When Does Life Begin?

JPB wrote:

Have you read the entire R v W decision? The woman's right to self determine an abortion is clearly covered under the 14th Amendment. The interests of the State can supersede that right under certain circumstance (including gestational age).

So, it's not spelled out in the Constitution as you ask for the unborn to be spelled out right?

0 Replies

Life begins at 40! My t-shirt says so!

Any of you bastards want to debate me on that?

0 Replies

Bartikus, have you read the entire decision?

0 Replies

No takers...just as I thought. My position is solid, and as such, undebatable!

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Bartikus, have you read the entire decision?

Yes...I did'nt see where it answered the question.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

mismi40 wrote:
...Herein is the conflict. Should we protect someone who can help themselves and has the ability to make decisions based on laws and common sense? Or should we protect the potential person that hasn't the ability to do so?

Seems to me a woman who is desperate enough to go to someone to have a fetus removed illegally has enough common sense to know she is taking a risk and it is on her to deal with that risk, especially this day and age. Whereas this fetus - and potential person has not that ability to claim our protection. Why do we seek to protect a woman other than to free her to continue to live the way she did before with no thought to consequences of her actions? Life is being devalued and I think that that will lead to other potential problems.

Sorry - I know this is not the point of this thread. And I know I am supposed to be working on why abortion should be illegal according to the guidelines TKO gave me and without relying on my own conscience and emotions...but so far it has been quite difficult.

mismi, you're making a moral position not a legal one (and they are different). The Constitution clearly defines the pregnant woman as a citizen or 'person' with full rights. The Constitution clearly does not define the unborn as a citizen or 'person'. The position you take is that the Law should provide rights to the unborn as if it were a citizen when there is no such provision. Roe is clear in determining that no case law exists that establishes the unborn as a citizen or person with equal protection to the woman. You're asking for determination that the unborn's right to be born supersedes the explicitly stated rights of the woman to be protected.

The 14th Amendment states,

Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How does the unborn (who has never been established as a citizen or person under the Constitution) take precedence over the woman in terms of the law?

The Constitution has never defined an illegal alien as a citizen either. What's your point? It still is and should be illegal and is morally wrong to kill one outright....right?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

No takers...just as I thought. My position is solid, and as such, undebatable!

Right. Let's bump off all those snot nosed young whippersnappers. . .

Wait!

Who will do the work?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Begin by calling it what it is........a human being. Wanted or not...planned or unplanned .............a human life it remains. That's a great place to start.

This is true for you, because you declare it is so. Not a real persuasive argument for others, whom you need to convince if you wish to change laws. Many times we've discussed the fact that a one day old foetus fills few of the criteria that define "a human being".

There was also much talk of the defense of potential human beings. Why do potential human beings deserve anything at all, let alone defense? If any skin cell can be used to produce a clone of me, then every cell in my body is a potential human being. That's the whole point of this thread, to discuss our different perceptions of the point at which a person's development gives them the right to exist over the rights of the person required to sustain that existence against their will.

To simply declare a foetus "a human being" from day one - because you say so - isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

I'm also seeing, not for the first time, the assumption that those who are for the womans right to choose, are also "for" abortion. That's just being deliberately stupid and inflammatory.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Begin by calling it what it is........a human being. Wanted or not...planned or unplanned .............a human life it remains. That's a great place to start.

This is true for you, because you declare it is so. Not a real persuasive argument for others, whom you need to convince if you wish to change laws. Many times we've discussed the fact that a one day old foetus fills few of the criteria that define "a human being".

There was also much talk of the defense of potential human beings. Why do potential human beings deserve anything at all, let alone defense? If any skin cell can be used to produce a clone of me, then every cell in my body is a potential human being. That's the whole point of this thread, to discuss our different perceptions of the point at which a person's development gives them the right to exist over the rights of the person required to sustain that existence against their will.

To simply declare a foetus "a human being" from day one - because you say so - isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

I'm also seeing, not for the first time, the assumption that those who are for the womans right to choose, are also "for" abortion. That's just being deliberately stupid and inflammatory.

What is the criteria for a human being then? IYO?

0 Replies

It depends on who you ask, Bartikus. It's not hard to google a definition. Personally, it seems to me, that a sperm and an egg unite and gradually develop, over the next 18 years or so, to become a fully mature adult human being. We arbitrarily grant rights along the way.

0 Replies

You arbitrarily declare that the right to life exists from the moment of conception, then react with horror when others don't agree with your opinion. Why? Possibly because you are unaware that your decision is arbitrary, because someone (possibly a church) has convinced you it's an objective unquestionable truth?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Whether religion is or is not a superstition has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Au contraire, religion being shown as superstition amplifies the absurdity of claiming a human being is a fertilized egg because a ghost told you.
Au dweebaire. What if the fertilized egg is, in fact, a human being?

A position I have held even through my younger atheist days.

Nothing told me. It's just obvious.

Shirley if it's that obvious you'll have no trouble presenting the obvious empirically.

Go ahead now........

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

It depends on who you ask, Bartikus. It's not hard to google a definition. Personally, it seems to me, that a sperm and an egg unite and gradually develop, over the next 18 years or so, to become a fully mature adult human being. We arbitrarily grant rights along the way.

Not all sperm and eggs develop and mature into mature adult human beings, as evidenced by this thread.

The arbitrary rights you describe could also include the right to life.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Eorl wrote:
It depends on who you ask, Bartikus. It's not hard to google a definition. Personally, it seems to me, that a sperm and an egg unite and gradually develop, over the next 18 years or so, to become a fully mature adult human being. We arbitrarily grant rights along the way.

The arbitrary rights you describe could also include the right to life.

Exactly! These days, most countries do grant that right. Some from birth, some from conception, others - somewhere in between.

Sometimes people assume it's obvious which it should be, and get terribly upset when others don't agree.

0 Replies

Arbitrary is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.

When somebody says it's a human being but not a person, you ask them what's the difference? It's a fair question because they're apparently offering you a rationale why it's okay to take the life of another innocent human being who can't defend itself but is in the way. So you say, if you're argument based on personhood is so weighty that it can justify taking the life of an innocent human being, then it seems reasonable that you have a very clear fix on what a person is if it's not the same as being human.

Now, 99 times out of a hundred you won't get an answer because they've never thought it though. This is a rhetorical throwaway. It's a way of ending the discussion. It's a way of putting their point of view in your face and shutting you up. So you just toss it right back to them. What's the difference? Sometimes you will get someone who tries to set up some criteria for personhood. There are two additional responses to a list of attributes for personhood. Ask, where did you get the list? If the list is merely arbitrary then why don't you make up a list too? A person is someone who has white skin. If they argue with you, then you can ask them how they justify their list but disallow your list.

The second problem with all of those lists is they always disqualify people who are clearly and undeniably human persons. They say self-awareness is a criteria. Then what about people who are in comas? Are they not persons? Some extreme people will say that, by the way. If they aren't persons then they have no rights and we can justify doing all sorts of things to them. Some will say self-awareness is a criteria. A child a couple months old can't distinguish between himself and his surroundings so they would not be persons. Some people like James Rachels will say that they aren't a person and we can kill infants. You'll also have a problem with the personhood list in that you'll have humans who are clearly persons who are disqualified by the list, but you'll have other beings which qualify, like chimpanzees and gorillas. Those are the problems with the lists.

http://erikwinter.com/real/articles/whenhuman.html

http://erikwinter.com/real/articles/morlog.html

Should the law be faulted for making it riskier for anyone to kill another innocent human being? The fact that bank robbery is dangerous to the felon isn't a good reason to make grand larceny legal.

http://erikwinter.com/real/answers.html

The woman's right to abortion is arbitrary.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

You arbitrarily declare that the right to life exists from the moment of conception, then react with horror when others don't agree with your opinion. Why? Possibly because you are unaware that your decision is arbitrary, because someone (possibly a church) has convinced you it's an objective unquestionable truth?

Are you saying that you can take the life of an unborn child because it's right to life is arbitrary?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Whether religion is or is not a superstition has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Au contraire, religion being shown as superstition amplifies the absurdity of claiming a human being is a fertilized egg because a ghost told you.
Au dweebaire. What if the fertilized egg is, in fact, a human being?

A position I have held even through my younger atheist days.

Nothing told me. It's just obvious.
Shirley if it's that obvious you'll have no trouble presenting the obvious empirically.

Go ahead now........

Shirley's not here. She had to go to work early.

I'll ask Carole when she wakes up.

But we'll probably answer by saying it's intuitive. That's probably why we offer words of comfort when a woman miscarries. Intuitive.

And we would no doubt mention the fact that we have never heard of a fertilized human egg, left to its natural course, developing into anything else.

Modern technological interventions notwithstanding, of course.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

real life wrote:
Yep, back then if you thought it was immoral to own slaves, there was a simple answer:

Don't own one.

PRECISELY!

Do you think that this is still an acceptable position on slavery?

JPB wrote:

and if today you think that having an abortion is immoral, there is a simple answer:

Don't have one.

It took an Amendment to the Constitution of abolish slavery and it will take one to properly establish abortion as illegal which, in my opinion, will still not abolish abortion.

RL, let me ask you an honest question... Do you believe that making abortion illegal will eliminate, or even substantially reduce, abortions?

Yes it will , over time, reduce the number of abortions. But even if it did not, it is the right thing to do.

JPB wrote:

I personally could not have an abortion -- that is my moral position......I equally don't see the State having substantial interest in protecting the unborn.

Why is abortion immoral if the unborn is not a person?

0 Replies

So many posts since I was able to realy read anything...

JPB - Your post on the ruling of Roe v Wade was very fair. Balancing rights between the woman, the unborn and the state's intrests.

The pro-life camp has no real cae to overturn it. This is why there has been a shift of political targets to the legslative branch.

Somebody brought up the slavery thing again. Refereed to how it took a amendment to the constitution to change it.

Can someone here make the case that abortion threatens social order? If not the comparasson is over as far as I'm concerned.

RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Eorl wrote:
You arbitrarily declare that the right to life exists from the moment of conception, then react with horror when others don't agree with your opinion. Why? Possibly because you are unaware that your decision is arbitrary, because someone (possibly a church) has convinced you it's an objective unquestionable truth?

Are you saying that you can take the life of an unborn child because it's right to life is arbitrary?

All rights are valid at a marker of some sort. Some more arbitrary than others. Despite your maturity or your opinion, you don't have the right to vote until youre 18. why 18? It's an arbitrary marker. But albeit arbitrary, our society suports that age because of the typical level of life experiance a 18 year old should have recieved. Some actually are ready to vote, some aren't, but a line in the sand has to be drawn.

The right to life, requires a line in the sand as well, and there are plenty of marker's out there. I believe, as JPB put it so well, that the line in the sand drawn by the Roe V Wade decision does a good job of balancing the rights of the woman, the unborn, and the intrests of the state.

You may not like that line. You might want the line drawn at conception, but the rights of the woman, unborn and the intrests of the state become unbalanced at this point.

When you start looking at where that line is drawn, you start to realize that it's not actually that arbitrary.

Amendments since have defined the act of partial birth abortions to be also a imbalance. It seems that either end of pregnancy makes a poor marker. The marker must be somewhere inbetween.

T
K
O

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know