• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The pro choice philosophy... (1 Viewer)

Felicity said:
BTW...whould YOU be willing to provide me with an example of the "angst" or "anger" since no one else who has accused me of this has done so?

Easy, right above...

Oh God...not you too?:doh :rofl You must really think that tactic works...OOOOkay....:roll:

I was not exerting a tactic...I was just making sure you knew that some of your more aggressive demeanors were unbecoming. If others have said the same, I would kindly suggest you remember that you have two ears and one mouth...perhaps there is something you need to be hearing lately.

About HIV..."If she takes no preventive drugs and breastfeeds then the chance of her baby becoming infected is around 20-45%."

http://www.avert.org/pregnancy.htm

Thank you for posting that...I never would have thought this. However, that says nothing concerning the morphological relationship between the placenta and the mother.
 
jallman said:
Thank you for posting that...I never would have thought this. However, that says nothing concerning the morphological relationship between the placenta and the mother.

Actually, I would think it says quite a bit. Primarily because if the Fetus was not a part of the mother the likelyhood of contracting Aids in an environment sealed off from the rest of the world would be Nil. The simple Fact that Crack/Aids babies are born with these afflictions points to a Link to environment....the environment is the Mothers Body.
 
jallman said:
Easy, right above...
For my edification...what is it above that shows angst or anger?

Thank you for posting that...I never would have thought this. However, that says nothing concerning the morphological relationship between the placenta and the mother.

http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/placenta.htm
"Over the years, we have moved from the view that the baby is essentially a sophisticated parasite growing within the mother at some considerable expense to her, towards a view of pregnancy as a co-operative process, with both partners in constant communication with each other to harmonise their needs. " Info on the development and function of the placenta.
 
jallman said:
.... but the brain is neither developed nor functioning at what we consider to be human capability.
This is what I am trying to ascertain concerning your position...what is the "functioning that 'we' consider to be human capability?"
Tecoyah quotes, "If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible." So I assume this is his position. But even that is a bit vague as to what exactly "characteristically human thinking" is. Would you clarify an example of what level of cognition fits this. Is this what you mean? "Capability for awareness and thought "--what is awareness?--how does one measure it? and for thought--what sort of thought? And secondly, would you explain WHY that criteria is what you consider valid and not any other criteria such as , say, the nature of the species?

I think the conceived human has the capacity for thought and awareness by virtue of the nature of the being. Like a flower has the capacity for blooming even before it is actually able to bloom--it's an inherent quality rather than an external demonstration of functioning. A tulip is stil a "flower" even without a bloom.

You can turn the lamp on and off all you want, but unless the cord is in the socket, you dont get light because the structural integrity is not there. Does that make sense or do I approach it from another angle?
It's still a lamp--it's not a hamburger, or tube of toothpaste-whether or not it lights. Likewise--it's still a human being--even without the capability of thought. Otherwise what is it? And why is this "function" what determines the "worth" of the thing?
 
Iriemon said:
What this all comes down to is that this is semantics. Calling a single celled egg a "human" or a "child" or a "baby" doesn't make it so. Neither does calling a single celled egg a "single celled egg" mean that the egg cannot possess characteristics deemed worthy of rights that would prohibit abortion.....
Perhaps not biologically, but legally, the name of the thing is the critical difference. If we confer the legal name of "person" onto a Zygote, the Zygote's nature doesn't change, but the mother can not abort it except to save her own life.

All of this fuss is about approaching how any child in utero will be regarded by society.

"But, an 8 1/2 month old fetus is not biologically or physically the same as a single celled egg."
They are not identical, no, but they are both dipendant individuals.

"What are the characteristics of a human being that warrant giving it the rights that would prohibit abortion?"
In short: it's existence.

To quote from the ideals of our Founding Fathers:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.."

I agree with most Deists that "equal" refers to reason ( and reason seems to be the center of the scientific view as well), but I do not neglect the fact that this "equality" is conferred upon creation; which happens at conception, not birth.
This ideal makes no distinction between current ability and future potential, and nither do I.

The difference between a child in utero and a dead body is that the dead body has neither current ability nor future potential, where as a child in uteruo has both -- to varying degrees of each, at different times during development.

"If you believe based on your religion that the spirit of a human enters the single celled egg at the moment of fertilization, and upon that basis it has the characteristics of a human life worthy of the rights, fair enough.
I can not say with any degree of certainty when a sole enters the body, so I revert to my default position of L.O.V.E. thy neighbor.

"Everyone is entitled to their religious views, but I would argue that support for that position is not found in the Bible."
My views are not based on the bible. It's a handy study guide, nothing more.

"Putting aside religious views, if you look at the human characteristics exhibited in the single celled fertilized egg, we find only 1) DNA, and 2) the potential to develop into a human being."
It has the ability to develop into an adult, yes, but it is already a dependant individual.

"It is missing almost all other human characteristics."
Totally irrelevant.

"The next question becomes, then, at what point in the gestation period does the single celled egg develop sufficient characteristics of a human being to warrant affording it those rights we give other human beings."
Conception.

*I* exists independently of the body.
The key difference between the two headless bodies is that one continues to develop while the other dies. Even if some sci-fi incubation chamber were made and the adult headless body were placed inside (artificial womb), the adult body would not grow another head.

Decapitation is obviously death. But if our genetic programing dictated that a new head would grow, just as a ZEF is growing a head, then there mite be room for argument.

We're both thinking "no smoke, no fire", we just disagree on what constitutes "smoke".

However, perhaps we can agree on this point:
Re; "A guy who has his head chopped off, for example, I have no problem saying is no longer a human being..", if said "guy"s head is cut off then it is Murder, even if said "guy" is not yet born.
 
Busta said:
I don't mien to take away from the conversation on brain waves. Please continue, it's quite informative and I could learn something.
eh...they probably have me on their ignore list again...:roll:
 
Another reason why I reject the entire biological argument, is that cooperations, despite having absolutely NO biological attributes, in any way what-so-ever, have legal standing as a "person".

From http://dictionary.law.com
"Person";
n.
1) a human being.
2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

From http://www.findlaw.com/casecode
"Person";
1: "natural person"
2: the body of a human being
also
: the body and clothing of a human being
Example: had drugs on his person
3: one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

"natural person";
: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law

"legal person";
: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

"juridical person";
in the civil law of Louisiana
: an entity (as a partnership or corporation) that is given rights and responsibilities.
Note: The rights and responsibilities of a juridical person are distinct from those of the natural persons constituting it.

See also from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/03.html#3
SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: DUE PROCESS OF LAW
The Development of Substantive Due Process

"''Persons'' Defined .--Notwithstanding the historical controversy that has been waged concerning whether the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the word ''person'' to mean only natural persons, or whether the word was substituted for the word ''citizen'' with a view to protecting corporations from oppressive state legislation, 56 the Supreme Court, as early as the Granger Cases, 57 decided in 1877, upheld on the merits various state laws without raising any question as to the status of railway corporation plaintiffs to advance due process contentions. There is no doubt that a corporation may not be deprived of its property without due process of law, 58 and although prior decisions had held that the ''liberty'' guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons, 59 nevertheless a newspaper corporation was sustained, in 1936, in its objection that a state law deprived it of liberty of press. 60 As to the natural persons protected by the due process clause, these include all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship. 61"

As we can see, one does not need to possess ANY human characteristics in order to be given legal standing as a "person". Given that a ZEF has, at least, it's own unique human D.N.A. and is the offspring of it's human parents, it is more than qualified for the legal standing of "person".

Why does "the Left" give a higher level of humanity to Halliburton and Exxon then their own offspring?
 
Last edited:
Ever notice how pro-choice people don't like being called pro-abortion.Even though its the base of their position.
If their so proud of their position why don't they just call themselves pro-abortionists.
 
JOHNYJ said:
Ever notice how pro-choice people don't like being called pro-abortion.Even though its the base of their position.
If their so proud of their position why don't they just call themselves pro-abortionists.
Don't start.
This conversation is civil. In order to keep it that way we should exclude polotics, otherwise this thread will be no different that any other abortion thread.
Political labels are irrelevant to the facts.
If you start calling people "pro. abortionists", then they will start calling you "pro. slavorist".
Don't start.
 
Busta said:
Don't start.
This conversation is civil. In order to keep it that way we should exclude polotics, otherwise this thread will be no different that any other abortion thread.
Political labels are irrelevant to the facts.
If you start calling people "pro. abortionists", then they will start calling you "pro. slavorist".
Don't start.
Now be honest, Busta...doesn't seem like any pro-"whatevers" (you know--those guys that think sucking a conceived human out of the uterus is something that any woman should be able to do for any reason anytime at any point --prior to birth, prior to viability, prior to conscious thought, prior to all bodily systems formed, prior to implantation, prior to the heart beating~depending on who you talk to~:doh ;) )...anyway, it doesn't seem like any of "those" are responding....Why shouldn't JohnnyJ light a fire?:lol:



I suppose that's my "bad attitude"....hmmmmm?
 
JOHNYJ said:
Ever notice how pro-choice people don't like being called pro-abortion.Even though its the base of their position.
If their so proud of their position why don't they just call themselves pro-abortionists.

I am pro choice....yet I think abortion is unethical. Would you prefer I call myself Pro-Abortion in this context. I can honestly say I have never seriously considered Abortion as an alternative to birth, but simply because My Opinion dictates a course of action, Does Not Give Me The Right To Subject Others To My Whim.
If it were not for the embarassment I would feel by associating myself with the Pro-Life crowd (primarily due to people who spew stupidity), I would likely be arguing the other side of this in many cases. But Alas.....you manage to keep me in my place...firmly against you.
 
JOHNYJ said:
Ever notice how pro-choice people don't like being called pro-abortion.Even though its the base of their position.
If their so proud of their position why don't they just call themselves pro-abortionists.

No, never really noticed that so much as I did notice how anti-rights people like to label pro choicers with any demonizing label they can. But, I suppose when your stance is as flimsy as the pro-lie stance really is, every little tactic comes in handy.
 
jallman said:
No, never really noticed that so much as I did notice how anti-rights people like to label pro choicers with any demonizing label they can. But, I suppose when your stance is as flimsy as the pro-lie stance really is, every little tactic comes in handy.
Kick his @$$, jallman. I'm sick of people evaporating any possibility of intelligent conversation by turning the thread into political bickering.:2mad:

I have half a mind to call in gallonrox and Teacher..........:party :beer: :party
 
Last edited:
So what should we call those guys that think "sucking a conceived human out of the uterus is something that any woman should be able to do for any reason anytime at any point --prior to birth, prior to viability, prior to conscious thought, prior to all bodily systems formed, prior to implantation, prior to the heart beating~depending on who you talk to~?"

Not pro-choice--The occupant of the womb has no choice, and I can't chose whether or not I want to finacially support elective abortions--also pro-"life" is pro-"choice" in many many respects as I mentioned earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread...)

They don't like pro-abortion.

They have various cut-off times for acceptable abortion.

What is distinctive? What would they prefer that is succinct and accurate? I'd be happy to identify them as such if they could just decide.
 
Felicity said:
So what should we call those guys that think "sucking a conceived human out of the uterus is something that any woman should be able to do for any reason anytime at any point --prior to birth, prior to viability, prior to conscious thought, prior to all bodily systems formed, prior to implantation, prior to the heart beating~depending on who you talk to~?"

Not pro-choice--The occupant of the womb has no choice, and I can't chose whether or not I want to finacially support elective abortions--also pro-"life" is pro-"choice" in many many respects as I mentioned earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread...)

They don't like pro-abortion.

They have various cut-off times for acceptable abortion.

What is distinctive? What would they prefer that is succinct and accurate? I'd be happy to identify them as such if they could just decide.

There already has been a distinction...its PRO CHOICE. We cant help if you guys have to demonize us to make your own flimsy argument worth its salt.
 
jallman said:
There already has been a distinction...its PRO CHOICE. We cant help if you guys have to demonize us to make your own flimsy argument worth its salt.
But you're not pro-"the occupant of the womb's" choice.
You're not pro-"my ability to make the ..." choice "not to financially support what I find immoral." So I don't think it really fits...

I could understand pro-"unilateral right of life and death decision making over physically internal occupants at any and all stages of human development." But that seems like a mouthful and doesn't account for the disparity of opinion among pro-"choicers."
 
Felicity said:
But you're not pro-"the occupant of the womb's" choice.
You're not pro-"my ability to make the ..." choice "not to financially support what I find immoral." So I don't think it really fits...

I could understand pro-"unilateral right of life and death decision making over physically internal occupants at any and all stages of human development." But that seems like a mouthful and doesn't account for the disparity of opinion among pro-"choicers."

Do you want to argue semantics or do you want to talk about the issue? :confused:
 
jallman said:
Do you want to argue semantics or do you want to talk about the issue? :confused:

Accuracy is at issue...does this mean you don't have an answer? You didn't answer it before....:confused:
 
Felicity said:
Accuracy is at issue...does this mean you don't have an answer? You didn't answer it before....:confused:

I did, its called pro choice. The only ones calling accuracy into question are those who cant argue their own defense by its merit. You have to demonize the opponent rather than show the logic of your own emotional and pointless stance. Pro choice. Thats what we are called because we stand for the woman's choice. And that means whether she wishes to abort or carry to term, the choice belongs to her alone.
 
jallman said:
I did, its called pro choice. The only ones calling accuracy into question are those who cant argue their own defense by its merit. You have to demonize the opponent rather than show the logic of your own emotional and pointless stance. Pro choice. Thats what we are called because we stand for the woman's choice. And that means whether she wishes to abort or carry to term, the choice belongs to her alone.
:confused: Did you not read that as a generic term--"choice" is semantically unclear as to who's choice matters?

Would you accept "pro-abortion choice?" I doubt it because it sort-of seems to imply that chosing life wouldn't be acceptable. Really...I am looking for a succinct term that is not unclear. Pro-life is clear--those that are pro-life always choose life in the abortion debate. Pro-choice doesn't allow my choice about NOT wanting to support abortion.

What about "pro-gestator's choice?"


By the way...you keep saying "demonizing"---and by your repetative use of that term, you are "demonizing" my sincere effort to get a term that is satisfactory for both sides.
 
See that, JOHNYJ?
With one post you swept away an otherwise well diveloping thread. Now people are focusing on political names. If you want to watch this pointless spat, be my guest.
But next time, keep your f*****g mouth shut!!!

*Mod*
My apologies for the spark of flame. It was necessary.
 
Busta said:
See that, JOHNYJ?
With one post you swept away an otherwise well diveloping thread. Now people are focusing on political names. If you want to watch this pointless spat, be my guest.
But next time, keep your f*****g mouth shut!!!

*Mod*
My apologies for the spark of flame. It was necessary.

So tempermental.....:shock: I'd love to get back to issue....

ISn't this where we left off???

Felicity:
"Would you clarify an example of what level of cognition fits this. Is this what you mean? "Capability for awareness and thought "--what is awareness?--how does one measure it? and for thought--what sort of thought? And secondly, would you explain WHY that criteria is what you consider valid and not any other criteria such as , say, the nature of the species?

I think the conceived human has the capacity for thought and awareness by virtue of the nature of the being. Like a flower has the capacity for blooming even before it is actually able to bloom--it's an inherent quality rather than an external demonstration of functioning. A tulip is stil a "flower" even without a bloom......And why is this "function" what determines the "worth" of the thing?
"



But I'd still like an accurate term. I kinda like Pro-gestator's choice...
 
Felicity said:
:confused: Did you not read that as a generic term--"choice" is semantically unclear as to who's choice matters?

Would you accept "pro-abortion choice?" I doubt it because it sort-of seems to imply that chosing life wouldn't be acceptable. Really...I am looking for a succinct term that is not unclear. Pro-life is clear--those that are pro-life always choose life in the abortion debate. Pro-choice doesn't allow my choice about NOT wanting to support abortion.

What about "pro-gestator's choice?"


By the way...you keep saying "demonizing"---and by your repetative use of that term, you are "demonizing" my sincere effort to get a term that is satisfactory for both sides.


The term pro choice is already established. To continue in this vein would be an exercise in futility and irrelevance. The term is not going to change to suit a semantic disagreement on the part of pro lifers for two reasons:

1) As has already been stated, the term is established to mean those who are for the choice of the woman.

2) Any change instigated on the part of pro-lifers is a transparent attempt to further revise the history and fact of the issues. We of the pro-choice camp know far too well how quickly the pro life camp will change words to suit their own lies.
 
jallman said:
The term pro choice is already established. To continue in this vein would be an exercise in futility and irrelevance. The term is not going to change to suit a semantic disagreement on the part of pro lifers for two reasons:

1) As has already been stated, the term is established to mean those who are for the choice of the woman.

2) Any change instigated on the part of pro-lifers is a transparent attempt to further revise the history and fact of the issues. We of the pro-choice camp know far too well how quickly the pro life camp will change words to suit their own lies.
Okay...I'll ignore the rhetoric....so let's get back on topic before Busta bustass...;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom