Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Osborn F Enready]

What logic backs that up Frasier, since you don't think people have "rights" as equals?

[Frasier]

What logic backs that up Frasier, since you don't think people have "rights" as equals?

I do think people have rights. I don't, however, think, like you, that virtually anything that isn't harming another person is a "right". Your concept of rights is different to mine.

[lastdaywatchers]

If you are going to take the biblical point of view then the bible says life reside in the blood so whenever the first blood cell is fromed there is life

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't see individual rights in the bible anywhere.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint No, you are correct; any baby of any development can be killed all the way up until the birth. However, logic does not always equate to reason, as I don't believe that any reasonable person would support the abortion of a fetus two minutes before birth, even though the logic of the argument allows this. If forced into a black and white decision, yay or nay, then the logical answer must prevail; but perhaps we can find an accommodation that allows for reason, as well as logic -- humanity as well as legality.

Quote by: O-dehlay Well in the window of time we are talking about I think both logic and reason would dictate a decision in favor of the fetus. How do you feel it is still logical to abort the fetus at this point? 2 mins before birth for clarification

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Have you not read my previous answers? You can't abridge a LEGAL, INDIVIDUALs rights in favor of a "potential" persons rights, since they have no rights.

The problem is more of a "im reading answers that someone else has posted and you are not reading those answers".

View the bolded. I wish to know in what way a baby who is capable of living on its own being removed from the mother (this is two mins before birth) can be killed logically under the same prinicples of the early fetus. We have already established that "no reasonable person would do such a thing" but I wish to know the logic behind the decision he is speaking about.

[dogma inc]

for all those pro-lifers out there; a question:
at what point is a "potential person" created?

Having sex with a condom: the sperm could have POTENTIALLY fertilized the egg, but you stopped it.
Likewise, aborting a fetus: that fetus could have POTENTIALLY become a person, but you stopped it.

It's all for the same goal isn't it? To not have a child. Because, whether you like it or not, it would be INCONVENIENT to have a child to both the girl and her partner having the sex AND the girl and her partner aborting the child.

In that case, with this arguement of "potential people" you bring into question birth control. At what point does "killing a potential human" make any sense? Is making sure someone doesn't come into existence any less than killing them?

Food for thought.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: O-dehlay The problem is more of a "im reading answers that someone else has posted and you are not reading those answers". View the bolded. I wish to know in what way a baby who is capable of living on its own being removed from the mother (this is two mins before birth) can be killed logically under the same prinicples of the early fetus. We have already established that "no reasonable person would do such a thing" but I wish to know the logic behind the decision he is speaking about.

I thought the Supreme Court was somewhat vague on this, but abortion is allowed up until viability which is around six months of pregnancy.

There have to be limits on abortion in MHO. If a woman has to wait till she's six months pregnant to decide she doesn't want the kid she doesn't deserve to be allowed to get one. She forfeits her rights. I mean we are letting people be tremendously stupid in the name of "rights". Rights have limits, and this is an area where at some point the doctor needs to say, "too bad, lady, no can do".

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: O-dehlay The problem is more of a "im reading answers that someone else has posted and you are not reading those answers". View the bolded. I wish to know in what way a baby who is capable of living on its own being removed from the mother (this is two mins before birth) can be killed logically under the same prinicples of the early fetus. We have already established that "no reasonable person would do such a thing" but I wish to know the logic behind the decision he is speaking about.

The logic is straightforward: the situation has not changed, and so the permissible responses to the situation have not changed. The child is still dependent on the mother for its survival two minutes before birth; if, somehow, the child were separated from the umbilical cord, it would die if not removed from the mother. It is still, therefore, not a person, as it is not independent and its continued survival requires an infringement of the rights of its mother. Thus it has no right to life, thus it can be killed. QED.

Reasonably/rationally speaking, it is pretty danged stupid to opt for an abortion rather than a birth at that point. Which is why it makes sense for this to be seen as a gray area, rather than a purely logical black/white situation.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The logic is straightforward: the situation has not changed, and so the permissible responses to the situation have not changed. The child is still dependent on the mother for its survival two minutes before birth; if, somehow, the child were separated from the umbilical cord, it would die if not removed from the mother. It is still, therefore, not a person, as it is not independent and its continued survival requires an infringement of the rights of its mother. Thus it has no right to life, thus it can be killed. QED. Reasonably/rationally speaking, it is pretty danged stupid to opt for an abortion rather than a birth at that point. Which is why it makes sense for this to be seen as a gray area, rather than a purely logical black/white situation.

We have arrived at this situation: The baby can survive on its own at this point. In what way is the baby still dependent on the mother? It is dependent in the way that the baby would die if it remains in the womb? I do not see this as equating dependence. You are not dependent on something or someone because it/he/she does not kill you. If this was the case we are all dependent and the train of thought ends here.

And if you have found a way around all that we now encounter an earlier snag reborn. The developed baby has now reached the point where it is the equal of the individuals who are on life support or in assisted living. This is the same point brought up earlier in which the counter was that the fetus could not perform life process such as taking in oxygen among other things. At this point the baby is now capable of achomplishing all these feats.

If anything the mother is infringing on the babies right to get out at this point to breathe and live a normal life? I dont know.

BTW im in Georgetown in D.C. right now in the JSA program. Its kind of a debate'ish, government thing for highschool students. I still suck though.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: dogma inc for all those pro-lifers out there; a question: at what point is a "potential person" created? Having sex with a condom: the sperm could have POTENTIALLY fertilized the egg, but you stopped it. Likewise, aborting a fetus: that fetus could have POTENTIALLY become a person, but you stopped it. It's all for the same goal isn't it? To not have a child. Because, whether you like it or not, it would be INCONVENIENT to have a child to both the girl and her partner having the sex AND the girl and her partner aborting the child. In that case, with this arguement of "potential people" you bring into question birth control. At what point does "killing a potential human" make any sense? Is making sure someone doesn't come into existence any less than killing them? Food for thought.

I have a problem with interfering with a process that will result in a human life without fail. I.E. the human act of sex is required for the sperm issue but once conception has happened there is no human participation needed for the process, all we can do is impede it.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The logic is straightforward: the situation has not changed, and so the permissible responses to the situation have not changed. The child is still dependent on the mother for its survival two minutes before birth; if, somehow, the child were separated from the umbilical cord, it would die if not removed from the mother. It is still, therefore, not a person, as it is not independent and its continued survival requires an infringement of the rights of its mother. Thus it has no right to life, thus it can be killed. QED. Reasonably/rationally speaking, it is pretty danged stupid to opt for an abortion rather than a birth at that point. Which is why it makes sense for this to be seen as a gray area, rather than a purely logical black/white situation.

A child is dependant on it's mother or parent for many years after it's born, maybe not tied with an umbilical cord, but certainly still dependant, and if you go for nutrition and the mother is the only source, then the child is still quite dependant on it's mother for survival after birth. Any woman who can get pregnant knows what pregnancy involves. Can't play the ignorance card for the whole nine months. To some degree a woman forfeits some rights when she becomes pregnant and they become shared rights. Kinda like a squatter has rights. "I'm here and maybe I shouldn't be and you don't like it, but tough toenails you are going to have to make arrangements for me."

Personally, I believe that a child does start to develop rights while in the womb, and they are there when it could survive if birthed. That's probably around 6 months. I think if it can survive without life support it should be considered a citizen with all the rights a citizen has.

I believe at some point we as humans have to be rational, and even if a law is made, if it's a bad law, we need to fight it. We may not win, but we still need to be vocal about it.

[pikatore]

Quote by: O-dehlay I have a problem with interfering with a process that will result in a human life without fail. I.E. the human act of sex is required for the sperm issue but once conception has happened there is no human participation needed for the process, all we can do is impede it.

What about miscarriages due to malnutrition or just pure luck? They seem to break your rule. Should the woman be held for manslaughter? It's a question I've asked a lot of times in this thread.

Conception in no way, shape, or form guarentees viable offspring. It's making this somewhat ignorant assumption that causes the pro-life argument to trip up.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Personally, I believe that a child does start to develop rights while in the womb, and they are there when it could survive if birthed. That's probably around 6 months. I think if it can survive without life support it should be considered a citizen with all the rights a citizen has.

Please explain the bolded word to me. How does an individual start to develop rights? I believe that they are either there, or they aren't. There has to be some sort of condition that we can all agree on that would automatically give rights to the foetus.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: pikatore What about miscarriages due to malnutrition or just pure luck? They seem to break your rule. Should the woman be held for manslaughter? It's a question I've asked a lot of times in this thread. Conception in no way, shape, or form guarentees viable offspring. It's making this somewhat ignorant assumption that causes the pro-life argument to trip up.

If its just pure luck then its just pure luck. I fail to see how this changes my view at all. Or break "my rule". I dont care in the least for punishing the women all I care about is protecting the other party.

Again I still fail to see how the luck aspect defeats anything Ive said. It seems to be on par with the idea its ok to shoot someone because they could die from something else in the future.

What about misscarriages due to the umbilical cord wraping about the childs neck? Does that mean anything in any way? It is luck just as well and yet it is still a baby. I dont see any of these connections.

[pikatore]

Quote by: O-dehlay all I care about is protecting the other party.

The other 'party' doesn't even have a working brain to think with. A personality doesnt even EXIST until late pregnancy.

If you are simply trying to protect a potential person, a person that until it exists, is a concept, a figment of your imagination, which is what an embryo and early to mid stage feotus definetly ISNT (due to a lack of biological viability and sentience), then stop. Because until late pregnancy, the only 'party' that exists is the mother. Once there is a BABY, a CHILD to consider, then we can start to look at it. But until then, it is a mess of cells that isn't worth more than the sum of it's parts.

[O-dehlay]

As I see it at the moment (since no one has corrected me as of yet): Under the current ruleing it is possible and legal to abort a baby 2 mins before birth. This makes zero sense in logic nor reason (again unless you or someone else can show me the light). Because no one (here at least) recognizes a point at which the fetus becomes an individual before birth nor does the current ruleing, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the ruleing is wrong and makes no sence. As it has been chanted so many times on this thread already "nothing has changed in the condition of the fetus, so why would it be any different". So thats quite alright; nothing has changed since the earlier stages and the 2 mins before birth stage so I must accept them both as human and an individual. Again unless someone finds a loop hole around this reasoning.

Some other decision on the subject would have to be reached. What that will be I dont know. If this fails to make sence its probably better seen in the other posts on this page.

Im going to try to simplify it. The baby 2 mins before birth can operate and function in everyway we deem something to be an individual and under the protection of the law. Through the law we recognize no difference between this baby and the fetus. Because I refuse to accept the abortion of fully developed babies(as should everyone?) and they are equivilent to the fetuses as dictated by this thread I see no way in which I can take any other stance.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: O-dehlay I have a problem with interfering with a process that will result in a human life without fail. I.E. the human act of sex is required for the sperm issue but once conception has happened there is no human participation needed for the process, all we can do is impede it.

As for your problem with the potential aspect of it all ill just requote this. Since you seemed to abandon the luck issue on this I see it as still relevent. This is in addition of course to what I just posted above.

I also have a strong problem with it under the stance that the "government has yet to recognize it as a individual under protection of the law". The government does not grant us our rights in any way shape or form. We are born with unalienable rights in which te Government plays no part in giving us. Anything having to do with rights in our law or constitution reloves primarily around preventing the government from trampeling over rights we already posses as humans. Earlier it was stated that just because something is human dosnt mean its not illegal to kill it. I highly disagree. All humans have inalienable rights as humans.

[Muckraker]

Apparently, the only thing distinguishing a human with legal rights to life and one that has no rights and can be killed for convenience is the fact that one is encased in a womb and the other is not.

Here's an interesting idea:

Pregnant woman wants an abortion but procrastinates. Ends up going into early labor and delivers a 6-month old premie before she can abort it. The simple fact that the 6-month old is now outside of the mother grants it full rights to life and if anyone killed the child it would be called murder.

The only difference in these two scenarios is that one baby is inside and the other is outside.

I think just about everyone can agree that, while the discussion of choice is always valid, abortion itself is disgusting. Even though I accept the current rights to choice, and I agree with them to an extent, I will never flippantly discuss the right to kill as I would discuss the right to water one's lawn at night. Whichever way you look at it, there is a fundamental problem with the issue.

[pikatore]

As much as you may dislike it, your rights are DICTATED by the rest of the world, not yourself.

If other people ACCEPT a certain thing to be a right, it becomes one.

If a law restricts what one person may call a right and another calls a danger to the peace, it all depends on which side you are on. Even the simple right to life is something that your government may dictate (i.e death penalty). If enough people agree that something is an inalienable right, it doesn't mean they are correct, but it means that the idea will be protected. This is why gun control exists in some countries.

I DONT think there is no change until birth, that is a very simplified way of looking at it. And I do draw the line before birth. Of course it is ignorant to declare birth as the beginning of a baby's independence from the mother, as it is sentient before then.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: pikatore As much as you may dislike it, your rights are DICTATED by the rest of the world, not yourself.

Not if your American and believe in our constitution and declaration of independence?

Surely there is a counterpart to this in English history?

If other people ACCEPT a certain thing to be a right, it becomes one. If a law restricts what one person may call a right and another calls a danger to the peace, it all depends on which side you are on. Even the simple right to life is something that your government may dictate (i.e death penalty). If enough people agree that something is an inalienable right, it doesn't mean they are correct, but it means that the idea will be protected. This is why gun control exists in some countries.

Majority rule vs minority rights. Again brought to you by our amazing founders and constitution (see Fed papers for more info). Everything in this paragraph is a hhuge contradiction of this solid democratic principle. I am intrested in how you think slavery was dealt with if you truely believe what you have just said

Again, our government grants us NOTHING in terms of rights. Our rights have always exsisted and our civil liberties (bill of rights) were created precisely to avoid the government from interfereing with rights which we already posses. The bill of rights does not give us our rights it merely protects them. This becomes obvious through the federalist vs anti-fed debate in which the federalists even questioned the bill of rights as redundant

I DONT think there is no change until birth, that is a very simplified way of looking at it. And I do draw the line before birth. Of course it is ignorant to declare birth as the beginning of a baby's independence from the mother, as it is sentient before then.

Then we agree, and so we agree that a law that would allow this to be legal is incorrect. Do we not?


EDIT: And I really wish I did not ave to wait a day for the reply :(. Im supposed to be studying but instead I have this on my mind.