That’s only part of that post you don’t get?
I’d say he’s fiercely pro-choice after that abortion of a response.
Why is this relevant? What is similar about these situations? Why does his response on this other question have to justify your opinion on fetuses? Please explain this with the understanding that your position is incoherent.
My only point is that if you’re going to rely on the “actuality of birth” as your cutoff for human, the possibilities encompassed expand every year and may eventually vanish when gestation can be effected in vitro.
Those categories are pretty vague. It’s not even a stretch to extend them to postnatal infants, the elderly, hell, even the drunk.
It’s not necessary to dehumanize “larvae” to go through with an abortion. It possibly denies a moral dimension to the procedure - an embryo/fetus is alive and human - that in no way makes the procedure impractical or ethically impossible, though perhaps more difficult.
I don’t think we’re really arguing different points here. If you want to kill a prenatal human because you find it undesirable, it sucks but it’s your choice under the law. We don’t need to count weeks or deliver IQ tests to delineate between fully fledged humans and quasi-humans just so we might eliminate the latter in good faith.
I outlined hypothetical scenarios that took the qualifiers given for ‘human enough’, which happened to exclude prenatal humans, and presented actors who most people would intuitively accept as human lacking those qualities. I’m trying to demonstrate that there is no rational, scientific definition of ‘human’ that excludes prenatal life. That’s it.
Its her body why do you have any say what she does with it?
I’m never going to change my stance on abortion and its unlikely you will either, but maybe through discussion we might understand each others position.
Fifteen yos don’t have fully developed reasoning skills, both according to science and experience. However, if an adult woman (or man) wished to kill herself (or himself), I would have no problem with it, at least prima facie. I’d need to know more about the circumstances to know whether the person was abandoning responsibilities or leaving other people in dire straights. But as a straight up problem of should she be allowed to do it, I would say yes. But not at 15.
None of this is relevant to the discussion though.
Neither does a fetus.
None of this is relevant to the discussion though.
It has everything to do with it from the Pro-Life view point.
True enough. That’s why we don’t ask the fetus ;). I mean I see what you are getting at here (I think; I hope). But you have to remember that the debate is whether a fetus is a human being. Nobody is arguing that with the 15 yo girl. At the same time, no one is saying the definition of a human being is a being with fully developed reason (well, maybe Kant, but he’s not here). The point is that there is almost nothing in a just conceived fetus that even remotely resembles a human being.
Let me tell you a little about myself. I saw the movie Children of Men, and when they explained that they lived in a world without children, I was, “bout it bout it.” As much as it would pain me to eventually run out of girls who are reaching the legal age to appear in porn, I am sure never having to listen to some idiot justify his position with the words, “as a parent,” would more than make up for it.
I support the crap out of a woman’s right to choose. I support it so hard I think that there should also be a man’s right to choose. A lot of people say that it’s a child, not a choice. Well, those people are wrong, it is a choice, and frequently, it is a choice between a child and a boat. I would choose the boat every day of the week and twice on Sunday, because legally you can still buy and sell boats on a Sunday, unlike cars.
And I almost forgot, search is fucked, but here are at least some of the abortion threads we had before this one.
08/01/08, The new definition of abortion
07/21/08, Preventing pregnancy = terminating pregnancy
04/17/08, No, Rollory, THIS is funny:
02/08/08, Inspiring, from an abortion provider
05/18/07, Abortion or Birth Control use: which is the greater evil to religious conservatives?
10/20/06, Stem Cell Research
07/12/06, I’m really psyched about this abortion!
05/09/06, They come for the birth control pills
05/07/06, The Day After Roe
04/17/06, New government policy: no sex until marriage for everyone!
04/09/06, What illegal abortion actually looks like
03/16/06, Missouri not offering birth control in public clinics
03/06/06, SD Gov signs abortion ban.
02/23/06, Setting the Stage for the Roe V Wade fight
12/01/05, Pharmacy vs. Pharmacists, Round Two
11/01/05, It really is about sex
09/30/05, Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime
07/20/05, Abortion polling
02/25/05, Kansas AG demands late term abortion records
01/27/05, Hillary knocks it out of the park on abortion
01/24/05, Bush: “a culture of life”
01/08/05, China to outlaw selective abortions
01/07/05, Fuck, I’m glad I don’t live in Virginia.
11/16/04, Abortion vs. Contraception
11/09/04, Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied
11/03/04, National Review: we won on culture
11/03/04, Why I’m Frightened
10/12/04, Archbishop: A Vote For Kerry is a Sin
09/08/04, Catholics “allowed” pro-choice vote
08/26/04, Judge Stops Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
07/01/04, Refusal to fill birth control prescriptions
06/03/04, Bush to churches: I scratched your back, now scratch mine
05/14/04, Bishop Issues Strong Anti-Abortion Edict
05/09/04, Morning-after pill denied on political grounds
03/11/04, South Dakota Gov to ban Abortion.
02/23/04, “Rights of the Unborn.” Say wha?
02/20/04, Newsmax to world: "Planned Parenthood Supports Rapists
02/12/04, Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records
12/23/03, Kansas judgeship applicants asked inappropriate questions
12/07/03, The teen pregnancy epidemic - it’s a myth
10/12/03, The Abortion Debate <-- Hey, familiar title!
09/03/03, Abortion Doctor’s Killer Expects ‘Reward’
There’s no debate in my view whether a fetus is human or not, it is. Its just as human as that teenager, that’s why its really hard for me to explain my view point for you to understand. You want me to somehow believe that early life is not worth protecting but later stages of life is, I can’t separate the two there the same to me resemblance is irrelevant.
tell me why a 15 year old Girl can’t go into and plan with a doctor for an assisted suicide?
Because “life is sacred”? No Idea. In about 40 years, maybe sooner, I want to be classified as a monkey so that a vet can put me down rather than a Doctor have to struggle to keep me alive.
If a 15 year old wants to die I think that’s worthy of further investigation, we could call it psychiatry or psychotherapy if you like, see if there is an underlying condition or set of circumstances that is bringing on this desire. Ultimately if, after all that, you still want to kill yourself then I’m all for there being some mechanism in place to make it as painless and straightforward as possible.
I don’t buy this “human life is sacred” viewpoint, especially when it’s one of the cheapest commodities on the planet. Millions of babies, let alone children, youths or adults, die every year through starvation yet pro-lifers choose to dedicate their energies to saving a few thousand potential lives that aren’t even realised yet. Why are you so bothered about potential lives but so unconcerned about lives that already are?
Where are the pro-life food aid flights? the rallies against farm subsidies, arms companies, government corruption and so on? Why are they all concentrated around a couple of inconsequential, in the grand scheme of things, abortion clinics?
That’s almost the exact opposite of what he’s saying.
The “possibilities” expand, but the actualities are either actual or not. Provided that the mother can get an abortion, the birth won’t happen without the mother’s consent. If abortion is not an option, she can’t abort anyway.
Complete, total, utter bullshit. Postnatal infants have been born – the pact is sealed. The clearest cutoff line there is has been cut off*. The elderly – care for the senile is a separate issue, but euthanasia should be available at their request, and until then, nothing short of their inability to consent (i.e., the cessation of higher brain functions) should justify euthanasia without their consent. The drunk – are we talking about the chronically drunk, or a particular episode of drunkenness? Either way, the condition can be alleviated, there’s no clear equivalent to a maternal authority, and most importantly, they don’t commit a mother to raising them for the next 18-odd years.
*Which is not to say this wasn’t your best effort here. But if we allow infanticide, we have to decide where the boundary between infanticide and murder is, and that’s a much trickier question than the boundary between abortion and infanticide. Given, as I have said, the availability of abortion, birth control, and alternative sexual practices, it is reasonable to expect women to manage their reproductive systems without resorting to infanticide.
A fetus is a gestational state. So is a larva. The parallel is perfect. That it works against the idea that abortion is the same thing as killing a person should tell you something other than UNICORN MUST BE WRONG.
OH GOOD WE AGREE. Are you even reading this thread?
We’re not arguing what the law is. We fucking KNOW what the law is. We’re arguing what the law SHOULD be, and while what the law is is a data point in the larger discussion of the different laws we desire, the current law is NOT an argument in itself about desirable future or hypothetical laws.
Science does not provide a code to live by. SO MUCH FOR SCIENCE! That’s just the way it works. Your hypothetical examples of fetus-like people have not been compelling and I have explained why.
As for rationality, I have presented a criterion chosen for clarity (whereas lifers cannot draw an acceptable line between gamete and zygote, yet do not call for gamete protection), human sexual behavior vs. human reproductive behavior (there WILL be unwanted pregnancies), the limits of the law (if abortion is not legal, it will be illegal and unsafe rather than absent), the demands of parenthood (human suffering all around will result if unready parents are forced to accept a child), and the inadequacy of the adoption process as a substitute for abortion. I have relied on observable events in the material world, not any kind of religious dogma, in suggesting an agreement that society can uphold with respect to sexual activity and parental responsibility. If rational approaches to the problem exist, this is one of them.
That is a good question, and one for which I have no answer. How convenient that I support assisted suicide* and abortion. I can only imagine how awkward your hypothetical situation might be for me if I held the beliefs that you do.
*With a brief waiting period – say, a week – to make certain that the candidate’s mind is made up. No age restriction other than interest in the option and the capacity to file the forms.
Try accumulating more general knowledge before you start worrying about understanding things.
Wow a lot more then I expected, I suppose I shouldn’t have started this thread but I now have a better understanding of the other side so I think it was worthwhile.
In case you haven’t noticed I’m not much of a writer/debater and cant express my view worth a shit in forums such as these, but I really respect this community and its opinions. Maybe its time for this thread to go away like the others before it.
This has been niggling at me so I wanted to come back and address it directly, sorry in advance for a second reply to your one post.
The only exegesis that’s gone on in this thread has been four Greek words in one verse (Mt 1:20), so I can only assume you were referring to that. To be clear: in every other passage thus far discussed, we have focused on interpretation of English, not exegesis from the originals. So I can only assume you’re throwing off the discussion by the misuse of technical terms, either on purpose or by accident.
Now, it’s my opinion that you are doing so on purpose and I’ll show you why. You came in here with a little bit of self-assuredness challenging me on where I came up with my phrase “that thing which”. What you didn’t know is that this is something I am studying (albeit at a very beginner’s level) and so I was happy to oblige, which I imagine deflated the chute a bit. I admitted that I added the word “thing” to help emphasize the salient point to our discussion with respect to the gender of the word, but otherwise I submit to you that the translation “that which” exactly matches the King James, the NIV (it says “what” instead of “that which”), the Amplified, Young’s Literal, Darby’s and others in terms of the pronoun used to interpret the gender. In fact, Wycliffe’s New Testament says “that thing”, so perhaps I cribbed my notion from there, I honestly don’t remember.
So I am perfectly willing to agree that my exegesis is “far-fetched”, with the caveat that so must be the exegesis of the above groups of translators. I also agree that they all knew Hebrew and Greek better than I, and yet with this whopping four Greek words, we seem to match pretty dang well. I would then be motivated to ask you: what are your exegetical credentials and how do you translate (not interpret) this passage?
So now that that’s all said: we can agree or disagree on interpretation. This is what legitimate Biblical discourse is about. Even Paul said that people will disagree about minor Biblical issues such as abortion* and that this is OK as long as each holds his own convictions on these minor issues out of reverence for God. But the exegesis is extremely clear, attested to by many dozens (if not hundreds) of scholars in over 600 years of translations with at least four distinct textual traditions, and essentially irrefutable unless you’ve uncovered some new ancient manuscript.
Pro tip: honest Biblical theology does not determine what the Bible says, honest Biblical theology is determined BY what the Bible says.
- Yeah I said it: it’s a minor Biblical issue, bordering on completely retarded. Here’s my rationale: how many times is it mentioned in the New Testament? None! We know more about what the JC ate than we do about abortion. Argument from silence? I agree! The Book is almost completely silent, and where it isn’t silent it is either “ambiguous” or seems to lean towards no human life in the womb. Thus: a very minor issue. I’d personally much rather that modern Christians followed the half-dozen or so passages (aka: more than abortion!) about living quiet lives of peace, being kind to unbelievers, and respecting governments and laws. But what the hell do I know, I suppose I ought to stop studying the Book and just passively listen to what some guy tells me it says. Whoops, can’t do that since there’s about a half-dozen passages (aka: more than abortion!) on studying and learning the Word and making sure what some guy in a tie tells you.
</rant>
Apologies to all, including Nezz, for the tl;dr. Just a pet peeve of mine.
For the record, Tanaris, I’m not angry at you or anything, just because you disagree with me on this. I don’t think Unicorn is either, but when he disagrees with you he’ll always be a bit vehement in his approach to the argument. Try not to take it personally.
I think you are wrongly equivocating ‘life’ and ‘human’ here. You too easily slip between the two. I (and many? most? all? dunno) pro-choice people agree that a bundle of cells constitutes life on some level. But that’s not the same as a human life and thus does not need to be considered protected. We often say that we should not take a life, but that’s just sloppy wording. We take lives in order to eat, even if you are a vegan or whatever. We must take life in order to eat. That’s the system nature has given us. I suppose we might wait until a plant has died before eating it’s now fetid…well, I’m getting too far off task.
My point is that you can’t simply slip from ‘human’ to ‘life’ and back again to make your argument. I doubt your fighting for all life here; you are arguing for human life, and you are arguing that it begins at conception. Keeping that clear would help a lot.
Let me just use the word “baby” in place of the more correct word, “fetus.”
Babies don’t believe in Jesus.
Babies don’t own Bibles.
Babies don’t speak English.
Babies don’t pay taxes.
Babies refuse to fill out work search reports but government benefits still cover them.
Babies won’t salute the flag.
See? Babies possess all the qualities that typically make someone ok to kill, or at least ignore and hope someone else does them in for you. That’s why abortion is legal, because babies are the worst Americans ever. I swear, at least we got an honest day’s work out of Sacco and Vanzetti.
Sorry for not getting back into this earlier, internets were down at work yesterday and after work I had a moral imperative to play Mass Effect till one in the morning.
I don’t have to explain anything with the understanding that we believe a fetus is just as human as a 15 year old girl, because we don’t. (I should clarify: “Human” is a clumsy word to be using here – what I’m reading it as is whether the proto-human is developed enough to make its preservation morally necessary.)
This is the whole stumbling block – you refuse to accept that not everyone thinks a fetus is as precious and worth preserving as a 15 year old girl. To me your analogy is nonsensical.
Oh I accept the fact that not everyone believes that, but its hard for me to understand why thats why I started this thread. I now see that your side believes just as strongly as I do but in reverse that blastocyst or fetus isn’t human life and I totally respect that.
But you have to understand that when you try convincing me that a blastocyst or a fetus is not human life its like saying breathing isn’t necessary for human life that science has proven it to be so, the very idea goes against my human nature. So unfortunately we will never agree, but I hope that we can respect each others view!
Perhaps we can, but you should be careful with your wording. I know you’ve already admitted to not being very careful with it and of having a difficult time forming your thoughts in this format (and I respect your admission). But a good example is when you say the idea goes against your human nature. That’s just not true. If your belief was human nature, then the rest of us (as humans) would also necessarily believe just as you do. That’s what human nature means. It means that it is part of the essence of being human.
What you really mean is that you can’t seem to think otherwise. You are claiming that it goes against YOUR nature for whatever reason. Most likely, you mean it goes against your core belief system, rather than your nature, but at least then we’d understand what you mean. But it doesn’t go against your human nature because if it did, it would go against our human nature too.