Abortion Discussion

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

obplayer

am946745 wrote: »

Well the fact is that You and I began our unique existence an conception. Thats a fact.

Here are a couple of real facts.

A 3 day old human embryo contains 150 cells. No brain, no neural system.
The brain of a fly contains 100,000 cells.

So a 3 day old human embryo is an independent life?

Explained here better than I ever could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKWYENPxNtM&feature=player_detailpage#t=71

aloyisious

Are unconscious nocturnal emissions mass murder, or acts of nature outside the scope of Godly wrath? I'd rather not incur the wrath of morally offended people acting on behalf of he who must remain nameless.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

Are unconscious nocturnal emissions mass murder, or acts of nature outside the scope of Godly wrath? I'd rather not incur the wrath of morally offended people acting on behalf of he who must remain nameless.

Mortal sin requires "grave matter" and "full intention".

So, not so much gametocide, more a matter of spermslaughter.

alaimacerc

am946745 wrote: »

Well the fact is that You and I began our unique existence an conception. Thats a fact.

Are you certain you're not a genetic chimera? As well as that PP isn't a monozygotic twin?

Exceptions comprehensively debunk the "rule".

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

"pro-life" is unhelpful*, anti-abortion or abbreviations thereof is simply accurate. *It's frankly akin to calling neo-Nazis philo-semites.

Pro-choice is equally unhelpful; Pro-choice proponents don't all support every choice that could be made by any person, just a particular choice that could be made by some people in particular circumstances.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Pro- and anti-choice are the correct terms. This is only about choice, nothing else.

Sort of true, from a pro-choice perspective. Not true, from a pro-life perspective.

Or, to look at it another way, imagining you're scoring some sort of points by sneering at how other people don't subscribe to your 'logical' conclusion from your interpretation of two hyphenated words is probably unhelpful.

Those who choose to see themselves as pro-life probably won't change their minds just because someone thinks they should agitate for more fair and equal sharing of the worlds income and wealth in order to use the term, or that they're really anti choice because they feel they protecting lives is more important than offering choices.

Do the two terms actually matter? It seems to me that these kind of deliberate misconstruals (like "Human life goes back in an unbroken chain to the time when humans became human" in answer to "Human life begins at conception") only add argument to the argument without adding anything to the discussion (as does "the other movement that wants to end life is technically pro-death group" in fairness).

Hopefully that's not misrepresentation of any sort... I wouldn't want to be accused of strawmanning the discussion.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Pro-choice is equally unhelpful; Pro-choice proponents don't all support every choice that could be made by any person, just a particular choice that could be made by some people in particular circumstances.

Sort of true, from a pro-choice perspective. Not true, from a pro-life perspective.

Or, to look at it another way, imagining you're scoring some sort of points by sneering at how other people don't subscribe to your 'logical' conclusion from your interpretation of two hyphenated words is probably unhelpful.

Those who choose to see themselves as pro-life probably won't change their minds just because someone thinks they should agitate for more fair and equal sharing of the worlds income and wealth in order to use the term, or that they're really anti choice because they feel they protecting lives is more important than offering choices.

Do the two terms actually matter? It seems to me that these kind of deliberate misconstruals (like "Human life goes back in an unbroken chain to the time when humans became human" in answer to "Human life begins at conception") only add argument to the argument without adding anything to the discussion (as does "the other movement that wants to end life is technically pro-death group" in fairness).

Hopefully that's not misrepresentation of any sort... I wouldn't want to be accused of strawmanning the discussion.

I am pro life. I don't know anyone who isn't. I'm also pro-choice. Plus, I don't know how "Human life goes back in an unbroken chain to the time when humans became human" is a deliberate misconstrual. It is a fact. When anti-choicers state human life begins at conception, they are deliberately misconstruing. My sperm is human. It doesn't become a human being at the moment of conception. Anti-choicers don't understand the difference between what it is to be human and what it is to be a human being.

volchitsa

Pherekydes wrote: »

I am pro life. I don't know anyone who isn't. I'm also pro-choice. Plus, I don't know how "Human life goes back in an unbroken chain to the time when humans became human" is a deliberate misconstrual. It is a fact. When anti-choicers state human life begins at conception, they are deliberately misconstruing. My sperm is human. It doesn't become a human being at the moment of conception. Anti-choicers don't understand the difference between what it is to be human and what it is to be a human being.

I'd also point out that the conclusion each group comes to is fundamentally different :
The anti-choice group concludes that "So everyone else has to follow our rules, and we define any possible exceptions" while the pro-choice group concludes "So it's up to individual pregnant women when and whether she decides to prioritize the fetus over herself."

I think "pro-" and "anti-" choice describe that crucial difference pretty satisfactorily.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

I am pro life. I don't know anyone who isn't. I'm also pro-choice.

And many of those who were in the Pro-Life march would say the same; given the breadth of meaning available to the combinations of those three words, is there any value whatsoever (other than flashing ones peer group credentials) in claiming to be pissed off at people 'lying' by describing themselves as pro-life?

Pherekydes wrote: »

Plus, I don't know how "Human life goes back in an unbroken chain to the time when humans became human" is a deliberate misconstrual. It is a fact. When anti-choicers state human life begins at conception, they are deliberately misconstruing. My sperm is human. It doesn't become a human being at the moment of conception.

Because am946745 was so clearly referring to an individual human life that responding to it with a line about the entirety of all life that may be considered human can only be a deliberate misconstrual. Unless you're saying you really didn't understand that was what he was talking about?

Pherekydes wrote: »

Anti-choicers don't understand the difference between what it is to be human and what it is to be a human being.

I doubt you can state with any certainty at all that there isn't a single person holding a pro-life position that doesn't understand that there is a difference between what it is to be human and what it is to be a human being; if you think you can, have a search through this thread for 'human being' and you'll quickly be disabused of the notion.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The anti-choice group concludes that "So everyone else has to follow our rules, and we define any possible exceptions"

I don't think you can quote a single pro-life proponent concluding that though, so your "pro-" and "anti-" choice only really describe a crucial difference between a group you think matches your own position, and a group that you've imagined. I think Brian would probably call that group a strawman.
Which is pretty much proving my point; snarking over whether people should or shouldn't be identified by the term they choose for themselves is pretty pointless; everyone posting on the subject so far has already flashed their credentials quite thoroughly.

PopePalpatine

I wonder when those "Rally For Life" posters are coming down in Dublin. I'm going to guess some time around the start of August.

robdonn

am946745 wrote: »

Well the fact is that You and I began our unique existence an conception. Thats a fact.

Well that's not a fact. That is an arbitrary point that you have decided is the beginning of one's own existence, by which then we could trace our beginning back to the sperm created in our father's testes a few days before conception or our mother's egg which is as old as she is, as each of these sex cells are as unique to you as their combined form.

But this then brings up the ever-tiring "every sperm is sacred" argument.

We cannot define the beginning of life as it is a cycle, our life emerges from our parents' lives. It is like trying to define the exact point that someone becomes old. This is why the general argument for pro-choice tries to rely on the definition of 'viability', when a foetus is no longer reliant solely on the mother's body, rather than 'life'.

Hotblack Desiato

If life begins at conception, why did the Irish Supreme Court determine that frozen embryos have no right to life?

Why aren't miscarriages investigated as potential homicides?

Why aren't miscarriages registered as deaths and death certificates issued?

Nobody not even the most ardent anti-choicer regards an embryo as fully equivalent to a born human.

Brian Shanahan

am946745 wrote: »

Human life begins at conception. Pro-life is just that. the other movement that wants to end life is technically pro-death group.

[citation needed]

Plus any group which believes the life of a living breathing woman is worth less than a group of cells is definitely not pro-life, because they are not defending the living being, they are defending a group of cells which have a small chance of eventually becoming a living being. So no, even if life does begin at conception, you are not pro-life, you are simply anti-abortion, an extremely misogynistic position to be taking.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Plus any group which believes the life of a living breathing woman is worth less than a group of cells is definitely not pro-life, because they are not defending the living being, they are defending a group of cells which have a small chance of eventually becoming a living being. So no, even if life does begin at conception, you are not pro-life, you are simply anti-abortion, an extremely misogynistic position to be taking.

Except of course if they disagree with you and believe the group of cells is a living being, like am946745 does, and that the life of a living breathing woman has equal value. In which case they are pro-life, and not at all misogynistic, at least from the information provided.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Except of course if they disagree with you and believe the group of cells is a living being, like am946745 does, and that the life of a living breathing woman has equal value. In which case they are pro-life, and not at all misogynistic, at least from the information provided.

Well if the wife of someone like you or am946745 is dying and the way to save her is to abort the collection of cells threatening her life, I hope you explain to this living breathing sentient human that her life matters less to you than a collection of cells. Tell her. Just tell her.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Well if the wife of someone like you or am946745 is dying and the way to save her is to abort the collection of cells threatening her life, I hope you explain to this living breathing sentient human that her life matters less to you than a collection of cells. Tell her. Just tell her.

I'm guessing you missed the 'equal value' part of what you just quoted.
Even am946745 has been known to say

am946745 wrote: »

There is NOTHING wrong with saving a mothers live if it means that sometimes the baby dies.

But by all means, continue telling people what things mean to them, rather than listening to what they say... it's probably much easier than thinking your point through.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

I'm guessing you missed the 'equal value' part of what you just quoted.
Even am946745 has been known to sayBut by all means, continue telling people what things mean to them, rather than listening to what they say... it's probably much easier than thinking your point through.

believe the group of cells is a living being, like am946745 does, and that the life of a living breathing woman has equal value

Thinking is much easier to the non-religious. You are back on ignore.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Thinking is much easier to the non-religious. You are back on ignore.

You just made my point for me again

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Except of course if they disagree with you and believe the group of cells is a living being, like am946745 does, and that the life of a living breathing woman has equal value. In which case they are pro-life, and not at all misogynistic, at least from the information provided.

Care to flesh this out?

In the horrific scenario above, and it's a one-or-the-other choice, how do we decide the course of action? (Lets earnestly complete this thought experiment).

The probability of survival for each subject (Woman or Group of Cells) given either treatment A and B is listed below.
A B
Woman 0 1
Group of Cells 1 0


Do we simply flip a coin to choose the treatment?

Dan_Solo

This "group of cells" argument device is pointless. Adults humans are a "group of cells" too. It's just another actually meaningless phrase that people think they can take to mean whatever they like.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Care to flesh this out?
In the horrific scenario above, and it's a one-or-the-other choice, how do we decide the course of action? (Lets earnestly complete this thought experiment. The probability of survival for each subject (Woman or Group of Cells) given either treatment A and B is listed below.
A B
Woman 0 1
Group of Cells 1 0

Do we simply flip a coin to choose the treatment?

To flesh out what I said, if a living breathing woman has equal value to a living being which is a group of cells, then neither I nor am946745 are likely to tell our wives that if she's dying and the way to save her is to abort the collection of cells threatening her life that her life matters less to us than a collection of cells; the only way to imagine this is to ignore what we've said on the subject.

Am946745 has clearly indicated there is nothing wrong with saving a mothers live if it means that sometimes the baby dies (and I think it's likely that baby and collection of cells are synonymous in his statement), so the probability falls on the side of him telling his wife that the babys life matters less than hers, which is at odds with what obplayer is claiming.

For myself, I have indicated equality in my statement above, so it cannot be said from that statement alone that I would be likely to be telling my wife that her life matters less to me than a clump of cells, contrary to obplayers assertion.
However obplayer has already engaged with me on the subject sufficiently to know that whilst I place equal value on both lives, where one life is likely to cause the end of the other, I will choose to save the mothers.

robdonn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This "group of cells" argument device is pointless. Adults humans are a "group of cells" too. It's just another actually meaningless phrase that people think they can take to mean whatever they like.

This is why I try to avoid any argument about when 'life' begins. The real question is when is said group of cells a separate entity that does not require the use of the woman's body.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

To flesh out what I said, if a living breathing woman has equal value to a living being which is a group of cells, then neither I nor am946745 are likely to tell our wives that if she's dying and the way to save her is to abort the collection of cells threatening her life that her life matters less to us than a collection of cells; the only way to imagine this is to ignore what we've said on the subject.

Am946745 has clearly indicated there is nothing wrong with saving a mothers live if it means that sometimes the baby dies (and I think it's likely that baby and collection of cells are synonymous in his statement), so the probability falls on the side of him telling his wife that the babys life matters less than hers, which is at odds with what obplayer is claiming.

For myself, I have indicated equality in my statement above, so it cannot be said from that statement alone that I would be likely to be telling my wife that her life matters less to me than a clump of cells, contrary to obplayers assertion.
However obplayer has already engaged with me on the subject sufficiently to know that whilst I place equal value on both lives, where one life is likely to cause the end of the other, I will choose to save the mothers.

I'm just talking about the equivalence aspect. I'd like to see how someone could argue the idea.

Surely your final sentence shows an inequality and not equivalence?

Dan_Solo

robdonn wrote: »

This is why I try to avoid any argument about when 'life' begins. The real question is when is said group of cells a separate entity that does not require the use of the woman's body.

This could be a year after birth for breastfed babies though. And as I said earlier it leads to defining when a person should receive human rights based on current and available medical technology. A 24 week old Swede would be a human being whereas a 40 week old Eritrean would still be a "group of cells".

Hotblack Desiato

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This could be a year after birth for breastfed babies though.

In bizarro world where there are no wet nurses, no breastmilk donation and no infant formula.

Even men have been known to care perfectly successfully for newborn babies.

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In bizarro world where there are no wet nurses, no breastmilk donation and no infant formula.

Even men have been known to care perfectly successfully for newborn babies.

So you have now declared human rights should be subject to the availability of SMA. Well done there.

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you have now declared human rights should be subject to the availability of SMA. Well done there.

Not aptimel or hipp organic?

Dan_Solo

lazygal wrote: »

Not aptimel or hipp organic?

I guess they can have human rights if they can find those, but I draw the line at Nannycare. Only a group of cells would drink that muck.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

For myself, I have indicated equality in my statement above, so it cannot be said from that statement alone that I would be likely to be telling my wife that her life matters less to me than a clump of cells, contrary to obplayers assertion.

However obplayer has already engaged with me on the subject sufficiently to know that whilst I place equal value on both lives, where one life is likely to cause the end of the other, I will choose to save the mothers.

What strikes me here is the implicit assumption that you get to make the decisions, not the woman whose life is on the line.

Would a better answer not be along the lines of "I would prefer X, but obviously the ultimate decision must rest with the woman" ?

I get the very strong feeling from your posts that you believe that pregnant women should not get much say in the matter, and that's not something I think many woman would find very reassuring.