Abortion Debate Split from an exisiting thread.

[markus3622]

We on the right, the conservatives, we need to be ever vigilant and watchful of what front their attack will be on. They KNOW they cannot win against the sonogram, they'll have to come up with a better "tool," and mark my words they ARE looking for one.

I don't really see how argument by sonogram actually changes the parameters of the debate. As far as I'm aware, advocates of abortion don't argue that a foetus isn't a potential baby. It is a potential baby

[Maggie_T]

Really? Then why do they insist that a fetus is just a blob of cells?

C'mon, Markus. Abortionists must deny the fetus is a baby. Otherwise they'd have to admit that abortion is murder and their whole house of cards would collapse. And what are the odds of them letting that happen?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

[/color][/size][/font]

I don't really see how argument by sonogram actually changes the parameters of the debate. As far as I'm aware, advocates of abortion don't argue that a foetus isn't a potential baby. It is a potential baby

They argue that it is just a mass of cells, a part of the mother's body like an appendage, that "it" isn't alive -- of COURSE sonograms are blowing their arguments out of the water. When you can have a veiw-to-a-womb, and see a moving thriving CHILD there instead of a "mass of tissue" there is simply no way to argue that it is NOT alive, that it is NOT human, that it is simply an appendage or part of a woman's body.

BTW, it's NOT a "potential" baby, it IS a baby. "Potential" is not a "stage" -- babies go through "stages," but they are ALWAYS babies, unless you can prove they turn into something else along the way (and articles from THE ENQUIRER don't count, :smirky: ).

[markus3622]

Because a fetus is a blob of cells. Notice how I wrote "potential baby", not "baby". This is always a stage where definitions become very blurred.

What abortion rights advocates do argue is that a fetus isn't necessarily a full human with the complete set of rights and responsibilities that entails.

[markus3622]

Abortion advocates don't argue that a fetus isn't alive - that's why a sonogram doesn't change the parameters of the argument.

Babies aren't always babies - else we'd all still be babies - and that can't be right

[DesertFox]

What abortion rights advocates do argue is that a fetus isn't a full human with the complete set of rights and responsibilities that entails.By that logic, neither then is a day-old baby. Nor a year-old baby. Nor a ten-year-old. Nor a 17-year-old.

[markus3622]

That doesn't follow - by your logic we would all still be babies now - if twelve year olds can't get married or drive or have sexual intercourse, then neither can thirty year olds - unless you think twelve year olds should be allowed to get married. We recognise that people's rights aren't static.

[Maggie_T]

What abortion rights advocates do argue is that a fetus isn't necessarily a full human with the complete set of rights and responsibilities that entails.

Oh, for Pete's sake. :rolleyes: Of course a fetus isn't a full human being. DUH-UH! Otherwise, women would be delivered of full grown humans, not babies. Hence, babies cannot be expected to have responsibilities since that comes with adulthood. That's why the responsiblity rests entirely with the mother. And liberals are ALWAYS trying to avoid responsibilities, that's why they love the idea of abortion.

But that does NOT mean babies do not have rights. They do. They have the right to life. And NO ONE can take that away from them.

I'm sorry, markus, but if you were trying to make the case for abortionists, you chose a really dumb argument.

[markus3622]

But that does NOT mean babies do not have rights. They do. They have the right to life. And NO ONE can take that away from them.

I'm sorry, markus, but if you were trying to make the case for abortionists, you chose a really dumb argument.

I'm certainly not here to advocate a position, but explain the opposite position.

When you write that babies/fetuses/embryos have the right to life, you're begging the question. Because most legal scholars, doctors and probably most americans (I'm not saying they're correct) don't think that fetuses and embryos have an automatic, overriding right to life - this is the fundamental question that needs to be challenged - which is why a sonogram doesn't change the parameters of the debate.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

What abortion rights advocates do argue is that a fetus isn't necessarily a full human with the complete set of rights and responsibilities that entails.

:hahaha:

I'm sorry, that is akin to saying someone is a "little bit pregnant." A HUMAN fetus is a FULL human the moment it's DNA is created through fertilization -- it will NEVER be an anteater, a penguin, a tortoise, or an elephant.

To the second part of your statement, yes THAT is where the argument lies, whether a pre-born human has the same set of rights as a post-born human. I say that it is quite evident what "rights" are due a pre-born human, at least in the United States of America, because from our founding document we recognize them . . .

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

The "Right to Life" means a right to be born, it is the foundational right of every citizen of the United States of America it is so PRIOR to a trip through the birth canal or C-section. It can ONLY refer to "being born" -- the OTHER two rights -- liberty & pursuit of happiness -- relate to HOW they may live, that is AFTER they are born and exercised the unalienable right to BE BORN.

It comes down to two simple views: either 1. LIFE has an innate value and worth, or 2. it (LIFE) only has value and worth if it is ASSIGNED by another (human). The Declaration of Indpendence makes it crystal clear that ALL life has an innate right that is ENDOWED by a Creator -- that means man cannot negate it.

[Maggie_T]

Markus, in the first place, we don't need anyone to explain the abortionists' position to us. We've argued with them interminably over the matter and they insist on being wrong.

In the second place, this thread IS NOT about abortion. It's about democrats pretending they are abandoning abortion in order to win elections. So don't hog this one in order to explain what abortionists think (term used losely).

If you want to explain abortionists' dumb arguments, start another thread. Or as a moderator, I'll have to move your answers to the pertaining forum.

No, it's not a threat, nor am I trying to "silence" you. I'm just trying to make you stick to one argument at a time.

[markus3622]

Okay, fair enough Maggie. I'll put something in the correct area - probably tomorrow.

Note to HS - I should have written full person, rather than full human, (although in essence, a human with a set of rights is a person) my mistake - much of this debate comes down to definitions, and many problems arise because of equivocation.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Markus, in the first place, we don't need anyone to explain the abortionists' position to us. We've argued with them interminably over the matter and they insist on being wrong.

In the second place, this thread IS NOT about abortion. It's about democrats pretending they are abandoning abortion in order to win elections. So don't hog this one in order to explain what abortionists think (term used losely).

If you want to explain abortionists' dumb arguments, start another thread. Or as a moderator, I'll have to move your answers to the pertaining forum.

No, it's not a threat, nor am I trying to "silence" you. I'm just trying to make you stick to one argument at a time.

:blush:

Sorry Maggie, I was so busy feeding the animal I didn't see the sign (DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS), :smirky: . Didn't mean to participate in taking this off-thread, I do so apologize.

I reiterate my stance -- the dems have not abandoned this issue, they have fallen back to regroup, and we as conservatives must be watchful for their renewed assault when it comes. I say look for a "personal tragedy" story to appear regarding someone who they'll assert SHOULD have had an abortion but didn't, so now look at all the tragic circumstances that occurred because of the "evil Republicans" who have attacked a woman's "right" to kill her child.

This subject is too close to home for me, perhaps I should lurk and not respond, :unsmile:

[Maggie_T]

No prob, sis. I know it's easy to get carried away.


Thanks, Markus.

[Maggie_T]

Mods, I posted something in our forum. I would appreciate it if you gave it a look. Thanks.

[Riverboat]

They are daring to say what once was regarded as heresy - that it is time to let the argument go.Which group supports abortion? Liberals. Which party has the most liberals? The Democrats. The irony is that the Democrats are literally killing their party base. Parents as a rule pass on their values to their children. But they're having fewer and fewer of them. It's it their best interests to abandon abortion on demand for the sake of keeping the party alive. But, of course, they're too obtuse to realize that.

[Warlady]

Abortion advocates don't argue that a fetus isn't alive - that's why a sonogram doesn't change the parameters of the argument.

Babies aren't always babies - else we'd all still be babies - and that can't be right

Marcus, medically speaking ALL humans go through different stages of life. That includes you. We begin life at conception then we go through several stages of development in the womb then once we're born we go through more stages of development. Infancy, toddler, autonomy, pre-teen, puberty, early adult, adult, prime, mid-life, geriatric etc. My point is that humans begin developing from the time of conception and we never stop developing until we die. Life does NOT begin when we are severed from our mother's umbilical cord. It begins 9 months prior. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial. There are many reasons why liberals and others want to keep abortion legal. Some of the reasons are population control..there are certain groups of humans that breed more than others. Another reason is promiscuity or convenient birth control. None of these reasons are acceptable excuses to commit the slaughter of innocent life.

[DoctorDoom]

One question, lad: if sonograms won't change the equation, why do the baby-killers adamantly oppose mandatory sonograms for women considering abortion, and have flaming fits when legislatures consider sonogram machines in abortion abattoirs?

THIS is their mindset.

"Nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about that fetus in much different terms than they did fifteen years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer how to cure."
-- Pollster Harrison Hickman, 1989 conference of the National Abortion Rights Action League

To those soulless bastards, speaking of a "fetus" as a human being is a mental illness that must be cured, and the sonograms are spreading that illness.

I'll be watching for the thread.

[iFocusNews.com]

I will believe THIS when I see it. For now, I'm not holding my breath.
You'd have to finally change your signiture :smirky:

[CzechPrince]

Saying a fetus is not, "Fully human" is just a way to dehumanize and legitmize killing it. If it is not a human, what the hell is it? If scientifically it is called a, "Homo Sapien" I think it's correct to say it is a human in devolopment--just as I am devoloping at the age of 19 every day and will for many more years to come.

[markus3622]

I said I would respond but don't want to derail this thread. What's the correct place to have a discussion on abortion? Culture?

Thanks

[Suzie]

Because a fetus is a blob of cells.

So are you as you sit there typing that, we all are. Blood cells, skin cells, DNA, your own INDIVIDUAL DNA. From the moment you were conceived.

[markus3622]

Agreed Suzie, no quarrel there.

[Suzie]

Agreed Suzie, no quarrel there.

Yet I assume you would be a bit upset if someone killed one of your children using the statement that they are "just a blob of cells" as their defense.

[markus3622]

I said I'd open a new thread - I just don't know where yet. I would point out that you've made a jump in your argument that isn't quite justified though (as I see it)

[Suzie]

Well if you think that idea is horrid, you now have an idea of how we feel about abortion.

[markus3622]

I understand your abhorrence of abortion - I don't feel too great about it myself

[Suzie]

Legalized murder shouldn't be allowed. No one should have the right to kill another just because having them live would create a inconvinience in their life, born or unborn. Because there isn't a difference. Before they are born they are an unborn baby, when they are born they will be nothing other than a baby. You can't hurry up and kill a baby before it becomes a toddler, and you can't kill a toddler before it becomes a child. It's a disgusting murderous idea at ANY point after conception. Because they will always be able to do more, grow more, become more independent ... unless you KILL them. That is MURDER.

[markus3622]

Suzie, I'd love to discuss this, but I promised Maggie T I'd take it to a different area of the board - you're an admin. Where's best?

[Suzie]

I split a new thread.

[markus3622]

Thanks Suzie

[markus3622]

Ok, I'll try and keep this civil but I know this is a very emotional topic. I don't want to be flaming anyone.

Ok, Suzie, the unjustified leap I felt you made is as follows.

1) Fetuses are lumps of cells
2) I'm a lump of cells
3) It would be horrid if I were killed
4) Therefore, it would be horrid if a fetus were killed.

What advocates of abortion rights say is that there is something that distinguishes me from a fetus - we are both alive, we both have DNA, we are both homo sapiens, but what distinguishes me from the fetus is personhood. Being a Person is not the same as being human.

[Suzie]

And why isn't a baby a person in your eyes?

[markus3622]

A baby is a person - a fetus in its early stage of development (say before around 20 weeks - I couldn't give an exact time) isn't in my eyes, because it lacks consciousness. Why do you think a fetus is a person?

[Suzie]

Because an unborn baby has the same DNA make up as a born baby or an adult. So if a child is born with brain damage and they WILL NEVER have a chance of developing the mental capabilities most babies (born or unborn) will eventually develop. Do you think it's okay to kill them? Some of those type of things aren't evident until they have been born and are examined out side the womb. Are we to assume that if cognative abilities are all that makes you a person, then you believe the disabled and the elderly (who will NEVER gain these things again) do not deserve to live. And if that isn't what you are saying, why do you think it's okay to kill a human who WILL have all of those things unless they are murdered?

[markus3622]

For me the DNA test doesn't pass, because sperm have human DNA but millions of those die every day in every man. Skin cells also die and no-one fusses over them.

I never wrote that the elderly and disabled deserve to die, in the same way fetuses don't deserve to die. The eldery question is easier to handle - elderly people should be able to make a choice (when they can) about themselves when they get to a stage where they are incapable - but that's a different topic.

On the disabled, even the most disabled are conscious (except for a few exceptions -Terri Schiave for example)- but you do raise an important question. What would we do to, say Terri Schiavo, if she'd never been able to make a choice before hand - I'd probably leave it to the family.

[CzechPrince]

Markus can you please tell us by what alchemy a fetus is somehow transformed into a, "person?"

[DoctorDoom]

A baby is a person - a fetus in its early stage of development (say before around 20 weeks - I couldn't give an exact time)...And therein lies one of the major arguments FOR pro-life. You cannot say when a "fetus" becomes a person, but you still support the "right" to kill the "fetus" despite that lack of knowledge. The principle of erring on the side of caution applies.

... isn't in my eyes, because it lacks consciousness.Define consciousness in a way that give you the right to commit murder if it is not present. If your wife is sleeping next to you, she is not conscious. Would it be proper for you to kill her? A person under anesthesia is not conscious. Can you snuff him?

Why do you think a fetus is a person?More to the point, why do YOU think a fetus is NOT a person? How about an explanation of why you and other pro-"choice" types are so eager to preserve the "right" of a woman to murder her unborn child?

And what choice does the tiny victim have? Did he or she have the choice to be conceived? No. Does he or she have the choice to live or die? No. You are denying that little boy or girl ANY choice just because some robed assholes found a nonexistent right in the Constitution to slaughter the preborn.

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/aborted01-24.jpg" border="12" />

... say before around 20 weeks ...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/abort10.jpg" border="12" />

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/abort07.jpg" border="12" /></center>

Are these "choices"? How cold-blooded you are.

"Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life - the unborn - without diminishing the value of all human life."
-- Ronald Reagan

[Incident_command]

Doom my brother, those photos say it all. If they were put in the paper or on CNN, abortion would lose most of its support. Very powerful photos.

[aaron11]

"Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life - the unborn - without diminishing the value of all human life."
-- Ronald Reagan

Just because it cannot be said enough...

Great post Doom...I almost had to turn away, But reality is what is needed most on this issue...

[Bluemoon_Rising]

What abortion rights advocates do argue is that a fetus isn't necessarily a full human with the complete set of rights and responsibilities that entails. . . .

That doesn't follow - by your logic we would all still be babies now - if twelve year olds can't get married or drive or have sexual intercourse, then neither can thirty year olds - unless you think twelve year olds should be allowed to get married. We recognise that people's rights aren't static



Hogwash. It’s your logic that’s muddled. An unborn child is fully human. Scientifically, this is beyond dispute. Being equipped with a “complete set of rights and responsibilities” has nothing to do with the price of beans in China. Convicted felons -- adults -- are not fully equipped with a “complete set of rights and responsibilities”. Nevertheless, kill one and you will be tried for murder. DesertFox nailed you, and you foolishly stepped right back into the trap as you define what it means to be fully human in terms of civil rights. Hence, according to your logic, anyone -- convict or minor -- may be killed with impunity since they are not equipped with a “complete set of rights and responsibilities” and therefore are not fully human. The argument is clearly wrong, stupid. I don’t think that’s what you meant to argue.

Abortion is murder. The abortionist’s argument is depraved. Roe v. Wade was a stupid decision, it’s logic arbitrary. The only logically unimpeachable position is to err on the side of life, to understand -- and rightly so -- that life obviously begins at conception; and as we are talking about human life, it is to be protected and preserved before God and we the people. If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is precisely what more than half of the nation’s states would proclaim. What becomes of your logic then? And what of your logic prior to Roe v. Wade, before the Warren Court unconstitutionally and arbitrarily seized the matter from the states and the people thereof? Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary.

There is nothing logical about the abortionist’s argument. It rests on the sentimental emotionalism of rabid degenerates. It rests not on a fixed, universal principle, but on an ever shifting contrivance of legalese.

On another thread, IlikeIke thought is sensible to pooh-pooh the conservative’s concern over the Court’s recent Ten Commandment decisions, failing to grasp that the very reason that so many of our fundamental and supposedly constitutionally protected rights are slipping away in this country is occurring precisely because of the lose of the understanding in the American political consciousness that God, not the State, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and liberties.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among them are the right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness” (the latter being a paraphrase of Locke’s third component of natural law’s divinely established trilogy: the right to be secure in one’s private property against the state).

This Republic was founded on the Anglo-American notion of natural law, not the statist, Rousseauian/Voltairean notion of Continental Europe. Moreover, it was derived from the Judeo-Christian understanding of the proper relationship between God and the state, of the duties and responsibilities of the people . . . especially those that pertain to the treatment of the least and most defenseless among us. No other religious system of thought inspired it.

Bottom line: the logic, the political philosophy of Roe v. Wade are foreign to the American political ethos, to the U.S. Constitution, to the socio-political principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Make whatever indefensible argument you please, marcus; the fact remains, your logic is imported from Continental Europe. It's the stuff of Plato, Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx, the leftist creeps of the Warren Court and others. It is not the ideology of the Anglo-American political Enlightenment.

Fail to defend the life of some against the state and the willful self-centeredness of others, and you surrender the ground on which all our liberties depend.

[2nd_Amendment]

I skipped some parts of the thread so perhaps this line of thought has already been presented. If so, ignore it. If not, then have fun...

Abortionists argue that a fetus is a potential baby, not yet granted the rights of being human, let alone adulthood, and thus "terminating" it is acceptable. The problem with this is our world is full of adults who are also not granted the full rights of adulthood, or even humanity, because of the crimes they have committed and/or the physical/mental handicaps they endure.

And it's usually the same abortionists who decry capital punishment for the criminal element.

Meanwhile, these SAME abortionists are often the ones supporting euthenasia for the mentally/physically disabled, those in PVS and those who wish to suicide.

Anyone see a discontinuity here?

It's not about rights or humanity. It's about assigning rights and humanity when it suits the political and social agenda of a certain section of political/social activists. Consistency, legitimacy and honesty aren't important.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

It's not about rights or humanity. It's about assigning rights and humanity when it suits the political and social agenda of a certain section of political/social activists. Consistency, legitimacy and honesty aren't important.


Precisely!

[ILikeIke]

...
Abortion is murder.
...
There is nothing logical about the abortionist’s argument.
...
On another thread, IlikeIke


Well, on this one, we are on the same side, and I've gotten markus to shut up with his tail between his legs before; but, I won't be able to help you soon. I've always been "pro-life," and loyal to many types of morality, even when I was a rabid, religion-hating atheist. I hated religion because I had seen it used to in ritualiistic human sacrifice of children with the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court. That was just the beginning of the evil for which I saw some supposedly "Biblical" religion being used.
http://www.ajwrb.org/
http://www.ajwrb.org/newsmedia/sd/sd_eng.shtml

By the way, you got the quote in the declaration of independence wrong.


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among them are the right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness”


"the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
...
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Note, both the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle humans to these rights. I think that the first couple of words are not extra. God has no right to violate certain laws either. Ethics are above God, and not below him. That is a question which goes back thousands of years. The rights are self-evident, so, even if God contradicts them, they still exist.

Now, as for little markus, he seems muddle-headed enough that you can take him without my help.

If you don't recall your tail between your legs, markus, recall my attempted predicate-logic definition of murder, which remained unchalleged after we hammered out the details, my appeal to the dictionary, and my unchallenged refutations of your claims that you had found a counterexample.

I thought about reposting my old stuff because I still have it on my hard drive; but, what is the point? It will simply erode with time again, and probably no one here will accept that debate can enter a much more powerful plane: Beyond religious arguments, and even better defined than prose. I'd bet that Jefferson dreamed of a time when such argument would be possible. "Self-evident" can be a very mathematical term. I believe he liked Voltaire too, and Voltaire liked some ideas of rational philosophy.

Nonethess, although the freedoms of the founding fathers enabled a cultural and technological revolution which has produced such heights of logic, those in power, and even some scared little people, fear it. I'm concerned that other new technological toys, like machine guns, may silence it. Even I have written Python code to help me to make ethical decisions.
"What Can AI Do for Ethics?
Helen Seville and Debora Field"
http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~hlgaylar/miserere.html

I only have 4 days left of allowing myself free speech of the internet, so this is probably a good time to leave this forum.

Goodbye. I've learned much from this forum. I hope that I have left no enemies, except those who have no morals, like liberals, and those who will later realize how silly their offense was. ILikeIke out.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The following is addressed to anyone who believes that abortion isn't the murder of an innocent human being:

Clearly you don't believe that a baby is a human being until he or she is born so I would like to know:<p>What were you in your mother's womb before you were born? Were you a mouse? Were you a rat? Were you a weasel? Were you a skunk? Were you a human being? No, no, you can't answer that you were a fetus. That is not specific enough. Then you have to answer the question: What kind of fetus? A mouse or a rat or a weasel or a skunk or a human being? If your mother had aborted you what would she have seen? A mouse or a rat or a weasel or a skunk or a human being? The only correct answer to all these questions is that you were a human being.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

That was just the beginning of the evil for which I saw some supposedly "Biblical" religion being used.

The operative term here would be supposedly. Your argument cannot be with biblical religion, and especially not with the life and the teachings of Christ.


By the way, you got the quote in the declaration of independence wrong.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Indeed, but, fully cognizant of the use of capitalization in the original text, the only term I ever capitalize in informal settings is "Creator." However, "to" is redundant. Good eye.

Note, both the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle humans to these rights. I think that the first couple of words are not extra. God has no right to violate certain laws either. Ethics are above God, and not below him. That is a question which goes back thousands of years. The rights are self-evident, so, even if God contradicts them, they still exist.

Certainly. However, God is by definition the essence of goodness. Sound ethics are not beneath Him, and most indubitably are not above Him. Love, righteousness, justice: these attributes are all part of Who and What He is. This distinction is important, as God is not answerable to any standard beyond or outside of Himself.

I'd bet that Jefferson dreamed of a time when such argument would be possible.

Possibly, for he was after all among the most secular of the Founders. However, there is no other defensible foundation for liberty but God . . . and not just any understanding of God.

"Self-evident" can be a very mathematical term. I believe he liked Voltaire too, and Voltaire liked some ideas of rational philosophy.

Yes. Jefferson did like Voltaire, shared many of his ideas. But then, I share many of Voltaire's ideas too. That doesn't make me a Voltairean or a proponent of the Continental European construct of natural law. On the other hand, Jefferson did not share Voltaire's atheism. The problem with Voltaire is that he insisted on an utterly secular and godless state, one that would inevitably succumb to the tyranny of the people, the rule of the mob, the unwashed, something he failed to anticipate. Voltaire confused the statist trappings of a co-opted religious tradition with the fundamental principles of Judeo-Christianity itself. Locke didn't make that mistake. He correctly extrapolated the socio-political principles of Judeo-Christianity’s moral-ethical system of thought and hammered out a concept of natural law that provides for the only unimpeachable foundation for the preservation of life and private property, and the advancement of liberty against the state. Also, Voltaire's concern for the protection of private property -- the practical foundation of human liberty -- was less than perfect.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

This issue comes down to one of two worldviews:

1. LIFE has an innate, intrinisic, inherent value in and of itself (based on the fact that a Creator, not man, granted and endowed LIFE first),

or,

2. LIFE has NO innate, intrinsic, inherent value, and the ONLY value it MAY have is that which is assigned subjectively by those of the ruling class at the time (pregnant women, doctors, Supreme Court in Roe v.Wade, Supreme Court in refusal to hear the Terri Schiavo case, etc.)

IF life has an innate, intrinsic, inherent value in and of itself, man CANNOT negate it, and does NOT have the right to do so -- because he neither first granted nor endowed it.

IF life has NO innate, intrinsic, inherent value, and value is set by the ruling class, NO rights are self-evident, NO rights are unalienable, and NO law can be held firm.

I do not want to live in a world where MAN decides what is "right" and "wrong," for today he likes me and I am right, but what of tomorrow when I make him mad, and now I am wrong?

A human fetus is NOT a different animal, species, kind, or class -- a human is a human, is a human. THIS is why the evolution debate is so critical . . . if we are merely an ameoba, that became a fish, that became a bird, that became a mammal, that became man then we should be guided by no other law that that of nature -- survival of the fittest, and all others be damned. (Please forgive me for cursing, it was directed at no individual, and is not representative of my natural vocabulary, it was necessary to make a point.)

[Suzie]

Nothing is more disgusting to see than people who put themselves and their wants, or supposed "needs" ahead of the life of a child. Abortion is no better than these monsters who prey upon our children for sex, because they place sex above the value of the life it could create. And if they decide that a baby isn't what they wanted from that sex they want to throw it away. How many children have we seen "thrown away" once a sexual act is finished and all they wanted? It's no wonder those kind of monsters can find nothing in their mind to discourage them from commiting such acts when this Country allows thousands of people to throw away their own kids legally. And there are people who see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

[Tumblehome]

I see a few straw men here. Are we talking about the abortion of a baby just before its born or the morning-after pill? Taking it to either extreme will garner one side or the other the support of the moderates and the majority of those of us not firmly planted in either the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" camps.

As much as both pro-choicers and pro-lifers may like it to be, this is not strictly a black and white issue to everyone.

[Suzie]

For some of us murder is murder and ending a innocent life anytime after conception and before natural death is murder, unless that person has committed a crime that would cause them to loose that right guaranteed to all of us.

[markus3622]

I've already admitted earlier on that all fetuses are human, but I don't think that's the criterion by which we judge whether something has rights. To say that a fetus is clearly human is missing the point in the abortion debate.

Abortion advocates don't deny that fetuses are human - so are spermatozoa
Abortion advocates don't deny that fetuses are alive - so are bacteria
- The distinction is personhood

I hope we can agree on this. I guess, though, that most believe personhood begins at conception, whereas advocates of abortion rights suggest that personhood begins later.

Doom, on the sonogram point - it is a very good emotional argument, as are pictures of fetuses, but it doesn't change the parameters of the argument. I eat meat, as do a lot of people here, I'd guess. Seeing pictures of a slaughtered bull might not be very nice, and it's the kind of tactic PETA use - but it isn't a rational argument - that's why sonograms and pictures don't shouldn't work.

Czech Prince - so when does personhood start? - it's not an easy question. Aquinas didn't think it began at conception - I think he said it appeared at around three months. John Locke didn't think it began until quite late. It's a tough philosophical question, but one that needs to be tackled

[farmfriend]

There are times when I would really like to have a late term abortion. Is 16 years too late? What about 13? Either one would do.

[DoctorDoom]

I see a few straw men here. Are we talking about the abortion of a baby just before its born or the morning-after pill?We are talking about the self-centered, "ME FIRST!" mindset that convenience, sex selection et al are rationales for terminating a human life. Do you think they'll be limited to in utero babies?

Don't ever become inconvenient or unwanted. Someone who can make it so might "think" like you do.

Taking it to either extreme...Abortion is "legal" right up to the moment of birth. The SCOTUS scumballs guaranteed that by eliminating all laws limited abortion. Therefore you have no argument about that "extreme".

will garner one side or the other the support of the moderates and the majority of those of us not firmly planted in either the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" camps.A moderate is a person with the courage of his lack of convictions. BTW, the whole sentence leaves me wondering what you were attempting to say. Did you forget a word, perhaps "not" after "will"?

As much as both pro-choicers and pro-lifers may like it to be, this is not strictly a black and white issue to everyone.We're acutely aware of the way liberals "think" in shades of gray and reject all absolutes (until they encounter someone who violates their own unspoken absolutes). Despite liberalism, there are things that are absolutely right and absolutely wrong — liberalism being in the latter category.

There are very few defensible justifications for abortion, and none whatever for PBA. It's legalized murder.

<hr>
I've already admitted earlier on that all fetuses are human, but I don't think that's the criterion by which we judge whether something has rights. To say that a fetus is clearly human is missing the point in the abortion debate.

Abortion advocates don't deny that fetuses are human - so are spermatozoa
Abortion advocates don't deny that fetuses are alive - so are bacteria
- The distinction is personhoodThe notion of "personhood" is a construct of inhuman monsters looking for a rationale for killing preborn children. They have abandoned the idiocy of claiming that life in the womb is not human. Sonograms have blown away that bullshit. Now they're trying to find an imaginary line that allows them to commit murder for profit even though their victims are recognized as fully human.

Money has anesthetized many consciences.

I hope we can agree on this.No, we cannot. We don't play moral Calvinball here.

I guess, though, that most believe personhood begins at conception...Wrong. Most people believe that HUMAN LIFE begins at conception. "Personhood" is your buzzword, not ours.

... whereas advocates of abortion rights...Killing one's unborn child is NOT a "right" It's legal because the SCOTUS shoved their heads up their asses and declared that all state and federal laws addressing infanticide are "unconstitutional" because they perverted the Constitution to find a nonexistent "right".

... suggest that personhood begins later.We are unimpressed by mantras.

Doom, on the sonogram point - it is a very good emotional argument...Liberals might view everything from the standpoint of emotions. I don't. Being a conservative, I THINK. I don't feel. That's what will forever separate conservatives from liberals.

... as are pictures of fetuses...If you can look at those three photos and see only "fetuses", you have no humanity.

... but it doesn't change the parameters of the argument.Then why are the baby-killers so rabidly opposed to them? Could it be that they are well aware that showing a woman contemplating abortion what that "blob of tissue" actually looks like might just cause her to change her mind, and deny them the profit from the killing of her child?

I eat meat, as do a lot of people here, I'd guess.So this is a valid equation:

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/BabyBurger.jpg" /></center>

Seeing pictures of a slaughtered bull might not be very nice, and it's the kind of tactic PETA use - but it isn't a rational argument - that's why sonograms and pictures don't shouldn't work.If they didn't, the traffickers in infanticide wouldn't care, hey?

It's a tough philosophical question, but one that needs to be tackled.1.3 million dead American boys and girls sentenced to capital punishment every year, without benefit of a trial, a judge, a jury and a defense, for the crime of being inconvenient, is hardly a "philosophical question".

Edited to remove a few comments.

[DoctorDoom]

There are times when I would really like to have a late term abortion. Is 16 years too late? What about 13? Either one would do.It's never too late for a retroactive abortion if it's really needed.

[markus3622]

Doctor Doom, you can't be all bad - you like Calvin and Hobbes :thumb:

I want to keep the discussion civil.

Most people believe that HUMAN LIFE begins at conception

I agree. Human life does begin at conception - absolutely no quarrel. You say "personhood" is a buzzword, well the concepts engendered in that phrase have been discussed by philosophers so there's nothing new about it.

What is it makes something human then?

Can I ask you, if I showed you a bloody photo of a cow, would it make you a vegetarian? It wouldn't sway me - if not, why not?

[DoctorDoom]

You say "personhood" is a buzzword, well the concepts engendered in that phrase have been discussed by philosophers so there's nothing new about it.When a person is useful for nothing else on God's green Earth, and would starve if required to find a job, he becomes a philosopher. He continues to be absolutely useless, but at least he has a title and a small coterie of "intellectual" groupies to give him an illusion of importance.

As for what philosophers think, their opinions and a buck will buy a cup of coffee.

What is it makes something human then?One male human gamete plus one female human gamete produce one unique human being, unlike any other human being that has ever lived or that ever will live. The human thus created might be the next Einstein, the next Mozart, the next Salk... or the next Hitler. But that human has every right to be allowed to be born, to grow, to mature and to make his or her mark on the world. And unless that human eventually forfeits life by heinous crimes, NO ONE has a "right" to kill him or her.

Can I ask you, if I showed you a bloody photo of a cow, would it make you a vegetarian? It wouldn't sway me - if not, why not?No, it would not. The animals are raised to become Porterhouses and T-bones and pot roasts and hamburger. They have no other function — although given the amount of bullshit in Washington, there must be at least some serving as senators and reps.

Bloody cows don't distress me, although I prefer mine well-done.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I've already admitted earlier on that all fetuses are human, but I don't think that's the criterion by which we judge whether something has rights. To say that a fetus is clearly human is missing the point in the abortion debate.

No, actually it is not.

Abortion advocates don't deny that fetuses are human - so are spermatozoa

No spermatozoa CONTAINS human genetic material, it CANNOT become a human without intervention -- if left in a petri dish it will NEVER grow in to a human being.

Abortion advocates don't deny that fetuses are alive - so are bacteria

Abortion advocates will use ANY argument in their arsenal. Prior to sonograms, fetuses were NOT considered alive, but merely a clump of cells. Once fetal heart detectors were used on a regular basis, that argument had a hard time holding on, and sonograms are a fatal blow.

- The distinction is personhood

I hope we can agree on this. I guess, though, that most believe personhood begins at conception, whereas advocates of abortion rights suggest that personhood begins later.


No we cannot agree on this. You have specifically made my point for me, in respect to the two world views. Answer me this, do you believe that HUMAN LIFE as an innate, intrinsic, inherent value in and of itself, OR do you believe it is up to HUMANS to assess the value of HUMAN LIFE based on some subjective "criteria" subject to change at the whim of the ruling class at the time (pregnant women, medical community, philosophers, Supreme Court, etc.)?

See you are quick to use the label "personhood," but you haven't yet defined it. AND if ALL human life cannot agree on the definition of "personhood," if there is not an ABSOLUTE truth as to what it is and when it begins, there is doubt, yes? And shouldn't reasonable doubt ALONE prevent one from doing irreparable harm? What's the old adage, better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man die for crimes he didn't commit?

Doom, on the sonogram point - it is a very good emotional argument, as are pictures of fetuses, but it doesn't change the parameters of the argument. I eat meat, as do a lot of people here, I'd guess. Seeing pictures of a slaughtered bull might not be very nice, and it's the kind of tactic PETA use - but it isn't a rational argument - that's why sonograms and pictures don't shouldn't work.

Excuse me for interjecting here, but with the advent of sonograms, abortion advocates were forced to change their tactic, because there in front of the pregnant woman's eyes was a "picture" of her child -- not a mass or clump of cells. You are absolutely and fully wrong if you do not think that the sonogram is a threat to abortion advocates -- I don't care if it is an emotional tactic, it works -- just because you say logically it SHOULDN'T work, in no way means it doesn't. I am guessing you are male, no? Believe me, to a woman, it WILL make a difference.

If it is sonograms are NO THREAT to the abortion industry, they shouldn't have any problem with one being required before EVERY abortion, to make certain a "person" is not being killed instead of a mere fetus.

Czech Prince - so when does personhood start? - it's not an easy question. Aquinas didn't think it began at conception - I think he said it appeared at around three months. John Locke didn't think it began until quite late. It's a tough philosophical question, but one that needs to be tackled

Actually, it does NOT need to be tackled. What needs to be tackled is to force men and women to understand choice comes PRIOR to the sex act that creates the child, not AFTER the creation of life. THAT would solve the problem, and NO innocent lives would be taken -- isn't that the BEST solution, with the least amount of harm and risk, and the greatest outcome for all?

[farmfriend]

It's never too late for a retroactive abortion if it's really needed.

Actually my boys are really good kids. But they are boys!!!

I'm just glad God didn't give me girls.

[markus3622]

I don't understand how every human has the right to be born. Why? Given that a large proportion of conceptions fail (up to 78% in one paper) naturally, at these embryos having their rights taken away from them?

The point about cows could be made about any animal - are deers made to be shot? No, but a picture of a dead deer isn't enough to change the argument.

I really can't get past the sonogram point - no abortion advocate says that fetuses aren't alive. That's why sonograms don't change the rational argument. Bunnies look sweet, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be hunted. We need something more here.

No spermatozoa CONTAINS human genetic material, it CANNOT become a human without intervention -- if left in a petri dish it will NEVER grow in to a human being.
The same can be said for fetuses - without the intervention of a mother, they won't be born - so it will never become a human being. I don't see how that distinguishes sperm from fetuses. Fetuses wouldn't grow into adults in a petri dish.

do you believe that HUMAN LIFE as an innate, intrinsic, inherent value in and of itself?

Yes, but define life differently. Yes, a fetus is alive, but does it have life? Perhaps I would say "life of a certain quality" (life with personhood) has innate value. Do you feel that the life of a frog has innate value? If not, why not?

[Suzie]

To show the "non-personhood" excuse to murder is a load of crap. If you can say that about a unborn baby in order to be allowed to murder them then why not anyone you choose to place no value on the future of that individual? I personally do not agree with all of the following. But having read all of what the pro-choice positon is on this, it completely blows that position away. Morals and beliefs expand what isn't covered here.

<!--StartFragment --> The debate about abortion often centers around premises about the nature and moral status of the fetus. This can lead to enormous frustration and seemingly irresolvable disagreement. For some people, it is obvious that the fetus is a full-fledged human being, in the richest moral sense, from the moment of conception. For others this is more or less unintelligible; that is, for some people, the idea that a newly conceived embryo is a person makes no sense at all.

Don Marquis makes a very distinctive contribution to the abortion debate. He argues for a strong pro-life position without appeal to the notion of personhood. And he also does without appeal to religious premises.

Marquis makes a very strong claim: "abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral...it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being."

This is not to say that abortion is always wrong; Marquis simply sets certain hard cases to one side. He does not discuss abortion before implantation, abortion to save mother's life, abortion in case of rape.

In spite of the fact that Marquis does not rely on the notion of personhood, he shares a major assumption with those who do: whether or not abortion is wrong, in his view, depends on something about the fetus; it depends on "whether a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end." He believes the fetus is such a being, and he offers an analysis of why.

Framed in its usual terms, Marquis believes that the abortion debate results in a stand-off between the two sides. In section I, he attempts to demonstrate this by reviewing certain typical features of the debate. At the most general level:



Pro-lifers point to facts that seem to count in favor of the humanity of the fetus. Then they conclude that abortion is not acceptable.Pro-choicers point to facts that seem to count in favor of the non-personhood of the fetus, and go on to conclude that abortion is acceptable.
As Marquis points out, neither side can rest on such facts alone. Moral conclusions require moral premises. And indeed, each side can add plausible sounding premises.Pro-lifers offer: it is always prima facie wrong to take a human life.

Pro-choicers offer: personhood is what matters for moral worth; killing a person is what's prima facie wrong.

Each side misses the mark. The pro-life principle is too broad. It might well show that killing a cancer-cell culture is immoral, or so Marquis claims. (Here we might note: the pro-lifer means that it is wrong to kill a human being; not a human cell. But if a newly-fertilized ovum counts as a human being, then the distinction is not so clear after all.) On the other hand, the pro-choice argument is too narrow. It doesn't show that killing infants or retarded individuals is wrong.

Again, each side can add to its position. The pro-lifer can shift to talk of human beings. But then it isn't clear that a fetus is a human being; "human being" doesn't mean "is human and is alive." "Human being" means something like "full-fledged human person." But then the pro-lifer is begging the question -- is assuming a premise that the pro-choicer would simply deny.

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, have to find a way of broadening their conclusion to deal with the cases of infants, children and the mentally retarded. These beings don't count as persons by typical pro-choice criteria. The pro-choice advocate can appeal to considerations of the consequences, but this will make the argument rest on delicate calculations that might not turn out the way the pro-choicer thinks they will. Most of us who think killing infants and retarded people is wrong would still think so even if it turned out that there are some overall "benefits" to such practices.

More generally, Marquis points out, the pro-lifer tends to rely on a biological category: something like "genetically human" or "conceived by human parents." This leaves us with the problem of explaining the moral relevance of the biological facts.

Here I would add a side note that Marquis does not add. Some pro-lifers appeal to religious premises: to the premises, for example, that the fetus has a soul from the moment of conception. But it isn't obvious that this helps. If all we mean by saying that the fetus has a soul is that it has full moral status, talking about the soul doesn't explain anything; it sneaks the conclusion in without argument. On the other hand, if the soul is a sort of non-physical entity, then we can ask: why does possessing this entity, even if thought and sensation are completely absent, confer a right to life? The answer isn't obvious.

The pro-choicer avoids biology and typically appeals to psychological characteristics. This, again, creates a need to explain why these are morally relevant. The philosopher Joel Feinberg offers an explanation. The psychological characteristics are what make moral responsibility and moral reasoning possible. They also explain why we can value certain things, make plans, and care about our own futures. They "make sense out of rights and duties." But Marquis points out: the psychological characteristics that pro-choicers appeal to may be necessary conditions for having duties; it is much less clear that they are necessary for having rights -- especially such basic rights as the right to life.

Now a being who never will have these characteristics might well have no rights. (Thus, unconscious people get rights, since they once were conscious and may well be again.) But this won't help the pro-choicer, since the fetus typically will be conscious if it's allowqed to develop. And if we insist that someone must already have had these characteristics to get rights, this may seem like a cheap trick tailor-made for ruling out fetuses.

II Marquis proposes a different way of approaching the problem. His strategy: examine what it is that makes killing wrong in the first place. Then look at abortion in light of that more general discussion

He begins with two wrong answers:



killing is wrong because it brutalizes the killer
Killing is wrong because of the effects on the people left behind.
The first answer gets things the wrong way around. People who kill are brutes because killing is a terrible thing. The second doesn't deal with the case of people who live in isolation or whose friends are superficial and won't miss them. It is still wrong to kill such people. A better answer is this: killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of all possible future experience. "When I die," says Marquis, "I am deprived of all the value of my future."Marquis offers two bits of intuitive evidence for this:



It explains why we regard killing as an especially evil crime: it deprives the victim of more than virtually any other crime.
It explains the regret and sense of loss felt by people who know they are dying.
He also points to four implications of this analysis that help make it plausible.

It allows that other -- even alien -- creatures may have a right to life as strong as ours; it doesn't rest on a merely biological basis.
It doesn't prejudge the animal rights debate; some animals might be sufficiently like us that it is wrong as things stand to kill them.
It doesn't prejudge the euthanasia debate; it allows that for some people, death may not be an evil compared to continued life.
It straightforwardly deals with the case of infants and children.
Notice that potential personhood isn't the issue. A fetus is the sort of being whose life it is normally wrong to end. But the reason for this is that it has the capacity for a valuable future like ours. If this amounts to saying it is a potential person, so be it. The point is that Marquis does not rely on an unanalyzed notion of "potential person." He spells out exactly what it is about the being that is morally relevant.Marquis uses another case as a sort of test for this general approach. We believe it is wrong to inflict pain on other people wantonly. He suggests that there are strong parallels between what he -- and, he thinks, we -- would say about this and what he has to say about abortion. We believe it is wrong not because of some extrinsic considerations, such as what it does to the character of the person inflicting the pain, but because of its effects on the victim -- because the suffering of the victim is an evil. This is like what he has to say about killing; killing is wrong not because of its effects on the killer, but because of its effects on the victim -- the loss of all potential for value in his or her future.

Marquis ofers an analogy. Humans are not the only creatures who can suffer. The suffering of other animals is an evil, and so we conclude that it is wrong to inflict pain for no reason on non-human animals. Similarly, the wrong of killing extends beyond humans already born to other creatures -- at least certain other creatures -- and in particular to fetuses. A fetus that is killed has all potential for value in its future wiped out.

The argument about killing and the argument about inflicting pain have the same general form: begin with a widely-held intuition about the wrongness of a certain act, look for what makes the act wrong in its effects on the victim, and then note that the conclusion can be extended beyond the original intuition. If the case against inflicting pain on animals turns out to be flawed, this would cast doubt on the reasoning in the case of abortion. So Marquis considers the alternative view about animals, which he takes to be Kant's view. Kant's view is that animals are not entitled to any moral consideration on their own; they are not rational creatures and so are not members of the moral community. Kant agrees that it is wrong to inflict pain on them, but not because it is intrinsically wrong. It is wrong because people who are cruel to animals are likely to be cruel to persons. Marquis replies that this is implausible. If the difference between humans and animals really is as Kant says -- if animals are different enough from us so as not to be owed any more moral consideration than plants of stones -- then we should have no trouble making the distinction in our actions. In other words, Marquis doubts that being cruel to animals would lead people to be cruel to other persons if Kant were right.

I think there is plenty of room to disagree with Marquis, for the sorts of reasons that philosopher Jane English suggested in an article from several years ago. Our moral psychology is not determined simply by our metaphysical beliefs about who is or isn't a person. Certain resemblances between people and animals are psychologically powerful, whether or not they have any other moral significance. It might indeed be very hard to treat people well if one developed the habit of treating animals badly. But it is also probably not important to settle the question. Whether or not Kant has the psychology right, he seems pretty clearly to have the morality wrong. The suffering of animals does matter, we all agree, and it matters because suffering -- whether ours or another creature's -- is an evil.

One potential problem with the argument Marquis gives is that it might seem to rule out contraception: in preventing the conception of a being, one is cutting off a possible future. The essence of Marquis' reply is that contraception is different from abortion: in the case of contraception there is no particular being whose future is being cut off. He reasons as follows: there are four potential candidate "beings":



the sperm cell
the ovum
the sperm-ovum pair considered separately
the sperm-ovum combination
Neither 1) not 2) is satisfactory. A sperm alone does not determine a being. Neither does an ovum. 3) counts too many beings. This sounds a bit od, but in fact, we can strengthen point here. On any given occasion of intercourse, there are typically millions of sperm. There is no one of them in particular that should be counted as the one whose future is being cut off. And this ties in with Marquis's point about 4). There is no determinate combination either.In a moment we will see this that isn't quite adequate. Before we do, let us ask at a general level what we should make of Marquis's argument. We can ask two sorts of questions: (1) is it weaker than it seems, and (2) is it stronger than it seems -- perhaps unacceptably strong.

On the first point, recall that Thomson argues that even if the fetus is a person, it may still be acceptable to perform abortions in certain cases: at least (Thomson) in the cases of rape and threat to the mother's life. but also in the case in which the mother's future prospects are severely threatened, even if her life itself is not. Now Thomson talks of personhood rather than valuable futures. But persons are paradigms of the sort of being that has a potentially valuable future of the kind that Marquis is considering. And in any case, there is no reason to think that Thomson would disagree with Marquis about why killing is an evil. But she would probably insist nonetheless: abortion is still justified in some cases. If her arguments are good, they bear on Marquis notwithstanding.

Turning to the second point, just how rich must a being's potential future be before Marquis's argument kicks in? Marquis himself points out that it may apply to some higher mammals. But consider the family cat. In the normal course of things, a cat has the capacity for a life filled with its own brand of happiness and pleasure. And just as the pain of an animal is an evil, other things being equal, so is its happiness and pleasure a good. So Marquis would seem to give us a strong reason for not killing animals with the capacities of cats or even cows. Marquis, in other words, may make a case for a rather extensive vegetarianism without having meant to.

While this might be so, it is not exactly a criticism of Marquis to point it out. After all, many people believe that we should, indeed, not kill animals except for very good reasons. Perhaps they are right, and perhaps Marquis provides a means of saying why.

Another problem is more difficult. Return to birth control. Marquis clearly had barrier methods in mind. But think abut the IUD. The IUD prevents pregnancy not by preventing conception but by preventing implantation. Does Marquis's view imply that the use of the IUD is immoral?

Many of us would find that hard to accept. A newly-fertilized ovum simply seems too unlike the sort of being from which Marquis's argument starts: a full-fledged human. (Remember: Marquis begins by asking what is wrong with killing in the "typical" case.) And in fact, in what looks like a throw-away line, Marquis allows that this point might be correct,. He says that "morally permissible abortions will be rare indeed unless, perhaps, they occur so early in pregnancy that a fetus is not yet definitely an individual." Many people would think that the stage at which the IUD does its work is a good example. At that stage of pregnancy, it might be thought, we really don't have something that should be thought of as an individual in the sense of a definite being. But if this is right, then we have to ask: at what stage do we have a definite individual -- a definite being?

I don't know what Marquis would say, nor what the right answer is. But the question seems a perfectly good one. And depending on what we decide, it may turn out that to prevent his argument from showing more than it should, Marquis will have to agree that actually has shown much less than it seems.

There is a related issue. Marquis tells us that abortion is almost always a very serious wrong -- as serious as killing you or me. But interestingly enough, very few people's intuitions agree -- even those who are firmly against abortion. Most of us are not inclined to see the death of an early-term fetus as a tragedy in the way that we think of the death of an infant as a tragedy. In fact, nature itself is rather profligate with early embryos. The rate of spontaneous abortion early in pregnancy is actually much higher than most people realize: perhaps as high as 20 to 30 percent. Nonetheless, this isn't shocking in the way that an infant mortality rate of 20 to 30 percent would be.

Another indication that we don't fully share Marquis' intuitions is that if he were right, it is hard to see how we could resist the conclusion that the penalty for abortion ought to be the same as the penalty for murder. But while some anti-abortionists describe abortion as murder, I suspect that few of them are literally prepared to call for the death sentence or life imprisonment for those who have or perform abortions.

The issues here are muddy, of course. Even if we became convinced that abortion is equivalent to murder, there might be very good reasons of social policy for not treating the two cases identically. Still, I think these considerations give us pause. Marquis gives a very powerful argument. But are we quite prepared to acept the full implications of the argument? If so, some of our more ground-level intuitions will have to give way. Perhaps they should. But as we have noted before, intuitions need not always bow to theoretical argument.

copyright © Allen Stairs, 1997 -- 2003

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I don't understand how every human has the right to be born. Why? Given that a large proportion of conceptions fail (up to 78% in one paper) naturally, at these embryos having their rights taken away from them?

Yes, those embryos are having their rights taken away from them, by the very One who granted and endowed their life to begin with (BTW, His name is Yahweh, but most people call Him God).

The point about cows could be made about any animal - are deers made to be shot? No, but a picture of a dead deer isn't enough to change the argument.

I don't believe I was making a point about cows, so I'll defer this one to its originator, :smirky: .

I really can't get past the sonogram point - no abortion advocate says that fetuses aren't alive. That's why sonograms don't change the rational argument. Bunnies look sweet, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be hunted. We need something more here.

Well, I'm sorry you can't get past the sonogram point, but that doesn't negate its truth. I have been there, and I have done that -- when I first went in to the women's health clinic and found out I was, indeed, pregnant, they assured me that what was in me was no more than a mass of cells, a clump of tissue, and it might be growing, but it was not "alive," i.e. it was NOT a baby. Ten years later when I became pregnant with my son, I had a sonogram at roughly the same gestational period as my abortion -- I guarantee you what I saw was NOT a mass of cells and a clump of tissue, but was in fact a baby boy. Sonograms put a face (literally) on what abortion really is -- premeditated murder-for-hire.

The same can be said for fetuses - without the intervention of a mother, they won't be born - so it will never become a human being. I don't see how that distinguishes sperm from fetuses. Fetuses wouldn't grow into adults in a petri dish.

No, fetuses, BABIES, contain MORE that just half of the genetic material required for human life, they contain ALL of it, and so does a newly conceived embryo -- it cannot be anything BUT human life. A specific, unique DNA, unique to ONE individual life.

Yes, but define life differently. Yes, a fetus is alive, but does it have life? Perhaps I would say "life of a certain quality" (life with personhood) has innate value.

See, you have yet again illustrated my point. No, you don't believe life has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value in and of itself, you believe it is up to other HUMANS to assess value (your criteria given here being "life of a certain quality.") Would ALL humans agree with your assessment? No, they do not, and you will NEVER have concensus on this area, so there will ALWAYS be reasonable doubt, ergo, NO LIFE should be taken because the very essence of life cannot even be defined.

Do you feel that the life of a frog has innate value? If not, why not?

Nope, it's an animal, it is not human -- it cannot reason, it has no soul, it will never be more than the frog that it is.

Do YOU feel that the life of a frog has EQUAL value to that of a human being? If so, why?

[Suzie]

Animals are also not guaranteed the right to life under our constitution. So mearly on a legal point (if you choose to ignore morality, souls and beliefs) that idea is ridiculous.

[markus3622]

HS

Yes, those embryos are having their rights taken away from them, by the very One who granted and endowed their life to begin with (BTW, His name is Yahweh, but most people call Him God).
So, you're saying that God is an abortionist (on quite a large scale)? I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.

Regarding Frogs and whether its life has innate value

Nope, it's an animal, it is not human -- it cannot reason,
This is for me what defines personhood - there is a distinction between humans (persons) and animals - and it's reason.

Sonograms rely on an appeal to emotion. Are appeals to emotion ever reasonable? I suppose that's a topic in itself.

No, you don't believe life has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value in and of itself, you believe it is up to other HUMANS to assess value
No, it's not up to other people, but the people themselves. And as such you can't have life (defined in my way) without the person, so yes, life does have innate value. You seem to be saying it's up to the man upstairs, God, to decide, and he regularly decides that some humans don't have innate value. Does life only have value if God says so?



<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Tumblehome]

Don't all human cells contain a complete set of human DNA? Doesn't that make all human cells "human life"? I don't think the possession of a particular set of nucleic acids strung together gives someting value. I think the pro-lifer stance is far more slanted towards determinism, what that particular cell may (or may not) become, not what it now is. I think that is an important distinction.

[markus3622]

On a legal point, fetuses aren't granted the inalienable right to life either, hence the current legal position of abortion. I'm not sure we want to discuss legality, as morality is distinct from legality

[Suzie]

Under the constitution they are indeed guaranteed the right to life, we all are. The current abortion law is therefore unconstitutional and should be reversed.

[markus3622]

Well, the supreme court doesn't see it that way - anyway that's another topic. I'm not even sure whether adults have an inalienable right to life anyway - it doesn't really make sense.

[Suzie]

Yeah well the supreme court once said you could own slaves. And currently says the government can take your property. Both go against the Constitution.

[markus3622]

But that's because the constitution is pretty vague - as you'd expect for such as short document (mostly) written two hundred years ago.

[Suzie]

Don't forget the bill of rights.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

HS
So, you're saying that God is an abortionist (on quite a large scale)?

No, I'm saying God is the Giver and Ordainer of life. If that life never comes to fruition it is because God deemed it so (or in your mind, I'm sure you would say "nature" deemed it so.) (BTW, a "miscarriage" is often referred to as a spontaneous abortion :crazy: .)

I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.

Wouldn't matter, my position would be the same, :smirky: .

Regarding Frogs and whether its life has innate value
This is for me what defines personhood - there is a distinction between humans (persons) and animals - and it's reason.

Nope, you can't use that one either -- babies just prior to, or right at birth cannot reason, they must develop the ability, and people with some disabilities cannot reason, and some elderly with Alzheimer's cannot reason -- do their lives have no value? We are scientifically and medically incapable of detecting when "reason" or your preferred label "personhood" is instilled, therefore we take a risk that we commit murder every time a baby is aborted, because we don't KNOW if they have been inbued with "reason" or "personhood" yet. (If we follow your reasoning, anyway.) So you have STILL argued my point AGAINST abortion.

Sonograms rely on an appeal to emotion. Are appeals to emotion ever reasonable? I suppose that's a topic in itself.

You keep missing the point, for WHATEVER reason, logical, emotional, whatever, they DO work to stem the tide of abortion -- want to prove me wrong, lobby for mandatory sonograms prior to abortions (I would LOVE to see that one passed!), and let me know how it turns out.

No, it's not up to other people, but the people themselves. And as such you can't have life (defined in my way) without the person, so yes, life does have innate value.

You are painting yourself into a corner. IF life has an innate value, then NO ONE can negate another's life (trample that life's right to life), yet that's exactly what you advocate if you assert a "right to abort." How can the life (that has been created) decide if it should have the right to life if SOMEONE ELSE has already assessed that life as having no value and proceeds to abort it?

You're back to your "personhood" argument. Logic says when there is doubt -- and obviously there is doubt because NO ONE can agree on this subject -- then the path of LEAST harm should always be followed, as opposed to irreparable harm (death is irreparable, btw -- so far, anyway :smirky: ).

You seem to be saying it's up to the man upstairs, God, to decide, and he regularly decides that some humans don't have innate value.

You seem to be desparate to twist my words to prove that God is a mean, murdering God. Let me let you in on a secret . . . God is God, and I am not (neither are you), what He does He does for His own reasons, and he neither needs my understanding or approval prior.

Does life only have value if God says so?

Who is more qualified to asses the value of life -- the One Who gave it, ordained it, created it, and endowed it with life . . . or man, who was the vessel used to bring it to fruition?

So, you are now admitting that life does NOT have an innate value, and value should be, and is determined by human assessment?

[markus3622]

I'm not - still a pretty vague document. If the constitution were so clear, the supreme court justices would have trouble remembering each others' names, seeing as how infrequently they'd meet. A lot of the trouble about gun control, abortion, civil rights, religion hinges on how some phrases should be interpreted.

[markus3622]

HS, I am writing that life has innate value, but I define "life" differently to you. You write that a frog's life does not have innate value - why not? Because the frog cannot do a lot of things we would expect a human to do.

Logic says when there is doubt -- and obviously there is doubt because NO ONE can agree on this subject -- then the path of LEAST harm should always be followed, as opposed to irreparable harm (death is irreparable, btw -- so far, anyway :smirky: ).
I assume that you're a vegetarian then. If not, why not? There's doubt over what cows feel. Death of a cow is irreparable, isn't it?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

HS, I am writing that life has innate value, but I define "life" differently to you. You write that a frog's life does not have innate value - why not? Because the frog cannot do a lot of things we would expect a human to do.

markus, you've yet TO define life -- by the one definition you did float, "personhood" (or reason), a frog's life has no value either, so it would not matter anyway.

Most exactly that is why a frog's life does not have innate value -- they cannot aspire to be more than they are, they cannot reason, they DO NOT HAVE A SOUL, they have no innate, inherent, intrinsic value; their value is based upon man's assessment of the use, danger, or relevance. Do you think if tigers devoured ALL the frogs on the earth, save two (male & female), they would stop to think about the extinction of another species and therefore NOT eat them, or better still begin a mission to "save the frogs"? All other animals are INCAPABLE of assigning value to other animal's lives -- only MAN has that ability, why do you suppose that is? (Oh, I forgot, evolution, right? :smirky: )

But let's go further you say you define "life" differently than me -- that is tantamount to an admission that life does NOT have an innate value, but only the value of which you assign it. Innate, intrinsic, inherent require NO definition or assignment of value by man, because man didn't endow, ordain, or give it, therefore he cannot "take it away."

I assume that you're a vegetarian then. If not, why not? There's doubt over what cows feel. Death of a cow is irreparable, isn't it?

You got me, I shall amend my statement:
Regarding HUMAN LIFE, logic says when there is doubt -- and obviously there is doubt because NO ONE can agree on this subject -- then the path of LEAST harm should always be followed, as opposed to irreparable harm (death is irreparable, btw -- so far, anyway :smirky: ).

[markus3622]

To my mind, there's a contradiction. You write that humans are different from animals, because they can reason, make rational decisions, etc. (This is what I consider "personhood", or "life" in the sense I'm talking about. You know when people say "get a life!", they mean get a life of a certain quality.

We know that fetuses cannot do this (especially before a certain point - say 20 weeks).

You say life has innate value, but you mean life that has human DNA, whereas I say life that is conscious. I therefore say life has innate value - it is you that says it doesn't. Because it needs God to give it value, so it isn't innate. I say the person living gives himself value, so that life does have innate value.

Let's say you met an alien, and you could discuss with it. Would it be a person? If it were peaceful, and you killed it, would it be wrong? It wouldn't have human DNA

[DoctorDoom]

Let's say you met an alien, and you could discuss with it. Would it be a person? If it were peaceful, and you killed it, would it be wrong? It wouldn't have human DNA.Actually, I met several of them. While discussing the Web they mentioned that there was a rogue Zetan posting under the name "markus3622". When I told them that he was here, they warned me to be very careful, because the Zetans can use the Net to transmit their Zeta rays through monitors, completely destroying the brains of the users and turning them into liberals.

Thanks to their warning, I am prepared.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/afdbheadx2.jpg" />

Do your worst, Zetan scum, for I am immune to your EEE-vill.

[DoctorDoom]

Sorry, folks. I can't take the kid seriously any longer.

[Suzie]

To my mind, there's a contradiction. You write that humans are different from animals, because they can reason, make rational decisions, etc. (This is what I consider "personhood", or "life" in the sense I'm talking about. You know when people say "get a life!", they mean get a life of a certain quality.

We know that fetuses cannot do this (especially before a certain point - say 20 weeks).




They can't do that until they have been BORN several months. By your standards they could be killed right up to the time they are able to look around even after they have been born. Even then they can't reason, or "make decisions" heck a lot of 2 and 3 year olds can't do that, are they candidates for acceptable abortion in your eyes? I have news for you, they can do pretty much the same things while in the womb that they can outside when they are newborn. And I have an ultrasound tape to prove it... at 14 Weeks!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

To my mind, there's a contradiction. You write that humans are different from animals, because they can reason, make rational decisions, etc. (This is what I consider "personhood", or "life" in the sense I'm talking about. You know when people say "get a life!", they mean get a life of a certain quality.

We know that fetuses cannot do this (especially before a certain point - say 20 weeks).

You say life has innate value, but you mean life that has human DNA, whereas I say life that is conscious. I therefore say life has innate value - it is you that says it doesn't. Because it needs God to give it value, so it isn't innate. I say the person living gives himself value, so that life does have innate value.

This really isn't all that hard, markus, LOL. IF man (whether himself, or another) is required to assess life value/worth, then life does NOT have an innate, inherent, intrinsic value. Something that is innate, inherent, and intrinsic, is part of its essence from the beginning, not something that is granted or given later on.

In truth (and I'm not even mentioning the G-word, :smirky: ), IF a HUMAN LIFE has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value/worth, ANOTHER human life cannot assess, assign, or negate that value/worth -- because THEY never granted, endowed, or ordained it in the first place. If you, as an athiest, agnostic (I'm sorry, I don't remember which you said you were, my apologies), you choose to believe that the innate, inherent, intrinsic value/worth of a HUMAN LIFE was granted, endowed, or ordained by nature, that STILL doesn't negate MY point -- from this position (through an athiest/agnostic view), man STILL cannot assess, assign, or negate that value/worth -- because THEY (mankind) never granted, endowed, or ordained it in the first place (hint: we're back to what inherent, intrinsic, innate mean -- exclusive to the essence requiring nor allowing any other assessment, assignment, or determination)

Let's say you met an alien, and you could discuss with it. Would it be a person? If it were peaceful, and you killed it, would it be wrong? It wouldn't have human DNA

Okay, I'm completely at a loss with this one, but I'll give it a try (pardon me as I do my best to work with your analogy by offering one of my own).

Have you ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation? Since I cannot have your answer right away, let me offer this, there is an episode where the "life" of an android was being determined:

"In 2365, cyberneticist Bruce Maddox obtained permission to have Data reassigned for study, wherein he would be deactivated, disassembled, and duplicated. Data refused, and sought and won a legal judgment declaring him a sentient life-form with the same rights as other Federation citizens. ("The Measure of a Man")" found here: Data (Star Trek) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(Star_Trek))

I would suggest you watch that episode, if you can find it playing on telly or can rent the DVD. There is much insight to be had (as is from MANY Star Trek episodes . . . . Yes, I am a Trekkie/Trekker!)

That's the best I can offer on this one -- shall we play another game? :grin:

[Suzie]

Sorry, folks. I can't take the kid seriously any longer.

He did just step in a big pile didnt he?

[DoctorDoom]

Tis time to send this to the Culture forum, inasmuch as it is no longer political. Who wants the honor?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Tis time to send this to the Culture forum, inasmuch as it is no longer political. Who wants the honor?


(In my best Horschack impersonation)

Ooooh, Ooooh, Ooohh

Me, please??

[Suzie]

I'll do it.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'll do it.

Nanny, nanny, boo-boo! :grin:

[CzechPrince]

Czech Prince - so when does personhood start? - it's not an easy question. Aquinas didn't think it began at conception - I think he said it appeared at around three months. John Locke didn't think it began until quite late. It's a tough philosophical question, but one that needs to be tackled

I don't argue morals when it comes to abortion. Everyone has different morals, we would be here all day. What I am arguing scientifcally you cannot answere: By what scientific alchemy does a fetus become human? You cannot answere it becasue it already is a human life.

John Locke and Thomas Aquinas lived hundreds of years ago, as opposed to today where we can see a lot clearer when human life starts.

[markus3622]

CP, I'm distinguishing personhood from being human. What distinguishes in your mind humans from animals?

[tacitus]

Originally Posted by markus3622
To my mind, there's a contradiction. You write that humans are different from animals, because they can reason, make rational decisions, etc. (This is what I consider "personhood", or "life" in the sense I'm talking about. You know when people say "get a life!", they mean get a life of a certain quality.

I know adults that can't make rational decisions or reason is it OK to kill them also? :rolleyes:

[2nd_Amendment]

The same can be said for fetuses - without the intervention of a mother, they won't be born - so it will never become a human being.

This is one of those bizarre bits of manipulative logic that makes people pull their hair out. A spermatazoa contains human genetic material. Without direct intervention of a specific sort it can never become a human being. The unborn contain all the genetic code necessary to develop, are thus human from conception, and require direct intervention to NOT be born.

Also, throwing in the random natural occurence of fertilization or development failure is a strawman argument with no bearing here.

[markus3622]

Homeschoolers, I'm not sure I understand your point about innate value of life. I say life does have an innate value, but it is not judged by someone else, but by the individual. I'm not sure how you are saying human life has innate value.

By the way, the alien thing was a thought experiment.

[markus3622]

Babies are conscious (even if they're not very smart) of the fact that they exist (after a certain point), in a way that animals aren't. That's why babies shouldn't be killed.

2A, my point was in direct response to a previous point about spermatazoa needing intervention to become fertilized and ultimately babies. On the natural termination, it doesn't affect me, because I don't believe that "life" has begun when they happen, but for someone who believes that life truly begins at conception, it does mean that these fetuses are losing their right to life.

[Suzie]

Babies are conscious (even if they're not very smart) of the fact that they exist (after a certain point), in a way that animals aren't. That's why babies shouldn't be killed.



Just as they are in the womb.

[Suzie]

Nanny, nanny, boo-boo! :grin:

:nana: :D

[markus3622]

Suzie, I agree with you perfectly, but where I disagree is the point at which that occurs. I don't believe that an embryo 1 week after conception is conscious - scientifically, it cannot be - but a six month fetus, definitely.

In your mind, do you see a difference between a 1 week embryo and a six month old fetus?

[markus3622]

:nana: :D

Hey, it was my bloody idea to put this thread here in the first place :grin:

[Suzie]

Well good to see we all made it here. :grin:

[Suzie]

Suzie, I agree with you perfectly, but where I disagree is the point at which that occurs. I don't believe that an embryo 1 week after conception is conscious - scientifically, it cannot be - but a six month fetus, definitely.

In your mind, do you see a difference between a 1 week embryo and a six month old fetus?

I had a ultrasound at one month with my daughter, because I had some problems. So tiny they had to use a internal scope, on the screen there as this tiny little flashing blip... her heartbeat. And it's still beating, because no one stopped it. She is a person, she has never been anything but a person or she wouldn't exist. Any time you see a child it's not just what they are at that moment, it's what they will become. That's why it's so unthinkable to harm a child because you take their future from them. We all start the same way, what we ARE never changes. But how we look does our appearence changes we learn to do more, things that we never had before begin to grow. As we become teenagers, adults elderly. We don't look the same at the moment of conception as we do when we are born, or when we are a child, or when we are adults on to become elderly. But our heart, that SAME heart keeps us alive thru all of those things. Unless someone or some thing stops that heart from beating, that's what they check for to see if you are alive. If the heartbeat is there then they know we are alive, and how we look or what we are able to do doesn't matter.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I don't believe that an embryo 1 week after conception is conscious - scientifically, it cannot be - but a six month fetus, definitely.

How do you know this, scientifically, it cannot be? Because we don't REMEMBER being conscious? No, no, no, you must keep in mind 200 years ago we didn't even KNOW for sure what was in the womb until it came out. Medicine is not an exact science -- nor is science and exact science, for that matter. Every day what was untrue yesterday, can be proven true today, and vice-versa! Remember when lives were saved just by the washing of the hands of the surgeon?? It took the supposition of one brave soul to say bacteria lies on the hands, and THAT might be harming patients.

But I digress, let me back up and get the point you made to me -- sorry for highjacking this response to Suzie, I just couldn't resist :laugh:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homeschoolers, I'm not sure I understand your point about innate value of life. I say life does have an innate value, but it is not judged by someone else, but by the individual. I'm not sure how you are saying human life has innate value.

Okay, okay, okay, we'll try again, :smirky: .

Let's start with the definitions of three referenced qualities:


<DIR>in•nate \i-"nÀt\ adj 1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual: native 2 : inherent, intrinsic



</DIR><DIR>in•her•ent \in-"hir-€nt, -"her-\ adj : established as an essential part of something : intrinsic



</DIR><DIR>in•trin•sic \in-"trin-zik, -sik\ adj : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing



</DIR>(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.


I will leave the Big Guy out of the equation, and we'll just say these three factors just ARE -- they are not assigned, assessed, endowed or ordained, they just ARE part of what a HUMAN LIFE is, in other words life has value because life has value, and requires no other affirmation.

SO, if HUMAN LIFE is composed of those three qualifying identifiers, and since NO ONE, not even MAN assigned, assessed, endowed, nor ordained HUMAN LIFE with them, then HE is ALSO not qualified to remove, revoke, negate, or terminate it.

You by your OWN admission say, it requires man (himself?) to assess value to life, therefore HE determines the innate, inherent, intrinsic value of life -- but that cannot be, as HE (himself, nor mankind) imbued HUMAN LIFE with those qualifying identifiers.

(See, I believe Someone has to assess, ordain, and endow those three qualifying identifiers too -- I think I told you his name already, though http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/grin.gif)

As I have said all along, it boils down to WHOM you believe is "qualified" in deciding the fate of an unborn child. Because if left up to man, there will ALWAYS be doubt, and IF we hold ANY value of (human :grin: ) life precious, certainly we would want to give that life the benefit of the doubt before doing irreparable harm, don't you think?

You would come much closer to the mark (of possibly swaying my opinion -- ahh, but not really, just joshin' ya http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon12.gif ) if you were arguing for the morning-after-pill rather than abortion, and I'll tell you why. By the time a woman even suspects she is pregnant, the embryo is way past the one cell stage. Then there is time that goes by in trying to determine if she IS pregnant (waiting long enough for the hormone to show up in urine to determine pregnancy). THEN, and I DO know this from personal experience, USUALLY a woman will go to a clinic to reaffirm her condition (another pregnancy test, possibly a blood test). They seldom, if EVER (I know of NO cases) perform an abortion on the spot -- there are appointments (at least 1, usually 2) involved. While ALL this time is flying by, that embryo is fast developing, and the majority of abortions performed are AFTER the heart begins to beat and brain waves detected. To me, that's LIFE, that's PERSONHOOD (too).


By the way, the alien thing was a thought experiment.

So I take it you are NOT a Trekkie? http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gif (Sorry, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon11.gif )

[Federal Farmer]

Bottom line: the logic, the political philosophy of Roe v. Wade are foreign to the American political ethos, to the U.S. Constitution, to the socio-political principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Make whatever indefensible argument you please, marcus; the fact remains, your logic is imported from Continental Europe. It's the stuff of Plato, Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx, the leftist creeps of the Warren Court and others. It is not the ideology of the Anglo-American political Enlightenment.

Agreed, but you left out the atheisistic existentialists, like Sartre, and their denial of a human nature. From this view, what is Man if he is not made “in the image of God?” Their answer is that Man is what he makes himself to be through choice and action to individually authenticate himself.

As Sartre wrote:

“Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence. Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.”

Radical feminists took this as one point of departure in defining a feminine essence separate from the “male-dominated traditional view of man.” If a man makes himself what he is, a woman must first remake herself through transcending or redefining what she is apart from this tradition which offered her only a model of acting like a man, or becoming an object, and alienated a woman from the “spontaneous manifestation” of her own existence. As Sartre’s female companion Simone de Beauvoir put it in The Second Sex, “The true problem for woman is to reject these flights from reality and seek fulfilment in transcendence. The thing to do, then, is to see what possibilities are opened up for her through what are called the virile and the feminine attitudes.”

It follows that from this perspective the term “pro-choice” used by abortion advocates is apt because it is but one of many choices made in seeking "fulfillment in transcendence" and becoming an individually authenticated woman.

[Federal Farmer]

CP, I'm distinguishing personhood from being human. What distinguishes in your mind humans from animals?

A chimpanzee cannot take part in an Internet discussion.

[2nd_Amendment]

2A, my point was in direct response to a previous point about spermatazoa needing intervention to become fertilized and ultimately babies. On the natural termination, it doesn't affect me, because I don't believe that "life" has begun when they happen, but for someone who believes that life truly begins at conception, it does mean that these fetuses are losing their right to life.

I know what your point was. That's why I commented. A spermatazoa is a totally different subject because the spernatazoa has no viablility. it takes a direct and specific act to give it viabilty. A "fetus", OTOH, has specific viability and only a specific act will stop that. Opposite scenerios. Not comparable or analogous.

Natural death, the failure of a "fetus" to thrive, whatever, are natural events. Just like death of an adult. Again, this is not analogous to abortion. Natural death is just that, natural, and we don't raise hell about it when adults die and are deprioved of THEIR right to life because this is the human condition, to die. That does not stop us from trying to prevent murder of an adult though, now does it. So why should the fact that a percentage of the unborn do not live(smaller percentage than adults, considering we adults have a 100% mortality rate) have a bearing on whether we try to prevent human intervention: Murder.

[Nutrider99]

Q. In an abortion, is a life ended?

Q. In an abortion, is that life ended by the mother, or a paid third party?

Q. In the US Constitution, is there ANY provision which allows for the contract killing of another human being?

Q. If there is no sanctioning of contract killing, doesn't that make such an act a felony, and, by extension, those who participate in it accomplices?

Q. Is it not morally wrong to conscript money from the taxpayers to fund the contract killing of Americans without due process of law?

Q. Is it not a contradiction of terms to call the contract killing of others "health care?"

Q. Can anyone think of any instance where taking a baby nearly out of a woman's body, stabbing it in the back of the head with scissors and sucking out its brain would be more beneficial to the health of the mother than removing the baby WITHOUT killing it?

Q. Can anyone justify the existence of an industry that kills 3,500 Americans per day for PROFIT?