A question for anti-choicers

BTW....i know it has been discussed, but obama's stance on this is disgusting:

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
 
Yurt said:
i'll do SF's homework for him:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

seems there are numerous sources stating life begins at conception

is there anyone who can provide sources stating the opposite?
Click to expand...

What would the opposite be?

Life DOES begin at conception. But is the life just after conception a fully realized human being, or can it be classified as a human being? Is the acorn a tree? Does a clump of cells have the same rights as an independent person?

The debate is more than definitions from Webster's dictionary.
 
Yep yep yep.

There are basically three ways that abortion is murder or not murder:

The Spiritual way
The Speciest way
The Cognitive Activity way

The spiritual way obviously carries no weight with me. I consider the speciest way not logically consistent and overly primitive. The only other way that I can think of is in cognitive activity, which a fetus clearly lacks. Therefore, abortion is not murder. Therefore, it should be left up to the woman.
 
Onceler said:
What would the opposite be?

Life DOES begin at conception. But is the life just after conception a fully realized human being, or can it be classified as a human being? Is the acorn a tree? Does a clump of cells have the same rights as an independent person?

The debate is more than definitions from Webster's dictionary.
Click to expand...

did you follow the link? i admit to doing a quick google because SF's link didn't satisfy me....and it has interesting statements

if what these people say is true, life begins at conception, and the life that is formed is human, then it seems to me that human life begins at conception. what other life is it, if not human?
 
Yurt said:
how many times do i have to explain to you the non consensus in the scientific community. i know what i believe, but you claimed it was fact. it is such a fact, then surely you can link me to the scientific fact. all you're giving me is your opinion.
Click to expand...

???....are you claiming that there are scientists who believe that the fetus is neither human or alive?.....that's an absurd argument....
 
Onceler said:
I know you don't like the acorn analogy, and I'll allot that it is an imperfect analogy, but an acorn is alive, and has all of the genetic information to become a tree. But, the simple fact is, it is NOT a tree.

Is a zygote "human"? What does it mean to be human? Is it merely having all of the genetic material...the blueprint? Because really, that's all the zygote is. I understand the argument that if its development is not interrupted, human-ness is inevitable, but does that make the interruption "murder" at the early stages of that development?
Click to expand...

an acorn is not a tree but an acorn is an oak.....a zygote is not an adult, but a zygote is human....
 
Yurt said:
did you follow the link? i admit to doing a quick google because SF's link didn't satisfy me....and it has interesting statements

if what these people say is true, life begins at conception, and the life that is formed is human, then it seems to me that human life begins at conception. what other life is it, if not human?
Click to expand...

It's human. But it's the beginning of the development of a human BEING. "Personhood" is a consideration in this equation; it is not a cookie cutter definition.

Just as a baby is not an adult, a zygote is not a baby. Life begins at conception, and will lead to a fully developed human being unless it's interrupted along the way.

The question that is debated - and will continue to be debated - is at what stage of that development does that life have the full rights of a human being, or some of the rights?
 
Most scientists are pro-choice. If science had "proved" that abortion was murder, then apparently most scientists happily support what they believe is murder.

This is a question for moral philosophy, not science. Science does not have values.
 
Onceler said:
Well, as I said, the sustainability of a legal argument is in question for viability, as well as all kinds of standards being used for many different laws. Many issues are dependent almost entirely on the makeup of the courts.

You'd like there to be consensus - legally, scientifically, philisophically - that life at conception has full personhood & all the rights & recognition that we ascribe to humanity & human beings. That kind of consensus will never exist.
Click to expand...

I don't need consensus....I only need a court order.....we currently don't have consensus but abortion is legal....eventually we won't have consensus but abortion will be illegal....
 
Atheistmark said:
Most scientists are pro-choice. If science had "proved" that abortion was murder, then apparently most scientists happily support what they believe is murder.

This is a question for moral philosophy, not science. Science does not have values.
Click to expand...

link up....link to where they say human life does not begin at conception

i also want to see a link where "most" scientist are pro-choice

this is absolutely something for science to answer, you're just pussing out because so far SF and I are the only one's to show that science does believe human life begins at conception.....i don't believe all scientists believe this, but from what i have seen, most do....

so back your stuff up
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't need consensus....I only need a court order.....we currently don't have consensus but abortion is legal....eventually we won't have consensus but abortion will be illegal....
Click to expand...

Well, careful what you wish for. You may be right; at the very least, I can see Roe being overturned, at which point individual states will make the call.

I think if that happens, there will be tremendous backlash against the right in general, and it will certainly dim electoral prospects for many Republicans for years.

Beyond that, I think it will always be legal in many states, and people will simply travel to those states to get abortions.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why do you deny it's a human being....it's human, it's alive, it exists....what more do you require before you admit it's a human being?....
Click to expand...

I don't have to "admit" anything, and I don't have to agree that it's a human being because you say it is.

If I look at something microscopic in a petri dish - no, I will not agree that it's a "human being."

An acorn ain't a tree. A baby is not an adult. A zygote is not a baby.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, but you continue equating the TREE to HUMAN. That is incorrect. The TREE is an OAK. As is the acorn.

The embryo/zygote is HUMAN as is the ADULT.

I am simply talking genetics here. The acorn is oak. The zygote is human.

That is what the GENETICS tell us. Neither are fully developed... which is the point I think you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

they are afraid to acknowledge the truth of your statement, because they would have to abandon their stupid analogy forever.....
 
Yurt said:
link up....link to where they say human life does not begin at conception

i also want to see a link where "most" scientist are pro-choice

this is absolutely something for science to answer, you're just pussing out because so far SF and I are the only one's to show that science does believe human life begins at conception.....i don't believe all scientists believe this, but from what i have seen, most do....

so back your stuff up
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've ever seen an anti-choice scientist. Almost all scientists are Democrats and liberals, ergo, almost all are pro-choice. If you say that science supports the notion that abortion is murder, you are merely ignorant.

As I've said before, saying that abortion is murder is only consistent under spiritual or speciest values. If you choose to embrace speciesest values, sure, science backs you up in supporting that, even though most scientists are not spiritual or speciesest. But are you saying its also consistent under the value system I find most rationally appealing, that of cognitive activity?
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
It's human. But it's the beginning of the development of a human BEING. "Personhood" is a consideration in this equation; it is not a cookie cutter definition.

Just as a baby is not an adult, a zygote is not a baby. Life begins at conception, and will lead to a fully developed human being unless it's interrupted along the way.

The question that is debated - and will continue to be debated - is at what stage of that development does that life have the full rights of a human being, or some of the rights?
Click to expand...

i guess for me, if human life does in fact begin at conception, shouldn't that be considered personhood, just a pre infant personhood? if we are going to give the varying stages of the baby's life outside of the womb names, how is it that we wouldn't also give names and personhood to the same human life that is maturing inside a womb?

for me, in order to address the legal rights, i want to know if we are in fact protecting a person. i can't help but think that if life begins at conception, that this is not a part of maturing as a human being or person.
 
Yurt said:
i guess for me, if human life does in fact begin at conception, shouldn't that be considered personhood, just a pre infant personhood? if we are going to give the varying stages of the baby's life outside of the womb names, how is it that we wouldn't also give names and personhood to the same human life that is maturing inside a womb?
Click to expand...

There is no sentience, no viability, no nervous system or brain development, no consciousness - and no, this isn't the same as someone in a coma.

There are other factors at work, particularly in the debate about "personhood"; no - a clump of cells does NOT meet many of the standards that are involved in that discussion.
 
Onceler said:
I "Personhood" is a consideration in this equation; it is not a cookie cutter definition.
Click to expand...

you consider "personhood" to be something different than "human being"....I see no distinction....state what it is that differentiates a human being and a person......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top