138 replies to this topic

[add]

this is a real cell blob at 12 weeks gestation.....
legal to kill terminate in all 50 states or is it something more?


roe v. roe is a landmark decision picture

[Tally Marx]

It's been a while since I have heard anyone argue that a second trimester fetus is "just a blob of cells".

The argument more frequently given, nowadays, is that the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights, and is of no consequence. "Personhood" is then defined in any way that excludes the z/e/f. I hear "personhood" defined as "consciousness" most frequently.

The second-most-typical argument advocates of abortion employ is that--even though the unborn are human individuals, with rights--our government has no right to protect them, because doing so requires forcing women to do something with their bodies. Forcing women is more wrong than killing human individuals.




(Edited for spelling)

Edited by Tally Marx, 26 July 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

I have been a crisis pregnancy counselor for a while. And over the years most of the women will not deny the humanity of the child. If you ask one to tell you in their own words what an abortion is 80% of the time you will get something to the effect "It is getting the baby out of you" or "Killing/ending a life". Very rarely I will hear "terminating a pregnancy/fetus". The humanity is generally accepted now. But as Tally was saying it is a greater evil to restrict a women rights.

In the debates I have had over the years when I was sidewalk counseling, I would see a lot more of the lingo being thrown around by the workers. But even then, when pushed to, they say that life does exist before birth. However rights have not been afforded to that life. The more you speak with those in industry, the more you see the logical disconnect. So sad to see how the enemy deceives.

(Beautiful picture BTW- but I would say that baby is more like 14 week gestation.)

Edited by To Jesus Through Mary, 26 July 2012 - 06:24 PM.

[stevil]

The argument more frequently given, nowadays, is that the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a "person"

The second-most-typical argument advocates of abortion employ is that--even though the unborn are human individuals, with rights--our government has no right to protect them, because doing so requires forcing women to do something with their bodies.

I've been having this discussion on an atheist forum.
The vast majority of people don't dehumanise the zygote/fetus/baby.
Most state that it is a living human from the moment of conception.
However this is irrelevant with regards to whether abortion should be against the law or not.
"Rights" be it the mother's rights or the babies rights are also irrelevant.

What it boils down to is the purpose and place of government to make decisions on behalf of society members.
We all suggest that the mother is the person in the best position to make decisions on behalf of her body and the unborn baby inside of her, whilst the politicians are best to decide on necessary laws to support an inclusive society which won't break down into war and chaos.

[Anomaly]

I've been having this discussion on an atheist forum.
The vast majority of people don't dehumanise the zygote/fetus/baby.
Most state that it is a living human from the moment of conception.
However this is irrelevant with regards to whether abortion should be against the law or not.
"Rights" be it the mother's rights or the babies rights are also irrelevant.

What it boils down to is the purpose and place of government to make decisions on behalf of society members.
We all suggest that the mother is the person in the best position to make decisions on behalf of her body and the unborn baby inside of her, whilst the politicians are best to decide on necessary laws to support an inclusive society which won't break down into war and chaos.

I am absolutely stunned. I would agree that the mother has the right to make decisions in her best intrest, but I can't fathom the mother having the right to terminate a child's life for her convenience. Basically, it's saying a child has no protection what so ever. It's similar to two persons being in a life boat with a limited supply of food and water and being okay with one person killing the other so that the food would last longer.

[Tally Marx]

"Rights" be it the mother's rights of the babies rights are also irrelevant.

What it boils down to is the purpose and place of government to make decisions on behalf of society members.
We all suggest that the mother is the person in the best position to make decisions on behalf of her body and the unborn baby inside of her, whilst the politicians are best to decide on necessary laws to support an inclusive society which won't break down into war and chaos.

Your first statement is very interesting, and I would like to return to it later, if you do not mind.

As to the last paragraph, I comprehend your statement and completely see where you are coming from. However, I propose that the mother is not in the best position to make decisons for her baby. It is not a new proposition. Often are the times that we deem a parent unfit to act for their child based solely upon the action they seek to take. When a mother in my area drowned her four children in the bathtub and swimming pool, no one protested that she knew what was in the best interests of her child. The very fact that she did what she did attested to her inability to act in their best interest. Nevertheless, a second look was taken. There was an investigation and a trial. Her justifications were scrutinized. It is a point I would like to highlight. See, I find it an egregious breach of logical consistency to (1) punish the aforementioned mother for making a decision on behalf of her four children while (2) not only deeming pregnant women fit to take identical action on behalf of their children, but doing so without questioning the motive. If an individual is automatically deemed fit to act in a certain way on behald of their children before they are born, then they should be able to act in the same manner on behalf of their children after those children are born, and automatically deemed fit to do so. Neither the individual nor the child has changed to excuse this change in practice.

Edited by Tally Marx, 27 July 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[stevil]

I am absolutely stunned. I would agree that the mother has the right to make decisions in her best intrest, but I can't fathom the mother having the right to terminate a child's life for her convenience. Basically, it's saying a child has no protection what so ever. It's similar to two persons being in a life boat with a limited supply of food and water and being okay with one person killing the other so that the food would last longer.

Society doesn't seem to care about the unborn baby. Life goes on for the rest of us, we are under no threat what-so-ever.
People are not taking up arms in defense of the unborn. People are not willing to risk their own lives in defense of them (besides a very, very small minority). So if there is no danger to society, then what business is it of the government?

I totally understand why some people want the unborn to live, want them to have the right to live and want government to protect them.

But I am against government imposing unnecessary laws, as a society member I need be concerned for myself. I need to support laws that benefit me (otherwise I am minding other people's business, oppressing them because I am incapable of minding my own business), this means also being in support of laws ensuring society is safe and stable. Abortion does not impact my safety or the stability of society. Therefore I take the stance that this isn't a legal issue, it is up to individual choice. A mother kills her own unborn, it is none of my business.

[stevil]

As to the last paragraph, I comprehend your statement and completely see where you are coming from. However, I propose that the mother is not in the best position to make decisons for her baby. It is not a new proposition. Often are the times that we deem a parent unfit to act for their child based solely upon the action they seek to take. When a mother in my area drowned her four children in the bathtub and swimming pool, no one protested that she knew what was in the best interests of her child. The very fact that she did what she did attested to her inability to act in their best interest. Nevertheless, a second look was taken. There was an investigation and a trial. Her justifications were scrutinized. It is a point I would like to highlight. See, I find it an egregious breach of logical consistency to (1) punish the aforementioned mother for making a decision on behalf of her four children while (2) not only deeming pregnant women fit to take identical action on behalf of their children, but doing so without questioning the motive. If an individual is automatically deemed fit to act in a certain way on behald of their children before they are born, then they should be able to act in the same manner on behalf of their children after those children are born, and automatically deemed fit to do so. Neither the individual nor the child has changed to excuse this change in practice.

Yes, it is interesting to work out where to draw the line.
For me, it is based on the (violent) reaction of society, because government is supposed to be a representative of society and make society safe for us.
Once people become attached to the children, e.g. child care workers, teachers, grand parents, uncles and aunties, friends etc then there become many more people that will stand up for the children with use of force. Much more likely to result in violence and conflict, potentially war within society.

Lets say we included a 1 week period of grace after birth that the woman can decide if she wants to kill her baby.
Maybe it comes out with Down Syndrome etc. There are societies that allow after birth infanticide. e.g. Spartan society, there are tribes in the Amazon that do this even today.
So maybe that should be allowed too? I don't know whether society would become violent and unsafe in this instant. It would make for a decent debate.

Generally today people draw the line with regards to when the baby no longer needs the mother's womb for life support.

[Tally Marx]

Society doesn't seem to care about the unborn baby. Life goes on for the rest of us, we are under no threat what-so-ever.
People are not taking up arms in defense of the unborn. People are not willing to risk their own lives in defense of them (besides a very, very small minority). So if there is no danger to society, then what business is it of the government?

The idea that the life of one human individual is worth only as much as the price tag someone in a position of power places upon them is a very dangerous one to our society.

But I am against government imposing unnecessary laws, as a society member I need be concerned for myself. I need to support laws that benefit me (otherwise I am minding other people's business, oppressing them because I am incapable of minding my own business), this means also being in support of laws ensuring society is safe and stable. Abortion does not impact my safety or the stability of society. Therefore I take the stance that this isn't a legal issue, it is up to individual choice. A mother kills her own unborn, it is none of my business.

This is a very nice position to hold if you are an individual. It is easy for an individual to look after their own interests. However, we are speaking the government. The government does not look after its own interests. It looks after the interests of the individuals that the create the society. It has done a terrible job of looking after 100% of these individuals. It may not be any of your business whether a mother kills her child. But it should be the business of the government in the case of abortion as in most cases.

[Tally Marx]

Yes, it is interesting to work out where to draw the line.
For me, it is based on the (violent) reaction of society, because government is supposed to be a representative of society and make society safe for us.
Once people become attached to the children, e.g. child care workers, teachers, grand parents, uncles and aunties, friends etc then there become many more people that will stand up for the children with use of force. Much more likely to result in violence and conflict, potentially war within society.

Vox populi, vox dei.

You present quite a condundrum here. Our government was meant to be controlled by the people in a non-violent way. Expecting a violent reaction to make a political decision goes precisely against the way our government is meant to work. You would destroy government for the sake of government, and society for the sake of society. That, or the attempt would be futile. Most of those against abortion do not take AK 47s into clinics because they are well aware it would do little good. As telling as it is to see a violent reaction, do not expect people to be stupid. "I'm more good to you all alive, not in prison, and able to vote" is a very reasonable conclusion.

[stevil]

It may not be any of your business whether a mother kills her child. But it should be the business of the government in the case of abortion as in most cases.

I disagree,
I feel it is government's job to ensure society doesn't become unstable. They are the glue that holds us together. We live within society, so we need some rules of cohabitation.
But on concerns of "rights" or "morality" if it doesn't endanger society, then it is outside the mandate of government, it is thus the choice of the individual. Your church becomes important in this case, they can try and work out what "rights" or "morality" is, and they can try and convince people to live a righteous life.

But with regards to basing law on things that go beyond the stability of society
e.g. Should I want to impose law on people whom want to have consensual adult homosexual sex based on (theoretically speaking) having a personal dislike of homosexual sex?
Maybe I don't like eating pumpkin, should I want a law to stop all people from eating pumpkin?
Maybe I don't like Christianity, should I want to make that illegal?

[stevil]

Vox populi, vox dei.

You present quite a condundrum here. Our government was meant to be controlled by the people in a non-violent way. Expecting a violent reaction to make a political decision goes precisely against the way our government is meant to work. You would destroy government for the sake of government, and society for the sake of society. That, or the attempt would be futile. Most of those against abortion do not take AK 47s into clinics because they are well aware it would do little good. As telling as it is to see a violent reaction, do not expect people to be stupid. "I'm more good to you all alive, not in prison, and able to vote" is a very reasonable conclusion.

The government isn't the highest authority (not even in an atheistic worldview).
If you understand the theory of natural law, then you understand that people will react violently in certain situations regardless of the governing law. This is the way people behave and it is extremely difficult to change our culture.
Mao successfully did this in China with the cultural revolution, but he used extreme measures, he turn people against themselves, he killed people for not towing the party line. But although 50+ million died, he succeeding in changing the culture such that people no longer cared that they couldn't own property.
If a government tries to take away property rights in most societies, they will meet violent resistance by the people. Government thus needs to understand what society takes as important, and thus needs to use law to support this otherwise society will erupt into violence, this is undeniable fact.

[Annie12]

Stevil, I haven't read all of your posts here but I remember what you believe from a previous post/ debate we had.

So, I'm not going to try to use philosophical arguments with you here. I'm on a human level here.

You acknowledge the life of a fetus and such however you don't seems to acknowledge that it's dignity is equal to it's mother's (correct me if I'm wrong). So, This just seems strange to me because you yourself have children and I would have thought you could have recognized their dignity from the first time you saw them in an ultrasound. I don't doubt that you love your children dearly but I am confused about how you can deny their dignity and yours and everyone's dignity when inside the womb. I more trying to understand your argument first before I try to debate it.

Edited by Annie12, 27 July 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[stevil]

Stevil, I haven't read all of your posts here but I remember what you believe from a previous post/ debate we had.

So, I'm not going to try to use philosophical arguments with you here. I'm on a human level here.

You acknowledge the life of a fetus and such however you don't seems to acknowledge that it's dignity is equal to it's mother's (correct me if I'm wrong). So, This just seems strange to me because you yourself have children and I would have thought you could have recognized their dignity from the first time you saw them in an ultrasound. I don't doubt that you love your children dearly but I am confused about how you can deny their dignity and yours and everyone's dignity when inside the womb. I more trying to understand your argument first before I try to debate it.

Firstly, my intent to join this thread was simply to state that arguing on the points of "recognition of fetus as a human" and "rights of humans" will fall on deaf ears to many people as these people (myself included) don't consider these arguments relevant to laws against abortion. I don't expect to sway any Catholics into my way of thinking and I am pretty sure I won't come out of this thread in support of anti-abortion law.

To address what you have just said, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "dignity". If you are asking whether I think the mother's life is more valuable than the unborn child, my answer is it is not my place to judge.

If someone comes to me asking for advice on whether they should have an abortion or not, I would advise that they have a very difficult decision on their hands.
If I find out that my neighbor has had a recent elective abortion. I would not judge her, I would offer her my condolences and support if she so wanted.
If we had a referendum on abortion law, I would vote to keep it legal.

[Anomaly]

stevil, I get what your saying about the immediate effects on society. The disconnect is failing to recognize broader principles that have to be protected by society, for society. By your standard, most everything may be okay if it doesn't disrupt society. That's okay with just a short term perspective. The problem with that is when smaller groups of people with little power and voice are deemed too unimportant and too troublesome to be accommodated in society.

You can't acknowledge something as a person and then deny them equal fundamental rights to exhaust and be protected by society. Societies are very flexible and can exist peaceably without lots of classes of people. Old, poor, mentally ill, sick, terminally ill, non-productive, dissimilar... It's easy to classify persons as not necessary or needed or undesirable. Once any group is determined as not needed, it's only a maatter of societal Darwinism to dismiss another group.

[Tally Marx]

I disagree,
I feel it is government's job to ensure society doesn't become unstable. They are the glue that holds us together. We live within society, so we need some rules of cohabitation.
But on concerns of "rights" or "morality" if it doesn't endanger society, then it is outside the mandate of government, it is thus the choice of the individual. Your church becomes important in this case, they can try and work out what "rights" or "morality" is, and they can try and convince people to live a righteous life.

It seems to me that, provided I have understood you correctly, your position is untenable.
You are saying that only when people react violently should a law affecting society be passed, and it should be passed because the stability of society would then be threatened. You are advocating mob rule, to prevent mob rule.

You are also saying that what the majority of people (or just the people in power) will accept is alright, even if that means that millions of people are exterminated. I do not consider the slaughter of millions a stable society. Hitler may have had the support of his soldiers in the death camps, but I would not consider that a stable society. The idea that individuals are only worth the price tag others place on them is what causes harm to societies. I question how society--which is based upon individuals--can survive at all without placing some value on the individual. It seems a self-defeating position to me. Please explain your logic.

Edited by Tally Marx, 27 July 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[Socrates]

All I can say is that anyone who places the "stability" of "society" (however one chooses to define that) above the right of innocent persons to live has a very warped and twisted sense of priorities.

[stevil]

The disconnect is failing to recognize broader principles that have to be protected by society, for society. By your standard, most everything may be okay if it doesn't disrupt society. That's okay with just a short term perspective. The problem with that is when smaller groups of people with little power and voice are deemed too unimportant and too troublesome to be accommodated in society.

My outlook, which is reasonably consistent with most atheists I have talked to, is more inclusive, and more liberal than some religious positions.
Government to intervene only when society is in danger.
So for example gay people are oppressed by some religious groups, wanting gay marriage against the law, wanting gay sex against the law, in some places (some people) wanting gay people put to death (Hitler for example).
Me, I am not gay, do I care if people around me are having gay sex or gay marriage, nope, I don't care, doesn't impact me. So I have no interest to support law against gay people, actually I see laws against gay people as dangerous because oppressing these people may cause them to rebel violently. So I am in support of a minority group here, well, more precisely, I am opposed to law oppressing this minority group.
If the government wanted to put in laws against Bhuddists in my country, I would be opposed to it. I don't see it as government's place to oppress Bhuddists, these Bhuddists aren't making society dangerous, so I am opposed to this type of law. If I let government set this precedent, where they can pick on certain groups based on their own wants rather than society safety concerns, then whose to say they won't pick on me at some stage. I belong to many minority groups.

[stevil]

It seems to me that, provided I have understood you correctly, your position is untenable.
You are saying that only when people react violently should a law affecting society be passed, and it should be passed because the stability of society would then be threatened. You are advocating mob rule, to prevent mob rule.

You are also saying that what the majority of people (or just the people in power) will accept is alright, even if that means that millions of people are exterminated. I do not consider the slaughter of millions a stable society.

Millions of people are being slaughtered all the time, this is abortion. But it is not making society unsafe for me, therefore it is none of my business.
The decision is being made on an individual basis by the mothers, not government.

If government decide to slaughter the Jews, I will be opposed.
If they choose to slaughter one group based on arbitrary opinions then who is to say that one day they won't decide to slaughter my group.
Also, while they are trying to slaughter the Jews, no doubt the Jews will fight back and society will become dangerous, I will be caught up in it and will be forced to choose to fight on one side or the other. i would fight on the side of the Jews because they haven't shown the intent to pick on groups and slaughter them, thus I would feel safer in a society with the Jews rather than this strange and dangerous government.

Edited by stevil, 27 July 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[stevil]

All I can say is that anyone who places the "stability" of "society" (however one chooses to define that) above the right of innocent persons to live has a very warped and twisted sense of priorities.

Most people do this. Most people are in support of abortion.