When Does Life Begin?

John_C_87

There is a direct conflict made between abortion legislation and patient privacy legislation as written law. Was it a conflict big enough to bring down the world Trade Center obviously not but it is an issue big enough to warrant establishing a united states Constitutional Right such female-specific amputation.

just_sayin

@John_C_87
No.  The medical community is expected to obey the law.  If there are abortion restricts in their state, they are suppose to be obeyed by them.  The abortionist can't say "well judge, you see I killed that unborn baby girl in the privacy of my office, so you can't hold me accountable for breaking the law."  The judge will not agree with that argument and will hold the abortionist accountable for his actions.

MineSubCraftStarved

@OakTownA

If you are asking when a new life begins, I would ask what your definition of "life" is or what it looks like.

Life is defined as anything that constitutes the 6 rules of life:
1. Order
A fetus constitutes this rule of life, although at conception it only has one cell, it is still a complex lifeform with different cellular organelles. There are many unicellular organisms that exist today that we can consider to be 'alive'.
2. Response to Stimuli
A fetus fits this definition because it responds 
3. Growth and Development
A fetus definitely constitutes this definition as it is constantly growing more cells and growing and developing itself and it's organs.
4. Homeostasis
A fetus maintains its own body temperature and tries to maintain equilibrium.
5. Energy Processing
A fetus uses the nutrients given by its mother to grow itself.
6. Reproduction
A fetus reproduces by creating more cells.

no living being has the right to use another person's body without their permission.

The fetus was forced into your body without it's consent. Therefore, you have no legal right to again violate it's rights and force it out of your body without consent and to kill it. Take for instance an analogy:

Let's say you drag an unconscious person into your house after a severe car crash, this person did not consent to being dragged in and moving the person outside of your house would result in it's death. Since you forced the person into your house, you have a moral responsibility to take care of the person as you put it in this situation. You do not have the right to kill it.

MineSubCraftStarved

@OakTownA

If you are asking when a new life begins, I would ask what your definition of "life" is or what it looks like.

Life is defined as anything that constitutes the 6 rules of life:
1. Order
A fetus constitutes this rule of life, although at conception it only has one cell, it is still a complex lifeform with different cellular organelles. There are many unicellular organisms that exist today that we can consider to be 'alive'.
2. Response to Stimuli
A fetus fits this definition because it responds 
3. Growth and Development
A fetus definitely constitutes this definition as it is constantly growing more cells and growing and developing itself and it's organs.
4. Homeostasis
A fetus maintains its own body temperature and tries to maintain equilibrium.
5. Energy Processing
A fetus uses the nutrients given by its mother to grow itself.
6. Reproduction
A fetus reproduces by creating more cells.

no living being has the right to use another person's body without their permission.

The fetus was forced into your body without it's consent. Therefore, you have no legal right to again violate it's rights and force it out of your body without consent and to kill it. Take for instance an analogy:

Let's say you drag an unconscious person into your house after a severe car crash, this person did not consent to being dragged in and moving the person outside of your house would result in it's death. Since you forced the person into your house, you have a moral responsibility to take care of the person as you put it in this situation. You do not have the right to kill it.

MayCaesar

@MineSubCraftStarved

The fetus cannot "consent" or "not consent" to anything, thus the claim that it was forced into one's body without consent is meaningless. It was a clump of cells when it was "forced" there, and then it started growing against the will of the host, like cancer. One does not have to take care of the cancer tumors growing in their body.

Dragging an unconscious person into your house is quite different from having a bunch of cells self-organize in your body in a way that gives growth to a new creature. Having sex with someone and getting impregnated accidentally is quite different from intentionally dragging a heavy adult into your house.

What in the world does the concept of "rights of a fetus" even mean? I have never understood that. Does a bowl of soup have rights too? It, after all, is teeming with life. If "life" is the standard (which appears to be the case in your argument), then every time you put a spoonful of sup into your mouth, you are committing a genocide.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
Many people feel value is subjective.  If value is subjective then if a serial killer feels the value of his victim is less than those he deems valuable, who is to say if what he did was wrong?  Or if one group devalues another group and engages in a genocide against them, who is to say who is right or wrong in such a conflict by holding a subjective view of value?  At that point you might as well say you don't believe in right or wrong or any kind of absolute.

I am more of a intrinsic value believer in my views as to where value arises from.  I believe the value of a thing arises from the kind of thing it is.  Therefore a human has the value of a human.  A dog the value of a dog.  It doesn't matter if one human gets better grades than another, its value is still that of a human's.  It does not matter if some humans don't reach their potential, or if they have some injury or defect, their value is still that of a human.  Your value is not determined by what I think, and mine is not determined by what someone else thinks.  A lot of our laws and ideas of justice and what we view as racism, ableism, and sexism are based on this premise.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Value judgements, including judgements of what is morally "right" or "wrong", are intrinsically subjective. However, when humans interact with each other, for the interaction to be mutually beneficial, certain consensus has to be developed, and that consensus affects one's decision-making process. A potential serial murderer may not personally think that there is something wrong with murder, yet still realize that it is in his best intrerest to murder others, by nature of living in a society the consensus in which is that murder is unacceptable.

The question then becomes what this consensus should be in a prosperous society. There are countless arguments to be made in favor of this consensus being heavily on the side of individual liberty, and one of the most basic examples of liberty is the liberty to do with your own body whatever you want. Including killing the parasites, i.e. unwanted beings feeding on said body. I would not want anyone other than me to have a say in what goes on inside my body: that would be extremely vile.

To your last point, you seem to be picking these categories arbitrarily. You can say that every human has the same value as a human. I could say in the same vein that every mammal has the same value as a mammal. Someone else can say that every group of cells has the same value as a group of cells. Where does this leave us? Ultimately, everything has the same value, and the concept of "value" loses all meaning.

Racism, sexism, etc. are wrong not because they value different humans differently; we all do. When you are hiring a software engineer, you value a Harvard graduate with a stellar resume higher than a random guy from the street with no relevant credentials. What makes these ideas wrong is that the value judgement of a human being as a whole is made based on irrelevant superficial characteristics. There certainly are still contexts in which a man and a woman offer different values, and acknowledging it is not sexist; not hiring someone with excellent relevant credentials because of their gender, however, is.

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack basically said " I think its wrong to kill unborn babies, but if somebody else wants to kill them, well, good for them, I won't stop them."

Hello again, j:

Uhhh, no I didn't say that.. 

And, therein lies the problem we have..  We USE the same words but they mean different things to each of us..  For example, there is a procedure out there wherein a pregnant woman stops being pregnant..  You don't agree that it's a "procedure", and I don't agree that it's a "killing".   The RESULT is the same - a pregnant woman stops being pregnant, but how we DESCRIBE it is wayyyyy different. 

And, that's no gonna change as a result of our conversations..  So, I'm going to depart.  Thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter with me.

excon

John_C_87

just_sayin said:

@John_C_87
No.  The medical community is expected to obey the law.  If there are abortion restricts in their state, they are suppose to be obeyed by them.  The abortionist can't say "well judge, you see I killed that unborn baby girl in the privacy of my office, so you can't hold me accountable for breaking the law."  The judge will not agree with that argument and will hold the abortionist accountable for his actions.

The laws of abortion are impling a crime that does not exist......a consitutional reprenative does not enforce laws of prediction and assumption of those laws of fact..Patient privacy law are a international law that exists and went into effect in 2000. A Doctor in the United States of America has never performed an abrortion even though self-incrimination by malpratice of law may say otherwise. That is the legislator making an aligation before a possible crime even takes place. By your own addmission it was to perform an illegal pre emptive attack on patients out of paranoia.

I believe the other are wrong when the claim religion is the argument of right and wrong here. This argument is about paranoia and fear....This is the same motive which had created the illegal legislation of Marijuana as a narcotic in the Drug War when it was a simple aerosol pollutant. As a United States Constitutional Right. Any and all tampering of marijuana with prescription and nonprescription narcotics is what made it a narcotic.

ZeusAres42

Life begins at age 40.

MineSubCraftStarved

@MayCaesar

The fetus cannot "consent" or "not consent" to anything, thus the claim that it was forced into one's body without consent is meaningless. It was a clump of cells when it was "forced" there, and then it started growing against the will of the host, like cancer. One does not have to take care of the cancer tumors growing in their body.

The natural form towards which an individual can express consent(either yes or no), is no. This is because if an individual cannot express consent, its consent is assumed to be no as it cannot approve of any actions towards it, so its natural position would be to retain its current state, and thus that would be the same as denying consent. A fetus is an individual, thus its natural expression towards consent is no, doing anything to anyone without them agreeing to it, is naturally a violation of said person's consent. The treatment with a fetus should be no different. Additionally, it was forced in there, as it signed no verbal or written legal, formal, or informal contract allowing itself to be forced into existence by its mother and was thus forced into her womb. Regardless of whether or not the woman may have intended for the fetus to exist, her actions ultimately led to the same result, and she is responsible for all actions perpetrated toward the fetus, whether they are good or bad. This includes the entry of the fetus into her womb.

Dragging an unconscious person into your house is quite different from having a bunch of cells self-organize in your body in a way that gives growth to a new creature. Having sex with someone and getting impregnated accidentally is quite different from intentionally dragging a heavy adult into your house.

It is still the mother's actions that caused that fetus to be forced into existence and forced into your womb. Just how your actions caused that person to be forced into your house. It does not matter if a woman had sex without her consent or intended to have sex but not to get pregnant(or both). The principal still applies and you forced that person into your house just like a mother forces her fetus into her womb, regardless of her intentions.

What in the world does the concept of "rights of a fetus" even mean? I have never understood that. Does a bowl of soup have rights too? It, after all, is teeming with life. If "life" is the standard (which appears to be the case in your argument), then every time you put a spoonful of sup into your mouth, you are committing a genocide.

Aren't we all just clumps of cells, except simply larger? If complexity is what you determine to be the decider in how human life should be weighed, then a fetus definitely has the potential to reach the complexity and thinking/feeling power of that of adult humans. (I assume you believe complexity is the decider in the value of one's life given that you do not believe a fetus or a soup to live as they are simple 'clumps of cells'.)

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

Life begins at age 40.
Funny basic math tells me my death begins at the age of 1 second..........
This is why I'm are often left trying to make every minute count...

MayCaesar

MineSubCraftStarved said:

The natural form towards which an individual can express consent(either yes or no), is no. This is because if an individual cannot express consent, its consent is assumed to be no as it cannot approve of any actions towards it, so its natural position would be to retain its current state, and thus that would be the same as denying consent. A fetus is an individual, thus its natural expression towards consent is no, doing anything to anyone without them agreeing to it, is naturally a violation of said person's consent. The treatment with a fetus should be no different. Additionally, it was forced in there, as it signed no verbal or written legal, formal, or informal contract allowing itself to be forced into existence by its mother and was thus forced into her womb. Regardless of whether or not the woman may have intended for the fetus to exist, her actions ultimately led to the same result, and she is responsible for all actions perpetrated toward the fetus, whether they are good or bad. This includes the entry of the fetus into her womb.

That is not how it works at all: when a creature cannot give consent, then the consent is not assumed to be anything by definition, and, instead, how the creature is to be treated is determined from other factors, such as social norms and expectations. A 4 year old child cannot consent to being forced to go to bed at 9 pm, yet it is considered perfectly acceptable for his caretaker to force him to do so. Perhaps, in order to be consistent, you would also advocate for parents never doing anything their children do not want to be done to them?

MineSubCraftStarved said:

It is still the mother's actions that caused that fetus to be forced into existence and forced into your womb. Just how your actions caused that person to be forced into your house. It does not matter if a woman had sex without her consent or intended to have sex but not to get pregnant(or both). The principal still applies and you forced that person into your house just like a mother forces her fetus into her womb, regardless of her intentions.

"Forced into existence" is quite a sentence. How can you force something into existence that was not there in the first place? We are now talking about imaginary creatures and ghosts, not real living beings.

On that note, do you think that I should be able to go to a court, claim that I did not want to be born, but my parents forced me to, and sue them for compensation of damages?

MineSubCraftStarved said:

Aren't we all just clumps of cells, except simply larger? If complexity is what you determine to be the decider in how human life should be weighed, then a fetus definitely has the potential to reach the complexity and thinking/feeling power of that of adult humans. (I assume you believe complexity is the decider in the value of one's life given that you do not believe a fetus or a soup to live as they are simple 'clumps of cells'.)

Yes we are. From the rights perspective, it should not matter what particular structure a creature has: if you had an android looking and thinking and acting exactly as a human, but with microchips instead of cells inside, the "if it walks like a duck..." principle would apply, and it would have the same rights as any adult human. What matters is what role this creature manifests in the Universe, and the role of a human fetus is fundamentally different from the role of a human adult. It is not about complexity of structure, but presence of individual agency; the concept of "rights" has no meaning outside these boundaries.

jack

Swolliw said:

When Does Life Begin?

Hello S:

Well, if the ovum is alive, and it is, then life begins somewhere in the ovary..  Nobody knows when.  If sperm is alive, and it certainly looks like it is, then its life began in a testicle..  Nobody knows when.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=is+the+ovum+alive

excon

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Life begins at fertatilization

Several comments have confused 2 different questions 1) when does life begin and 2) when does life have value?  The first is a biological question.  The second is a philosophical and subjective question.

Life begins at fertilization.  That is what the vast majority of biologist say.  See Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins', University of Chicago, 2018. 

Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). 

This is consistent with the nonpartisan Brief of Biologists as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party filed with the Supreme Court for the Dobbs case that found that 96 percent of the 5,577 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization.

The science editor at the UK Telegraph reported that: 

Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film.
An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.
Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.

Is this consistent with what other prominent biologists and Biology textbooks have concluded?  

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders 2003, p. 2.]

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo.."
Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

Here is what some prominent biologists have said:

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics"

"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind."
And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade he said :  "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion." - Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization"

"By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception...Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man." - Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester

"Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide." - Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association, From Newsweek November 12, 1973 (p 74)

"....it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception." - Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

Even a president of Planned Parenthood identified fertilization as the start of a human life:

"A facet that makes the obstetrician's burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant...The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell." - Dr. Alan Guttmacher, ardent proponent of abortion, in his book Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents New American Library; Revised Ed edition (January 1, 1962) He was the president of Planned Parenthood and fought to make and keep abortion legal

After extensive testimony the Senate report on when life begins stated:

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." - Official Senate Report

This is by no means an extensive list of Biologist textbooks or quotes from biologists themselves.  Hundreds, maybe thousands more could be provided.  Regardless, the consensus of biologists is that life begins at conception.

jack

just_sayin said:

Regardless, the consensus of biologists is that life begins at conception.

Hello j:

I disagree..  It's clear that life begins in the ovary. Therefore, every month, month in and month out, women KILL their babies, and SHOULD have a funeral for them..

excon

Dee

@just_sayin

Regardless, the consensus of biologists is that life begins at conception.

Stop furiously beating your meat to animal porn  if you're so upset then ,wasting sperm is denying a potential life into being ......murderer 

just_sayin

@jack
Many women who miscarry would agree that the loss of their child is traumatic.  It does seem to me that with regard to the law that the intentional act of killing a living human being is different than the human body's rejection of the human child.

Sperm are haploids and while human cells, are not human beings.  There is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is when the life of every human being begins. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life because of their connection to a human being, but they are not human beings; they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack

Sperm are haploids and while human cells, are not human beings.

Hello again, j:

Uhhm, words count.. 

????  I thought the discussion was about when LIFE begins, not HUMAN life..  I AGREE that the ovum is not HUMAN life.  Human life happens at conception..  But, LIFE itself, which is the subject of this debate, happens waaay BEFORE conception..  Nobody knows when.

Du-de!

excon

John_C_87

Life begins at the first sign of lifes begining.........
Scientificly life never begins at the 2nd or 3rd sign life has begun..................

John_C_87

The egg and its fertilization agent must be moved in order to extend the life already made by the egg and its fertilization agents’ creation..........

SkepticalOne

@just_sayin, @Swillow

For me the key line in the University of Chicago dissertation that you link to is this one:Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).

When an individual life begins is irrelevant so long as rights are inalienable.

Luigi7255

(Note: I'm treading very lightly here, since it's very easy to post a strawman argument with the topic of Abortion, in all honesty)

Saying life begins at fertilization, and then saying that life must be protected is strange, to say the least.

As May partially said, we value lives based on multiple factors.

Of course, we value life differently, we value the life of a person on the street much less than the value of a billionaire or a world leader, but why do we value something akin to a glorified parasite so highly?

If we value life based on qualifications, then a fetus has no value. If we base value upon time, then a fetus has no value. If we value life based on wealth, then a fetus has no value, you get my point. Most of the ways we value life makes a fetus have no value whatsoever. What I'm essentially saying here is, would somebody really care about some random guy dying? Probably not. Would someone care about a world leader dying? Most likely. Why would we care about some random fetus being aborted since they have no intrinsic value to us?

jack

SkepticalOne said:

When an individual life begins is irrelevant so long as rights are inalienable.

Hello S:

It's true..  But, the problem is WHEN do we apply those inalienable rights.  At birth, at 20 weeks, at 5 weeks, at conception, in the Fallopian tube awaiting conception, in the ovary, in the toilet??  

WHEN, indeed, does the individual life BEGIN?

excon

SkepticalOne

@jack

Hello S:
It's true..  But, the problem is WHEN do we apply those inalienable rights.  At birth, at 20 weeks gestation, at 5 weeks, at conception, in the Fallopian tube awaiting conception, in the ovary, in the toilet??  
WHEN, indeed, does the individual life BEGIN?
excon

If we allow anyone who can become pregnant already has rights, then we must also agree they have a right to consent to how their body is used by others. Whether those others have rights or not is unimportant: there is no right to use someone else's body.

jack

SkepticalOne said:

@Jack

When we must also agree they have a right to consent to how their body is used by others.

Hello S:

These are very important questions that can ONLY be answered once we have determined when life begins.  If that date isn't established, this discussion is academic. 

Why don't you present a date for discussion?

excon  

Dee

@just_sayin

Sperm are haploids and while human cells, are not human beings.  

So what? By using contraception you're destroying a potential life coming into being using your rationale 

Either way you're totally missing the point the government or total strangers like you do not  have nor never should have the 'right' to force women to birth against their will 

SkepticalOne

jack said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Jack

When we must also agree they have a right to consent to how their body is used by others.

Hello S:

These are very important questions that can ONLY be answered once we have determined when life begins.  If that date isn't established, this discussion is academic. 

Why don't you present a date for discussion?

excon  

I think you're missing the point. Whatever that line of demarcation is, someone who can become pregnant has already moved beyond it and has rights. Someone else (rights or not) has no superseding claim to their body.

jack

SkepticalOne said:

jack said:

Why don't you present a date for discussion?

excon  

I think you're missing the point. Whatever that line of demarcation is, someone who can become pregnant has already moved beyond it and has rights. Someone else (rights or not) has no superseding claim to their body.

Hello S:

I'm not picking up what you're laying down..  Can you explain?

excon

MayCaesar

Luigi7255 said:

(Note: I'm treading very lightly here, since it's very easy to post a strawman argument with the topic of Abortion, in all honesty)

Saying life begins at fertilization, and then saying that life must be protected is strange, to say the least.

As May partially said, we value lives based on multiple factors.

Of course, we value life differently, we value the life of a person on the street much less than the value of a billionaire or a world leader, but why do we value something akin to a glorified parasite so highly?

If we value life based on qualifications, then a fetus has no value. If we base value upon time, then a fetus has no value. If we value life based on wealth, then a fetus has no value, you get my point. Most of the ways we value life makes a fetus have no value whatsoever. What I'm essentially saying here is, would somebody really care about some random guy dying? Probably not. Would someone care about a world leader dying? Most likely. Why would we care about some random fetus being aborted since they have no intrinsic value to us?

This is a bit of a dangerous argument: along these lines one may argue, for instance, that small discriminated against minorities should not have any rights, since almost no one else cares about them. 

What I think is essential here is that the members of those minorities value their own lives. From the humanistic perspective, we should care about lives of those whose shoes we can imagine being in: stories of brutal genocides disturb us so much not because we particularly care about the lives of involved individuals per se (in most cases we do not know a single one of them), but because we can imagine being a victim of those crimes ourselves and be horrified by the implications. In a sense, a crime against a conscious individual is a crime against conscious individuality in general, and, as conscious individuals ourselves, we should be wary of letting such crimes be normalized.

However, it is not clear to me what putting myself in a fetus' shoes would mean. Being a blob of matter inside some woman's body, with no intelligence and only very primal awareness - why, I have much more empathy towards an annoying mosquito, than that creature. I fail to see what considerations along these lines can possibly result in the idea that fetus' lives have any value to anyone other than the host (who is the one deciding what happens to it anyway).

MineSubCraftStarved

@MayCaesar

That is not how it works at all: when a creature cannot give consent, then the consent is not assumed to be anything by definition, and, instead, how the creature is to be treated is determined from other factors, such as social norms and expectations. A 4 year old child cannot consent to being forced to go to bed at 9 pm, yet it is considered perfectly acceptable for his caretaker to force him to do so. Perhaps, in order to be consistent, you would also advocate for parents never doing anything their children do not want to be done to them?

Therefore, if someone is in a coma, and I steal 10,000 dollars from them, should I be criminally charged? The basic rules of consent regarding this scenario would be that if the person consented, the act is legal, if the person did not consent, the act is illegal. However, when the creature is unable to give or disallow consent, what is the legal status of me taking the 10,000 dollars? Should I be charged with the crime or not punished? The most logical answer to this would be no, I infringed on their liberties without them allowing that infringement, thus I broke their consent and so the same logic would apply to the crime of murder toward the fetus. The principle of laws in our government are that if someone infringes on another person, they must do so with their consent, as a fetus is unable to give consent, a mother has no right to infringe on the rights of the fetus and kill it. A 4-year-old certainly has the ability to consent as it has the ability to express negative or positive reactions to an action(yes or no). The reason that caretakers are able to force children into bed is that as legal guardians they have the ability to make them do something that is beneficial for their health(such as sleeping).

"Forced into existence" is quite a sentence. How can you force something into existence that was not there in the first place? We are now talking about imaginary creatures and ghosts, not real living beings.

On that note, do you think that I should be able to go to a court, claim that I did not want to be born, but my parents forced me to, and sue them for compensation of damages?

Where did the fetus consent to being made to exist? The fetus is also forced to stay in the womb and that is a violation of its freedom.
You should be able to sue your parents any more than you should sue a doctor that saved your life for a heart transplant(for instance). They saved you, if your mother had not given birth then you would've died in the womb regardless.

Yes we are. From the rights perspective, it should not matter what particular structure a creature has: if you had an android looking and thinking and acting exactly as a human, but with microchips instead of cells inside, the "if it walks like a duck..." principle would apply, and it would have the same rights as any adult human. What matters is what role this creature manifests in the Universe, and the role of a human fetus is fundamentally different from the role of a human adult. It is not about complexity of structure, but presence of individual agency; the concept of "rights" has no meaning outside these boundaries.

"If grandma had wheels, would she be a trolley?" This well-known proverb applies quite well to your argument. Simply because something looks like something else, and may act like it as well, does not mean it is that thing. Additionally, you mentioned that roles determine how a creature should be valued, therefore, a homeless drug addict without education and at the age of 75 years old and thus has nil value for society, for the economy, and for everything. Its purpose is mainly to keep living, so it can be seen as a creature with parasitic behavior. As this creature has the agency of continuing to do drugs until it overdoes, am I allowed to kill it? After all, if an individual agency is a determinant in deciding the worthiness of life, why can't I end lives that have only a negative impact on others?

John_C_87

@Dee

Stop furiously beating your meat to animal porn  if you're so upset then ,wasting sperm is denying a potential life into being ......murderer 

It is stopping a from of immigration which is potential lethal to a women.........

The common defense I am having trouble in locating as of yet is sperm medical donations as they can be included in a haze of legal issues........Made bigger by the creation of a personal consitutional right, and neglect to establish a united states consitutional right. As a point of interest many people who overreact often do so becuase of personal constitution. See the real risk, work, and skill is allmeasured in holding consitutions of the people, for the people as a united state....

Swolliw

@just_sayin

Again, the reason abortion is objectionable is because it kills an innocent human life.

And yet again, that statement is completely and utterly wrong on every single level of logic, legality, and civil decency.

There is no reason for abortion to be objectionable as they are only weak, ill-founded excuses born (yes, born) out of sheer ignorance and arrogance fueled by extreme ideologies such as religion and extreme politics.

Nobody has any right whatsoever to insult and decry the decisions of decent, civilized law-abiding people by labelling them as killers.

John_C_87

The problem is no one is superseding claim to a body as a United State between all women. 

1. The Right spoken of is not a United States Constitutional right and is not of higher connection to established justice. 
2. Human Rights are associated with those arrested in countries most often with poor United States made with constitutional right or nations who have no united states at all with established justice the link to justice is made only on persona constitution.
3. Women have only human rights and that is due specifically to the use if constitutional right, criminal confession, and no inalienable right. It is not associated to united states constitutional right which holds the whole truth in such a way it applies to all women, and contains truths that cannot be proven wrong and must be illegally suppressed by legal actions of some kind including court suppression or Executive Order..

4. A pregnant women is violating a man’s legal right to patient privacy as of year 2000 when admitting to a crime of abortion of the child she is creating for immigration.

As this is a contest for the best connection to established justice as a united states, I am compelled to inform you that men and women both have the abilities to seek liberty from state law and Federal Law by.

First: Addressing the public with the creation of United States Constitutional Right Female-Specific Amputation is said right.

Second: To then move to have the United States Constitutional Right, written in such manner as describe by a state of the Union which found superiorly right to become ratified by states into the United States Constitution, The USCR as an inalienable collection of self-evident truths, as one right binding all woman in one way standing united, without a pending criminal charge to serve as the connection to established justice.

SkepticalOne

jack said:

SkepticalOne said:

jack said:

Why don't you present a date for discussion?

excon  

I think you're missing the point. Whatever that line of demarcation is, someone who can become pregnant has already moved beyond it and has rights. Someone else (rights or not) has no superseding claim to their body.

Hello S:

I'm not picking up what you're laying down..  Can you explain?

excon

It's really simple. The question posed by OP is a pointless distraction. The question focuses on when rights begin rather than what rights are.

Rights are a protection of the individual from others. They work on a notion that an individual is sovereign over themselves. This self ownership disallows others from using their body in a way they don't approve. Long story short: rights prevent someone being forced to give birth... not the other way around.

just_sayin

@SkepticalOne
The issue is not "are there rights", but that there are two conflicting sets of rights - the mother and the child. When someone dismisses the right of the child to her very life, they have typically done so by rationalizing that she is somehow less than human and not worthy of protection.  

We saw an extreme example of this yesterday when Democrats refused to support the born alive baby protection act.  Democrats were so committed to abortion that they refused to support a bill that would insure that when a child is born alive from a botched abortion that the doctor has to provide the child the same care he would for any other baby at that gestational age.  The fact Democrats would not support a bill to provide medical assistance for babies who are already out of the womb shows how extremely committed to denying the humanity of the child is among some.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Abortion kills an innocent human life

@Swolliw said
Nobody has any right whatsoever to insult and decry the decisions of decent, civilized law-abiding people by labelling them as killers.

First, abortion does kill the child.  Do you know what they call a "botched abortion"?  Its when the child lives.  The reason some oppose abortion is because it is factually accurate that abortion kills a human life.  Those who support abortion, in some way, consider the unborn baby less than human and rationalize killing her.  

jack

just_sayin said:

We saw an extreme example of this yesterday when Democrats refused to support the born alive baby protection act.  Democrats were so committed to abortion that they refused to support a bill that would insure that when a child is born alive from a botched abortion that the doctor has to provide the child the same care he would for any other baby at that gestational age. 

Hello again, j:

Nahhh...    Dems refused to support it because we already HAVE laws against murder..  The difference is where the baby IS..  Still in the womb - no rights.  Outside the womb - full citizenship rights..

excon

just_sayin

@jack
The term "killing" is an accurate word.  Abortion kills the child inside the mother's womb.  It stops the biological life processes that are occurring.  Denying the biology just because you don't want to admit that it is killing a child is just intellectually dishonest.

The term "innocent" is appropriate also.  If the unborn baby girl is guilty then what is she guilty of?  What crime has she committed?  If you are going to question the use of the word then you need to provide evidence that it is inaccurate.

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne

Rights are a protection of the individual from others. They work on a notion that an individual is sovereign over themselves. This self ownership disallows others from using their body in a way they don't approve. Long story short: rights prevent someone being forced to give birth... not the other way around.

United State Rights are a list if idea that are not crimes...As crimes are list of wrongs…

United State Rights describe how at liberty women can seek to become pregnant to give birth. 

United State Rights describe how immigration can be imposed and under what conditions.

United State Rights describe how risk are to be managed in the best connection to established justice.

A United State Right describes a state of the union between a woman and child as ambassador. The state of the union formed by law of nature prior to all birth.

Body ownership is a liberty a woman holds on her own the law of nature describes her control of pregnancy already rights do not rewrite laws of nature they are embraced.

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne

The rights of choice describe immigration as a law of nature to explaining the destination of birth it is not birth which is a law of nature to United States Constitutional Right. All women are created equal by immigration held as a law of nature to the MANY outcomes of pregnancy and birth...not the one which risk of conception imposes lean on her body.....Pregnancy is a lean not an argument of legal ownership.....otherwise you are asking participation in the admission made by congress that a women and man is already a slave due to 13th Amendment.

A United States Constitutional right is an inaielanble truth made between female-specific amputation and its connection to a state of the union created by law of nature ambassadorship.

All ties to men are to be alienated in the process of explanations of Ultimate Supreme Right in one area human processed immigration.

just_sayin

@jack
Got to disagree with you.  Killing babies is just wrong, no matter what a Democrat says.

From Congress.gov

This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement.
A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.

The law does have specific provisions not currently covered under other legislation:

• Require that health care practitioners “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of a child” born alive following an abortion as the practitioner “would render to any other child born alive”;

• Require that health care practitioners “ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital”;

• Require practitioners and hospital, physician’s office, and abortion clinic employees to report violations;

• Establish criminal penalties (fines and/or imprisonment) for failure to comply; and

• Bar prosecution of the mother of the child born alive and provide her with civil remedies to obtain relief against any person who committed the violation.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act provides desperately needed protections for the most vulnerable and innocent members of society. Passing legislation to protect living babies from infanticide should not be remotely controversial. Roughly half the states currently provide some degree of protection for these babies under state law, but many do not—including states with extremely permissive abortion laws, such as California.

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack
The term "killing" is an accurate word.  Abortion kills the child inside the mother's womb.

Hello again, J:

I didn't argue the meaning of "kill".  I was talking to you about rights. 

excon

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack
Killing babies is just wrong, no matter what a Democrat says.

Hello again, j:

Yes, it IS wrong..  However, if you recall my position, I said "abortion is WRONG., but preventing a women from terminating her pregnancy is a tab bit WRONGER"

I dunno which Democrat you're referring to..   But, let me say it again..  We didn't NEED the baby protection act because MURDER is already against the law..  I suspect you think there are LOTS of babies who DIE, and/or are literally killed on the table of an abortionist.  I suggest if that was so, we'd see LOTS of murder charges being filed...

But, no...  Not a one..  Is that because it doesn't happen, or that right wing prosecutors are afraid to charge murderers with MURDER??

excon

just_sayin

@jack

The debate is about rights - but not just the mother's.  The interests of the child need to be considered also, especially since the decision to kill her is permanent and severe.  The Supreme Court has said it is appropriate to consider the interest of the child also.  And considering that killing her does irreparable harm to her, it seems like the injustice done to her is greater.

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack

The debate is about rights - but not just the mother's.

Hello again, j:

Unfortunately, our legal system doesn't grant rights to unborn babies.  This debate is about what IS, not about what SHOULD be..

excon

just_sayin

@jack
The legal system just overturned Roe v Wade.  There is no right an abortion or right to kill a baby.  The states can determine where to draw the line between competing interests of the woman and the child. 

John_C_87

The legal system just overturned Roe v Wade.  There is no right an abortion or right to kill a baby.  The states can determine where to draw the line between competing interests of the woman and the child. 

Did it? There is no right to abortion in either direction legislative or not the states can be now sued for violating malpractice of law and violations of patient privacy laws.......... 

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Yes the Supreme Court did overturn Roe v Wade

@John_C_87
Yep.  The Supreme Court did overturn Roe v Wade.  It even made the news when it happened.  See U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ends constitutional right to abortion, Reuters

John_C_87

Yep.  The Supreme Court did overturn Roe v Wade.  It even made the news when it happened.  See U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ends constitutional right to abortion, Reuters

This is so bogus...

There never was a ratified United States Constitutional right to abortion the original ruling lead to a lack of enforcement of law and was based on patient privacy loss......which was addressed by state legislation of law going into effect in 2000.  The argument we thrown out of the Supreme Court it did not overturn a ruling it was malpractice of law and could not be overturn as it was taking place at the state levels. It is part of a state burden to write United States Constitutional Right, to then be ratified not the courts but by state legislators, then burden to write united states constitutional rights to then be voted on by the courts is malpractice of United states Constitutional directly, they the courts rule on the connection to established justice.... made by ratifications of rights.........

The CNBC article is mistaken......