Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore something can be alive on different levels.

The status of life is not a scalar quantity. It's binary.

Something is either alive or dead. There is no in-between.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The status of life is not a scalar quantity. It's binary. Something is either alive or dead. There is no in-between.

Chop off a chickens head, and crush the head. You've killed the chicken. But wait! It's running around in circles!! It must be alive still!

The chicken is dead, but it's cells aren't.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore The chicken is dead, but it's cells aren't.

But the chicken is dead.

If I die and my organs are transplanted to those that need them, am I still dead even though my cells are alive?

[Manzooka]

I'm sorry, but the abortion debate has no universal answers. Where one stands depends entirely on where he or she chooses to plant their perceptions and values.

The real question being asked here is when a human life begins, and for better or worse there is no universal answer. This isn't a question scientists, scholars or religious figures can answer definitively.

Don't get lost in the minutia. In this case the devil is not in the details.

I'm pro-choice myself, but rather than berate the "opposition" for being heartless or not recognizing a woman's right to choose I'm willing to recognize that from many perspectives there is no other "right" answer than being pro-life. In the end I voice my opinion, do the "agree to disagree" thing, and use my votes instead of harsh words to defend my position.

[fushigi]

Welcome to Volconvo, Manzooka!

Quote by: MZ The real question being asked here is when a human life begins, and for better or worse there is no universal answer. This isn't a question scientists, scholars or religious figures can answer definitively.

Your argument seems to suggest that the evaluation of the inception of life is a relative moment open to interpretation by anyone and everyone. This kind of relativism concerns me, and makes me wonder: If we must respect all opinions as potentially credible, shouldn't we err on the side of NOT killing the fetus?

Furthermore, if all relativism is valid, are you sure that life begins at birth? Are you opposed to infanticide? And if the majority of Americans believed life began at age 7, and voted accordingly that babies could be "terminated" at any point up to that age, would you feel so dispassionate about our laws?

[ZNFYRH]

pikatore,

The headless chicken is running around the room and I've been dead and buried for years but my organs are alive and well in another person.

Am I dead or not?

[Manzooka]

Quote by: fushigi Welcome to Volconvo, Manzooka! Your argument seems to suggest that the evaluation of the inception of life is a relative moment open to interpretation by anyone and everyone. This kind of relativism concerns me, and makes me wonder: If we must respect all opinions as potentially credible, shouldn't we err on the side of NOT killing the fetus? Furthermore, if all relativism is valid, are you sure that life begins at birth? Are you opposed to infanticide? And if the majority of Americans believed life began at age 7, and voted accordingly that babies could be "terminated" at any point up to that age, would you feel so dispassionate about our laws?

Thanks for the welcome :-D

Don't mistake my recognition of opposing arguments for dispassion. I feel quite strongly about my own interpretation of what's best for my country, my community, and our families in the long run. But I'm also willing to recognize the validity of opposing arguments from individuals who hold different perspectives.

To be frank, I don't believe in any specific moment when "life" (in quotations) beings. A sperm and an egg are living, so are the twin cells when they first divide, so is an infant when it draws it's first breath along with everything in between. It's a slippery slope argument either way. Do we outlaw contraception to protect those moments when a sperm an egg might meet? Do we harvest every egg? Do we recognize human life only once a child is born, or perhaps when they reach the age of seven (to use your example)? Or do we outlaw abortions all together just in case?

I am not a full on relativist but I do believe in a high degree of moral relativity (not a popular opinion, I know). More often than not where I side on an issue has less do with "right" and "wrong" and more to do with what I think is best for humanity as a whole. I'm not an expert on the subject but I do my best to think deeply on any subject with any depth.

[fushigi]

OK, gotcha.

The slippery slope argument you posited has been used here REPEATEDLY! I'm not a big fan; it's often used against my arguments. (One guy even said "Should we outlaw clipping fingernails because the DNA could be used to clone a person?" Please. :rolleyes:)

My determination on that point is INTENT. If your actions intend to kill a zygote/embryo/fetus (z/e/f), then my feeling is you're culpable for the death of that z/e/f (how culpable - or the level of moral outrage one should feel about that - is up to the individual view.) When a guy clips his fingernails, he's not intentionally ending a life. When a guy masturbates, he's not intentionally ending millions of lives.

But when you abort a z/e/f, you are intentionally ending a life. That requires some long, hard, thought, in my view, and cannot be reduced to a "it's inside the woman's body, therefore it has no right to live" argument.

fushigi

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: But when you abort a z/e/f, you are intentionally ending a life. That requires some long, hard, thought, in my view, and cannot be reduced to a "it's inside the woman's body, therefore it has no right to live" argument.

Where is the philosophy, line of logic and reasoning, to support that, so I can shoot some holes in it?

How does a non-individual, non-citizen, non-legal entity have rights?

[fushigi]

We've been through this before, Os. Your definition of "rights" is not the same as mine in this case. Yours relates to the Constitution and Supreme Court law; mine relates to a higher law.

[Manzooka]

Quote by: fushigi But when you abort a z/e/f, you are intentionally ending a life. That requires some long, hard, thought, in my view, and cannot be reduced to a "it's inside the woman's body, therefore it has no right to live" argument. fushigi

Understood.

I only posted the slippery slope argument to highlight how not having a definitive answer can take us off in ridiculous directions. I don't foresee anyone in their right mind pushing for masturbators to receive the death penalty anymore than I see someone seeking to “abort” a seven year old child.

But regarding culpability and intent, I can only refer you back to my original post. I’m more than willing to recognize that given a specific set of values your conclusions are totally valid. Many of us are just coming from a different direction.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name All this debate about when - exactly - life begins is totally irrelevant, because, quite frankly, a woman NEVER knows precisely when it happens. The ONLY point that matters is the precise moment she realizes she is pregnant. That's a pretty obvious point during the pregnancy, and once that is a known fact, I think we can all safely assume that "life has begun."

So could a woman get an abortion before she knew she was pregnant?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi OK, gotcha. The slippery slope argument you posited has been used here REPEATEDLY! I'm not a big fan; it's often used against my arguments. (One guy even said "Should we outlaw clipping fingernails because the DNA could be used to clone a person?" Please. :rolleyes:) My determination on that point is INTENT. If your actions intend to kill a zygote/embryo/fetus (z/e/f), then my feeling is you're culpable for the death of that z/e/f (how culpable - or the level of moral outrage one should feel about that - is up to the individual view.) When a guy clips his fingernails, he's not intentionally ending a life. When a guy masturbates, he's not intentionally ending millions of lives. But when you abort a z/e/f, you are intentionally ending a life. That requires some long, hard, thought, in my view, and cannot be reduced to a "it's inside the woman's body, therefore it has no right to live" argument. fushigi

But if the intent is to reclaim one's own bodily sovereignty from an unwelcome intruder, can that be seen as intentionally ending a life? If you kill someone who is trying to kill you, were you trying to protect yourself or trying to kill the person? What is your intent?

[fushigi]

If it's self-defense (the woman's life is in danger), of course I support abortion rights. Same with rape and incest, as I've mentioned before.

[ZNFYRH]

So why is it okay to terminate a life for those three reasons but not for another.

Why is the argument about whether it's a life suddenly irrelevant if we're talking about rape, incest, or medical issues?

[fushigi]

For medical issues, it's the choice of one life or the other. Save the mother or the baby. Someone will die either way. It should be the mother's choice which one.

As for rape or incest, the mental anguish of being forced to carry the baby to term is extreme to the point that even at the cost of a life it should be avoided IMO. Incest, especially, since the baby is likely to have genetic disorders that make him incapable of any future as a productive human being.

[ZNFYRH]

fushigi,

But are those circumstances the only ones in which the woman should be able to choose abortion?

I'm not attributing this argument towards you, but I want to raise the point regardless...

Why is it that some people think abortion is okay under medical, rape, or incest circumstances but not under normal circumstances?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi For medical issues, it's the choice of one life or the other. Save the mother or the baby. Someone will die either way. It should be the mother's choice which one. As for rape or incest, the mental anguish of being forced to carry the baby to term is extreme to the point that even at the cost of a life it should be avoided IMO. Incest, especially, since the baby is likely to have genetic disorders that make him incapable of any future as a productive human being.

A single instance of incest is not very likely to lead to genetic abnormalities; I thought it took generations of inbreeding before serious problems arose. But apart from that, I wonder how one can judge the mental anguish of another: why is that bearing the child of rape is so damaging to the mother's psyche that she should be allowed to kill it to spare herself that suffering, but the mental anguish of bearing a child for nine months, giving up (or at least sharing) control of one's own body, facing the invasive and judgemental questions and comments of the general public, dealing with the loss of mobility and all of the resultant implications for employment, and facing the possibility of suffering permanent harm from the pregnancy and birth -- none of those are enough? Why is that? Because she chose to have sex, and that means she's a bad person who needs to be punished? Because the life of an unthinking and unfeeling clump of cells is more important than the freedom of a woman? Because women are meant to have children, and she should be fulfilling her role?

Explain it to me, please.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: fushigi For medical issues, it's the choice of one life or the other. Save the mother or the baby. Someone will die either way. It should be the mother's choice which one. As for rape or incest, the mental anguish of being forced to carry the baby to term is extreme to the point that even at the cost of a life it should be avoided IMO. Incest, especially, since the baby is likely to have genetic disorders that make him incapable of any future as a productive human being.

Don't ya think the mental anguish is all in your head?

Usually there aren't any more deformities with incest then with any other births, unless you have genetic tendencies towards certain illnesses etc.

[fushigi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Because she chose to have sex, and that means she's a bad person who needs to be punished?

Not because she's a "bad person." If she's a bad person, everyone who has sex is.

But she should be responsible for her actions, as should the man involved IMO. Because in the case of rape (and, most cases, incest) the pregnancy was not a result of her actions, the responsibility lies with the father. However, since he cannot carry the child and she should not be made to, the child loses out.