Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

[Metsfanmax]

2.1 elaborated and reiterated. I have a few problems with your argument. Firstly, you are comparing fetuses with adult humans. So, when do you think an individual gains the right to life? When they are 21? 18? Or maybe they progressively get more of a right to life as they grow older. Or maybe they get more rights to life as they grow older, and then their rights start to level off and slope down? Like a roller coaster with the peak at 35? Or do they get it when they are born? I think most laws now limit it to a trimester. So one day after the 2/3s way point they are good, but one day before they aren't? Isn't this all relative and decided by the opinions of the masses? So one year you might have a right if you are 6 months, but another you can be killed at 3?

No. A human gains the right to life when it becomes a biologically independent organism from its mother, i.e. when it's born. This isn't an arbitrary definition and you know it, so stop making strawman arguments.

The question that you have again failed to answer is why the right to life of a fetus ought to be protected. What is the pragmatic reason that a fetus should be treated like a born human when it comes to murder laws? Do you even know?

"Easy way out -- so if a man and a woman both want their child to be aborted, isn't it OK then?"

No, I was just pointing out that having a baby means that both parties assume responsibility, not just one, regardless of the situation.

And in doing so, failed to respond to the actual point. OK, so both parties assume responsibility. That means both parties are forced into involuntary servitude for the duration, so the Thirteenth Amendment rights of both the father and mother are violated.

[The Fire Knight]

"No. A human gains the right to life when it becomes a biologically independent organism from its mother, i.e. when it's born. This isn't an arbitrary definition and you know it, so stop making strawman arguments."

3 questions:

So according to you, abortion laws should be relaxed to be up to birth, correct?
How is the right to life at birth less arbitrary than conception?
So, according to you, the difference between life and death can be one day, the day before birth?

"And in doing so, failed to respond to the actual point. OK, so both parties assume responsibility. That means both parties are forced into involuntary servitude for the duration, so the Thirteenth Amendment rights of both the father and mother are violated."

So, according to you, the way to combat "involuntary servitude" is murder. Kind of like fighting evil with evil. Interesting.

[Metsfanmax]

So according to you, abortion laws should be relaxed to be up to birth, correct?

That is my opinion, yes.

How is the right to life at birth less arbitrary than conception?

They're equally arbitrary. That's the point I've been making. The way that you resolve such arbitrary debates is to look at the pragmatic implications of choosing one of the arbitrary definitions over the others, which you have so far failed to do (or at least, failed to explain your reasoning).

So, according to you, the difference between life and death can be one day, the day before birth?

Yes. The difference between life and death can always be classified as being different by one day, if you choose to categorize this way.

So, according to you, the way to combat "involuntary servitude" is murder. Kind of like fighting evil with evil. Interesting.

Welcome to ethics 101. In real life we always have to evaluate conflicting rights claims and side with one right or the other depending on the situation.

[The Fire Knight]

"They're equally arbitrary. That's the point I've been making. The way that you resolve such arbitrary debates is to look at the pragmatic implications of choosing one of the arbitrary definitions over the others, which you have so far failed to do (or at least, failed to explain your reasoning)."

"Yes. The difference between life and death can always be classified as being different by one day, if you choose to categorize this way."

Ah. Well I do not think they are equally arbitrary, nor do I believe that the difference between life and death is one day. The difference between life and death is events, not days. You die b/c someone shot you, not b/c you turned 45 and 59 days old. Also, if you look at the two events compared to each other (birth and conception), you can also make a sexist argument against birth. Two people make a baby, not one. If birth is the event that causes a baby to be made, then only the woman is responsible for it. But if conception is the event, then both are responsible.

[The Fire Knight]

Also, before I go to bed... here are some quotes... interesting discussions probably. And I would like to hear your response to my Declaration parallels. I haven't dodged you, don't dodge me.

Mother Teresa

"The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."

Pope John Paul II:

"America. . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life."

President Ronald Reagan in 1982:

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Susan B. Anthony (1889)

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

There is nothing different between a baby and a baby one day before it is born. There is a difference between a fetus and your sperm. Birth is arbitrary, conception is controlled.

[Metsfanmax]

Also, before I go to bed... here are some quotes... interesting discussions probably. And I would like to hear your response to my Declaration parallels. I haven't dodged you, don't dodge me.

You have "dodged" me multiple times. I am no longer interested in this debate. Good night.

[BigBallinStalin]

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state & protection under law - regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.

Since a fetus is to them a human being, and if all human beings are ensured equal rights, then the mother and the fetus have the equal right to life.

So... if the upcoming birth of a mother would kill her, and if the fetus and the mother have the equal right to life, then how do they decide who's right to life should be protected?

They just say, "abortion will be outlawed," but that means that all human beings are not ensured equal rights. They arbitrarily chose to trump the mother's right to life with the fetus's right to life. And what about the woman's right to self-defense? She can't protect her life by aborting the fetus, so there's another failure to ensure equal rights.

[The Fire Knight]

Also, before I go to bed... here are some quotes... interesting discussions probably. And I would like to hear your response to my Declaration parallels. I haven't dodged you, don't dodge me.

You have "dodged" me multiple times. I am no longer interested in this debate. Good night.

Lol. nice one. I see what you did there. As you dodge both of my last posts, you accuse me of dodging your own. Never mind that you don't list them. Good night.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, before I go to bed... here are some quotes... interesting discussions probably. And I would like to hear your response to my Declaration parallels. I haven't dodged you, don't dodge me.

Mother Teresa

"The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."

Pope John Paul II:

"America. . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life."

President Ronald Reagan in 1982:

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Susan B. Anthony (1889)

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

There is nothing different between a baby and a baby one day before it is born. There is a difference between a fetus and your sperm. Birth is arbitrary, conception is controlled.

Appeal to authority.

You lose.

[The Fire Knight]

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state & protection under law - regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.

Since a fetus is to them a human being, and if all human beings are ensured equal rights, then the mother and the fetus have the equal right to life.

So... if the upcoming birth of a mother would kill her, and if the fetus and the mother have the equal right to life, then how do they decide who's right to life should be protected?

They just say, "abortion will be outlawed," but that means that all human beings are not ensured equal rights. They arbitrarily chose to trump the mother's right to life with the fetus's right to life. And what about the woman's right to self-defense? She can't protect her life by aborting the fetus, so there's another failure to ensure equal rights.

An interesting point. This is just tragic all around. I would think that whatever the family decides should be allowed.

As to appealing to authority, I was just quoting others opinions for discussion with the hope that they might help my argument. Not b/c their opinions weigh more than any of ours.

[BigBallinStalin]

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state & protection under law - regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.

Since a fetus is to them a human being, and if all human beings are ensured equal rights, then the mother and the fetus have the equal right to life.

So... if the upcoming birth of a mother would kill her, and if the fetus and the mother have the equal right to life, then how do they decide who's right to life should be protected?

They just say, "abortion will be outlawed," but that means that all human beings are not ensured equal rights. They arbitrarily chose to trump the mother's right to life with the fetus's right to life. And what about the woman's right to self-defense? She can't protect her life by aborting the fetus, so there's another failure to ensure equal rights.

An interesting point. This is just tragic all around. I would think that whatever the family decides should be allowed.

Unfortunately, the right to decide would not be respected because abortion would be outlawed. The state and the supporters of this amendment would be responsible for the deaths of all mothers in my above scenario.

[Symmetry]

Also, before I go to bed... here are some quotes... interesting discussions probably. And I would like to hear your response to my Declaration parallels. I haven't dodged you, don't dodge me.

Mother Teresa

"The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."

Oh my, Mother Theresa, might not want to watch Chris Hitchens on that particular model of compassion- Hell's Angel

Pope John Paul II:

"America. . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life."

Nah- you're trolling with the Pope who oversaw most of the big Catholic abuse scandals of the 20th century. We'll put this one down to wishful thinking. Shame so many of his victims became suicides.

President Ronald Reagan in 1982:

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Ah, Ronald Reagan, a figure of worship among some in the US, but alas, kind of a dickhead everywhere else that he laid his grubby little fingers.

Susan B. Anthony (1889)

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

No idea on this one- I don't know enough about her to comment, and searching the quote just comes up with anti-abortion sites for the mo. I'll look in to this one, and you can maybe check on MoT.

There is nothing different between a baby and a baby one day before it is born.

Kind of there is though, isn't there? And you nailed part of it down pretty thoroughly with the difference you gave. Of course, you meant something else, which you did not write, but I can maybe take some guesses at so that you can tell me that I'm wrong later on. Obviously the key difference is the act of birth, which may kill the mother in complicated cases. Of course, as you define abortion as murder, even in cases where the baby would not survive the birth process- ectopic pregnancies for example, the difference would be that the baby would be dead. Also, fairly likely, the mother.

Small price, of course, for avoiding murder.

There is a difference between a fetus and your sperm. Birth is arbitrary, conception is controlled.

And this is the point where you're clearly trolling supporters of abortion. I'm no fan of the extremists who toss around "Abortion is murder" arguments like they're confetti at a shotgun wedding, but I'm also not a huge fan of proponents of abortion who lean too heavily on the rape argument. In this case, however, where you say that conception is controlled, I make an exception and call BS. How does a rape victim control conceiving from their attacker?

[The Fire Knight]

Oh my, Mother Theresa, might not want to watch Chris Hitchens on that particular model of compassion- Hell's Angel

I watched it. That is horrible.

Nah- you're trolling with the Pope who oversaw most of the big Catholic abuse scandals of the 20th century. We'll put this one down to wishful thinking. Shame so many of his victims became suicides.

Lol. The idea of a pope is ridiculous, and many popes are too. I'm not knowledgeable on the scandals, but I still agree with what he said. Same with Reagan.

Of course, as you define abortion as murder, even in cases where the baby would not survive the birth process- ectopic pregnancies for example, the difference would be that the baby would be dead. Also, fairly likely, the mother.

Small price, of course, for avoiding murder.

I wouldn't support something that irrational. If one possibility means the baby and the mother dies, and the other only has the baby die, the choice is obvious.

And this is the point where you're clearly trolling supporters of abortion. I'm no fan of the extremists who toss around "Abortion is murder" arguments like they're confetti at a shotgun wedding, but I'm also not a huge fan of proponents of abortion who lean too heavily on the rape argument. In this case, however, where you say that conception is controlled, I make an exception and call BS. How does a rape victim control conceiving from their attacker?

When I say conception is controlled, I know it's not always controlled by the mother. But is still triggered/controlled by human actions, which makes it different than birth. As to rape, that is terrible. But I believe that abortion only makes this worse.

[Symmetry]

Oh my, Mother Theresa, might not want to watch Chris Hitchens on that particular model of compassion- Hell's Angel

I watched it. That is horrible.

Nah- you're trolling with the Pope who oversaw most of the big Catholic abuse scandals of the 20th century. We'll put this one down to wishful thinking. Shame so many of his victims became suicides.

Lol. The idea of a pope is ridiculous, and many popes are too. I'm not knowledgeable on the scandals, but I still agree with what he said. Same with Reagan.

Of course, as you define abortion as murder, even in cases where the baby would not survive the birth process- ectopic pregnancies for example, the difference would be that the baby would be dead. Also, fairly likely, the mother.

Small price, of course, for avoiding murder.

I wouldn't support something that irrational. If one possibility means the baby and the mother dies, and the other only has the baby die, the choice is obvious.

And this is the point where you're clearly trolling supporters of abortion. I'm no fan of the extremists who toss around "Abortion is murder" arguments like they're confetti at a shotgun wedding, but I'm also not a huge fan of proponents of abortion who lean too heavily on the rape argument. In this case, however, where you say that conception is controlled, I make an exception and call BS. How does a rape victim control conceiving from their attacker?

When I say conception is controlled, I know it's not always controlled by the mother. But is still triggered/controlled by human actions, which makes it different than birth. As to rape, that is terrible. But I believe that abortion only makes this worse.

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.

[PLAYER57832]

President Ronald Reagan in 1982:

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Ronald Reagan was NOT opposed to legal abortions. He did not like abortion, personally, etc. However, knew that making it illegal would cause far more harm than it would help. The answer was elsewhere.

Susan B. Anthony (1889)

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

This is not talking about abortion, but of safe medical procedures. In fact, one of the main reasons FOR legalizing safe abortions and birth control is to protect future children. At this time, few women had any even legal right to decide much about their own bodies. She was advocating that women get some control, get safe medical care for births and other procedures.

Also, abortion then and abortion now were not the same. Back then it was a dangerous procedure in often unsafe conditions, as were most medical procedures. That is not the case now. Nowadays doctors do wash their hands before delivering babies, just as an example.

There is nothing different between a baby and a baby one day before it is born.

Which is why abortion is NOT allowed then, unless you consider something like an emergency C-section where the outcome is bad to be an "abortion".

In fact, abortion is legal within the first 3 months, when roughly 50% of the children die if left to fully natural means. In fact a lot of those "abortions" ARE miscarriages. (there is not distinction between life and death, only the procedure type). Beyond that, there have to be serious reasons. I am not going to say I agree with all the reasons, but those are things that can be dealt with elsewhere, in other ways.

[DoomYoshi]

President Ronald Reagan in 1982:

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of

Up until this point, I was really engaged in reading the arguments. However, only trolls would ever quote Ronald Reagan. This thread should be locked.

[isaiah40]

So as some are saying, that while the fetus is in the mothers womb, it does not have a heartbeat, have fingers and toes, eyes, a head, arms, legs, kicks the mother at times, moves around on its own, plays tag with the mother or father when they put their hands on the stomach. So in essence you are saying that the fetus as natty so put it "a parasite". If that is true then the woman is not pregnant - definition: having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.

So therefore, if a woman is not carrying a child(ren), then she cannot be pregnant, therefore there can be no abortion.

[BigBallinStalin]

So as some are saying, that while the fetus is in the mothers womb, it does not have a heartbeat, have fingers and toes, eyes, a head, arms, legs, kicks the mother at times, moves around on its own, plays tag with the mother or father when they put their hands on the stomach. So in essence you are saying that the fetus as natty so put it "a parasite". If that is true then the woman is not pregnant - definition: having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.

So therefore, if a woman is not carrying a child(ren), then she cannot be pregnant, therefore there can be no abortion.

lrn2language

[natty dread]

I was talking about embryos, not fetuses.

[Army of GOD]

If Ronald Reagan is against abortion, then I have no right to be for it.

[strike wolf]

This semantic argument misses the real point. If I start a religious sect and get enough people to agree that a pony is, by definition, a human, can I make it illegal to kill a pony because it is murder?

Can my sect also stall hundreds of years of scientific and cultural progress because we're not very open minded?

That is flawed through the premise that a pony lacks the genetic material to be considered a human in a bilogical sense. A fetus does not.

[natty dread]

This semantic argument misses the real point. If I start a religious sect and get enough people to agree that a pony is, by definition, a human, can I make it illegal to kill a pony because it is murder?

Can my sect also stall hundreds of years of scientific and cultural progress because we're not very open minded?

That is flawed through the premise that a pony lacks the genetic material to be considered a human in a bilogical sense. A fetus does not.

Anal warts also contain the genetic material that can be considered human in a biological sense.

[Juan_Bottom]

so what's the difference between a "religious sect" and a section of the population who happens to believe a certain thing?

In Mississippi it's the same thing.

I find that a lot of Pro-choice people keep trying to turn this into a religious argument. But I think that you are actually missing the real point. The real point here is that, according to science, which is the universal and objective way to decide things, fetuses (similar to ponies, but I think they differ slightly according to the sizes of their left eyebrows) actually are humans.

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?

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.

It's written into the Constitution that you cannot do that.

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state & protection under law - regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.

Since a fetus is to them a human being, and if all human beings are ensured equal rights, then the mother and the fetus have the equal right to life.

This is the heart of the problem. Their reasoning behind the law is a religious one, and as such, they avoid all definitions except "Human Being." It makes Mississippians look like religious dumbasses. At what point of conception/pregnancy does a cell actually become a Human Being? That's what we should know. And if they used any form of science to decide, I would be willing to support the bill.
Furthermore, and more disturbingly, the writers of the law promise that it will not be used to outlaw contraceptives or to stop in vetro-fertilization. But both would be illegal based on the language of the law. These ignorami are completely ignoring the fact that doctors "abort" lots of potential babies during the in vetro process. Even more spontaneously abort themselves.
Oh, and they think that avoiding definitions is how they will outsmart the supreme court. Cha, yeah right.

Appeal to authority.

You lose.

Though not in this context obviously, the appeal to authority is a legitimate move. For example, what do I know about molecular biology?

[BigBallinStalin]

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")

[john9blue]

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

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