"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[mighty_duck]

If your going to claim that as ad hominem you're going to have to show that it is one.

So, in which way did I not answer your argument?

You made reference to a small part of my argument, preceded by a personal attack on me.

If you want to be taken seriously, attack the argument and not the person making it.

They are not body parts as body parts are things with which we are born and stay with us the rest of our lives, normally.

placenta=vascular organ
umbilical cord=cord

Who defined "body parts" as "things you are born with"? NM, this is a pointless tangent.

MD Said: The question was whether detaching the placenta from the uterus (via medical procedure) was something wholly within the mother's bodily domain.

Thus leading to the death of another person?

It is no one's right to take the life of another person who is not intentionally harming, or about to harm, them or another person.

Shift the goal posts much?
The point I was responding to was the (correct) claim that the fetus is distinct from the mother, therefore the claim that it is "her body her choice" is not sufficient to justify harming the fetus. The uterus is wholly under the mother's body, and it is her right to decide who can and can't use it.

It is more than a "simple" cell.

No cells are "simple" - they are are a very complex piece of biological machinery.

A zygote has the potential to be much more - given enough time and resources, it will eventually become a person.

Consent to sex is consent to the consequences.

Rape is a separate issue, because no one has the right to take the life of an innocent person; no matter what.

It is the same issue - if you won't allow abortion in cases of rape, then the consent (or lack thereof) of the mother to become impregnated is not a factor in your decision.

2. an encroachment or intrusion.

Bingo!

 

[quip]

I didn't take the pictures. And they elicit no emotion in me. Just my sense of justice, as that which took place as recorded in them is clearly an injustice.

I believe you've missed the point of your own tactic. Such pics are employed to elicit an emotional response in lieu of a substantial, objective argument.

I'm the one shining a light on the reality of abortion; you're trying to keep it in the dark.

What you propose would lead toward a regression regarding a loss of liberty for women replete with underground abortion clinics/unprofessional and unsafe conditions...thus this statement is totally absurd.

I bet you cry during that Sarah McLachlan ASPCA commercial, don't you?

I don't. I don't even get angry. I think it's wrong that people do things like that to animals, and those people should be punished, but I don't feel emotion when I see it.

I don't even like my own cat; and when she went missing for about two months last year I didn't care. I didn't even look for her.

I don't care.

I posted pictures once. Are you delirious?

Which translates into: "I just tried to manipulate you and everyone else only once...GEEEEEZ!"

 

[Stripe]

An unprocessed photo of an unborn baby after it has been murdered should be the end of the argument.

 

[WizardofOz]

While there is truth to a lot of what you are saying, I don't completely buy the slippery slope argument. I'll also refrain from presenting a contrary slippery slope argument about how repressing women's rights over their own body will lead us to a tyrannical, chauvinistic dystopia.

Of what I said, what did you identify as a slippery slope argument?

The real solution is through education, not legislation. We need to talk about sex, contraception, and responsibility early and often. That is the real way to lower abortion rates. Many conservatives work against this, thereby increasing abortion rates.

Look, we both want pro-life legislation, I simply want more pro-life legislation than you. I have no problem with education.

Pro-life groups are doing all they can to make the pill itself illegal and unobtainable - in effect barring rape victims from taking it.

There may be pro-choice groups that feel all abortion should be legal :idunno:

As I said, there is a grey area on where the "magic moment" happens, and would be willing to err slightly on the side of life (ie lower the last week you can have an abortion).

I also prefer to err on the side of life. That is why I have become increasingly pro-life over the years.

I think counseling should be a legal requirement prior to later term abortion (after the first trimester). It should be a balanced effort, explaining both sides of the decision to the mother (ie talking to PP is not enough). There are emotional, ethical and physical ramifications, and the mother must be aware of it.

That would be a small step in the right direction.

And the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, which doesn't stop the vast majority of pro-life pictures to feature near-term fetuses.

And the vast majority of abortions happen after the embryo has developed past the clump of cells stage. What's the average? I honestly don't know. I'll do some digging. However, your "clump of cells" argument is the intellectual equivalent of posting pictures of fetuses aborted late-term.

I find it outrageous that an embryo can be legally killed as late in the pregnancy as is currently allowed. They are quite developed even at 24weeks.

Another difference is that you think there is actual magic involved

Semantics. The magic happens after the candlelight dinner. The rest is nature and science.

At conception, a new human begins, albeit at the very earliest stage of development. It's scientific fact. This is why I avoid ambiguous rabbit holes like arguing what "personhood" is or when it begins and refer to the new organism as human rather than as a human being, which also has too many subjective strings attached.

 

[Yorzhik]

Try to imagine it from an unwilling woman's perspective.

Ok. So from the unwilling woman's perspective, they would say the baby can be murdered while he/she is still using the woman's body parts. Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to think that? How would you convince them otherwise when the baby achieves higher brain function?

I imagine you would find the idea that the government intervening on your sovereignty to decide who can and can't access your own body unappealing.

Of course. However, for the good of society (as you should see it), and because it is the right thing to do (as it really is), all humans receive human rights the moment they exist. Otherwise you are deciding which humans get the right to live and which don't. And that is truly scary.

If that thought doesn't trigger any empathy, try imagining the government intervening on your ability to decide whether you can keep your gun. Scary, huh?

It is. But it is only because when it comes to protecting my life and the people that count on me to protect them, a gun is the great equalizer. So gun rights are simply a corollary to a right to life which should be granted to all humans.

 

[mighty_duck]

Of what I said, what did you identify as a slippery slope argument?

Right here:
"We're quickly becoming a nation of irresponsible (adult) children due to society always bailing us out of personal responsibility."

Not that your statement is completely untrue. But blaming the downfall of our nation on the availability of abortion is a losing argument.

generally, I agree we should do more to foster personal responsibility.

Look, we both want pro-life legislation, I simply want more pro-life legislation than you. I have no problem with education.

Agreed. Some level of legislation is necessary - no one supports convenience abortions at 9 months.

There may be pro-choice groups that feel all abortion should be legal :idunno:

I'm not talking about the extreme wackos on either side. We can safely ignore those.
I'm talking about the mainstream pro-life movement, and pretty much every pro-lifer I've spoken with on TOL, which claim that abortions should be illegal from conception, and will not make exceptions for cases of rape.

If you feel differently, please let me know, and accept my apology for bundling you with others.

I also prefer to err on the side of life. That is why I have become increasingly pro-life over the years.

That's a reasonable position.

And the vast majority of abortions happen after the embryo has developed past the clump of cells stage. What's the average? I honestly don't know. I'll do some digging. However, your "clump of cells" argument is the intellectual equivalent of posting pictures of fetuses aborted late-term.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
88% of abortions happen before the 13th week.
Only 1.5% of abortions happen after the 21st week.

I find it outrageous that an embryo can be legally killed as late in the pregnancy as is currently allowed. They are quite developed even at 24weeks.

I understand where you are coming from - ii wouldn't be human to look at a 24 week fetus and not feel empathy. Thankfully, it is increasingly rare.

Semantics. The magic happens after the candlelight dinner. The rest is nature and science.

:chuckle:

At conception, a new human begins, albeit at the very earliest stage of development. It's scientific fact. This is why I avoid ambiguous rabbit holes like arguing what "personhood" is or when it begins and refer to the new organism as human rather than as a human being, which also has too many subjective strings attached.

Personhood is a very slippery concept. In most debates, with the sides typically talking past one another, it seems like some kind of ad-hoc rationalization for "baby killing" to the pro-life side.

I have come to appreciate it though - even if I have never seen it convince anyone.
Personhood is one of those things that you know it when you see it. At one extreme, is a caring adult human, who is obviously a person. We will easily recognize a person in other cases too - certainly in a child, but even if you see a cartoon of a talking dog , you would recognize it as a person.

When a person is hurt, your empathy kicks in. A person has intrinsic value, and is worth fighting for.

Try as I might, I have little empathy for a single celled zygote. As you mentioned, it is certainly human. But it has not yet developed any of he things I truly value in another person.


I have tried going in some detail in past debates trying to further define personhood - a combination of sentience, consciousness, self awareness, feelings, emotions etc. It usually leads to quibbling about the large grey areas and ambiguity that surrounds the term.

 

[mighty_duck]

Ok. So from the unwilling woman's perspective, they would say the baby can be murdered while he/she is still using the woman's body parts. Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to think that?

I don't quite follow. Can you rephrase?

How would you convince them otherwise when the baby achieves higher brain function?

With a large stick. We have laws against convenience abortions late in the pregnancy.

If you're asking isn't it a contradiction to justify these laws if I hold the woman's body as sacrosanct, then I think have already explained it.

No right is universal. Some rights are more important than others, and the circumstances are an important factor.

Of course. However, for the good of society (as you should see it), and because it is the right thing to do (as it really is), all humans receive human rights the moment they exist. Otherwise you are deciding which humans get the right to live and which don't. And that is truly scary.

I find this to be either a linguistic argument , or a slippery slope argument. Neither of which are particular convincing.

I have as much empathy for a zygote as you have for an ovum.

 

[quip]

Of course. However, for the good of society (as you should see it), and because it is the right thing to do (as it really is), all humans receive human rights the moment they exist. Otherwise you are deciding which humans get the right to live and which don't. And that is truly scary.

Yes, that's truly scary...by design; it's a scary straw-man you've constructed. It's not quite as arbitrary as you're making it out to be. It's simply one woman deciding, per her right, to see her pregnancy through or not. Don't imply "Death-Panel" rhetoric.

 

[alwight]

At conception, a new human begins, albeit at the very earliest stage of development. It's scientific fact. This is why I avoid ambiguous rabbit holes like arguing what "personhood" is or when it begins and refer to the new organism as human rather than as a human being, which also has too many subjective strings attached.

It isn't exactly true to say that a new human begins at conception since most zygotes don't become anything at all it seems, most fail.
A zygote is perhaps just one step toward possibly becoming a person, unless you do assume something magical happens at conception. But that "magic" soon seems to disappear after conception for the majority.
We don't worry for every naturally failed zygote as a lost human being, so why then worry for any? At what stage we do begin to worry is of course that vague and difficult grey area personal opinion thing, for non-believers in magic anyway. lain:

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't quite follow. Can you rephrase?

If it is murder to kill an innocent baby in the womb after it has reached your definition of personhood, since it is still using her body parts, wouldn't it be reasonable for an unwilling woman to feel she should still be able to kill what she considers a "clump of cells" after the point your definition sets?

No right is universal. Some rights are more important than others, and the circumstances are an important factor.

At least by your moral code, killing children that cannot fight back should be illegal because it creates other worse problems. But your arbitrary line does not alleviate whatever problems you envision.

When an unwilling mother is told she cannot kill her innocent baby because it has achieved higher brain function, but she has it killed anyway, do you see how society would be worse off? If you don't, then why do you have an arbitrary line at all?

I find this to be either a linguistic argument , or a slippery slope argument. Neither of which are particular convincing.

I have as much empathy for a zygote as you have for an ovum.

Let's see how you answer the immediately previous questions and then we'll discuss how slippery the slope is or not.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes, that's truly scary...by design; it's a scary straw-man you've constructed. It's not quite as arbitrary as you're making it out to be. It's simply one woman deciding, per her right, to see her pregnancy through or not. Don't imply "Death-Panel" rhetoric.

So you agree with the arbitrary line of "higher brain function" as a point when a human can no longer be killed?

And when, again, does this higher brain function occur in a pregnancy?

 

[mighty_duck]

If it is murder to kill an innocent baby in the womb after it has reached your definition of personhood, since it is still using her body parts, wouldn't it be reasonable for an unwilling woman to feel she should still be able to kill what she considers a "clump of cells" after the point your definition sets?

It is not a "clump of cells" at that point.

At least by your moral code, killing children that cannot fight back should be illegal because it creates other worse problems. But your arbitrary line does not alleviate whatever problems you envision.

Where did I say that?

Killing a fetus that has achieved higher brain function is an "intrinsic" wrong, that is no longer outweighed by the need to protect the mother's rights to sovereignty over her own body.

The scales of justice have shifted by then.

When an unwilling mother is told she cannot kill her innocent baby because it has achieved higher brain function, but she has it killed anyway, do you see how society would be worse off? If you don't, then why do you have an arbitrary line at all?

There are laws against that, and such a woman would be thrown in jail.

Having said that , it's hard to judge what the macro effects are of either side of the decision.

 

[Lighthouse]

You made reference to a small part of my argument, preceded by a personal attack on me.

If you want to be taken seriously, attack the argument and not the person making it.

:baby:

Who defined "body parts" as "things you are born with"? NM, this is a pointless tangent.

Are you actually trying to argue we can grow new body parts later in life?

MD Said: The question was whether detaching the placenta from the uterus (via medical procedure) was something wholly within the mother's bodily domain.

Shift the goal posts much?
The point I was responding to was the (correct) claim that the fetus is distinct from the mother, therefore the claim that it is "her body her choice" is not sufficient to justify harming the fetus. The uterus is wholly under the mother's body, and it is her right to decide who can and can't use it.

And that would do what to the child?

No cells are "simple" - they are are a very complex piece of biological machinery.

:doh:

Compared to a cell that is a person all other cells are simple.

A zygote has the potential to be much more - given enough time and resources, it will eventually become a person.

It's a person from the moment of fertilization. You have provided no reason it isn't. You have offered no explanation of what it "is."

It is the same issue - if you won't allow abortion in cases of rape, then the consent (or lack thereof) of the mother to become impregnated is not a factor in your decision.

And yet as I reason with one who is pregnant as a result of consensual sex who wants an abortion it is an argument I can make.

Bingo!

Put away the cards and stop playing games.

If the encroachment or intrusion is not willful, which it isn't when one is unaware of anything, then it cannot be argued logically that a trespass has occurred.

I believe you've missed the point of your own tactic. Such pics are employed to elicit an emotional response in lieu of a substantial, objective argument.

Do they elicit an emotional reaction in you? If so, why?

What you propose would lead toward a regression regarding a loss of liberty for women replete with underground abortion clinics/unprofessional and unsafe conditions...thus this statement is totally absurd.

Less freedom to commit murder? People dying as a result of committing murder?

Oh no!



Do you see that? That's me not shedding a tear.

I don't care.

You also don't get the point.

Which translates into: "I just tried to manipulate you and everyone else only once...GEEEEEZ!"

The truth is manipulation?

An unprocessed photo of an unborn baby after it has been murdered should be the end of the argument.

You would think, but apparently I'm just being emotional and trying to evoke such in others as a ploy to manipulate, or something.

 

[alwight]

It's a person from the moment of fertilization. You have provided no reason it isn't. You have offered no explanation of what it "is.".

That magic-moment bald assertion then.
Perhaps you would be able to demonstrate how any of the mental functions normally involved with being a person could exist from that instant and well before any signs of a nervous system?
Otoh it can be demonstrated that "persons" do not appear to continue if the nervous system is no longer functioning.
I rather doubt LH that you can you show that "persons" do somehow exist outside of a functioning nervous system, so even if it is not conclusive then I think it is nevertheless a much more reasonable and realistic explanation than is your bald assertion of a magic-moment.

 

[Lighthouse]

That magic-moment bald assertion then.
Perhaps you would be able to demonstrate how any of the mental functions normally involved with being a person could exist from that instant and well before any signs of a nervous system?
Otoh it can be demonstrated that "persons" do not appear to continue if the nervous system is no longer functioning.
I rather doubt LH that you can you show that "persons" do somehow exist outside of a functioning nervous system, so even if it is not conclusive then I think it is nevertheless a much more reasonable and realistic explanation than is your bald assertion of a magic-moment.

Mental functions are not what makes a person.

Now, prove that your magic-moment of the presence of a functioning nervous system is when they become a person...

 

[quip]

Do they elicit an emotional reaction in you? If so, why?

My emotional reaction is irrelevant; why you're interested in my reaction is more to the point.

Less freedom to commit murder? People dying as a result of committing murder?

Oh no!



Do you see that? That's me not shedding a tear.

From homosexuals to heretics, I'm well aware that you're such a compassionate upstanding guy lain: It makes one wonder why you bother to consider yourself pro-life.

You also don't get the point.

I still don't care.

The truth is manipulation?

The truth is that a woman can choose to rid herself of an entity subsisting on and within her body. You've illustrated no facts to the contrary other than attempting to manipulate the issue with pics of aborted fetuses. OK, they're sad... Boo Hoo! ...now move on and give me a substantial argument against abortion.

You would think, but apparently I'm just being emotional and trying to evoke such in others as a ploy to manipulate, or something.

Why would you think that...perhaps because the ploy didn't work. :chuckle:

 

[quip]

Mental functions are not what makes a person.

Speak for yourself LH. :BRAVO:

 

[quip]

So you agree with the arbitrary line of "higher brain function" as a point when a human can no longer be killed?

No. Where'd you get that?

 

[WizardofOz]

Right here:
"We're quickly becoming a nation of irresponsible (adult) children due to society always bailing us out of personal responsibility."

Not that your statement is completely untrue. But blaming the downfall of our nation on the availability of abortion is a losing argument.

The point rests on its own merit without any mention of abortion. You'll notice it didn't. The argument certainly applies to abortion though. I also fail to see how it's a slippery slope rather than an observation but I won't split hairs over it.

generally, I agree we should do more to foster personal responsibility.

Except expect a pregnant girl to be responsible for her actions when it comes to consensual sex.

Agreed. Some level of legislation is necessary - no one supports convenience abortions at 9 months.

I fail to see why the principle changes depending on the state of development. I guess this is the root of our disconnect.

I feel no person should have the right to kill another human for the sake of convenience alone. This is exactly what the majority of abortions are. If you're also not OK with that then you're allowing the exceptions (rape, life of mother) to determine the more general rule.

I'm not talking about the extreme wackos on either side. We can safely ignore those.
I'm talking about the mainstream pro-life movement, and pretty much every pro-lifer I've spoken with on TOL, which claim that abortions should be illegal from conception, and will not make exceptions for cases of rape.

If you feel differently, please let me know, and accept my apology for bundling you with others.

I understand that the principle doesn't change but the enforcement of law is a different animal. You could never charge a person with murder for taking the morning after pill because there would be no proof of life.

I prefer no pro-choice options but realize that no progress can be made without concessions. If legislation banning all abortion save in cases of rape came down to my vote, yes I would vote in favor of it.

Society would have to do a lot for the pregnant rape victim financially and psychologically to encourage her to keep the baby at most or give the baby to a loving family at least.

Personhood is a very slippery concept.

It's a subjective philosophical question that has no place in the discussion. Any pro-lifer who attempts to engage it will only get bogged down to the point where no discourse can actually progress.

I'd rather stick with terms and phrases that are less open to debate and philosophical meanderings.

Personhood is one of those things that you know it when you see it. At one extreme, is a caring adult human, who is obviously a person. We will easily recognize a person in other cases too - certainly in a child, but even if you see a cartoon of a talking dog , you would recognize it as a person.

What constitutes "personhood" is subjective. What you feel is obvious another may not. For this reason, "personhood" really has no place in the debate.

When a person is hurt, your empathy kicks in. A person has intrinsic value, and is worth fighting for.

Rather, a human has intrinsic value and is worth fighting for. An embryo at 12 weeks is just as much human as at 24 weeks. That is, 100%.

Try as I might, I have little empathy for a single celled zygote. As you mentioned, it is certainly human. But it has not yet developed any of he things I truly value in another person.

What one individual's personal empathy has to do with the right of another human to not be killed I am not sure; legally speaking.

I have tried going in some detail in past debates trying to further define personhood - a combination of sentience, consciousness, self awareness, feelings, emotions etc. It usually leads to quibbling about the large grey areas and ambiguity that surrounds the term.

Which is why I feel the debate on that particular should be avoided completely.

 

[WizardofOz]

It isn't exactly true to say that a new human begins at conception since most zygotes don't become anything at all it seems, most fail.

So what is "human" depends on geography?

A zygote is perhaps just one step toward possibly becoming a person, unless you do assume something magical happens at conception. But that "magic" soon seems to disappear after conception for the majority.

What is a "person" is a different debate (subjective vs objective) than what is "human". You're blurring terms in your first two sentences.

We don't worry for every naturally failed zygote as a lost human being, so why then worry for any?

Who is "we"? If you're saying that people overall don't worry about what they don't know, then yes, ignorance is bliss.

At what stage we do begin to worry is of course that vague and difficult grey area personal opinion thing, for non-believers in magic anyway. lain:

Exactly why we should stick to science and not philosophy.

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well....We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“ source

Life begins at conception. We have to acknowledge this fact as a first step.