Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Osborn F Enready]

There is no valid reasoning for making abortion illegal.

Many excuses, many good arguments, but no valid reasoning.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm not really sure this advances our discussion. Of course it's controversial and highly debatable. That doesn't mean there isn't a clear, best answer.

What you believe to be the clear best answer is supported by an emotional appeal.

On the other side...

If you press the issue with prochoicers, asking them why they are opposed to infanticide, you will also basically get appeals to emotion.


The fact is, we want to protect babies. That is in our nature. That desire can be overcome, but it is natural to most of us.

Many extend that desire to the newly conceived. Others do not think of zygotes as babies.


If you have a logical argument, with firm premises, please share it.

[5010]

A problem with one defining a specific value for another's life is that values vary across relationships. Isn't the value of Osama Bin Laden's life different for allies and enemies? The value of the unborn human's life is greater among pro-life advocates than pro-choice advocates. So sure, there may be a clear/best answer within each relationship, but those answers don't necessarily match each other.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: 5010 A problem with one defining a specific value for another's life is that values vary across relationships. Isn't the value of Osama Bin Laden's life different for allies and enemies? The value of the unborn human's life is greater among pro-life advocates than pro-choice advocates. So sure, there may be a clear/best answer within each relationship, but those answers don't necessarily match each other.

exactly...

And there is no way of proving one side or the other, because each side's arguments will depend upon highly disputable premises.

Regarding the OP of this thread, though.

Life of all types is one humongous genetic expression that began billions of years ago.

The life of a human begins at conception.

[ZNFYRH]

Dirty Name,

I should clarify.

The justifications I listed are not necessarily, in my opinion, justifiable. My wife and I would never consider abortion for any reason at all.

pikatore,

So then you think that brainwaves dictate humanity and before brainwaves the fetus is what? Nothing?

[Dirty Name]

If you have a logical argument, with firm premises, please share it.

Based on our founding documents, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life...

I don't know how to make an argument any more simple or logical than that.

The pro-abort argument is the one that introduces all sorts of complexity, emotion-based appeals, and equivocation.

[Dirty Name]

The value of the unborn human's life is greater among pro-life advocates than pro-choice advocates. So sure, there may be a clear/best answer within each relationship, but those answers don't necessarily match each other.

The value of human life as codified in law isn't based on "relationships" or points of view. Such nonsense is the basis for anarchy.

[Dirty Name]

There is no valid reasoning for making abortion illegal. Many excuses, many good arguments, but no valid reasoning.

I'm sorry - did I miss the part where you put forth a valid reason for making abortion legal?

It's so easy to declare the oppositions point of view "invalid."

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: DirtyName Based on our founding documents, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life...

Clearly, the courts have ruled that these inalienable rights do apply to all unborn children.


I am not asking for your interpretation of law. That does not interest me.

I am asking for your reasoning to support banning abortion. Even if the constitution stated that unborn children did not count, you would still be oppposed to it.

So, logically speaking, why should abortion be illegal?

[Dirty Name]

Clearly, the courts have ruled that these inalienable rights do apply to all unborn children.

Ah, yes. The courts. That solid, unerring, never changing, never wavering body of supreme deliberation and moral rectitude. :rollseyes:

So, logically speaking, why should abortion be illegal?

Better question: why should anyone get to determine whether another innocent person lives or dies? Do you have a logical argument for that?

My logical argument is based on the admitted fact that human life begins at conception, that human life obviously qualifies for inalienable human rights, and that the right to life is one of those.

It's a pretty straightforward argument. The "courts" as you have cited, are trying to balance logic against the emotional appeal of the pro-choice movement. There is ZERO logic in Roe v. Wade.

[5010]

So DirtyName, what do you think of the mention of 'our posterity' in the US Constitution's preamble? Does this mean the US Constitution applies to those born and those yet to be born and those yet to be conceived?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dirty Name Ah, yes. The courts. That solid, unerring, never changing, never wavering body of supreme deliberation and moral rectitude. :rollseyes:

You tried to invoke a legal basis, rather than a moral basis, and I countered your argument.

Do you have anything to offer other than evasion?

Better question: why should anyone get to determine whether another innocent person lives or dies? Do you have a logical argument for that?

No.

That is my point. Neither side can offer up substantial logic.

that human life obviously qualifies for inalienable human rights

Please prove to me that all human life qualifies for inalienable human rights?

[xyzer]

A problem with one defining a specific value for another's life is that values vary across relationships

I think most societies don't have a value system condoning murder? If life begins at conception and I think modern technology reveals it does,..aborting a viable fetus is murder

Thats a common value system no matter how one cloaks it? Hey we also condone a form of murder when we order troops to kill an enemy during a war.
We authorize cops to use deadly force if threatened?These societal givens are there for a reason? On demand abortion isn't a good enough reason IMNSHO!
Abortion should only be authorized for medical reasons, rape of incestuous origins. Abortion on demand for mistakes, drunken liasons and personal convenience is inexcusable murder! Modern contraceptives and preventive surgery make that a given. Careful women don't need to unless they want to. get pregnant.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name Based on our founding documents, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life... I don't know how to make an argument any more simple or logical than that.

Then we have a problem.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name It's a pretty straightforward argument. The "courts" as you have cited, are trying to balance logic against the emotional appeal of the pro-choice movement. There is ZERO logic in Roe v. Wade.

And there is zero logic in your argument.

Appeal to emotion would definetely be a important weapon branished not by pro-choicers, but by pro-lifers.

Whilst part of my argument would call sympathy to the would-be mother, the other part is that the foetus is not a viable human being yet, and thus does not deserve any rights until then. Not to mention that the choice should be hers to make ANYWAY.

[Dirty Name]

Does this mean the US Constitution applies to those born and those yet to be born and those yet to be conceived?

Insofar as the word in the preamble is concerned, I think it merely means that the purpose of the Constitution is "to secure freedom for future generations."

You tried to invoke a legal basis, rather than a moral basis, and I countered your argument. Do you have anything to offer other than evasion?

You countered my argument with what? Roe v. Wade? Are you going to make me go out and find countless quotes from legal scholars who all admit Roe v. Wade is an abomination of jurisprudence?

That is my point. Neither side can offer up substantial logic.

You failed to convince me. What is not logical about the following statement?

Human life begins at conception. Thus, human rights should be conferred at the moment of conception.

Conversely, what IS logical about your position:

Human life begins at conception. However, human rights should not be conferred until said human life develops for a certain period of time, determined subjectively, by a group of people who need abortion to be legal for emotional reasons.

Admittedly, I hacked the above "position" to bits - I'm sure you have an actual, logical argument you could put forth, right?

By the way, try completing this statement using logic, rather than emotion:

Abortion is necessary because...

Please prove to me that all human life qualifies for inalienable human rights?

Wow. We're really getting back to basics here. I tell you what. Give me an example of a human life that doesn't qualify for basic human rights (i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness). Then I'll defend the granting of those human rights on behalf of the example you provide - if I can.

Quote by: xyzer I think most societies don't have a value system condoning murder? If life begins at conception and I think modern technology reveals it does,..aborting a viable fetus is murder Thats a common value system no matter how one cloaks it? Hey we also condone a form of murder when we order troops to kill an enemy during a war. We authorize cops to use deadly force if threatened?These societal givens are there for a reason? On demand abortion isn't a good enough reason IMNSHO! Abortion should only be authorized for medical reasons, rape of incestuous origins. Abortion on demand for mistakes, drunken liasons and personal convenience is inexcusable murder! Modern contraceptives and preventive surgery make that a given. Careful women don't need to unless they want to. get pregnant.

Sorry xyzer, but murder is a legal term. The word "killing" is more appropriate.

Then we have a problem.

I figured as much. But hey, let's work through it. Substitute the "God" reference in the term "our Creator" with that of "biological parents" and I think you'll get the general idea.

Appeal to emotion would definetely be a important weapon branished not by pro-choicers, but by pro-lifers.

I'll challenge you to point out the emotion in the following argument:

Human life begins at conception. Thus, human rights should be conferred at the moment of conception.

And again, please explain the need for abortion in non-emotional terms.

[Dirty Name]

Not to mention that the choice should be hers to make ANYWAY.

Circular reasoning. This statement depends entirely on your previous statement that the "foetus" - as you call it - "is not a viable human being."

Test your logic - if the child is a viable human being (with all the accompanying rights), should the choice still be hers to make?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name Test your logic - if the child is a viable human being (with all the accompanying rights), should the choice still be hers to make?

Of course not! And by the way, my reasoning isn't circular, stop calling it that. It just rests on a premise that you don't agree with.

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore Whilst part of my argument would call sympathy to the would-be mother, the other part is that the foetus is not a viable human being yet, and thus does not deserve any rights until then. Not to mention that the choice should be hers to make ANYWAY.

Quote by: Dirty Test your logic - if the child is a viable human being (with all the accompanying rights), should the choice still be hers to make?

Quote by: pikatore Of course not!

Sounds like some double-speak to me.

First you say the choice should be hers to make ANYWAY, which to me sounds like whether the fetus is human or not. Then you answer the question of whether a woman should be able to kill a fetus that is already human by saying, "Of course not!"

Circular reasoning or not, at times you do seem to be awfully persistent and close-minded in your beliefs, almost as if no matter what is proven here you will continue to argue for a woman's right to kill her fetus.

[pikatore]

Quote by: fushigi Circular reasoning or not, at times you do seem to be awfully persistent and close-minded in your beliefs, almost as if no matter what is proven here you will continue to argue for a woman's right to kill her fetus.

Well seeing that there is no actual PROOF against me to speak of (i've been the one who's pulled out science textbooks and internet sources, the others pulled thier argument out of the dictionary), I am quite open to any decent opposition. So far, I'm yet to recieve any.