When does life begin?

[Isolde]

I haven't read your posts. I can play the game, also, and say we live in a moral society. What society doesn't have morals? You made the statement that an unborn has more rights than a living human. I've got news for you, in our society, that's simply not true and never has been. So, in our society, the moral choice is to value a living human's rights above a hypothetical human.

So, again, I ask you. Why do you value a unborn over a living human and what gives you the right to decide?

I value the right to life over the right to choose. I value the right to free speech as well, however, I do not condone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre for obvious reasons.

We will never understand each other if you continue to use made up words, please define hypothetical human, I have not heard that term before.

 

[rachelluetle]

I think you are tooo scientific when it comes to controlling some else's choice, so what everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, once bodily freedom is lost you literally have nothing, RETARD>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>duh!

 

[Diuretic]

The reason it should be the mothers choice and not the laws choice (except in extreme cases where the mother has no medical choice because both would die if not undertaken) abortion laws have one important flaw: to grant one their rights takes the rights from the other. That being the fact there is no way the law can morally make the choice. Regardless of when life begins or not isn't even the real problem with creating laws, anti-abortionists are just using that as an excuse. However, their reasons for trying to create such laws is not to give rights to one, but to take rights from the other.

The flaw with the "rights" argument is that foetus doesn't have rights. I don't see us getting anywhere using rights a part of the discussion.

 

[Diuretic]

Well there's your problem!

Human rights are not established by a governments legislation. Human rights are endowed to humanity by their creator; natures God.
All a legislature can do is limit the scope of government's power to usurp the means of the individual to excecise their inherent rights; their unalienanle rights which per-existed the government and its legislature.

Truly the right to one's life is the right on which all other rights rest. What you're reasoning requires is that the first right; the right to life itself is subservient to the whim of power; in this case the power of the mother and the legislature to determine that some life which is determined to be inconvenient is without the right to its life.

This species of reasoning sets the stage for all manner of tyranny.

You need to prove the existence of God if you're going to appeal to His authority and existence.

Rights aren't bestowed on anyone by a creator, they are social arrangements humans invented to regulate social relations.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay, let's show why a hard and 'black and white' law for this issue is just wrong:

1. Say it is allowed completely and without regulation. Teens start getting pregnant and use abortion as a means of birth control is certainly immoral, however at least the rest of us can rest easy to say it's not our fault because they made the wrong choice not us.

2. Say it is not allowed for any reason. Then a pregnancy is complicated (and this still happens a lot) to the point in which the mother will die if the fetus is not removed. Since this is considered abortion the law forbids it, so the mother dies, as does the fetus. Thus those who made the law become guilty of not only one murder, but two.

Those are the two sides to the argument that everyone hears, but there is a third that no one ever listens to:

3. Abortion becomes regulated to allow for cases in which there is no other option. Doctors are placed in the position to determine such with room to allow for second opinions. Now, if a fetus is aborted then everyone can rest easy with the knowledge that we made what decision we thought best. However, this WILL lead to 'back alley' abortions, as such already occur in many areas where it is illegal for the real doctors to perform.

The back alley procedures are very common, even in the US. They always result in complications and often death, which winds up costing us tax payers a fortune in hospital bills. Too many are looking at this issue as if there is a black and white, not seeing the whole spectrum, as with many issues.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nobody knows for sure when life BEGAN. The birth of a new child is merely a continuation of the cycle long ago set in motion, but at no point is it the "beginning" of life.

False... Life begins, just like EVERYTHING ELSE, at the beginning... thus all that one needs to determine is what represents the beginning of the life of the individual human being; and there is no debate that the life of each human being begins at the point of conception.

This is not a difficult issue; these are not deep philosophical questions. That the left and their fascist cousins in the center desperately need for it to be difficult and are desperate to project it as some cosmic, unknowable conundrum is simply a function of their desire to avoid reality so as to further the simple desire for easy sex... It's truly no more complex than that.

Abortion is nothing more than retro-active birth control kids... It's a mistake to cover up a mistake; a means to avoid the responsibilities and the ramifications of having conceived a child as a result of having engaged in sexual intercourse; all the while trying to maintain their right to continue to engage in it. As noted above, they simply want to 'have their cake and to eat it, too...'

A human embryo is a developing human life, PERIOD! All the projections of sentience, personhood, etc. are nothing more than red herrings, obfuscations designed to blur that irrefutable fact. That human life is conceived with a RIGHT to its life... PERIOD! The Human Embryo has every bit as much a right to its life as the mother and father have to theirs and abortion is purely and simply a function of the mother particularly and the father where he is culpable, using their substantial power over this developing life to DESTROY IT... BECAUSE THEY FEEL THE HUMAN THEY ARE DESTROYING IS INCONVENIENT and... THEY CAN!

Abortion is in no way distinct from any other superior power destroying human life where it finds those that is destroying inconvenient.

Where the human embryo is not a literal threat to the Mother's physical life, she has no right to take that pre-born child’s life; and that the pre-born child has not sufficiently developed to state a case in its own defense is irrelevant... Convenience is NOT a valid moral justification for taking a human life. PERIOD!

 

[manifold]

Nobody knows for sure when life BEGAN. The birth of a new child is merely a continuation of the cycle long ago set in motion, but at no point is it the "beginning" of life.

And just to follow-up on this point, I think it's rather foolish and arbitrary to insist that individual "life" begins at conception, or any other point for that matter. Both the sperm and the egg are already alive prior to fertilization so to suggest that conception is the start of "life" is illogical. If you want to discuss the beginning of anything that is at all meaningful regarding the individual, it would have to be conscious, self-awareness. At what point does an embryo first become aware of it's own existence? Perhaps it is conception, I don't know. I can't imagine it's an easy thing to pin down regardless. That, I think is a much more interesting philosophical question than the politically motivated "when does life begin?" But therein lies the rub, this isn't really a philosophical pursuit at all now is it? The only reason anyone gives a crap about this is the very pragmatic issue of abortion and whether it should be legal. Personally, I abhor abortion. I think in most cases, it is without a doubt a sickening and morally reprehensible act. However, at the same time I just don't see how in most cases, it's any of my business. It seems to me that the compromises thus far legally enacted are as good as aany solution I can imagine. I'm not sure the exact point in a pregnancy in which abortion is no longer a legal option, but I do know it's plenty of time for an expecting mother to make her choice, one way or another. But back to the OP, attempting to frame the abortion discussion around the question of when life begins, is nothing more than an illogical, politically motivated hatchet job perpetrated by ignorant, authoritarian assholes...IMHO.

 

[Ravi]

And just to follow-up on this point, I think it's rather foolish and arbitrary to insist that individual "life" begins at conception, or any other point for that matter. Both the sperm and the egg are already alive prior to fertilization so to suggest that conception is the start of "life" is illogical. If you want to discuss the beginning of anything that is at all meaningful regarding the individual, it would have to be conscious, self-awareness. At what point does an embryo first become aware of it's own existence? Perhaps it is conception, I don't know. I can't imagine it's an easy thing to pin down regardless. That, I think is a much more interesting philosophical question than the politically motivated "when does life begin?" But therein lies the rub, this isn't really a philosophical pursuit at all now is it? The only reason anyone gives a crap about this is the very pragmatic issue of abortion and whether it should be legal. Personally, I abhor abortion. I think in most cases, it is without a doubt a sickening and morally reprehensible act. However, at the same time I just don't see how in most cases, it's any of my business. It seems to me that the compromises thus far legally enacted are as good as aany solution I can imagine. I'm not sure the exact point in a pregnancy in which abortion is no longer a legal option, but I do know it's plenty of time for an expecting mother to make her choice, one way or another. But back to the OP, attempting to frame the abortion discussion around the question of when life begins, is nothing more than an illogical, politically motivated hatchet job perpetrated by ignorant, authoritarian assholes...IMHO.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but for perhaps two things. First, I can't wrap myself around judging a biological fact of life as a morally reprehensible act. A tree dropping its immature fruit isn't morally reprehensible...the tree is only defending itself against some stress in its environment. I really don't see a woman deciding not to give birth in any different light. (Though I have to say, aborting a kid simply because it is retarded would probably be my exception to the rule of judging).

And I don't think we need laws to make this decision. If there is any suspicion that a woman willfully removed a baby from herself alive and then killed it, charge her with murder and let her have her day in court.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No, it doesn't follow that if the state is forcing the woman to give birth they are forcing her to conceive.

Sure it follows... The State did not force a woman to conceive a child right? The woman freely CHOSE to engage in sexual intercourse; sexual intercourse is the biological means to conceive a human life... thus the state has had no part in the decision to conceive thus the state has had no part in the woman’s CHOICE to risk conception, thus risk the responsibility to bear her child.

The state has no right to force the woman to conceive. I hope you agree with that.

The State has no rights at all... States have power. Individuals have rights; rights which were endowed to them by their creator; states, again have power and power alone... So yes, we agree that states have no right to force women to bear children.

If the state has no right to force the woman to conceive then the state also has no right to force the woman to bring the pregnancy to full term. To force her to conceive is a gross violation of her human rights. To force her to bring the pregnancy to full term is also a gross violation of her human rights.

If a woman has engaged in sexual intercourse and she gets pregnant and she doesn't wish to stay pregnant then it is a gross violation of her human rights to force her to give birth.

When a woman CHOOSES to engage in sexual intercourse, she CHOOSES TO RISK PREGNANCY... PERIOD. A woman has no human right to end the life of another human because she feels that life is an inconvenience; she made the CHOICE, SHE TOOK THE RISK; THUS SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BEARING THAT CHILD. The state has nothing to do with it, except where the woman takes a human life without valid moral justification.

The foetus is a living thing.

Indeed a fetus is a living thing... and what's more we can state without fear that incontrovertibly that the 'thing' which a human fetus is, is that of HUMAN.

It {the human fetus}is not a human life, it is a potential human.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument. A human fetus is, INCONTROVERTIBLY: human... thus it is and can only BE: human life.

You're trying to lean on the 1960s farce that a citizen possesses rights; that for a citizen to be such it must be a person and a person is defined as a sentient being... That argument came out of the Ivy league Feminist movement and is so thoroughly bereft of reason that it is painful to see someone try and trot it out, in this, the 21st century...

First, all humans have rights; a US citizen simply enjoys protections inherent in the US Constitution which prevents the power of government from usurping the means to exercise those rights; this is the sole purpose of the US Constitution.

Secondly, the US Constitution uses the word 'person' to define citizens... the feminists demanded that the word be deliberately taken out of context and that the definition of person be construed to disclude the prenatal human. There is no means to connect that context to the writers of the US Constitution and their use of it. To very suggestion that the Founders of the US were on some fantastic level disqualifying the human life of a prenatal human is absurd on its face. If we need to discuss this in further detail we can; but hopefully you'll agree that 18th century liberals (Classic) would not, even remotely have been considering the notion that a woman should kill her prenatal child as a means of birth control... the premise is quite frankly, absurd.


Third, a human zygote, embryo, fetus, etc.. are merely terms which speak to a prenatal - developing human being; a Zygote is merely a human being in the earliest stages of cellular development. A Fetus is the same except that development is at a stage which is physically recognizable as a human... A Fetus describes the entirety of the prenatal development, spanning the period from conception to the moment of birth. All of these terms represent a human that either is or is not sentient... but sentience is wholly irrelevant because if the woman does not kill it, sentience will come in the normal course of its human development. The Fetus is in point of FACT: HUMAN! Thus is endowed with an unalienable right to its life...

As a foetus it is living within the host, the woman. Her body is sustaining the foetus. Given that it is not a human, but a potential human the argument might be that it has potential human rights. I'd be willing to think about that at some length but I reject the idea that the foetus has human rights simply because it is not yet a human.

I've left this segment of your argument in this response, so that you can see where it fails. The Fetus is a human fetus... it is not equine, canine, feline... it is human.

That it can't defend itself; that it is in a cellular stage of development and doesn't look like a mature human being and that one can't see it, in NO WAY affects its right to its life.

 

[manifold]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but for perhaps two things. First, I can't wrap myself around judging a biological fact of life as a morally reprehensible act. A tree dropping its immature fruit isn't morally reprehensible...the tree is only defending itself against some stress in its environment. I really don't see a woman deciding not to give birth in any different light. (Though I have to say, aborting a kid simply because it is retarded would probably be my exception to the rule of judging).

I said most cases, not all. However, I include reasons of convience as falling under the morally reprehensible category. I really don't know what you mean by "biological fact of life" though.

 

[manifold]

And I don't think we need laws to make this decision. If there is any suspicion that a woman willfully removed a baby from herself alive and then killed it, charge her with murder and let her have her day in court.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here either. Are you saying that you oppose restrictions on late-term abortions?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And just to follow-up on this point, I think it's rather foolish and arbitrary to insist that individual "life" begins at conception, or any other point for that matter.

Well sure... why should a human life 'begin at the beginning' like every thing else in the known universe...

As I've repeatedly stated, the left is arguing from afatally flawed premise. They need this elementary question to be obscured with all manner of specious reasoning, because if it is recognized as the easiest damn thing to answer on the face of the earth and THEY CAN'T ANSWER IT, then it becomes very hard for the world not to see them as fools.

They want to make it easy for women to give up the sex... this is both the feminized males and the masculine females of the left. And they do so by refusing to accept the inherent responsibility of sexual intercourse and they're so desperate to do so that they're willing to kill the innocent who stand between them and what they want. And remember THESE are the one's who claim to hold the monopoly on compassion and who never fail to remind us of "The Children..."

 

[Ravi]

I said most cases, not all. However, I include reasons of convience as falling under the morally reprehensible category. I really don't know what you mean by "biological fact of life" though.

Biological fact of life--the choice of whether or not one is mentally or physically capable of bearing a child.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here either. Are you saying that you oppose restrictions on late-term abortions?

Pretty much.

I've never seen any credible evidence that this law is necessary. I don't believe there are women or doctors in any big numbers that would chose to abort in this manner just because someone decides she doesn't want to have a baby.

You don't need a law to say murder is illegal, it is already illegal.

 

[manifold]

Biological fact of life--the choice of whether or not one is mentally or physically capable of bearing a child.

Sorry, not buying it. First, physical capability is hardly a matter of choice. Second, the mental capability argument is a copout, IMO, exploited merely to absolve one of taking responsibility for one's actions.

 

[manifold]

You don't need a law to say murder is illegal, it is already illegal.

Of course you do. NOTHING is ALREADY illegal until there is a law making it so. That's how laws work.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry, not buying it. First, physical capability is hardly a matter of choice. Second, the mental capability argument is a copout, IMO, exploited merely to absolve one of taking responsibility for one's actions.

Choice was probably a bad word.

The point I'm trying to make is that I can't know anyone else's circumstance well enough to decide if I think their choice is morally reprehensible. I'll have to think about this for awhile and see if I can do a better job of stating what I mean.

There is no absolving taking responsibility for one's actions, btw. Either choice is taking a responsibility for one's actions, they are just different outcomes.

 

[Ravi]

Of course you do. NOTHING is ALREADY illegal until there is a law making it so. That's how laws work.

Well, duh. I mean you don't need to list each and every way to commit murder as illegal. Otherwise, I could throw you off a cliff and if it wasn't listed as one of the forbidden ways to take someone's life, I'd be good to go.

 

[manifold]

Well, duh. I mean you don't need to list each and every way to commit murder as illegal. Otherwise, I could throw you off a cliff and if it wasn't listed as one of the forbidden ways to take someone's life, I'd be good to go.

I suspected that's what you meant. But I just can't resist swinging for the fences whenever someone hangs a curve like that.

 

[manifold]

The point I'm trying to make is that I can't know anyone else's circumstance well enough to decide if I think their choice is morally reprehensible.

I don't share your inability. I'm willing to acknowledge the possible existence of mitigating circumstance making the decision less reprehensible, but when one looks at the overall numbers, I stand by my "most cases," non-binding judgement.

There is no absolving taking responsibility for one's actions, btw. Either choice is taking a responsibility for one's actions, they are just different outcomes.

Point taken.