"Life doesn't begin at Conception?" - Really? [W:268]

[minnie616]

I never addressed that. The purpose is to gather if people think "life begins at conception" is reasonable, or not. If it is reasonable, then imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court determined that all unborn children were granted "inalienable rights" outlined in the Declaration? That would be a significant ruling - yes?

That's all I wanted to discuss. And please don't jeopardize your credibility by attacking my Y chromosome. It doesn't make you sound very objective or academic.

The DOI is not incorporated in the Constitution.

In fact the idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI most likely came from John Locke.

John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...

The Open Door Web Site : History : John Locke and the "Treatises on Government



The key word is born.


Some of the founding fathers owned slaves so it is understandable that Jefferson changed the wording from born equally free to "created equal " ... He couldn't very well have the slaves thinking they were born free now could he?

 

[countryboy]

It is not that nobody "cares" it is that it is part of a belief system and a philosophical question on top of being a multilayered scientific question.

The problem is that there is a desire to apply the philosophy as science and have some kind of "ah-ha" moment.

Well when life begins? I think in the framework of this question....the beginning of what could eventually be a born baby is when the sperm meets the egg.

When does it constitute a person deserving of rights - IMHO, once born and no longer dependent on the life force/physiology of the mother.

I'll never understand this viewpoint. Is a full term baby somehow a different person because he or she has moved a few inches?

 

[minnie616]

By the early 1980s preemie intensive care facilities had dialed back viability to the 22nd week. Depending one one's locale. But by the early 90s it was relatively common nationwide. Hard to hold that viability begins at 28 weeks when preemies are regularly surviving at 22 weeks right? ...

The limit of viability ( where a premiere has a 50 percent chance of surviving) is 24 weeks gestation although the incidence of major disabilities is high.
The limit of viability has remained unchanged for 15 years.

The youngest premies to ever survive worldwide were 21 weeks 6 days and 21 weeks 5 days gestation.
They are considered medical miracles.

The outlook of preemies younger than 23 weeks gestation is so bleak that most US hospitals only offer comfort care , keeping the premie, warm and comfortable until they expire on their own.

 

[betuadollar]

Maybe those who find it repugnant - shouldn't consider having an abortion.

Abortion is a personal matter that doesn't revolve around a ceremony and then a reception to celebrate the event.

So in the end, you're OPINION - "within the human emotion" (this implies that you're speaking for the entire species) "abortion does not occupy a moral high ground". Interesting that you've declared the moral stance all women must hinge their personal choices to when having an abortion.

Pro-life isn't the "decider" as to what point the state has an interest in a woman's conception/pregnancy. And thank goodness for that.

So you stating that you can live with abortion under the conditions set by Roe v Wade is really a conversational piece rather than a candid response in another post?

Roe vs Wade adopts a pro-life stance in recognizing that the state has an interest from the moment of conception. It classifies the unborn as a life form from the moment of conception and considers gestation in its entirety. To explain that, as a means of analogy, if we were to ingest a virus and that virus was to mature to eventually leave the body to subsist in its own, while yes we might label it a "parasite," we would nonetheless label it a "life form" from the moment of inception. This is what Roe vs Wade does, and then to consider the matter, establishes a state interest in that life form.

When I say that the majority still find abortion repugnant I base that on countless interactions with individuals of the female persuasion. Most find it emotionally repugnant and none have suggested it occupies a moral high-ground.

There are two issues here: one is an ethical or moral issue; the other a legal issue. Roe vs Wade considers both, as necessary compromise. It does not state that abortion in the first trimester is the "right" thing to do; it merely states that the state will not seek prosecution, which has the effect of legally making it available.

 

[minnie616]

It is accomplished in Roe Vs Wade which first determined that the state had an interest in the potentiality of life; if it did not it could not rule. Within the realm of normal human emotion abortion does not occupy a moral high ground; it is not something we aspire to or celebrate, in fact, most still find it rather repugnant.

Roe v Wade decided the state has a compelling interest in the potentiality of human life at viability.

Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

 

[minnie616]

I'll never understand this viewpoint. Is a full term baby somehow a different person because he or she has moved a few inches?

A newborn is a person because it a separate individual no longer biologically dependent on the woman.
Even born preemies are considered persons since they are no longer inside and attached to the woman.

 

[minnie616]

Roe vs Wade adopts a pro-life stance in recognizing that the state has an interest from the moment of conception. It classifies the unborn as a life form from the moment of conception and considers gestation in its entirety. ...

You misunderstand Roe v Wade does not say the state has an interest from the moment of conception.

 

[betuadollar]

Roe v Wade decided state has a compelling interest in the potentiality of human life at viability.

Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

No, it establishes an interest in the potentially of life since the moment of conception; if it did not the court could not consider the first trimester. What right would the court have to consider the first trimester if it had no compelling interest? Privacy under due process is just the legalese applied to a rational decision under our system of law.

We've come to rely on the Constitution as our standard right? If we didn't we'd be left with precedent, which is often conflicting and contradictory. So we frame our decision constitutionally and apply the legalese as means of explanation. Lately, in particular, it seems, we have not strictly adhered to that measure. There has always been a potential for abuse.

 

[Absentglare]

You may not believe this but women have been having babies for some 200 thousand years now and religion had nothing to do with it. Nor does it have anything to do with the range of human emotion. It's no more normal for women to dispassionately kill their unborn than it is for men to encourage them to do so. Show me a woman that's had three or more abortions and I'll show you a woman destined for the nut-house.

I'm talking about in our current context.

Pro-choice is all about "murder is wrong," but that's not the point of abortion.

The point of abortion is to remove a long-lasting, serious burden from a woman's body. The reason the fetus does not survive is because it is reliant on the mother as a host the same way a parasite is.

I'm quite certain that abortion takes an emotional toll, but i'm not willing to force women to avoid that option. One major effect that will have is that many more women will attempt a far more dangerous, impromptu abortion, risking their own life in the process. That's how big of a deal it is for a woman to bring a fetus to term.

 

[Removable Mind]

Again, who am I a sycophant of? What important person am I acting obsequiously toward, to gain advantage? Just admit, you have no idea what the word means. It's okay, not everyone has an expanded vocabulary. Perhaps you should stick to words you know.

There ya go, three libs, three "I don't give a rat's arse when life begins". Thanks for proving the point.

Don't delude yourself in believing that I don't understand the meaning of "sycophant" - and why this particular term is so fitting for you. Your constant need to show off your undying allegiance to "ALL" of your fellow conservatives in abortion threads (and/or readers) by injecting your LIBS label on everyone who opposes your point of view regarding abortion.

In other words, you are engaging in "philosophical brown nosing" by frequently injecting the term "LIBS" in your posts. You purposely do it to draw the attention of your fellow conservatives. Philosophical 'brown nosing" is perhaps a better description. And, by the way, the term "brown nosing" is found within the meaning of word, "sycophant".

You clearly use the word (term) LIB or LIBS as YOUR "conservative euphemism" to imply (or explicitly claim) that all of those who subscribe to Pro-Choice tenets are IMMORAL. I do hope your, chest beating/hey fellow conservatives look at me, tactics offers you some since of security that you fit neatly into their philosophical matrix.

Now...

I'm not the decider at what stage of development life begins. HOWEVER: As so elegantly pointed out by another poster, "being alive" doesn't constitute "being a life". Can you grasp this simple precept?

 

[countryboy]

A newborn is a person because it a separate individual no longer biologically dependent on the woman.
Even born preemies are considered persons since they are no longer inside and attached to the woman.

Again, a matter of location only, having absolutely nothing to do with human physiology. Am I a different person every time I move about? Of course not. All of your arguments are nothing more than selfish rationalizations to feel better about the killing of innocents.

 

[Removable Mind]

No, it establishes an interest in the potentially of life since the moment of conception; if it did not the court could not consider the first trimester. What right would the court have to consider the first trimester if it had no compelling interest? Privacy under due process is just the legalese applied to a rational decision under our system of law.

We've come to rely on the Constitution as our standard right? If we didn't we'd be left with precedent, which is often conflicting and contradictory. So we frame our decision constitutionally and apply the legalese as means of explanation. Lately, in particular, it seems, we have not strictly adhered to that measure. There has always been a potential for abuse.

You've just won the prize for the most bizarre interpretation of Roe v Wade ever posted.

The S.C. clearly didn't adopt the pro-life stance that the state has interest at the time conception. Quite the opposite occurred.

The S.C. removed the State's interests from the moment of conception all the way up to what the court defined as "viability". The S.C. didn't claim to know the exact moment of viability, but based on the testimony of medical experts and other disciplines they did arrive at an approximation, nothing more or less.

The viability clause didn't create any rights for any stage of the yet to be born. It did, however, place limitations on the reasons women could have abortions beyond the second trimester. But women can have an abortion during any latter stage pregnancy - without government persecution - if her life is in jeopardy or the fetus is significantly malformed or considered dead.

And don't confuse "LEGAL OPTIONS" with "MORAL CHOICE". A lot of women who are "pro-choice" wouldn't have an abortion out of "moral choice", but do not want their "legal options" to be diminished or dismantled. If those "legal options" became diminished or dismantled that would clear mean that their Constitutional rights to equal protection under the law, due process under the law, and right to privacy - all equal to men would be significantly compromised.

I completely disagree that with your opinion (and I'll paraphrase a little) that "Lately, in particular, it seems, we have not strictly adhered to that (or those Constitutional) measure(s)" I assume you're implying issues around abortion. There's potentials to abuse any Constitutional element, but there's no evidence of that when it comes to the vast majority of abortions performed in this nation - abuse has been anywhere near the norm.

Roe v Wade was an ADMISSION of civil violations by governments (state and federal( against women's ALREADY HELD rights to manage their reproductive roles and sexual health.

Remember, over 95 percent of abortions are performed at 12 weeks and under. Of those about 60 percent are 10 weeks and under. But the most significant thing to remember is that MOST CONCEPTIONS are brought to full term. WHY? It's called "CHOICE"!

Again, women are not legally or morally obligated to reproduce than men are.

 

[prometeus]

Again, a matter of location only

That is naive to not say uneducated.

 

[countryboy]

Don't delude yourself in believing that I don't understand the meaning of "sycophant" - and why this particular term is so fitting for you. Your constant need to show off your undying allegiance to "ALL" of your fellow conservatives.....

No need to read any further, you really should stop digging. It only makes you look foolish.

Show me a definition of the word "sycophant", that applies to a group of unimportant people.

 

[Removable Mind]

No need to read any further, you really should stop digging. It only makes you look foolish.

Show me a definition of the word "sycophant", that applies to a group of unimportant people.

You're a very special case, which clearly falls within the definition, but it's okay.

 

[year2late]

I'll never understand this viewpoint. Is a full term baby somehow a different person because he or she has moved a few inches?

Seriously? It is about physiologic dependence on the mother.

 

[minnie616]

No, it establishes an interest in the potentially of life since the moment of conception; if it did not the court could not consider the first trimester. ....

Texas believed that life started at conception but Roe disregarded that.
Roe said , " We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."

From Roe v Wade part IX

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

[160]

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [Footnote 56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [Footnote 57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [Footnote 58] As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [Footnote 59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. [Footnote 60]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html

 

[minnie616]

Again, a matter of location only, having absolutely nothing to do with human physiology. Am I a different person every time I move about? Of course not. All of your arguments are nothing more than selfish rationalizations to feel better about the killing of innocents.

I disagree.
A fetus cannot survive inside the woman if the umbilical cord is cut.

 

[JayDubya]

You're a very special case, which clearly falls within the definition, but it's okay.

Condemning a group of people for their political beliefs does not not fall under the definition of "sycophant."

Furthermore, it is a negative noun you have attributed to another poster, over and over in this thread. Generally, you are allowed to criticize words, sometimes you are allowed to criticize behavior, but you are just directly calling someone else a sycophant.

 

[le bouffon]

There ya go, three libs, three "I don't give a rat's arse when life begins". Thanks for proving the point.

Correction - I never said that "I don't give a rat's arse when life begins". You said that. I said that life began billions of years ago. I merely answered your question.

 

[JayDubya]

Correction - I never said that "I don't give a rat's arse when life begins". You said that. I said that life began billions of years ago. I merely answered your question.

Semantic games.

Abiogenesis on Earth began billions of years ago.

The lifespan of an individual organism which is a member of a sexually reproducing species like ours... begins at fertilization.


Conflating the two is intellectually lazy at best.

 

[le bouffon]

Semantic games.

Abiogenesis on Earth began billions of years ago.

The lifespan of an individual organism which is a member of a sexually reproducing species like ours... begins at fertilization.


Conflating the two is intellectually lazy at best.

The user wasn't specific and merely mentioned "life", not "individual organism".

Also, there is no evidence to prove that life begins at fertilization. Sperm, the egg, tissue, blood, etc, all are alive, no? The only reason why you deem it necessary to prove that life begins at conception, is to enforce bronze age legislation which allows a woman to have no control over her own body. Also, coming from a libertarian, such as yourself, this is hilarious.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Here we go round
The mulberry bush
The mulberry bush
The mulberry bush
here we go round
the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.

The never ending circular argument.

 

[Lursa]

Again, a matter of location only, having absolutely nothing to do with human physiology. Am I a different person every time I move about? Of course not. All of your arguments are nothing more than selfish rationalizations to feel better about the killing of innocents.

What part of 'dependent on the mother for life' isnt based on human physiology?

After birth, a baby can survive when NOT attached to another person. It requires care, not constant physcial attachment.

So...going to move the goal posts again?

 

[Removable Mind]

No need to read any further, you really should stop digging. It only makes you look foolish.

Show me a definition of the word "sycophant", that applies to a group of unimportant people.

Every time that you inject that "IT IS LIBS" who subscribe to any tenets that express that the right to abort should exist - you imply or explicitly claim that such individuals are somehow flawed and immoral.

YOU PURPOSELY damn a particular group of people who you politically/philosophically disagree with...which are derived from your conservative beliefs FOR A SPECIFIC REASON. That reason is: Your putting on a show with the LIBS stuff for your "Collective Group of Conservatives" whom you want to draw attention to - in order to get accolades. To get them to acknowledge your devotion to your conservative allegiance - with the hope you'll serve as a beacon and they'll come running to your aid or support.

I don't give a rats ass about conservatism or liberalism when it come to basic Constitutional Rights. I do give a rats ass when it comes to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN "EQUALLY" enjoying such rights.

Abortion isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS issue. Now, I don't know exactly how you label the Constitution - meaning whether you believe it leans right or left, but its intent was meant to be AS UNBIASED AS POSSIBLE to all it applies to.

Sycophant:

Person who praises powerful people in order to get their approval. Now, in your case, all of your conservative cohorts in DP and readers of DP - "COLLECTIVELY" are “THE IMPORTANT PERSONS” that you’re trying to impress… and all for the sake of drawing the attention to you.

Synonyms for sycophant

And this includes persons who, like you, fall into one or more the following categories. Personally I’d say you fit in most of the following categories.

• groupie

• adulator

• flatterer

• groveler

• minion

• puppet

• brownnoser

Women's political philosophies have ZERO to do with their EQUAL RIGHTS and PROTECTION under the law. And most know this. Appealing to your HIGHER CONSERVATIVE BASE has no place in these debates.

And don't doubt for a moment that PLENTY of conservative women have, is, and will have abortions. The last numbers that I saw was that 27 percent of women who had abortions made the admission that they considered themselves as conservatives. Now that is only those who ADMITTED to being conservative. So its my guess that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of those who have abortion are "conservative women".