I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

[code1211]

LOL! Surely you jest. Abortion is termination of pregnancy. Eminent domain is not abortion.

YOU said that reproduction is awe inspiring. I was responding to that. Do try to keep up, k?

You seem to have had a bit of trouble understanding the need for certain things on a societal level that are violations of individual liberties and rights.

It's amusing that I was pointing this out and that you failed to even understand what I was pointing out.

 

[code1211]

So the cells that produce the blood cells, those are people?

As cells of the 37 or so Trillion cells in a body, I suppose they could be called evidence of the whole. Also evidence of the entirety of the population of humans leading to the reproduction and the society within which it occurred.

Like skin cells that shed from the whole. Evidence of the specific and the general.

When the entire entity is a single cell, that cell is more central to the whole than when the entity is comprised of 37 Trillion or so cells. Right now, if i were to loose the trillions o cells that comprise my arm, i could probably survive assuming proper care.

When I weighed a few pounds, losing that many cells would be more problematic.

Is there a point you are trying to make?

 

[Praxas]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible and that is a moral stance we all should have, so the question is when does life begin? if we want to determine whether abortions should be illegal or not this is the most important question. Me personally, I believe that life begins at conception which is why I'm pro life. I'm interested in hearing other people's opposing positions.

I have no desire to change your pro-life stance, I happen to hold a pro-life stance personally myself in that I would never ask a woman to have an abortion. However, where the debate comes in is whether you believe you have the right to push your pro-life stance on others. I am pro-life personally but I have no desire to push my pro-life beliefs on others so in that sense I am pro-choice. Do you believe you should be able to force your pro-life beliefs onto others?

 

[code1211]

So explain how an accurate description of the stage that life is in dehumanizes that life?

Or you could explain how an inaccurate description of that life, ie. referring to the unborn as a baby, does anything more than be an emotional plea?

You answer your own question.

Calling this entity a Zef or a Zygote or a Tissue Mass creates different emotional responses than calling this entity a Baby.

To me, having been exposed to all of these terms, the unspoken "Human" is present for all. Human Zef, Human Zygote or Human tissue mass.

To others who are less sensitized to these terms, I assume that the terms are preceded in their understanding by "ONLY" a Zef, a Zygote or a tissue mass. The implication is that it's NOT a human.

I had a medical condition that was annoying to me in that it kept me from work. I was again leaving the doctor's office with a prescription when he stopped me by stepping between me and the door.

Then the doctor made it clear that it was pre-cancerous and I might die as a result of it. My paradigm shifted. Emotionally, "Cancer" is different from "abdominal pain".

There was no change in WHAT I viewed- only in how I viewed it. What you call an "emotional plea" can often be an enlightened glimpse of reality.

 

[Manc Skipper]

You answer your own question.

Calling this entity a Zef or a Zygote or a Tissue Mass creates different emotional responses than calling this entity a Baby.

To me, having been exposed to all of these terms, the unspoken "Human" is present for all. Human Zef, Human Zygote or Human tissue mass.

To others who are less sensitized to these terms, I assume that the terms are preceded in their understanding by "ONLY" a Zef, a Zygote or a tissue mass. The implication is that it's NOT a human.

I had a medical condition that was annoying to me in that it kept me from work. I was again leaving the doctor's office with a prescription when he stopped me by stepping between me and the door.

Then the doctor made it clear that it was pre-cancerous and I might die as a result of it. My paradigm shifted. Emotionally, "Cancer" is different from "abdominal pain".

There was no change in WHAT I viewed- only in how I viewed it. What you call an "emotional plea" can often be an enlightened glimpse of reality.

The tissue involved is as human as a fingernail, and often no bigger than a pea. It's not a baby or a human in any conventional sense. It has the potential to grow into one, but has yet to reach that stage in the process.

What is a human? What are the attributes that make it a human, and not an egg, or an eggplant?

 

[code1211]

There we have it. The heart of the problem, your understanding of the english language is abysmal. ( That means really bad) .

Neither of those two are euphemisms. Zef is an acronym (zygote, embryo, fetus.) While zygote is an actual word in its own right.

Why not use the word "Baby" instead?

 

[soylentgreen]

You answer your own question.

Calling this entity a Zef or a Zygote or a Tissue Mass creates different emotional responses than calling this entity a Baby.

To me, having been exposed to all of these terms, the unspoken "Human" is present for all. Human Zef, Human Zygote or Human tissue mass.

To others who are less sensitized to these terms, I assume that the terms are preceded in their understanding by "ONLY" a Zef, a Zygote or a tissue mass. The implication is that it's NOT a human.

I had a medical condition that was annoying to me in that it kept me from work. I was again leaving the doctor's office with a prescription when he stopped me by stepping between me and the door.

Then the doctor made it clear that it was pre-cancerous and I might die as a result of it. My paradigm shifted. Emotionally, "Cancer" is different from "abdominal pain".

There was no change in WHAT I viewed- only in how I viewed it. What you call an "emotional plea" can often be an enlightened glimpse of reality.

If it was the case of just enlightened reality then no one would have a problem with the word baby being used. However what we really have here is a very dishonest bunch of anti abortionists who have no real argument to support their cause other than turning the word baby into an emotional plea. They will show pictures of fully a developed child in a womb and protest that this is what is being aborted. It is a lie and a plea to emotion.

These terms are not used to pretend the life in a womb is something other than human. They are used to point out how dishonest the propaganda of ant abortionists are.

Why not use the word "Baby" instead?

Because I am dealing with anti abortionists who will jump on that word and argue it should be illegal to abort a baby. It already is illegal to abort a baby but they do not care about that fact. they, having no real argument can only make the dishonest emotional plea.

The only way to fight the dishonest propaganda of the anti abortion crowd is with facts. So being literal about the stages of growth a human goes though in a womb is an acceptable means of combatting that dishonesty.

Your analogy of being told you had cancer is a perfect example. If I am talking to a woman who wants a child I will refer to her pregnancy as a baby because that is what she wants to hear. However saying the same to a woman who wants an abortion is only trying to force her away from her decision by creating an emotional plea.

 

[D_NATURED]

Ok, this may be true and I can appreciate this point, but as my personal view I believe that it is a life which should be afforded that right to life which is why I hold the position I do, appreciate the feedback!

You see, the pro-choice position allows for your particular belief. The pro-life position is authoritarian, absolute, draconian and scientifically indefensible.

 

[weaver2]

Ok, this may be true and I can appreciate this point, but as my personal view I believe that it is a life which should be afforded that right to life which is why I hold the position I do, appreciate the feedback!

A birth is a new beginning, filled with hope, celebrated, a happy event. You say you are saving an unwanted fetus because it has a right to this hope-filled, happy life. These are unwanted children. Their lot is not hopeful. You are not honoring the fetus's right to life. Not if you don't know what that life will hold. You are denying families, the people that know whether that life can be supported and loved, the right to make knowledgable decisions and imposing on them something that will not turn out well. Why do you think your belief that all human fetuses have a right to be born is more worthy than a family's right to make personal decisions about their private lives.

I do not understand why Christian conservative anti-abortion advocates think the right to make decisions belongs only to them.

 

[D_NATURED]

A birth is a new beginning, filled with hope, celebrated, a happy event. You say you are saving an unwanted fetus because it has a right to this hope-filled, happy lif*e. These are unwanted children. Their lot is not hopeful. You are not honoring the fetus's right to life. Not if you don't know what that life will hold. You are denying families, the people that know whether that life can be supported and loved, the right to make knowledgable decisions and imposing on them something that will not turn out well. Why do you think your belief that all human fetuses have a right to be born is more worthy than a family's right to make personal decisions about their private lives.

I do not understand why Christian conservative anti-abortion advocates think the right to make decisions belongs only to them.

No, no, it's really "god's" decision *wink* . The fact that it's being translated by troglodytes is completely coincidental.

 

[weaver2]

No, no, it's really "god's" decision *wink* . The fact that it's being translated by troglodytes is completely coincidental.

LOL They speak for God. They know what God thinks, because as the writer Ann Lamott said, "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

 

[code1211]

The tissue involved is as human as a fingernail, and often no bigger than a pea. It's not a baby or a human in any conventional sense. It has the potential to grow into one, but has yet to reach that stage in the process.

What is a human? What are the attributes that make it a human, and not an egg, or an eggplant?

I am currently 67 hoping to soon be 68 and more.

I was an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, a young adult, an adult, middle aged and am now old.

BEFORE being an infant, I was all of those things that lead to being matured enough to be born.

Between the first single cell of me and today, my body has grown from one to about 37 Trillion or 100 Trillion cells. I've read differing estimates on the number of cells in a body. Amazing!

Between the point of being birthed and being conceived came a span of 9 months. Between the point of being birthed and being a toddler came about 12 months. Walked a little early.

What makes an entity a human? Probably DNA. Anything else, particularly external observation of another seem to fail the test. A new born and me are very dissimilar in many, many ways.

The single cell, the infant, the toddler, adolescent, teenager, adult and old codger are all pretty different. So are men and women. At least, used to be.

What makes you ask?

 

[code1211]

If it was the case of just enlightened reality then no one would have a problem with the word baby being used. However what we really have here is a very dishonest bunch of anti abortionists who have no real argument to support their cause other than turning the word baby into an emotional plea. They will show pictures of fully a developed child in a womb and protest that this is what is being aborted. It is a lie and a plea to emotion.

These terms are not used to pretend the life in a womb is something other than human. They are used to point out how dishonest the propaganda of ant abortionists are.



Because I am dealing with anti abortionists who will jump on that word and argue it should be illegal to abort a baby. It already is illegal to abort a baby but they do not care about that fact. they, having no real argument can only make the dishonest emotional plea.

The only way to fight the dishonest propaganda of the anti abortion crowd is with facts. So being literal about the stages of growth a human goes though in a womb is an acceptable means of combatting that dishonesty.

Your analogy of being told you had cancer is a perfect example. If I am talking to a woman who wants a child I will refer to her pregnancy as a baby because that is what she wants to hear. However saying the same to a woman who wants an abortion is only trying to force her away from her decision by creating an emotional plea.

The part I highlighted is a description of situational ethics. If ethics are situational, they are usually unethical.

The accurate description of the unborn is not connected in any way to the legality or the illegality of the process of abortion.

Under the laws of the United States, the unborn are not born and therefore are not citizens and therefore have no rights. The Unborn are not "born or naturalized" as clearly demanded by the language of the 14th Amendment.

Interestingly, folks who can walk around, but are not born or naturalized in the United States, are said to be Persons with Rights by many of the same folks who deny rights to the unborn, but that's a different consideration.

The arguments regarding what is or is not a Human Being are not connected in any meaningful way to the LEGAL process used by a citizen to abort a "thing" possessing no rights or protections under law.

 

[Ethel2]

I have no desire to change your pro-life stance, I happen to hold a pro-life stance personally myself in that I would never ask a woman to have an abortion. However, where the debate comes in is whether you believe you have the right to push your pro-life stance on others. I am pro-life personally but I have no desire to push my pro-life beliefs on others so in that sense I am pro-choice. Do you believe you should be able to force your pro-life beliefs onto others?

And this is the essence of this issue and many others. If you don't want to have an abortion because you think its wrong (or for any other reason), then don't have an abortion. The fetus has no rights under the constitution. Therefore no one has any right to force others to behave in a way that YOU think is right just because you think its right.

 

[soylentgreen]

The part I highlighted is a description of situational ethics. If ethics are situational, they are usually unethical.

Actually situational ethics is the opposite of being usually unethical. Unless of course you are arguing that christian ethics is basically unethical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

The following are presuppositions Fletcher makes before setting out the situational ethics theory:

1. Pragmatism: An action someone makes should be judged according to the love influenced in it, so the user must always ask: what is the most loving thing to do? For example, war may not – to a situationist – be considered the most 'loving' thing and so many are quick to deem it as morally wrong.
2. Relativism: Approaching every situation with a relative mindset and thus opposing legalistic approaches – avoid words such as 'never', 'complete' and 'perfect'.
3. Positivism: The most important choice of all in the teachings in 1 John 4:7–12 is "let us love one another because love is from God".
4. Personalism: Whereas the legalist thinks people should work to laws, the situational ethicist believes that laws benefit the people. This forces the user to ask 'who is to be helped?' instead of 'what is the law', stressing the importance of people before laws.

The accurate description of the unborn is not connected in any way to the legality or the illegality of the process of abortion.

Under the laws of the United States, the unborn are not born and therefore are not citizens and therefore have no rights. The Unborn are not "born or naturalized" as clearly demanded by the language of the 14th Amendment.

Interestingly, folks who can walk around, but are not born or naturalized in the United States, are said to be Persons with Rights by many of the same folks who deny rights to the unborn, but that's a different consideration.

The arguments regarding what is or is not a Human Being are not connected in any meaningful way to the LEGAL process used by a citizen to abort a "thing" possessing no rights or protections under law.

The accurate legal description of the unborn is the word unborn.

As for legal rights for the unborn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal...he unborn shall,the limits established by law.

The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.[1] The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal substance use disorders, including alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder.[2] The only international treaty specifically tackling fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the right to life of the fetus. While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of the fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, the fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries.[which?]

Do please note the use of an accurate description in the title of the rights granted to the unborn, Fetal rights.

 

[Lursa]

The part I highlighted is a description of situational ethics. If ethics are situational, they are usually unethical.

The accurate description of the unborn is not connected in any way to the legality or the illegality of the process of abortion.

Under the laws of the United States, the unborn are not born and therefore are not citizens and therefore have no rights. The Unborn are not "born or naturalized" as clearly demanded by the language of the 14th Amendment.

Interestingly, folks who can walk around, but are not born or naturalized in the United States, are said to be Persons with Rights by many of the same folks who deny rights to the unborn, but that's a different consideration.

The arguments regarding what is or is not a Human Being are not connected in any meaningful way to the LEGAL process used by a citizen to abort a "thing" possessing no rights or protections under law.

Wrong. Again.

Here's the text of the 1st section of the 14th A:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction."​

So we see that they are referring to persons without any definition. It qualifies 'which' persons...meaning not persons born outside the US and not persons not naturalized. What they are defining are citizens.

Here's the legal definition of person:

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

 

[code1211]

Actually situational ethics is the opposite of being usually unethical. Unless of course you are arguing that christian ethics is basically unethical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics




The accurate legal description of the unborn is the word unborn.

As for legal rights for the unborn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights#:~:text=Every human being shall have,from the moment of conception.&text=Article 67 The unborn shall,the limits established by law.


Do please note the use of an accurate description in the title of the rights granted to the unborn, Fetal rights.

This is a perfect conveyance of the sort of thinking that allows the dismissal of the value of human life, honesty or integrity of any sort.

You are welcome to it. Although you will need to share it with our legislators, noted lying thieves.

As I was using the term, ethics, it applies to standards of behavior. Standards are things that are not changeable. In the world of relativism to which your link relates to, there are no standards. Only situations.

When different standards of behavior are used depending on the situation, bad things usually result. This is the basis of justifying ANYTHING as a means to an end.

Women and children first, but, if there's only one seat left on the life boat, I get it. Situational. Theft is always wrong, unless I really, REALLY need the money.

When the standards change based on the situation, oddly odd things often happen.

 

[weaver2]

......... As I was using the term, ethics, it applies to standards of behavior. Standards are things that are not changeable. In the world of relativism to which your link relates to, there are no standards. Only situations.
When different standards of behavior are used depending on the situation, bad things usually result. This is the basis of justifying ANYTHING as a means to an end.
When the standards change based on the situation, oddly odd things often happen.

Ethics, standards of behavior, can be good or bad. Humanitarians have ethics, evangelicals have ethics, serial killers have ethics.
They change, constantly. And they are unevenly applied. For example: evangelicals have high sounding ethical standards about abortion, which they seldom apply to their own daily lives but are very anxious to have the government make into laws for everybody else to follow in order to avoid punishment.

 

[soylentgreen]

This is a perfect conveyance of the sort of thinking that allows the dismissal of the value of human life, honesty or integrity of any sort.

You are welcome to it. Although you will need to share it with our legislators, noted lying thieves.

As I was using the term, ethics, it applies to standards of behavior. Standards are things that are not changeable. In the world of relativism to which your link relates to, there are no standards. Only situations.

When different standards of behavior are used depending on the situation, bad things usually result. This is the basis of justifying ANYTHING as a means to an end.

Women and children first, but, if there's only one seat left on the life boat, I get it. Situational. Theft is always wrong, unless I really, REALLY need the money.

When the standards change based on the situation, oddly odd things often happen.

The only way that particular line of reasoning works in any sense is if we start from the premise that people will always make bad, uninformed decisions. Or is this a more specific and misogynistic reasoning here that women tend to make bad decisions so let's give men the right to decide?

You do understand that you are developing a philosophy based on pessimism. Where as the link I gave you argued the exact opposite, that given the right opportunity people tend to make good decisions when deciding if something is the right or wrong thing to do.

The only odd thing here is that you say you value life but appear to judge unfavourably on those who try to live it.

 

[Lursa]

If it was the case of just enlightened reality then no one would have a problem with the word baby being used. However what we really have here is a very dishonest bunch of anti abortionists who have no real argument to support their cause other than turning the word baby into an emotional plea. They will show pictures of fully a developed child in a womb and protest that this is what is being aborted. It is a lie and a plea to emotion.

These terms are not used to pretend the life in a womb is something other than human. They are used to point out how dishonest the propaganda of ant abortionists are.



Because I am dealing with anti abortionists who will jump on that word and argue it should be illegal to abort a baby. It already is illegal to abort a baby but they do not care about that fact. they, having no real argument can only make the dishonest emotional plea.

The only way to fight the dishonest propaganda of the anti abortion crowd is with facts. So being literal about the stages of growth a human goes though in a womb is an acceptable means of combatting that dishonesty.

Your analogy of being told you had cancer is a perfect example. If I am talking to a woman who wants a child I will refer to her pregnancy as a baby because that is what she wants to hear. However saying the same to a woman who wants an abortion is only trying to force her away from her decision by creating an emotional plea.

I proved him wrong on the scientific basis AND Constitutional basis in posts 899 & 916 and but he just ignored them...conveniently. So he's really run out of road and doesnt want to admit it.

 

[soylentgreen]

I proved him wrong on the scientific basis AND Constitutional basis in posts 899 & 916 and but he just ignored them...conveniently. So he's really run out of road and doesnt want to admit it.

Now all you have to do is convince him that there is no such thing as a universal morality that is fixed.

 

[code1211]

Ethics, standards of behavior, can be good or bad. Humanitarians have ethics, evangelicals have ethics, serial killers have ethics.
They change, constantly. And they are unevenly applied. For example: evangelicals have high sounding ethical standards about abortion, which they seldom apply to their own daily lives but are very anxious to have the government make into laws for everybody else to follow in order to avoid punishment.

Do you have an example of ethical standards applied by evangelicals about abortion that are not applied to their own daily lives?

 

[code1211]

The only way that particular line of reasoning works in any sense is if we start from the premise that people will always make bad, uninformed decisions. Or is this a more specific and misogynistic reasoning here that women tend to make bad decisions so let's give men the right to decide?

You do understand that you are developing a philosophy based on pessimism. Where as the link I gave you argued the exact opposite, that given the right opportunity people tend to make good decisions when deciding if something is the right or wrong thing to do.

The only odd thing here is that you say you value life but appear to judge unfavourably on those who try to live it.

I have said that I support the case presented by the Pro-Choice to have abortions available on demand.

I have also said that the value of Human Life is quite high.

Accepting that the value of the life an individual is high, and also accepting that Society considers the value of the life of the individual to be very low seems like a reasonable acceptance since that is the demonstrated reality.

IF you feel that the value of Human Life is high and that the need for abortion on demand is a societal necessity in US society as it exists today, THEN we agree.

Drilling deeper, though, supporting the Societal Necessity has little or nothing at all to do with whether or not the unborn are alive, dead, in some sort of Limbo or merely conceptual potentials.

 

[soylentgreen]

I have said that I support the case presented by the Pro-Choice to have abortions available on demand.

I have also said that the value of Human Life is quite high.

Accepting that the value of the life an individual is high, and also accepting that Society considers the value of the life of the individual to be very low seems like a reasonable acceptance since that is the demonstrated reality.

IF you feel that the value of Human Life is high and that the need for abortion on demand is a societal necessity in US society as it exists today, THEN we agree.

Drilling deeper, though, supporting the Societal Necessity has little or nothing at all to do with whether or not the unborn are alive, dead, in some sort of Limbo or merely conceptual potentials.

I feel we have been here before.

It is not your position I question. It is how you got there that I would.

Your last sentence is the problem I and others have had with you. There is no reason and certainly none has been given by the pro choice crowd that the unborn are alive, dead, in some sort of Limbo or merely conceptual potentials. Your actually referring to Schrödinger's cat rather than what grows in the womb.


Value, is a very strange concept, and as I have pointed out you appear to value life but be dismissive of living it.

 

[soylentgreen]

Do you have an example of ethical standards applied by evangelicals about abortion that are not applied to their own daily lives?

I think you missed the point here. Evangelic morality is set to such a high bar that it creates a self fulfilling prophecy of the idea that we are all sinners, ie. Do not lie. Yet no one could possibly go through their whole life and not tell a lie.

You have already said that you side with an empirical universal set of fixed ethics. But this is incompatible with your other statement that a woman should have the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not. Either the morality of though shall not kill is a fixed moral in any circumstance or morality is flexible and subjective. She is capable of weighing the morality of do not kill against the reality of her life and her needs.