john9blue wrote:so i've got a question for the pro-choicers in here. at what point does an fetus become a human, and why? or is it never human, even 9 months after conception?
edit: i missed bbs' post
BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's another question for pro-lifers:
If the fetus is a human being, and this continuity of life can't be distinguished (i.e. fetus = human at all stages of development), then isn't that similar to saying that an acorn is an oak tree?*
(Using Jarvis Thomson's analogy in "A Defense of Abortion")
assuming the acorn and the oak tree are the same species, then they are simply two names used for the same organism at different stages of development.
it's like comparing a toddler with an adult. they aren't the same thing, they simply refer to the same species/specimen
john9blue wrote:so i've got a question for the pro-choicers in here. at what point does an fetus become a human, and why? or is it never human, even 9 months after conception?
edit: i missed bbs' post
BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's another question for pro-lifers:
If the fetus is a human being, and this continuity of life can't be distinguished (i.e. fetus = human at all stages of development), then isn't that similar to saying that an acorn is an oak tree?*
(Using Jarvis Thomson's analogy in "A Defense of Abortion")
assuming the acorn and the oak tree are the same species, then they are simply two names used for the same organism at different stages of development.
it's like comparing a toddler with an adult. they aren't the same thing, they simply refer to the same species/specimen
Just like zygote and corpse.
corpses aren't organisms. nice try though
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Thanks for stepping back a little. I genuinely believe that there's a decent amount of middle ground for discussion of abortion without accusing one side of supporting murder, or the other side immediately pleading rape and incest cases. I hope, at least, that some of this will stick and you might consider rephrasing some of your rhetoric from the absolutes.
Of course, I disagree with the abortion only makes it worse part at the end of your response, but I suspect that you're arguing from a fairly general moral standpoint, whereas I'm thinking more in terms of what's worse for the victim, sympathetically. It's one of the extreme cases, but it's difficult not to go pro-choice on it.
Me and you are obviously not on the same page here. If by stepping back a little you mean that we agree on choosing baby dies over mother and baby dies then yes we do agree. But I don't think you see where I am coming from when you say "without accusing one side of supporting murder..." and "rephrasing some of your rhetoric."
So, trying to get us on the same page here... think about it this way. Imagine that you know/believe that embryos are human and alive, and that you believe that this is murder and on top of all of the moral reasons against murder, it goes against the foundation of your country (American Declaration). Wouldn't you use heated rhetoric? Wouldn't you believe that it was your duty to stop the mass genocide from occurring? Wouldn't you think that it was your duty to speak out and defend the defenseless? I mean, you obviously don't actually believe that pro-life people really think that babies are being murdered if you don't understand their heated rhetoric. You are arguing against someone who thinks that abortion is murder, yet apparently I can't say that? That seems a bit unfair. I could argue that not calling it murder offends me (which it does, but this is an argument so everything goes).
Also, when you said "absolutes", you are either alive and therefore deserve life or aren't. So if that is an absolute, then do you disagree with that? Are you wanting to go for a progressive argument to life? that 3 year olds have less of a right to life than 17 year olds? I will assume not, but let me know...
So the whole argument that we are having seems to rest on whether or not life begins at conception or birth. I will just focus on these two now b/c it seems that we are all in agreement that you do not become progressively more alive as you grow older (although we can come back to that if you want).
Life (as defined by Dictionary.com) is - the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
These traits are not visible in sperm. Nor are they visible in eggs. They are however visible after conception in embryos and fetuses, who both metabolize (grow) and adapt to their environment. So at conception you have a living human being. This is a fact.
So then the only question becomes, and I believe Metsfanmax put it well: Why is it actually wrong to kill a fetus? From whence he then goes on to talk about how abortion should be legal until birth... one day before. So... to answer his question of why it is wrong, it is b/c it diminishes our right to life. It is the wedge that has been inserted into the right to life, that can and will be (unless we stop it here and now) used to take away everyones right to life. Right now only the most defenseless and powerless have lost this right, but this is just a foreshadowing to when only the most powerful have the right to life.
So the question then becomes which is arbitrary/more arbitrary? Birth is an arbitrary date... the only difference between an unborn fetus and a born "baby" is that one is 99% dependent, while the other is 95% dependent. The crux of Metsfanmax's whole argument for abortion is the fact of dependency. According to this logic, why should babies have the right to life? It's involuntary servitude of the parents, right? I mean, if dad looses job and baby is too expensive, why is it wrong to kill the baby? How dare that dumb baby be dependent on its parents! How wrong!
But what makes this argument really horrifying is that we should be saying that precisely b/c the fetus and embryos are almost completely dependent, this stage in life requires the most care. But this pro-choice argument says that b/c they are dependent, "parasitic", they are disposable. I mean really? Parasitic? The embryos and fetuses did no harm and came into being through no fault of their own. Their parents created them. It seems silly that you would create something just to destroy it. But you know why this whole abortion issue is even being debated? B/c none of the aborted babies get a say. None of us were ever aborted.
To Juan_Bottom:
Since you're the only one defending Mississippi and anti-abortion laws;
When exactly, to you, is a group of cells a fetus? Is it when the cells develop nerve clusters, or when it develops fingernails? Or?
As to defending the Mississippi law, I haven't really looked into the law, and it is entirely possible that many things are wrong in it that I would disagree with. The main thing that I like about it is the fact that I want to challenge Roe vs. Wade. And according to Wikipedia, embryos are classified as fetuses after like 8-10 weeks.
To BigBallinStalin:
Interesting analogy. I would think to adequately compare the acorn/tree to an embryo/human the acorn would have to be planted in a fertile environment. Otherwise the acorn is kind of (although not really) the same as sperm in that it will not grow.
The Fire Knight wrote:
So the question then becomes which is arbitrary/more arbitrary? Birth is an arbitrary date... the only difference between an unborn fetus and a born "baby" is that one is 99% dependent, while the other is 95% dependent. The crux of Metsfanmax's whole argument for abortion is the fact of dependency. According to this logic, why should babies have the right to life? It's involuntary servitude of the parents, right? I mean, if dad looses job and baby is too expensive, why is it wrong to kill the baby? How dare that dumb baby be dependent on its parents! How wrong!
I don't think that you really understand why humans deserve the right to life at all. Until you do, your arguments will be bankrupt of ethical understanding.
john9blue wrote:so i've got a question for the pro-choicers in here. at what point does an fetus become a human, and why? or is it never human, even 9 months after conception?
edit: i missed bbs' post
BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's another question for pro-lifers:
If the fetus is a human being, and this continuity of life can't be distinguished (i.e. fetus = human at all stages of development), then isn't that similar to saying that an acorn is an oak tree?*
(Using Jarvis Thomson's analogy in "A Defense of Abortion")
assuming the acorn and the oak tree are the same species, then they are simply two names used for the same organism at different stages of development.
it's like comparing a toddler with an adult. they aren't the same thing, they simply refer to the same species/specimen
john9blue wrote:so i've got a question for the pro-choicers in here. at what point does an fetus become a human, and why? or is it never human, even 9 months after conception?
edit: i missed bbs' post
BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's another question for pro-lifers:
If the fetus is a human being, and this continuity of life can't be distinguished (i.e. fetus = human at all stages of development), then isn't that similar to saying that an acorn is an oak tree?*
(Using Jarvis Thomson's analogy in "A Defense of Abortion")
assuming the acorn and the oak tree are the same species, then they are simply two names used for the same organism at different stages of development.
it's like comparing a toddler with an adult. they aren't the same thing, they simply refer to the same species/specimen
Just like zygote and corpse.
corpses aren't organisms. nice try though
why discriminate against dead organisms?
organisms are alive by definition
"dead organism" is like "married bachelor"
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Symmetry wrote:I'm always kind of interested in the anti-abortion argument that abortion IS murder. I know this is kind of one that most anti-abortionists drank in kool-aid form a long time ago, and has been absorbed so thoroughly they can barely argue without it, but it's a fairly ridiculous point.
Let's say, for example, tomorrow that defintion is accepted on a nationwide level in the US and the roughly 50 million abortions that have occurred since 1973 are now all legally classed as murders. What then?
You might think that the anti-abortion crowd would have the courage to back up their rhetoric, but usually they seem somewhat reluctant to throw tens of millions of women in prison for murder, let alone those who aided and abetted the murders. Usually you get some mumbling about not wanting to make it retroactive if introduced into law, or some kind of bs along those lines, as if they're not calling these women murderers now.
"Murderers!" they shout, "oh, but I don't think they should be treated as murderers, maybe some other women in the future. For the moment we just want to call them murderers."
It's honestly as if they can't oppose abortion without a level of demonisation that they consistently fail to back up.
Ex post facto laws are still unconstitutional, so it's impossible to punish abortions done prior to the passage and effective date of such a law. Therefore, your entire argument is unfounded.
Symmetry wrote:I'm always kind of interested in the anti-abortion argument that abortion IS murder. I know this is kind of one that most anti-abortionists drank in kool-aid form a long time ago, and has been absorbed so thoroughly they can barely argue without it, but it's a fairly ridiculous point.
Let's say, for example, tomorrow that defintion is accepted on a nationwide level in the US and the roughly 50 million abortions that have occurred since 1973 are now all legally classed as murders. What then?
You might think that the anti-abortion crowd would have the courage to back up their rhetoric, but usually they seem somewhat reluctant to throw tens of millions of women in prison for murder, let alone those who aided and abetted the murders. Usually you get some mumbling about not wanting to make it retroactive if introduced into law, or some kind of bs along those lines, as if they're not calling these women murderers now.
"Murderers!" they shout, "oh, but I don't think they should be treated as murderers, maybe some other women in the future. For the moment we just want to call them murderers."
It's honestly as if they can't oppose abortion without a level of demonisation that they consistently fail to back up.
Ex post facto laws are still unconstitutional, so it's impossible to punish abortions done prior to the passage and effective date of such a law. Therefore, your entire argument is unfounded.
It is incredibly gratifying to see the same response made multiple times to the same post. Really, I'm learning a lot.
The Fire Knight wrote:
So the question then becomes which is arbitrary/more arbitrary? Birth is an arbitrary date... the only difference between an unborn fetus and a born "baby" is that one is 99% dependent, while the other is 95% dependent. The crux of Metsfanmax's whole argument for abortion is the fact of dependency. According to this logic, why should babies have the right to life? It's involuntary servitude of the parents, right? I mean, if dad looses job and baby is too expensive, why is it wrong to kill the baby? How dare that dumb baby be dependent on its parents! How wrong!
I don't think that you really understand why humans deserve the right to life at all. Until you do, your arguments will be bankrupt of ethical understanding.
How sad... you have devolved from arguing with my points to personal attacks. I could do that too and create you to be someone who you may or may not be, but I'm not going to.
In response to your comment though, first off I don't think that it relates, b/c I was assuming that we both knew that humans deserved the right to life, and both knew why. Perhaps you could enlighten me with why humans deserve the right to life? It would be nice for you to participate and answer, although perhaps I don't deserve to be enlightened by your glorious wisdom.
However, I will indulge your tangent, and give a few obvious reasons why humans deserve the right to life.
1. In America, humans deserve the right to life b/c "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 Declaration of Independence (Haven't seen this one before)
2. Murder is against U.S. law
3. If you don't really care about what our current government's philosophy and laws are, then we can go moral too. Taking another's life is stealing something from them, and stealing is wrong.
4. Religious stuff. If you don't know, or you care, then I can elaborate, but I wasn't actually looking to turn this into a religious argument. I didn't think I had to to make people realize that murder is wrong and life is good.
also, just googleling and came across this. Some great stuff. If anyone reads then feel free to discuss it with me.
john9blue wrote:at what point does an fetus become a human
ARGUMENT OF THE BEARD
it's not a fallacy if i'm just asking a question.
Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Ex post facto laws are still unconstitutional, so it's impossible to punish abortions done prior to the passage and effective date of such a law. Therefore, your entire argument is unfounded.
It is incredibly gratifying to see the same response made multiple times to the same post. Really, I'm learning a lot.
you mean, like my response a month ago in another thread where symmetry made the same argument?
Symmetry wrote:I'm always kind of interested in the anti-abortion argument that abortion IS murder. I know this is kind of one that most anti-abortionists drank in kool-aid form a long time ago, and has been absorbed so thoroughly they can barely argue without it, but it's a fairly ridiculous point.
Let's say, for example, tomorrow that defintion is accepted on a nationwide level in the US and the roughly 50 million abortions that have occurred since 1973 are now all legally classed as murders. What then?
You might think that the anti-abortion crowd would have the courage to back up their rhetoric, but usually they seem somewhat reluctant to throw tens of millions of women in prison for murder, let alone those who aided and abetted the murders. Usually you get some mumbling about not wanting to make it retroactive if introduced into law, or some kind of bs along those lines, as if they're not calling these women murderers now.
"Murderers!" they shout, "oh, but I don't think they should be treated as murderers, maybe some other women in the future. For the moment we just want to call them murderers."
It's honestly as if they can't oppose abortion without a level of demonisation that they consistently fail to back up.
Ex post facto laws are still unconstitutional, so it's impossible to punish abortions done prior to the passage and effective date of such a law. Therefore, your entire argument is unfounded.
It is incredibly gratifying to see the same response made multiple times to the same post. Really, I'm learning a lot.
The Fire Knight wrote:
In response to your comment though, first off I don't think that it relates, b/c I was assuming that we both knew that humans deserved the right to life, and both knew why. Perhaps you could enlighten me with why humans deserve the right to life? It would be nice for you to participate and answer, although perhaps I don't deserve to be enlightened by your glorious wisdom.
It is not about me. You have taken it for granted that "humans" deserve the right to life. Why is this? Are you just going to continue to assume it, or can you actually make an argument? Note: the following list of things are not reasons why murder ought to be considered immoral. The only one that comes close is "stealing stuff is wrong," which is again another argument made without any reasoning whatsoever. The rest are (questionably) relevant facts about things. I do not ask you to do this because I think it is an interesting discussion. I ask you to do this because you continually fail to provide any reasoning for why abortion should be considered immoral (as of yet your only argument is still the tautological one that killing a fetus is murder), so at least we can start somewhere.
Another way of saying this is that if the current law stated that murder is defined as the killing of an innocent human being that has been born already, you would literally be forced to be pro-choice. That's how poor your argument is.
1. In America, humans deserve the right to life b/c "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 Declaration of Independence (Haven't seen this one before)
2. Murder is against U.S. law
3. If you don't really care about what our current government's philosophy and laws are, then we can go moral too. Taking another's life is stealing something from them, and stealing is wrong.
4. Religious stuff. If you don't know, or you care, then I can elaborate, but I wasn't actually looking to turn this into a religious argument. I didn't think I had to to make people realize that murder is wrong and life is good.
also, just googleling and came across this. Some great stuff. If anyone reads then feel free to discuss it with me.
i thought this thread was about legality and not morality?
murder is illegal just about everywhere. if the state views abortion as murder, then it will become illegal.
whether it's ethical to murder a human/fetus is a whole different discussion. the fact of the matter is that it's illegal, and all that a pro-lifer has to do is show that abortion is murder (usually by showing that a fetus is a human with the right to life) in order to rationally support the outlawing of abortion.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:i thought this thread was about legality and not morality?
murder is illegal just about everywhere. if the state views abortion as murder, then it will become illegal.
whether it's ethical to murder a human/fetus is a whole different discussion. the fact of the matter is that it's illegal, and all that a pro-lifer has to do is show that abortion is murder (usually by showing that a fetus is a human with the right to life) in order to rationally support the outlawing of abortion.
Ethics informs the law. We can't just make abortion illegal by fiat, as if changing a definition in a law automatically reflects in our morals. It's the other way around. There needs to be a consensus that killing an embyro is immoral before the law can justifiably be changed.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
why discriminate against dead organisms?
organisms are alive by definition
"dead organism" is like "married bachelor"
=P
But moving to the point. You said that a fetus and an adult human being are the same organisms. How is a fetus at the moment of conception the exact same organism as a human adult?
All right. Here is another stab at it... why murder is wrong:
1. It is murder
---yes, I just did that. Argued that murder is wrong by saying that murder is wrong. But I felt it needed to be said again.
2. It is against the law to kill someone. This doesn't seem to be a moral argument at first, but when you think about it, you are putting yourself above the law when you murder, and in essence acting out the belief that you are better than everyone else who follows the law.
3. It is stealing. You can not return another's life. It belongs to someone else. And you take it w/o any right (b/c their life does not belong to you).
4. If all human beings are equal, then taking someone's life says that you are better than them.
5. love your neighbor as yourself. If you would not want to be murdered, then do not murder.
6. Murder does not only hurt who you murdered, but causes hurt for those who cared about them. This can also be considered immoral
BigBallinStalin wrote:
why discriminate against dead organisms?
organisms are alive by definition
"dead organism" is like "married bachelor"
=P
But moving to the point. You said that a fetus and an adult human being are the same organisms. How is a fetus at the moment of conception the exact same organism as a human adult?
it's the same being... unless you want to argue that an adult has many more features than the fetus, or is much larger, etc. in which case you have to argue the same for a child.
nevertheless, fetuses contain unique genetic material. if the meaning of living is to propagate your genes, and you deny the fetus a chance to mature and propagate its genes, then i view that as a crime against nature.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
In this thread I see a whole lot of men debating about whether or not a woman has the right to control her own body - -
Stop with the moral semantics - Abortion is not ideal, but people arguing about 'crimes against nature' completely ignore the fact that our entire civilisation ROUTINELY commits crime against nature.
The word 'natural' is so loaded that it now no longer means anything.
There is a simple solution for those who are against abortion - Don't have any-
In the mean time, let the women of the world have the ability to dictate what happens to their own bodies --
Basically - Men have practically no say in whether or not a woman chooses to have an abortion - They are not the ones who have to end up squeezing an 8 pound baby through a tiny hole - -
snakepain wrote:In this thread I see a whole lot of men debating about whether or not a woman has the right to control her own body - -
Stop with the moral semantics - Abortion is not ideal, but people arguing about 'crimes against nature' completely ignore the fact that our entire civilisation ROUTINELY commits crime against nature.
The word 'natural' is so loaded that it now no longer means anything.
There is a simple solution for those who are against abortion - Don't have any-
In the mean time, let the women of the world have the ability to dictate what happens to their own bodies --
Basically - Men have practically no say in whether or not a woman chooses to have an abortion - They are not the ones who have to end up squeezing an 8 pound baby through a tiny hole - -
BigBallinStalin wrote:
why discriminate against dead organisms?
organisms are alive by definition
"dead organism" is like "married bachelor"
=P
But moving to the point. You said that a fetus and an adult human being are the same organisms. How is a fetus at the moment of conception the exact same organism as a human adult?
it's the same being... unless you want to argue that an adult has many more features than the fetus, or is much larger, etc. in which case you have to argue the same for a child.
nevertheless, fetuses contain unique genetic material. if the meaning of living is to propagate your genes, and you deny the fetus a chance to mature and propagate its genes, then i view that as a crime against nature.
So wait if a woman rejects your advances, she suddenly has committed a crime against nature?
If I ask you to donate sperm to a sperm bank and you refuse, denying the chance to propagate your genes, is that suddenly a crime?
Is wearing a condom, having a vasectomy, or the woman takes the morning after pill suddenly denying the the fetuses the possibility to mature and propagate its genes?
What a bunch of loaded rubbish, you don't have the duty to propagate your genes, it's very much a choice.
A fetus is not a person, it's merely the possibility of a human, one that's at the early stages not even guaranteed.
Anyway thanks for clearly pointing out the roots o the anti-abortion movement: in general the movement to try and stop methods of contraception. One that may be very pertinent on religious grounds, they need their members, but doesn't have reasonable moral grounds. Denying the woman the ability to perform abortions will only drive this practise underground and endanger more women, and traumatise them further.
Methinks someone should keep to remaining "neutral" (read: snarkily criticising left wingers at every position)
Metsfanmax wrote:I didn't see this information in the articles I read -- would the law make it illegal for a Mississippi citizen to travel to another state for an abortion?
States don't have the right to make laws for other states just as the USA doesn't have the right to make laws for other countries even though GWB took that undue power when he signed a law that enforced an age of consent beyond American borders for Americans. My guess would be that the law would not apply to other states as that would be very easy to overturn.
