Abortion II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Those are your words Lief, not mine.

I think they are yours:

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In that respect you are correct when you speak of anti-semitism, and racism. They are intolerant views, and they see risk in all that is foreign, all that they find somehow objectionable or hard to understand.

It is this same type of language I see in much of the pro-life arguments. An objection to make different choices. Some choose abortion, some don't. It is a right to choose. It is a fundamentalist, an unhealthy position to take, trying to deny this right, on the basis of a potential moral risk of genocide (which I believe to be completely unfounded).

You're saying Anti-Semites or Racists have trouble understanding (idiots) and object to all that it is foreign (small-minded) or somehow objectionable (The word "somehow" suggests they're foolish objections). Then you said that's the same type of language you see in many pro-life arguments.


Still waiting for your response to the rest of my post, by the way.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We can't defend human beings, people, effectively if the point at which we decide when personhood begins is arbitrary.

So the real issue is "our position is indefensible, so OUR arbitrary starting point is when the sperm hits the egg." Well, that may be strategic, but it doesn't influence me.

If personhood is based on psychological development, logically it should begin in late adolescence when psychological development ends. All life before that should be killable material.

lol. Or later. (jk)

YES, a zygote should have the same rights as we do.

What rights? Whose rights? For example, I get a tax credit for each child. How many zygote credits can my family earn in a year? How many social security benefits? How are we represented in the Census? What is our income average for financial aid? How many carseats do I need?

To treat it otherwise is to determine the beginning of personhood arbitrarily, denying people rights based on our view of their biological development rather than on whether or not they've done anything wrong.

Ah, in terms of American Law, here, we have a problem. In the US our rights are directly from God. You don't 'deny people their rights' when you think they've done something wrong. Someone has all KINDS of rights when they are suspected of a crime, because they're "innocent until proven guilty.' Legal rights aren't distributed by time-out. And the ENTIRE rationalle for forcing women to be mothers is "They knew having sex might get them pregnant, they have to be punished." You say it isn't 'punishment?' Then why all this business about 'innocent' and 'guilty' to start with?

Pro-Choice advocates acknowledge that determining when a tiny cellular human life becomes a person (which really is a bigger living mass of cells) is an arbitrary judgment.

No, they don't. They put forward a perfectly sensible, traditional and Biblically supported time, "quickening".

abortions 1 week before birth are legal.

Where? Under what circumstances? Please be specific.

[Coffeehouse]

Hehe, no Lief, those are your words. I did not say pro-lifers are idiots, nor do I think so. There is a difference between being an idiot and being intolerant. But this is semantics.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Name-call all you want. I greatly admire the efforts many Fundamentalists have been taking against abortion.

Responses to posts like this? I'd rather not..

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Responses to posts like this? I'd rather not..

That's one snippet from a larger post full of argumentation .

Never mind. Do what you like.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So the real issue is "our position is indefensible, so OUR arbitrary starting point is when the sperm hits the egg." Well, that may be strategic, but it doesn't influence me.

Our "arbitrary starting point" protects the child fully. Any that comes after conception necessitates the existence of murder. A child a minute before whatever personhood point you pick is identical to a child a minute after that personhood point, so abortion will always legalize murder. The suffering of a mother cannot justify murder.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

What rights? Whose rights? For example, I get a tax credit for each child. How many zygote credits can my family earn in a year? How many social security benefits? How are we represented in the Census? What is our income average for financial aid? How many carseats do I need?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Ah, in terms of American Law, here, we have a problem. In the US our rights are directly from God. You don't 'deny people their rights' when you think they've done something wrong.

Actually, you do. You deny them their right to life in states that have the death penalty, when they commit particularly grievous offenses. You deny them the right to liberty in any state, for various crimes, by imprisoning them. You deny them the right to happiness depending on whether or not what makes them happy is illegal.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Someone has all KINDS of rights when they are suspected of a crime, because they're "innocent until proven guilty.' Legal rights aren't distributed by time-out. And the ENTIRE rationalle for forcing women to be mothers is "They knew having sex might get them pregnant, they have to be punished." You say it isn't 'punishment?' Then why all this business about 'innocent' and 'guilty' to start with?

You're making stuff up. Pro-life advocates have repeatedly said that they are concerned for both the mother and the child, but the mother's suffering should not legitimize killing a baby. I responded to this view of yours already on post 41, and you never replied to that part of my rebuttal.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Where? Under what circumstances? Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The [Roe v. Wade] decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is no logical reason to stop killing children at birth rather than at late adolescence, if we're going by the brain development

Are you saying that the “brain” of a two celled zygote is at the same developmental stage as an adolescent’s?

If personhood is based on psychological development, logically it should begin in late adolescence when psychological development ends. All life before that should be killable material.

This is a basic error of logic lief. Just because adolescents are different from adults does NOT mean that adolescents are the same as infants or two celled zygotes. Its patently ridiculous to suggest otherwise. You aren’t dealing directly with the question. You have to give a good reason why its NOT ok to abort 2 celled zygotes independent of any definition of “personhood”. If you argument, as it seems to be, boils down to knowing what a person is then you aren’t dealing with the question.

YES, a zygote should have the same rights as we do. To treat it otherwise is to determine the beginning of personhood arbitrarily, denying people rights based on our view of their biological development rather than on whether or not they've done anything wrong.

That’s a normal part of how we do things Lief. The right to vote. The right to drive. To drink. To join the army. The right to start getting discounts at the movie theater because yer an old geezer, these are all things we, as a society, have decided essentially arbitrarily. Its usually based in part on developmental concepts but as these may be different from person to person it, by its very nature, HAS to be arbitrary. So to use this argument against abortion alone is disingenuous and a red herring really (which I already dealt with the last time we debated about this by the way). Otherwise you need to be in support of giving EVERYONE of any age the right to drive a car. EVERYONE of any age the right to smoke or drink etc. And by the way before you attempt to side step that point by saying well abortion is about ending life and those things aren’t I would counter some of those things certainly COULD end a life if someone developmentally incapable of handling them is given that right. Not to mention theres an age restriction for the death penalty. Why aren’t you arguing against that?

Birth is, according to scientists, a neurologically trivial event in the development of a child.

But we aren’t talking about birth. We are talking about TWO CELLS. It’s a real reach to attempt to use a slippery slope argument banning everything when you are talking about TWO CELLS. Ill need rational justification why it is we shouldn’t be allowed to abort TWO CELLS. Not because it sets a bad precedent according to you.

Humans should not dare to set arbitrary lines in the development of a human, declaring when that human is a person, because of the moral risk that they are legalizing genocide. Any points other than conception (when development starts) and late adolescence (when brain development ends) are arbitrary.

How about this Lief, if all abortions were limited to two celled zygotes ONLY, if you had a full guarantee that not one abortion would occur any time after that first cell division took place, would you support them? You can no longer use the arbitrary line issue as an argument in that scenario. Would you allow abortion of two celled zygotes?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A child a minute before whatever personhood point you pick is identical to a child a minute after that personhood point,

You keep restating this, but repeating it doesn't make it true. This is Hitler's "Big Lie" system.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Which you may have if you aren't a pregnant female.

Actually, you do. You deny them their right to life in states that have the death penalty, when they commit particularly grievous offenses. You deny them the right to liberty in any state, for various crimes, by imprisoning them. You deny them the right to happiness depending on whether or not what makes them happy is illegal.

Actually, you don't. Because the infringement of 'rights' in the cases of criminal behavior requires due process. You don't just shoot them down like a dog when you think they have commited 'particularly grevious offenses'...like failing to fend off a boyfriend while drunk. If they are suspected of a crime, they are entitled to an attorney, entitled to face their accuser, protected from arbitrary search and seizure...they have bundles of rights. The premise of the anti-choice folks is that one 'person' has rights, and that person is a bundle of cells.

The Wikipedia quote is not germane. Tell me where anyone is 'aborting' a pregnancy a week from birth. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Lies.

[Mari]

Just a side note and slightly off topic:
I just love how it gets restated that women know the risks when they have sex and that they'll have to face the consequences, but no one talks about the men. They know the risks, but if they are the irresponsible kind, they don't have to face any consequences whatsoever.
The burden of this consequence in too many cases falls on the woman, her family or the state.

Sorry, it's off topic, but it keeps striking me as odd.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You keep restating this, but repeating it doesn't make it true. This is Hitler's "Big Lie" system.
Which you may have if you aren't a pregnant female.

Your restatement of your rejection of this argument doesn't make your response any more logical. You haven't provided any reason for your rejection. You have only repeated that you do (and have added a couple nice little new personal attacks, this time).

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Actually, you don't. Because the infringement of 'rights' in the cases of criminal behavior requires due process. You don't just shoot them down like a dog when you think they have commited 'particularly grevious offenses'...like failing to fend off a boyfriend while drunk. If they are suspected of a crime, they are entitled to an attorney, entitled to face their accuser, protected from arbitrary search and seizure...they have bundles of rights. The premise of the anti-choice folks is that one 'person' has rights, and that person is a bundle of cells.

Everyone is a bundle of cells, when you get down to it.

But you haven't refuted what I said. I have never tried to argue that criminals are treated as having zero rights. I've simply pointed out that some of their rights are removed (through due process), when they are guilty of crimes.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Wikipedia quote is not germane.

Roe v. Wade specifically, according to that quote, allowed states to legalize abortion in the third trimester, and this can go right up to birth. Clearly it's germane. It said states could allow the practice. Roe v. Wade authorized this kind of extremely late-term abortion. Even if states don't permit it that late.

A lot of partial birth abortions have taken place. Some of which were very late. I don't know of any 1-week from birth ones, specifically. But that isn't important to my point, which is the arbitrariness of the violence and the enormous similarity between children who are allowed to be aborted and those that aren't.



EDIT: I'd also like to mention, in response to your comment that I was a participant in "Hitler's 'Big Lie' system" and that all my words were "lies," that even if my facts were incorrect (which they aren't, as I've already demonstrated), that wouldn't make me a liar. I could be honestly mistaken. To jump to conclusions in a fierce name-calling spree is pointless and dirty.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You're easily confused, I think. I asked you to be specific about where "abortions one week before birth are legal." You respond with a wikipedia article that says that, due to RvWade, "the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ". The question I asked was very simple.

Where, in actuality, and not 'potentially' (if state legislatures choose not to restrict abortion, at all) can anyone get an "abortion" of a child at 39 weeks gestation?

Who wants to bet the answer is "nowhere"? Who would like to bet, with me, that this is another straw man argument?

or "Big Lie", as we like to call it. @@

[Lief Erikson]

Sis, I added a couple paragraphs to that post, since you began your response. You may want to respond to them too.

[Lief Erikson]

By the way, in the UK, you can get an abortion at 39 weeks gestation.

Originally Posted by MailOnline

Normally, abortions are not allowed beyond 24 weeks but they can be carried out up to 39 weeks if tests show the baby would be born with a 'serious disability'.

There is no definition of 'serious', however, which has led to terminations for a club foot or cleft palate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-MPs-told.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Wikipedia quote is not germane. Tell me where anyone is 'aborting' a pregnancy a week from birth. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Lies.

This is Hitler's "Big Lie" system.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You're easily confused, I think . . . The question I asked was very simple.

Who would like to bet, with me, that this is another straw man argument?

or "Big Lie", as we like to call it. @@

. . . Jeepers.

[The Gaffer]

Lief, do yourself a favour and delete the Daily Mail from your bookmarks and flush it from your cache. Seriously, it really is an appalling rag.

However, tis true, in the UK you can get an abortion any time if "two doctors agree that a woman’s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy or that the fetus is likely to be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities."

The only country in Europe in which it is totally illegal is Malta, and even there the maximum sentence is 3 years. So while your position seems, to me, to be self-consistent, I think there are very few who actually share it. Not even the Maltese are saying abortion is the same thing as murder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, do yourself a favour and delete the Daily Mail from your bookmarks and flush it from your cache. Seriously, it really is an appalling rag.

Hmm. I know nothing about it. It isn't one of my normal sources of news.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, tis true, in the UK you can get an abortion any time if "two doctors agree that a woman’s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy or that the fetus is likely to be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities."

The only country in Europe in which it is totally illegal is Malta, and even there the maximum sentence is 3 years. So while your position seems, to me, to be self-consistent, I think there are very few who actually share it. Not even the Maltese are saying abortion is the same thing as murder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm

I hate to just give you a reference, but I answered this on post 26. I'll just continue to await your response to that. And don't worry- the time lapse is no bother to me. I've got plenty of things to do .

[The Gaffer]

LOL, I can see that.

I have a long train journey tomorrow, so you never know your luck.

And really, the Daily Mail isn't fit for bog roll.

[Thain Peregrin Took I]

Originally Posted by katya

Ok, no one but the mother (maybe the father one or two other people) I should have said.

Also any other family members, and friends. As far as my experiance goes, a large group of people was affected by the miscarriage.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No, not always. Not even often. The anti-choice folks have enacted some local statutes, usually called something like "intentional homicide of an unborn child' in an effort to establish legal rights for the fetus, and as part of their attack on women's right to choose. However, even where such laws have been passed, the "crime" may depend on whether it occurred in conjunction with another crime (usually commission of an active felony) and a number of other factors, and may be classified as manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or any of a number of other classifications. Some states specifically assign a date or viability test to these statutes.

I should have said "in some cases", so I'm sorry for not being more specific. But still, what you said about being charged with two murders happening "not even often" isn't true. Ever hear about the Scott Peterson case?

Although many states now have fetal homicide laws, there are a wide variety of differences about when a fetus is considered living. In Missouri and 17 other states, the laws recognize a fetus as living at the time of conception.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

On April 1, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as "Laci and Conner's Law." The new law states that any "child in utero" is considered to be a legal victim if injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. The bills definition of "child in utero" is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/fetalhomicide.htm
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
So, you see, it's not just a a local thing. A law passed by the president spefically states that a fetus "at any stage of development" is alive, and capable of being murdered. It seems to me that the government acknowledges that a fetus is a person from the point of conception. After all, conception is part of "any stage of development".

[katya]

Originally Posted by Thain Peregrin Took I

Also any other family members, and friends. As far as my experiance goes, a large group of people was affected by the miscarriage.

Well that's a miscarriage. I think girls who are planning on aborting are probably a little less likely to run around telling everyone about it. And the only one who really has to know is her and the doctor people (depending on state laws and her age and whatnot though).

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I sincerely hope you'd never kill me out of love for everyone involved . It's just a scary perspective, to me.

So self-deception is bad, but destroying someone else (an innocent) completely is not?

I really just can't fathom your reasoning. I think it's just too completely foreign to how I think for me to fully grasp your meaning .

I suppose I probably do have different ways of thinking. I'd like to think it's because I'm not afraid to think about things and admit to myself how I really feel. If that makes me a cold-blooded immoral pervert so be it. I'm not going to try to convert you or anything.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's what I think. I can understand the woman's misery better if the child has been forced on her through rape, and she truly deserves a great deal of sympathy. A lot more than the woman who has sex of her own choice, with the knowledge that a child might be the result. But in neither case is abortion justified. In both, it is killing an innocent.

I am extremely disappointed by the fact that pro-life advocates of my acquaintance are willing to accept abortion under certain circumstances.

I can understand how that would disappoint you.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's tragic, as far as I'm concerned, and indicates that the pro-choice advocates may well be winning at impacting the psychology of the country.

..or just reflecting the consensus view on the point of basic principle (which is "is a foetus the same as a baby?"), which is my point. People are capable of holding contradictory views. Hardly any anti-abortion campaigners argue that it should be banned in ALL cases, including incest, rape, medical risk and severe disability.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

On the other hand, one of the weird things to me is how many pro-choice advocates that I've met ARE actually aware that the child inside the womb is as much a person on all counts that matter as one outside of it.

That would be weird to me too.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1) I've heard abortion advocated on the grounds of moral relativism, by one person. He said that all belief systems about what's right are relative, so who's to say the destruction of a child is wrong? That was his argument.

Hard to believe. Are you sure this person wasn't just an idiot?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

2) I heard another argue that people don't really know a child inside the womb, so it can be killed because its death won't make anyone grieve.

Also daft, though slightly less barking than the previous argument. But it's getting warmer in terms of where people's de facto conceptions of personhood derive.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

3) I've heard another argue that it's physically part of the mother and therefore, even though its brain isn't that much different from that of a born child and even though it is clearly a living human, it can be killed because of the physical connection it has to the mother. That physical connection, to her, means that it's not a person in its own right.

That would more or less be my view I guess. Though there's a logical flaw in your description of it: if it were physically part of the mother, then it's not "clearly a living human" because it is, er, physically part of the mother.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've seen pro-choice people also several times whose words show that they hold to the same basic scientific facts that pro-life people hold to, but justify killing anyway.

Me too, and FWIW, it nips my head as well.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The argument that the fetus can be killed because it might have a bad future is just as weak as the above numbered arguments, by the way. You wouldn't even advocate killing most adults who are living bad lives such as those you fear fetuses might have.

Agreed, much as I'm tempted to advocate retrospective abortion for certain members of our species. More later... thanks.