'pro-life'), they are not truly driven by an interest in protect the life of a human, but rather are in truth arguing from another direction.

I am not pro life. I am anti abortion on demand.

The second position holds that it is the conscious mind, or the self ('personhood') that it to be protected. This is perhaps the most common argument form the 'pro-choice' side of the debate. This line of thought can be broken into two groups.

Prove it. We are talking about actual lives here and proof beyond a reaonable doubt is the standard when lives are at stake. Lets see your proof.

 

[palerider]

well since it is a human from conception and since it is an individual (being) since conception and since the definition of person is a human being I don't see how you can say that.

If you want to admit that they are humans and beings and persons but that they don't deserve rights at least you would be saying something consistent with the meaning of the words.

The idea he is promoting isn't new. It has been around for quite some time now and was expressed in two words. Lebensunwertes Leben. Those two words cut to the chase and express the thought behind his entire argument far more eloquently than anything he has said so far.

 

[palerider]

The law does not define '[person' as 'any human'. If it did, this subject wouldn't be a legal grey area

I suggest that you visit a legal library and check out a pre 1972 edition of Black's Legal Dictionary. Black's is THE legal dictionary used by every superior court in the nation including the Supreme Court. Look up the word person and you will find that it is defined as "a human being". The secondary definition goes into certain types of corporations.

Then you should read roe. The court avoided the issue of personhood by making the assumption that unborns were something other than human beings. If they aren't human beings, then they are, by defnition not persons. The court upheld a woman's right to terminate a "potential human life". Can you show me a potential human life?

Further, the court stated pretty clearly that should their assumption ever be proven wrong, that their decision must be overturned as unconstitutional as the unborn would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment without regard to the mother's wishes.

 

[palerider]

I've seen PR's attempts on another forum, if it's the same PR. I've countered his 'points' all before. I posted a lengthy post a few pages back that addressed this issue in some depth.

Sorry, but no point that I have made has ever been countered. I can fully substantiate and corroborate every part of my argument. Your "lengthy" post a few pages back was for the most part founded in a logical fallacy known as begging the question. You simply assume that your argument proves your argument and I am afraid that it didn't.

 

[palerider]

Dear god, you're ignorant. The NAZIs, Islamic fundamentalists, the KKK- all are conservatives. Liberals have never been conservatives because there has ever been a State which truly operated by liberal principles which those who adhere to liberal principles sought to protect.

Better do just a bit of research there. Conservativism requires, by defnition less government involvement. Nazis and islamic fundamentalist governments own and control the means of production. A decidedly un conservative brand of governemnt. I can't speak for the KKK because to the best of my knowledge, they have never actually formed a government. My bet is that it would be tyranical in nature if they ever diid.

 

[palerider]

The Constitution says people born enjoy citizenship. Until such time, the US has no jurisdiction over an unborn child.

Perhaps you should refer to the supreme court case of Yick Wo vs Hopkins. It was the first case (followed by quite a few later) that found, and held that the protection of life, liberty, and property was not restricted to citizens. If you care to challenge this, go out and kill an illegal alien and tell the judge that his or her right to live was not protected her because they were not an american citizen. Let me know how that works out for you. I believe you get some computer access from prison.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

That is a very easy thing to say. Proving it in any real way is a different kettle of fish.

You made the claim now prove it. Prove that metamorphosis is part of our developmental cycle and we "become" human beings after having been "something" else. Your entire argument rests on that premise and you can no more substantiate it than you can leap over tall buildings.

Well, fetuses have no brainwaves, so they are not sentient beings, and sentience is what differenciates us from an ape [plus more hair and some feet]. Thus, killing a fetus is no different than killing a chimp.

If you have a way to remove a baby from a women and keep it alive in a different enviroment until it is born, I would fully support you. Than we can stop rioting and assasinating over this issue.

 

[dahermit]

Well, fetuses have no brainwaves, so they are not sentient beings, and sentience is what differenciates us from an ape [plus more hair and some feet]. Thus, killing a fetus is no different than killing a chimp.

Zoologists have stated that a mature chimp has the approximate mental ability both emotionally and intelligence of a three year old human child. Therefore, with your reasoning, it would be alright to kill a three year old child. (How did I get on this side of the issue?)

 

[palerider]

Well, fetuses have no brainwaves, so they are not sentient beings, and sentience is what differenciates us from an ape [plus more hair and some feet]. Thus, killing a fetus is no different than killing a chimp.

Sorry, but sentience is not what differentiates us from apes. The potential for sentience is what separates us from the lower animals. A child born ancephaleptic has no brain waves, will never have brain waves and will only live a very short period of time and yet, is considered by science, the law, and the philosophers to be as much a human being as you. The fact that that child was born with a terrible defect that left it without a brain or perhaps just enough primitive brain to cause organ function does not alter the fact that it is a human being. A damaged human being, but a human being none the less.

Being a human being is a matter of kind, not degree. If it were a matter of degree, those who achieve higher levels of whatever characteristic you care to claim makes us human beings would be more human than those who achieve to a lesser degree. We know biologically and legally that this is not true. One human being may be better or worse than another, or more or less developed, or mature, but not more human.

Killing an unborn human being at any stage of development is different than killing a chimp because the unborn human being is, in fact, a human being. The only thing that is like killing a chimp, is killing a chimp.

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

It may well be that you "believe" that until a child manifests an arbitrary characteristic that it is not a human being, but your personal beliefs are meaningless in the face of hard scientific evidence to the contrary. If you base your claim on the arbitrary selection of a characteristic, you might as well say that a child isn't a human being until the sutures in it's skull harden, or till the third permanant molars erupt, or perhaps till the growth plates in the long bones harden at which time we are fully mature.

Feel free to provide some credible proof to support your claim if you like. I for one would be very interested in seeing it.

If you have a way to remove a baby from a women and keep it alive in a different enviroment until it is born, I would fully support you. Than we can stop rioting and assasinating over this issue.

Are you saying that the state of science has anything to do with what the child is? And it doesn't matter whether you support me or not. What matters is whether or not you can support your own argument. If you can't, then you reveal yourself as one who is doing no more than expressing your faith and suggesting that the law be a reflection of that faith. I have shown a rational scientific basis for my position and can provide an equally rational legal basis. Can you prove that your position is anything more than an article of your faith?

 

[palerider]

Zoologists have stated that a mature chimp has the approximate mental ability both emotionally and intelligence of a three year old human child. Therefore, with your reasoning, it would be alright to kill a three year old child. (How did I get on this side of the issue?)

Perhaps the facts are beginning to seep in. Doesn't it feel good to argue from a position in which you know you are right and no matter what your opponent says, it is not going to diminish your argument or prove it wrong in any way, and no matter what he says, you know you are going to have another fact and another fact and another fact to hammer him with till at last, he slinks away in defeat or better yet, is reduced to nothing more than impotent name calling?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Zoologists have stated that a mature chimp has the approximate mental ability both emotionally and intelligence of a three year old human child. Therefore, with your reasoning, it would be alright to kill a three year old child. (How did I get on this side of the issue?)

oops...

How about a gibbon?

 

[palerider]

oops...

How about a gibbon?

If you can rationally defend your argument, step on up and do it. If it really is nothing more than an article of your faith, that you can't rationally defend, simply state as much. Which will it be?

 

[dahermit]

Perhaps the facts are beginning to seep in. Doesn't it feel good to argue from a position in which you know you are right and no matter what your opponent says, it is not going to diminish your argument or prove it wrong in any way, and no matter what he says, you know you are going to have another fact and another fact and another fact to hammer him with till at last, he slinks away in defeat or better yet, is reduced to nothing more than impotent name calling?

You give me too much credit. Despite your very effective arguments, I consider the short comings in language (fetus = human being), the unfortunate and limited legal terminology not to be equal to the task of defining how a fetus is different than a human being. A fact that you have taken a great advantage in. Nevertheless, I know the differance is that a "human being" has a soul, whereas a fetus consisting of a few cells does not.

Also, I do not care if others cannot differentiate the difference; I am more concerned that the population keeps growing with most of the additions leading impoverished lives.

Lastly, I do not have the need to feed my ego by having those who disagree "slink away in defeat, or reduced to name calling".

 

[palerider]

You give me too much credit. Despite your very effective arguments, I consider the short comings in language (fetus = human being), the unfortunate and limited legal terminology not to be equal to the task of defining how a fetus is different than a human being.

There is no shortcoming of the language. If science needed more language to describe how a fetus is different than a post natal, I am sure that it could come up with the necessary terms. No such terms, however, are needed. The only difference between a fetus and a post natal is a degree of growth and maturity. We don't metamorphose into being human beings having been something else for some unspecified period of time.

I suppose if your goal is to deny that unborns are human beings you will find that the language has a certain number of shortcomings but then whenever one tries to deny reality, language is frought with shortcomings.

A fact that you have taken a great advantage in. Nevertheless, I know the differance is that a "human being" has a soul, whereas a fetus consisting of a few cells does not.

Can you prove a soul? If you can prove a soul, can you prove when it enters the body? Can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt for that is the standard when we are talking about taking lives.

Also, I do not care if others cannot differentiate the difference; I am more concerned that the population keeps growing with most of the additions leading impoverished lives.

Then you favor killing those who are presently in proverty? Do you favor killing those who are just mouths who we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not going to be contributors? If your concern is really as you say, then rationally, you must first go after those whom you can positively identify as living the sort of lives you wish to save the unborn from before you go after an unknown quantity. If the concerns you voice are really not your basis for supporting abortion, then the whole line of thought is moot.

Lastly, I do not have the need to feed my ego by having those who disagree "slink away in defeat, or reduced to name calling".

The ego needs love too.