Are there any pro-choice conservatives here?

[caspian88]

Quote by: Pale RIder Nowhere.. Except that they are encoded into every facet of our legal system.

That is because of convention.

To deny that they exist is to deny your right to live as a free person as opposed to living as a slave.

I deny that they exist naturally. I hate to sound like a plagerizer, but Heinlein in "Starship Troopers" said it best - "What right to life does a man have who is drowning in the ocean?"

[/quote]You can make all the philosophical arguments that you like, but the fact remains that in this country, an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is granted to every human being by his creator. [quote]

If you believe that these rights are granted, then you must also believe that they can be taken away.

If you believe in God, then the right comes from that source,

There is no god. No rights come from that lack of a source.

if you don't, then your parents create you and they give you that right.

If that is the case, then those same parents can take away that right. "Granting" rights and having "natural" rights are different things.

I have a right to life because everyone says that I do (Well, most people in the US). If everyone said that all white, anglo-saxon athiest libertarians/pseudo-anarchists had no rights to life, then I would have no right to life. "Rights" are inherently a choice made by people, for whatever reason.

And it isn't a time compliant right.

What on earth is a "time compliant right?"

If you are a human being, the right is yours.

Only if it is mutually agreed upon by everyone else.

Since we don't become more human by virtue of our age, it stands to reason that we always have the right

Somehow, I find this irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is abortion and the right to life.

[quote]Roe is going to be struck down next time it is heard precicely because unborns are human beings from the moment of their conception (agreed upon by contemporary science)[quote]

Roe vs. Wade should be struck down, because this is a state matter. The federal government can neither permit nor forbid abortions, by any stretch of the Constitution.

and in this nation, human beings have an inalienable right to life.

There is no such thing as an "inalienable" right. If rights are granted, they can be taken away just as easily. There is no such thing as a "natural" right.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: caspian88 That is because of convention. I deny that they exist naturally. I hate to sound like a plagerizer, but Heinlein in "Starship Troopers" said it best - "What right to life does a man have who is drowning in the ocean?"

Movie scripts? Interesting.

It would depend on how the man got into the ocean wouldn't it. If he fell in on his own, then no one has violated his inalienable right to life. If he was thrown in by another individual for reasons other than self defense, then he would have been murdered wouldn't he? It is the fact that he had a right to live and someone violated that right that makes it murder.

Quote by: caspian88 If you believe that these rights are granted, then you must also believe that they can be taken away.

Of course they can. But because of the nature of the contract that was created between the people of this country and the "government" the government is obliged to specifically enumerate those rights that are being taken away, and from whom they are to be taken. Presently we are operating under a flawed application of the law. Very much like slavery but much more tragic.

Quote by: caspian88 I have a right to life because everyone says that I do (Well, most people in the US). If everyone said that all white, anglo-saxon athiest libertarians/pseudo-anarchists had no rights to life, then I would have no right to life. "Rights" are inherently a choice made by people, for whatever reason.

Very much like the arguments that were presented by slaveholders. For a long time the argument was accepted but was eventually struck down because it was in direct conflict with the very principle this country was founded on and has as a basis for its legal system. Blacks are human and all humans have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If I am wrong in my original premise, I would like to see some legal prescedent that suggests that I am wrong because eventually, it all comes down to the courts.

Quote by: caspian88 What on earth is a "time compliant right?"

I was heading you off at the pass in case you were going to argue that we don't become human until we are born or some such nonsense.

Quote by: caspian88 Roe vs. Wade should be struck down, because this is a state matter. The federal government can neither permit nor forbid abortions, by any stretch of the Constitution.

We agree on that. When it falls to the states, I doubt that abortion on demand could pass in even the most liberal states. I am sure that some will outlaw it entirely, and some will allow it when the mother's life is threatened, but if polling can be trusted at all, the majorities in all states for a long time haven't favored abortion for any reason at any time.

Quote by: caspian88 There is no such thing as an "inalienable" right. If rights are granted, they can be taken away just as easily. There is no such thing as a "natural" right.

But there is self evident truth and they were encoded into our law at the time of our founding. This is a legal truth. The only way they can be denied is by specific enumeration and the 14th amendment doesn't cut it.

[castille]

Quote by: Pale RIder But trees and bacteria are not human beings. Unborn humans are. If one human has rights in this country, then all humans have the same rights. It is the foundation of our legal system.

A fetus, technically, have not been proven to be human or has the capacity to be aware of their existence.

Also I think the American constitution only gives rights to living people, not unborn or dead people. Is there any clause that says fetuses have the right to life?

[caspian88]

Quote by: castille Is there any clause that says fetuses have the right to life?

Technically, there is no clause giving any people the right to life. It is an implied right through the 9th Amendment.

I looked up the definition of "person," and that doesn't help much, as it doesn't define it in specific enough terms. A "fetus" is an 8 week old human embryo.

Where should we draw the line is the question. I say at birth, some say at conception, others say at a specific time during the pregnency. Legally, I don't think you can say that the Constitution gives rights to non-citizens. You could argue that, but it doesn't appear to me to say that; we've just always given non-citizens certain rights. A fetus is not a citizen, as it has not been born or naturalized in the United States.

This argument doesn't appear to be something we can solve legally, and it appears that there is no right or wrong answer. I say kill them all, others don't, and it doesn't really matter to me enough to continue.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: castille A fetus, technically, have not been proven to be human or has the capacity to be aware of their existence. Also I think the American constitution only gives rights to living people, not unborn or dead people. Is there any clause that says fetuses have the right to life?

Technically, there is no doubt as to whether an unborn is a human and alive. The idea that we are still guessing is a myth.

SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990); noting that the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”

(“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990);

Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”Klasing, supra note 39, at 974 (quoting E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977)).

Geneticist Dr. Jerome L. LeJeune testified before a United States Senate subcommittee in 1981: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”

Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43 Human Embryology, 3rd ed."It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings

I never enter a debate unprepared.

You see, the statement that an unborn is "technically" not alive and not "proven" to be human is a story propogated by pro choicers in an effort to give themselves some comforting sense of plausible deniability. The statement in and of itself is an untruth, a fabrication, a terminological inexactitude.

These, for the most part are medical text books, or authors of medical textbooks. There is no doubt among the scientific community that unborns are alive, and human beings from the moment that they are concieved. Not that one should require so much evidence. After all, what else could the offspring of two human beings be but a human being?

Quote by: caspian88 Legally, I don't think you can say that the Constitution gives rights to non-citizens

Legally, I don't think that you can say that the Constitution doesn't. And the right to life is not really a right as encoded into our legal system, it is a self evident truth. In any case, that human beings have an inalienable right to life is woven into the fabric of our system to the point that it would be quite impossible to remove it for one particular group of humans. As I said, we have a glaring defect in the application of the law. Equal to slavery, but much more tragic.

Quote by: caspian88 ....it doesn't really matter to me enough to continue

40 million killed and counting under the legal system of the United States, and it doesn't matter enough to continue the discussion? Interesting position. You sure you are conservative?

[castille]

Well the problem would require a scientific ruling on whether a fetus is a "human being".

I mean if we go extreme anti-abortion, we could claim sperm is human, therefor wasting 1 sperm droplet is murder.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: castille Well the problem would require a scientific ruling on whether a fetus is a "human being". I mean if we go extreme anti-abortion, we could claim sperm is human, therefor wasting 1 sperm droplet is murder.

Actually, we couldn't. By itself, sperm is of no more consequence than fingernail clippings. Upon fertilization, both sperm and egg cease to exist and a new human comes into existence. Science is quite clear on the biology of human development.

If you want a different opinion on whether a fetus is a living human, you will have to leave the scientific community and consult a necromancer...or maybe a gypsy.

Even those within the medical community that are pro abortion do not dispute that an unborn is a living human being, they simpy argue that it is ok to kill them.

I suppose that back in the day, there were slavers who freely admitted that blacks were human beings, they just argued that it was ok to buy and sell them like cattle.

[caspian88]

40 million killed and counting under the legal system of the United States, and it doesn't matter enough to continue the discussion? Interesting position. You sure you are conservative?

Extreme libertarian.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: caspian88 40 million killed and counting under the legal system of the United States, and it doesn't matter enough to continue the discussion? Interesting position. You sure you are conservative? Extreme libertarian.

I was libertarian in my youth. Didn't realize that libertarianism was a philosophy that advocated standing by while a mass slaughter continues.

[castille]

Quote by: Pale RIder Upon fertilization, both sperm and egg cease to exist and a new human comes into existence. Science is quite clear on the biology of human development.

What are the indicators of a "human being", as agreed to by the international scientific majority?

Even those within the medical community that are pro abortion do not dispute that an unborn is a living human being, they simpy argue that it is ok to kill them.

Everyone? So if I go and ask my GP about this, he will agree?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: castille What are the indicators of a "human being", as agreed to by the international scientific majority? Everyone? So if I go and ask my GP about this, he will agree?

I referenced plenty of reading material. If you are interested in learning the subject, I recommend going straight to the source. You are going to argue with whatever I say so there is no point in continuing. I used to be pro choice. Someone like myself once tore down every argument that I could put up and pointed out the falacy of those like you just asked.

I did more research than you could possibly know in an effort to prove that he was wrong and I was right. It didn't work out that way. The more I learned, the more I knew that I was simply wrong. Being a thinking person, I only had one real option. Drop the lies that I had been telling myself and adopt a position that reflected the truth.

If you are interested in the truth, then do some research, it doesn't take much unless you are really obsessive like me. If you are content to hold on to the flawed position that you presently hold, then do it, but don't call yourself a thinking person.

Consider; you are suggesting that the offspring of two human beings might be something other than a human being at any stage of its life. How much "thought" do you believe has gone into such a position?

There is one exception. If your position is that it is just OK to kill human beings for no better reason than convenience, then that is a pro choice position that is based in the truth and impervious to the facts of human developmental biology.

Go ask your GP.

[Doug]

Does anyone who is otherwise against abortion believe that it is ok if the woman was raped?
If so, how do you square this with the belief that a fetus is a human being?

[moustache]

I think abortion is wrong, but when the woman is raped it is ok to abort. But only if the baby is aborted soon enough. If the baby is aborted around the 3rd week after the woman is raped, then I am ok with it. Even though Its still hard for me to come to terms with this. The woman had no say when getting pregnant. When A woman who wasnt raped tries to abort, I say no then because she had a part in getting pregnant. But when a Woman who was raped tries to abort, she had no way of preventing getting pregnant. Thats how I justify it.

[Logjam]

I hate the term "pro-choice". What the term should be is "the killing of unborn babies, or the elemination of unwanted fetuses. Pro-choice is a word used by the left to make abortion palatable.

I am not totally opposed to abortion. I believe that sometimes it might be the appropriate medical proceedure.

But I believe that abortion should be rare. It's better that babies be born, and if unwanted put up for adoption.

When we have 45 million babies killed in abortions it's a little extreme.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Doug Does anyone who is otherwise against abortion believe that it is ok if the woman was raped? If so, how do you square this with the belief that a fetus is a human being?

What crime exactly is the child guilty of that its inalienable right to life should be forfiet?

[castille]

Quote by: Logjam I hate the term "pro-choice". What the term should be is "the killing of unborn babies, or the elemination of unwanted fetuses. Pro-choice is a word used by the left to make abortion palatable.

Both sides use "nice words" to make themselves look better.

Similarly, "pro-lifers" aren't really pro-life, since everyone dies anyway.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: castille Both sides use "nice words" to make themselves look better. Similarly, "pro-lifers" aren't really pro-life, since everyone dies anyway.

There is a difference between living out ones natural life span or dying of disease or accidental causes and being literally torn apart by a contracted killer.

Pro life doesn't mean eternal life, it just means living until you die, not living until you are killed.

[castille]

What if pro-lifers support capital punishment? Wouldn't they be anti-lifers?

However, keep in mind pro-choice and pro-life aren't really literal; they're just catch phrases. It's like the US army guy, McArthur, who claimed he was "advancing in another direction" when he was getting defeated in Korea. Or Hitler's "Final Solution". In a way it actually blurs their actual issues.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: castille What if pro-lifers support capital punishment? Wouldn't they be anti-lifers? However, keep in mind pro-choice and pro-life aren't really literal; they're just catch phrases. It's like the US army guy, McArthur, who claimed he was "advancing in another direction" when he was getting defeated in Korea. Or Hitler's "Final Solution". In a way it actually blurs their actual issues.

If the unborns got the same vetting in court that someone who commits a capital crime gets...trial by jury...required appeals, etc, then I wouldn't have a problem with aboriton. How many women whose lives aren't being threatened by the pregnancy could make a case before a court for the killing of a human being?

[castille]

We still haven't decided if its a human being yet.

Also I would not allow a woman to have a child if she could not look after it responsibly, since most of those kids will grow up with severe mental problems. Hell, I disagree with the concept of "single mother" (or father), since psychological studies do show only having 1 parent can have a negative impact on children.