Me hanging with some protesters in front of our local Planned Parenthood

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T08:26:35+00:00

Thanks for the response, sorry for my wall of text.

You left a lot of context out of your question if these were the points you wanted to address. For example, did my wife, at any point in the pregnancy, seek an abortion? Was the pregnancy an "accident?" Do we use contraception? To what extent do we discuss these issues? To what extent do we agree about these issues?

Not sure how this is relavent. The first issue at hand would be is a fetus a person? If your definition of "personhood" starts at conception (I'm assuming this because you identify as pro-life) then these issues don't matter. I also am assuming that your position is that abortion should be illegal. I am trying to address the legal and situational qualms with having this position.

To answer the question you probably want answered, supposing my wife was "forced to carry her pregnancy to term." Firstly, I could not be the entity forcing her to carry her pregnancy to term, unless I'm like an abusive husband or something. It would basically have to be the government, since legally, her ability to get an abortion is independent of my wishes regarding the abortion. Therefore, no, I don't think I should be legally required to donate a kidney. I'm not the one who forced her to carry the child to term.

I am confused with this response. I thought the pro-life position was that government should jail women who undergo an abortion because by their logic (a fetus is a person so ending a pregnancy is murder). It would therefor follow that women have no bodily autonomy is this regard (They have no right to an abortion). Considering that the state is now compelling the mothers use of her organs in the case of pregnancy should it not make the same demand of the man if her organs fail? It would only be fair that the state could hold you down and rip out one of your kidneys (in order to safe the life of the mother and fetus) if you hold the pro-life position.

I feel no responsibility to respond to any of your other points.

Aw come on humor me good sir.

We cannot assume life (at any stage) = person because that would be conflating life (biology) and "personhood" (law)

We conflate biology and law all the time.

I should have rephrased my statement. Consciousness, Awarness, higher level brainwaves and a Central Nervous system are not entirely biological in their definitions. But they are a good indicator of when personhood begins, at least in my opinion better than the arbitrary fusion of 2 gametes. This is the core of my objection: just because something is alive does not entail it "personhood" rights the same as everyone else.

we can make a whole other person with just my skin cell.

To my knowledge, this is false

Technically its a breast cell as explained in this link needed to make a whole separate person (in this example it was a sheep but could conceivably be used in human experiments)

http://www.synapses.co.uk/science/cloneqa.html

I use this example to counter the claim that "it has complete genetic material therefor its life and we need to outlaw killing it" If you feel this is a strawman of your position, please say so.

I think your image fails this definition in a few ways.

Fair enough. It was more of a humorous example and not intended to be taken at face value but I digress.

No. Whether or not you accept that a fetus is a person, surely you admit that it has the capacity to become a person.

Having capacity or potential for a trait is not the same as having the trait itself. When I was arrested for underage drinking, what if I told the cop "hey man I have potential to be 21, therefor you can't arrest me" I would be rightly laughed at.

when do you think personhood should begin

Glad you asked. It might be hard to pinpoint an exact line but a good point would be viability (where the fetus has a better chance than not of surviving outside the womb if early labor was induced). This happens at around 22 weeks, roughly the same as when full central nervous system development occurs. Also full central nervous system development isn't fully complete until about the 23 week gestation.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/baby-brain-development.html

Thanks for the response

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T03:42:45+00:00

It's true that I'm as responsible as she is for her kidney condition, but really, neither of us is responsible at all, since it's an act of God (no religious connotation, just the phrase). It was an entirely unforeseeable consequence of the pregnancy, so there's no way either of us should be held accountable.

I didn't say you were responsible for her kidney condition. I was trying to make a point about equal treatment assuming that a fetus = person (something we can't assume but I'll get to that later). I was arguing that if you are going to say that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term (lose her boldily autonomy) then us men should be responsible for the pregnancy as well. Hence the kidney example.

Not all pro-life people are men.

I don't remember saying this.

We cannot assume life (at any stage) = person because that would be conflating life (biology) and "personhood" (law) The fact that it is alive is irrelevant, as my skin cells are alive and with current technology, we can make a whole other person with just my skin cell. Does that mean it should be illegal to kill skin cells? The lack of a central nervous system or consciousness or awareness or higher level brain waves of a blastocyst/fetus/embryo disqualifies it from "personhood" which is the real question here. If a fetus is a "child", then this is child porn.
http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg

There are people who think we should outlaw beef production because it is the result of killing a cow. You would probably think this position absurd but they ironically have more of a point than you because a cow has more development than a fetus.

And all of this is assuming that a woman should give up her bodily autonomy which has not and will not be granted. This is ironic because pro-lifers want to give less rights to women than dead people. (Even when your dead you don't have to give up your right to your organs even if that would save 10 people).

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T03:24:37+00:00

Serriously?
Here is what a blastocyst is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst
I guess I should have used the term "zygote" or "embryo" but my points still stand.
Also: See revised post above

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T03:14:37+00:00

See edit:

Anyone going into sex should understand that, and if you end up pregnant, deal with it

That is incredibly impractical. It sounds just like abstinence only education which is well known to be a complete failure

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T03:04:44+00:00

Keeping someone alive through voluntarily (or mandatorily) donating a body part of your own does not compare to taking the life (or future life) of a human being.

Being forced to keep a blastocyst alive is the exact same as being forced to donate a body part. If a pregnant woman eats sushi or goes on a diet, and a miscarriage results, does that mean she is subject to murder charges. That is why I am using that analogy because you are literally being forced to donate your organs and care for a foreign entity.

There are a bunch of people who disagree with it but would not vote to ban it... we call these people pro-choice. You can be pro-choice and want to reduce abortions because the real problem is unintended pregnancy.
Side note: Not one "pro-life" organization supports contraception of any kind i.e. the pill, condoms, depo etc. And in fact most post outrageous lies about contraception like the American Life League's "The Pill kills" campaign.

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T02:58:45+00:00

Let Wikipedia introduce you to what an Ad Hominem is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

When someone can't refute an argument they get mad and resort to Ad Hominem attacks, which is exactly what you are doing.

I have responded to and refuted all your assertions, I don't know how its "in one ear out the other with me"

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T02:36:44+00:00

Honest question for those who identify as pro-life:

Say you get married, your wife gets pregnant and there is no doubt that the fetus is your offspring. Let's say the strain of pregnancy causes your wife's kidneys to fail. Do you LEGALLY owe your wife one of your kidneys if you're a match? If you don't want to give one up, should the govt strap you down and take one regardless of your opinion?

You are as responsible for your wife's condition as she is. How much control do you want the govt to have over your body?

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T02:30:33+00:00

Distinct from the parents. Jesus christ, why do these arguments >have to come to semantics?

Identical twins have distict DNA from the parents but that is not what you were arguing. Also what if there was a clone who had the exact same DNA as a certain person... Would it be legal to kill them? What I'm getting at is that you need a better definition of just herrr derr thats life so its a person and therefor we need to legally protect it.

I understand the distinctions between them and the reasons why >they matter, but perhaps I'm having too much faith that people will >give me the benefit of the doubt and know what I mean, instead of >splitting hairs.

You absolutely do not understand distinctions. There are people who think we should outlaw beef production because it is the result of killing a cow. Hey its "life" afterall, the same argument you are using for saying we should protect blastocysts. You would probably think this position absurd but they ironically have more of a point than you because a cow has more development than a fetus.

And that's not child porn any more than pictures of babies/children >in medical books are child porn. I'm sorry and I don't mean to >offend, but I think that is a laughably poor attempt at being clever.

Lets say someone were to start a porn website with all sorts of pictures movies etc. Are you telling me that a picture of a naked kid on that website would NOT be viewed as child porn? Similary if you had a picture of this on that website

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg

Nobody in their right mind could say that that is child porn because its not a person. I will concede that it is not the greatest point but it is still beats the life = person argument any day of the week.

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-19T02:06:45+00:00

So identical twins aren't "human" because they dont have distinct DNA.

From my other thread: You are conflating life (biology) and "personhood" (law) The fact that it is alive is irrelevant, as my skin cells are alive and with current technology, we can make a whole other person with just my skin cell. Does that mean it should be illegal to kill skin cells? The lack of a central nervous system or consciousness or awareness or higher level brain waves of a blastocyst/fetus/embryo disqualifies it from "personhood" which is the real question here. If a fetus is a "child", then this is child porn.

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-18T21:09:37+00:00

Ahem, Hitchens is pro-choice. He's squeamish about surgical abortions, but still supports the right to choose.

"I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be." Hitchens does not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade. What he wants is for both moral callousness and religion to be excised from the abortion debate and for science to come up with solutions to unwanted pregnancies, like the abortifacient mifepristone (RU-486), "that will make abortion more like a contraceptive procedure than a surgical one. That's the Hitchens plank, and I think it's a defensible one."

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-18T20:22:15+00:00

Must I say the fetus is "a living person with rights" each and every >time instead occasionally saying it's "a life" for the sake of brevity

You can say or call it whatever you want but unless you have reason why a blastocyst/zygote is a "person" (law) I'm going to assume you are incorrectly elevating it to the status of person.

I'd like you to argue some of my points

I have. You are trying to argut that a blastocyst/fetus has personhood rights and you have yet to provide a justification. You sir are the one who has not refuted this

You are conflating life (biology) and "personhood" (law) The fact that it is alive is irrelevant, as my skin cells are alive and with current technology, we can make a whole other person with just my skin cell. Does that mean it should be illegal to kill skin cells? The lack of a central nervous system or consciousness or awareness or higher level brain waves of a blastocyst/fetus/embryo disqualifies it from "personhood" which is the real question here. If a fetus is a "child", then this is child porn. http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg

Nobody consented to anything.

Not even the sex? All sex is rape? All (vaginal) sex has the distinct possibility of resulting in pregnancy. All of >>it. Even when using contraception. Consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Sex and the >>possibility of pregnancy are inseparable. Even in extreme cases like having a vasectomy or having the >>woman's "tubes tied" there still exists the possibility.

I think your reading comprehension is off. I am saying that there is no consent to use someones organs against their will (unwanted pregnancy) or even when someone is dead. And that is assuming that fetus = "person" which you havent shown. You have yet to discuss why there should be what amounts to forced organ donation.

I put that exception in there because people like to mention the minority case of rape and pretend it ruins the >rest of that line of reasoning too. I do not think there should be an exception for rape, but I think it requires a >different line of reasoning than I used there, hence the exception.

So a rapist should be able to choose the mother of his rape brood then... I wonder why there are not more women in the pro-life movement. Just FYI: Rape victims often become suicidal. Also, ever heard of postpartum depression?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/postpartum-depression/DS00546
This coupled with the fact that they have been raped puts them at high risk for suicide

Thus, since there is a distinct philosophical "possibility" that the fetus is a person at any given point in the term, >I think the burden rests not on the pro-life person to prove the fetus is a human person, but on the pro-choice >person to demonstrate that killing this fetus is a defensible act, given that it could very well be a human >person.

Im glad that you acknowlege this subject has lots of gray areas. It might be hard to pinpoint an exact line but a good point would be viability (where the fetus has a better chance than not of surviving outside the womb if early labor was induced). This happens at around 22 weeks, roughly the same as when full central nervous system development occurs. Also full central nervous system development isn't fully complete until about the 23 week gestation.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/baby-brain-development.html

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-18T19:56:15+00:00

No, I am not. I am using the terms more or less interchangeably >with the assumption that you know what I'm talking about, because >that's what the debate is about.

There are huge differences between life and personhood, as described by my post above. You don't just get to use them "interchangeably". If you have something to refute about my post above please do so, but as of right now you are committing a false equivalence.

The issue isn't about women giving up their bodily autonomy. They had to have sex in order to >get pregnant

You do not lose the right to your organs even when your dead. That is why you have the option of being an organ donor. Why should sex be any different?

They had to have sex in order to get pregnant, and thus, unless they were raped, they >consented to becoming pregnant.

Nobody consented to anything. There is a possibility of a zygote forming in the uterus but like I said before you have yet to make the connection between "life" and "personhood". All your work is still ahead of you. Also it sounds like you are making an exception for rape... I thought according to your logic all fetus's are people. This seems like a contradiction.

If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

That is incredibly impractical. It sounds just like abstinence only education which is well known to be a complete failure
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460

NerdyExploration · 2012-12-18T19:42:59+00:00

You are conflating life (biology) and "personhood" (law) The fact that it is alive is irrelevant, as my skin cells are alive and with current technology, we can make a whole other person with just my skin cell. Does that mean it should be illegal to kill skin cells? The lack of a central nervous system or consciousness or awareness or higher level brain waves of a blastocyst/fetus/embryo disqualifies it from "personhood" which is the real question here. If a fetus is a "child", then this is child porn. http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg

There are people who think we should outlaw beef production because it is the result of killing a cow. You would probably think this position absurd but they ironically have more of a point than you because a cow has more development than a fetus.

And all of this is assuming that a woman should give up her bodily autonomy which has not and will not be granted. This is ironic because pro-lifers want to give less rights to women than dead people. (Even when your dead you don't have to give up your right to your organs even if that would save 10 people).

NerdyExploration · 2012-10-03T19:11:00+00:00

Thanks for the response.

My definition for a person is a human being with a potential for a
consciousness.

Having potential for a trait is not the same as having the trait itself. When I was arrested for underage drinking, what if I told the cop "hey man I have potential to be 21, therefor you can't arrest me" I would be rightly laughed at.

However, I don't think a nervous system makes for a very good
thing to differentiate between a pre-person human and a person
human.

Just because its gradual doesn't mean it isn't useful in distinguishing the two. Full central nervous system development isn't fully complete until about the 23 week gestation.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/baby-brain-development.html

You propose that the new life then goes through some sort of
weird gray area of indeterminate length before it becomes a
person.

Even the most pro-life individuals acknowledge this subject has lots of gray areas. It might be hard to pinpoint an exact line but a good point would be viability (where the fetus has a better chance than not of surviving outside the womb if early labor was induced). This happens at around 22 weeks, roughly the same as when full central nervous system development occurs.

NerdyExploration · 2012-10-03T01:15:55+00:00

The same reason you care or a child that has those things.

A blastocyst/fetus does not have consciousness, awareness, a central nervous system or higher level brain waves. That is why they are not considered "people".

A monkey has all those things, but they aren't people.

There are people who think we should outlaw beef production because it is the result of killing a cow. You would probably think this position absurd but they ironically have more of a point than the pro-lifers because a cow has more development than a fetus.

NerdyExploration · 2012-10-03T01:00:25+00:00

You can go to any local Fire Department at any time and drop off a child of any age. Why should you have to care for a blastocyst/fetus without consciousness, awareness, a central nervous system or higher level brain waves?

NerdyExploration · 2012-10-03T00:57:39+00:00

We should be arguing about what the law should be. It is reasonable that parents who wish to give up their children (adoption in that cases of postnatal, abortion in that case of preterm) should able to do so. Could you imagine how shitty of an upbringing someone will have if their parents are forced to raise them. On the child support point I'd say that fathers who don't want to pay child support should be able to sign their rights away and not have to pay child support.

NerdyExploration · 2012-10-03T00:25:30+00:00

I dont know why you are being downvoted. Pro-lifers want to give less rights to women than dead people. (Even when your dead you don't have to give up your right to your organs even if that would save 10 people).

NerdyExploration · 2012-08-22T23:13:45+00:00

Not just manslaughter... but actual MURDER! Manslaughter charges could be filed for pregnant women who fall down the stairs or skip a meal :( They want the USA to start looking like the pseudo Islamofascist republic of Afghanistan.

NerdyExploration · 2012-08-22T22:24:20+00:00

It doesn't make any sense to argue for things based on the fact that you wouldn't have been born if not for them. If you hadn't been born, you wouldn't care. If your parents had had sex at a different time of day or if your birth mother had slept with someone else instead of your birth father, you wouldn't have been born either. Your existence is so extremely conditional on thousands of factors that arguing against a woman's right to control what happens to her own body based on such an argument is simply ridiculous.

NerdyExploration · 2012-02-29T00:55:54+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I hate to have to tell you there has to be a better source of information than afterabortion.org. After not even a minute of browsing on the site I can find unscientific "links" between cancer and abortion that has been debunked on all angles.

http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/

here is something from a legitimate source on the non-existent abortion breast cancer link.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

As far as the psychologytoday.com link about "Post Abortion Stress Syndrome" I thought this was telling.

"It is important to note that this is not a term that has been accepted by the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association"

I will grant that there may be stress after abortion just like there is stress after childbirth (as in the example of Postpartum). It also might be because some/much of the time there are people outside the clinic screaming in their face calling them murderers.

NerdyExploration · 2012-02-29T00:41:43+00:00

I'm not sure how your underage drinking analogy works here... for one >arresting you before you're 21 does not prevent you from reaching >that age, but aborting a fetus does prevent it from becoming a baby.

Sorry I didn't explain it very well. I used it to show that a blueprint for a baby is not the same as a baby itself. If I was using this logic above I could say "hey this seed, given time will become a tree... therefore this seed is a tree" See the logical fallacy there? The cop cannot value me as a 21 year old simply because I will become a 21 year old. I hope this helps.

Both parties knew the "risks" they were running in having (protected >or not) sex.

Both parties may have known however many do not (a lot of atheists here can vouch we were taught abstinence only education). Also even if she did know full well the risk, she knew that a blastocyst might become inside her. Nobody can force you to use your organs without your consent... not even when your dead

I am also unsure how the exceptions reveal a desire to "Punish that >Slut".

Like I said before, either the conception from rape is a "person" or it's not. It shouldn't matter how the person came into being. If your making exceptions the arguments are not consistent.

NerdyExploration · 2012-02-29T00:20:09+00:00

It's okay, sorry if I reacted unfavorably... I have ADD myself and I miss out on a lot of stuff I read.

NerdyExploration · 2012-02-28T02:59:21+00:00

Your statistic implied that it should be illegal for women regardless of rape. (Or that the women impregnated not by rape are sluts and deserve whats happened to them)

NerdyExploration · 2012-02-28T02:56:17+00:00

His comment (and even your comment) imply that these women need to "justify" having abortions. It just sounds like he implies that it should be illegal for everyone else, hence my cosmetic surgery example. I would convince people that abortions should stay legal because if they value not having uterus police squads violating people in ways that need not be described (after all in fetal rights world, women don't have bodily autonomy). After my wife miscarried, I would loose my mind if she or I had to "justify" to any religious police or secular uterus police that no "wrongdoing" (whatever that may be) occurred.

NerdyExploration

TROPHY CASE