Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[ZNFYRH]

The Bacon Guy,

A fetus is not a parasite, though.

Also...

Quote by: TBG abortion is simply refusing to expend resources in preventing a death.

... which is the same as pulling the plug for life support.

I'm still very resistant to this idea of a developing human being not being the same as a fully-developed human being as far as rights are concerned.

Just because the fetus is in the mother for 10 months doesn't mean those 10 months are invalidated.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: ZNFYRH A fetus is not a parasite, though.

Not genetically, but its activity is parasitic.

Quote by: ZNFYRH ... which is the same as pulling the plug for life support.

Which I'm completely ok with if the life support machine is privately owned. Property rights support a mother's choice to abort.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I'm still very resistant to this idea of a developing human being not being the same as a fully-developed human being as far as rights are concerned.

What is your reason for supporting a fully grown human's right to life?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: TBG Which I'm completely ok with if the life support machine is privately owned. Property rights support a mother's choice to abort.

I'm thinking that I agree.

If the state or insurance are paying for life support, they are the ones who can choose. Whoever is doing the "supporting" makes the choice.

The mother, the one doing the "supporting", has the choice.

Quote by: TBG What is your reason for supporting a fully grown human's right to life?

For the sake of this discussion, I am only saying that if you want a grown human to have rights then those rights apply to a fetus.

Personally, I don't think any rights are automatic. Your only rights are the ones you can fight for or earn. A fetus doesn't "earn" the right to life... it is given to them by the mother. Of course, I've adapted that idea as my own after reading others on the forum say something similar.

[5010]

Quote by: pikatore I'm saying from what I read, there was nothing wrong. What parts were ad hominem?

The argument that one who doesn't do everything in their power to end world starvation is not eligible to debate the issue opposes the opponent, not the opponent's points. That's why I consider it ad hominem.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: fushigi We've gone over this again and again. Just because an organism derives total support from someone else does not make it a justifiable target to kill. We don't lightly take people in comas off life support, do we? Can I feel free to euthanize a boxer who's just been knocked out? What about a premie in an incubator? All of them use another person as life support, one way or another.

Life does begin at conception to me but it's a woman's right to abort. The issue is all about the mother and her rights.

[5010]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The mother is not killing it per se; she is simply refusing to give her resources to a parasite. Given that these resources fall under property rights, she is well within her rights to do so.

The only method of abortion that I would consider 'refusing to give her resources to a parasite' would be hysterectomy. During a pregnancy, I say the womb is under control and property of the unborn. Those who disagree then would consider the abortion pill and hysterotomy to be 'resource refusal' methods, and prostaglandin abortions too in cases where they don't poison the unborn before performing it. The rest actively kill the unborn.

Furthermore, I say no parent should have the 'right' to kill their child by neglect. Their minimum obligation is to get the child safely to someone who is willing and able to take over.

Hysterectomy - Yes. Removal of the unborn at the same time as removal of the uterus.

Abortion Pill (RU 486) - No. Blocks progesterone, causing the lining of the uterus to slough off, killing the unborn.

Hysterotomy - No. Typically, the abdomen and womb are opened and the baby is lifted out and umbilical cord clamped, then the exposed too-young baby dies. Some babies survive and are then either accepted by the mother or placed for adoption.

Prostaglandin Abortion - No. Used during 2nd half of pregnancy: hormones induce labour to deliver a premature baby that usually is too young to survive. The exposed baby then dies. Sometimes saline or urea are injected before this to kill the unborn, since delivering a dead baby is less stressful on mother and clinicians than delivering a live baby and watching it die.

Suction Aspiration - No. Most often used during the 1st 12 weeks, the tube tears apart the unborn into pieces then sucks them into a bottle.

Menstrual Extraction - No. Similar to the above, but the tube is smaller and it is done earler in pregnancy. It still tears the unborn to pieces.

Dilation and Curettage - No. Similar to suction, but a loop-shaped knife (curette) is used to cut the unborn to pieces.

Dilation and Evacuation - No. Used up to 18 weeks gestation, forceps are used to twist and tear off parts of the unborn and remove from the womb piecemeal.

Saline Abortion - No. Used after the 16th week, a needle removes amniotic fluid and replaces it with concentrated salt, which poisons the unborn to death. Then the mother delivers a dead baby 24-48 hrs later.

Urea Abortion - No. Similar to saline. Poisons the unborn to death.

Partial Birth Abortion - No. Used 26 weeks or after, the cervix is dilated for 2 days, then they use ultrasound to locate the unborn's leg. Forceps pull out one leg, then the other leg and torso are pulled out by hand. The head is left inside and a hole is punctured and the almostborn is killed as the skull contents vacuumed prior to removing the body.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: livefree If you don't believe in souls and you don't think God is involved, then why on earth do you believe that a pinhead sized cluster of cells is somehow the same as a real live already-born human being. And if you don't think that they are the same then why do you want to call that zygote a human? Is an acorn the same as a mighty oak tree? Or are acorns and zygotes both merely potentials that may or may not become an oak tree or a human? Most don't, in the natural course of things. What exactly is so precious about that cluster of cells that would make its rights paramount over the mother's basic right to have control over her own body? Please try to give this a serious answer 'cause I'm interested in why you would believe this without believing in souls or without being one of these sex-negative wackos who want to punish women for being sexual.

That was very well-said. :)

[pikatore]

funny how the word 'unborn' is used in that post quite liberally. try to look at the specifics of what state the 'unborn' foetus/embryo is in. Appeal to emotion seems to be the strongest weapon in the pro-life arsenal - not looking too good.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: ZNFYRH For the sake of this discussion, I am only saying that if you want a grown human to have rights then those rights apply to a fetus.

I agree that human rights should apply to all humans. However, I don't think human, in this case, should refer to the scientific definition of the word. Since rights are a social concept, not a scientific one, I would argue that the definition of human used in human rights should be a social one. A foetus is by no means socially equivalent to a human.

Quote by: 5010 The only method of abortion that I would consider 'refusing to give her resources to a parasite' would be hysterectomy. During a pregnancy, I say the womb is under control and property of the unborn.

A foetus doesn’t own something simply by residing there. That’s not how property rights work.

Quote by: 5010 Those who disagree then would consider the abortion pill and hysterotomy to be 'resource refusal' methods, and prostaglandin abortions too in cases where they don't poison the unborn before performing it. The rest actively kill the unborn.

It really doesn’t make a difference if removing the resources involves actively killing it, since the foetus will die anyway when the resources are removed.

Quote by: 5010 Furthermore, I say no parent should have the 'right' to kill their child by neglect. Their minimum obligation is to get the child safely to someone who is willing and able to take over.

If that is possible, as it is with a child, they should be obligated to give the kid up for adoption rather than neglecting it. However, it is not possible with a foetus, so it must be removed by other means. The mother has a right to exercise her property rights by whatever means necessary.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: TBG I agree that human rights should apply to all humans. However, I don't think human, in this case, should refer to the scientific definition of the word. Since rights are a social concept, not a scientific one, I would argue that the definition of human used in human rights should be a social one. A foetus is by no means socially equivalent to a human.

Good point.

But is the right to not have your life taken away a social one?

I would happen to think it is, since many cultures in the world don't have a "right to life".

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: ZNFYRH But is the right to not have your life taken away a social one?

I would say any right is ultimately a social concept; I don't believe rights are in any way metaphysical.

[ZNFYRH]

Metaphysical? I agree. I don't think they are.

I think they are completely social.

Given that, I would say that in U.S. society, if we allow a coma patient full human rights but legally afford another the right to stop supporting their life, a fetus should also get the same full human rights but the mother is legally afforded the right to stop supporting its life.

[fushigi]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy So, on a legal level, I don't think there is any question.

No argument there. Abortions are legal, after all.

Quote by: Baco On a moral level, I tend to think pro-lifers can be a touch dogmatic in the value they attribute to human life. One needs to ask what gives an adult human life value. The answer surely lies with the value of the person's life to his family and friends, and therefore with his ability to form relationships. A foetus does not have this ability and hence is not analogous to a fully grown human being.

Then you and I have different views of the value of a human being. Would the life of the last man on earth have value? I think so.

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore funny how the word 'unborn' is used in that post quite liberally. try to look at the specifics of what state the 'unborn' foetus/embryo is in. Appeal to emotion seems to be the strongest weapon in the pro-life arsenal - not looking too good.

I think this would be one case where appeal to emotion should be considered a valid form of debate. After all, why do animals care for their children anyway? Because of the emotional sense of sympathy and attachment. I simply want people to consider having the same sense of sympathy for an organism whose only downfall is not having had the chance to develop enough to be delivered from his mother's uterus.

[livefree]

Quote by: 5010 The argument that one who doesn't do everything in their power to end world starvation is not eligible to debate the issue opposes the opponent, not the opponent's points. That's why I consider it ad hominem.

Your carping is off-point and silly. Moreover you distort the positions expressed. The argument was not that fushigi was ineligible to debate unless he was working to end starvation. The point expressed was about the hypocrisy of lecturing women about the rights of the "unborn life" of a small cell cluster because it is human, while ignoring the much more real mass suffering and death of real live born humans, with personalities and families, that are caused by wholly-preventable starvation. Pointing out hypocrisy in an opponents position is not an ad hominem attack, it is pointing out a weakness in their arguments. The question of just why so many anti-abortionists are so very fierce about protecting the "right to life" of the "unborn" but so very unconcerned about the lives of the born, is an important one and should be part of any debate about abortion. If the question bothers you, then maybe you should examine any hypocrisy in your own position.

"So, fushigi, are you spending your life and a significant percentage of your income helping the poor, starving children of the world? Thirty thousand children STARVE to DEATH each and every day of the year on planet Earth! What are you doing personally about that? If you aren't doing everything in your power to ease that suffering and death, then you are a flaming hypocrite when you lecture women about "respecting" the "life inside them". You are so very concerned about the potential human life in tiny clusters of cells that have no mind or nervous system, but you ignore the very real suffering of billions of third world humans who are already born and have developed personalities and the capacity to feel pain and know it."

[fushigi]

Quote by: LF The point expressed was about the hypocrisy of lecturing women about the rights of the "unborn life" of a small cell cluster because it is human, while ignoring the much more real mass suffering and death of real live born humans, with personalities and families, that are caused by wholly-preventable starvation.

No matter how you try to explain it, it's a fatuous, specious fallacy. At the very least it's a false dilemma, considering a person can support the rights of the unborn and have concern about the suffering of starving children.

I do.

[livefree]

Quote by: fushigi Another great post, livefree. I can see you've taken a long time developing your response and I appreciate that. Let me just start by saying that I view human rights and "that which would be human" rights as the same. In that sense, for me, yes, the acorn deserves the rights that belong to a tree, though it isn't a tree yet. (However, I should also point out that I think acorn::tree =/= fetus::human, since the probability an acorn will become a tree is more akin to ovum::human.) Perhaps it comes from my view of the passage of time, which 5010 described quite well here. I don't just see zygotes and blastulas as clusters of cells, I can imagine the entire future of that organism's existence, which would include humanity. (This is why I have no problem with you cutting your fingernails; I can't imagine a future where your fingernails become a person. The same goes for sperm; it doesn't, on its own, become a human, so I have no problem with masturbation.) It's hard for me to think that the physical mass of tissues that had no brain activity in my mother's uterus wasn't me. I can't just explain it away by saying, "I had no consciousness," and therefore it wasn't me. It was me - I just wasn't that developed yet. And just in the same way that, had someone killed me while I slept in my crib when I was six months old I wouldn't be reading your posts and thinking about what you've written, the same would be true had someone killed me while I was that mass of tissue in the womb. So you got me. Zygotes aren't completely human yet. But it's still life, life that will be human, to return all the way to the OP. For me, that gives a zygote as much right to live as a fetus, a baby, an adult, a person in a coma. Perhaps to avoid misspeaking, I ought to say fetuses are "pre-humans" or "future humans." Again, for me this wouldn't deny a fetus any right that I would give you as a person or expect for myself.

You state your beliefs - again and again - but you don't answer my questions about your beliefs. You say that you "view human rights and 'that which would be human' rights as the same", but you don't say why you would take such a strange position. You say that you "can imagine the entire future of that organism's existence", but that is just a mental fantasy. The reality in the moment that a woman is standing in front of you pregnant is that there is a woman and there is a cluster of cells smaller than your fingernail. There is no person there in that cluster, there is no intelligence, no feelings, no nervous system. There is only potential. I've asked you and asked you to explain to me why that potential should have rights that exceed the rights of the living woman to decide when she is ready to have a child. You have so far not done this.

You say: "It's hard for me to think that the physical mass of tissues that had no brain activity in my mother's uterus wasn't me." I would ask you, who are you now? and what exactly is it that you identify with as yourself now that was also present then as a zygote?

You say: "Zygotes aren't completely human yet. But it's still life, life that will be human... For me, that gives a zygote as much right to live as a fetus, a baby, an adult, a person in a coma." Why, why, why? I'm afraid your position still seems totally absurd to me.

You say: "This is why I have no problem with you cutting your fingernails; I can't imagine a future where your fingernails become a person. The same goes for sperm; it doesn't, on its own, become a human, so I have no problem with masturbation". Hypothetically, what if they announced that that it was now possible to clone new human beings from fingernail clippings, would you then feel great concern and want to protect all those little fingernail clippings because they could develop into a human. That seems to be the sum of your argument concerning zygotes.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: fush Then you and I have different views of the value of a human being. Would the life of the last man on earth have value? I think so.

Why? Who would suffer as a result of his death?

[fushigi]

Uh, him?

[fushigi]

Quote by: livefree You say: "It's hard for me to think that the physical mass of tissues that had no brain activity in my mother's uterus wasn't me." I would ask you, who are you now? and what exactly is it that you identify with as yourself now that was also present then as a zygote?

The linear path of my history returns ineluctably to my status, some 30 years ago, as a zygote. There's no way for you to deny it. Had you killed me then I would hold you no less guilty of ending my existence than if you killed me today.