• 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!

To kill or not to kill

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All arguments about abortion can be funneled to one topic: What life form is allowed to be stopped by intelligence when such life form is associated with the existence of a human being? Or, crudely, can human beings kill within the human society for a purpose?

In my opinion, human beings have been killing within human society ever since there is human history, at any stage of a life form, by accident or by purpose. Why the killing at a certain stage is more protected or more condemned nowadays? Frankly, either concept of pro-choice or pro-life is formulated under one principle: interest. So, the best guideline to allow or disallow abortion is to judge what ultimate social effect the abortion will bring in. It is absolutely stupid for Uncle Sam to provide asylum for some Chinese on the reason of escaping governmental forced abortion. That is the matter of their "bedroom", why matter? On the other hand, in a poor land like Africa, disallowing abortion would only encourage poverty to be multiplied. Unless some "rich" ones from the outside world is going to pick up the life long responsibility of caring, trapping those lives that have escaped the abortion to extend their suffering in another form, such as yearly famine, incurable disease, massacre caused by over population, is extremely inhuman; this anti-humanitarian is resulted by a humanitarian motivation: pro-life.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The issue is ethics. Do you approve of all human killings? Murder has been common place sense history, but so have laws. The issue with abortion is the morality of being able to kill an unborn human. Do we aprove of it and support it? Or do we outlaw it and recognize it as murder?
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The issue is ethics. Do you approve of all human killings? Murder has been common place sense history, but so have laws. The issue with abortion is the morality of being able to kill an unborn human. Do we aprove of it and support it? Or do we outlaw it and recognize it as murder?

Yours is not very far from my take on it, Digs.

Our Constitution (United States) says what it says.

The ideas and ideals expressed in (for example) the 14th Amendment is that all persons have a right to their life, equal protection and due process.

Even if the writers did not have prebirth children in mind specifically at the time the Amendments were written,... I can't imagine they would have intended their writings to EXCLUDE any person who would in the the future be considered.

Our scientific advances have far outpaced what the writers of the Constitution could have imagined.

We know that an abortion kills a child.

And those who deny it are simply in denial. It's a biological fact.

Our laws define a 'person' as a human being,... and a child in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

We even have laws protecting them in some circumstances. ("Born alive infant protection act" and "unborn victims of violence act")

So, as you said. "The issue is ethics."

Do we (as a society) turn a blind eye towards human beings which are denied their personhood and the protection of our laws and Constitution? Or do we stand up and demand equal rights, protection and recognition for them?

Good post.
 
Last edited:

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The U.S. Constitution states:

"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 the equal protection of the laws."

It is pretty clear that the wording of the law does not consider unborn fetuses to be persons by any stretch of the imagination.

On the moral front, not only does society routinely kill people for various justified reasons, the pro-life sect has continually demonstrated that it has an inconsistent view on what "life is sacred" means.

For many, it's okay to abort in the instance of rape, incest, or medical reasons. So in those instances, it's okay to "murder the child"? Is that because you think a child that is the product of rape is somehow less than human? Or that a child who is the product of incest is an aberration?

And medical reasons.... if you already want to deny the woman the right to abort early on - which would have spared her the eventual medical crisis in the first place - then why would you allow her to have a late term abortion just because the labour may kill her? I thought the life of the "child" is paramount?

Also among the pro-life crowd, not all are staunchly anti-abortion. Many set their abortion limits at the first 6 weeks, and some later. Some think that a fertilized egg should not be aborted. Others believe that blocking sperm and egg from meeting constitutes violating the sanctity of life.

So... until you people can get your story straight, excuse me while I prefer the current laws to remain as they are.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The U.S. Constitution states:

"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 the equal protection of the laws."
You have to be born to receive citizenship. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life. We can also believe that the Constitution recognizes the right to life, and not just the life of American citizens (it's illegal to murder a non US citizen). It is unconstitutional for a State to deprive any person of life. Including the life of unborn persons.
It is pretty clear that the wording of the law does not consider unborn fetuses to be persons by any stretch of the imagination.
Clearly it states the state has no right to deprive anyone of life. Where does it say that fetuses are ok to kill? It merely restricts citizenship to those who have been born but still protects the life of the unborn.
On the moral front, not only does society routinely kill people for various justified reasons, the pro-life sect has continually demonstrated that it has an inconsistent view on what "life is sacred" means.
How so? Please explain this to me.
For many, it's okay to abort in the instance of rape, incest, or medical reasons. So in those instances, it's okay to "murder the child"? Is that because you think a child that is the product of rape is somehow less than human? Or that a child who is the product of incest is an aberration?
I don't believe it's ok to abort in instances of rape or incest. I do support termination of a pregnancy if it is proven that the mother will die from complications. In this instance the killing is justified because it is self defense. I believe that a child conceived through rape or incest has every right to life that a planned child deserves.
And medical reasons.... if you already want to deny the woman the right to abort early on - which would have spared her the eventual medical crisis in the first place - then why would you allow her to have a late term abortion just because the labour may kill her? I thought the life of the "child" is paramount?
The only time abortion is justified is when it is to save the life of a mother because this killing is an action of self defense.
Also among the pro-life crowd, not all are staunchly anti-abortion. Many set their abortion limits at the first 6 weeks, and some later. Some think that a fertilized egg should not be aborted. Others believe that blocking sperm and egg from meeting constitutes violating the sanctity of life.
I believe a fertilized egg should not be abortion. Life begins at conception, and once sperm fertilizes an egg, that completely human individual has the right to life. I'm fine with contraception and killing sperm and egg, as these are gametes and not an individual human organism.
So... until you people can get your story straight, excuse me while I prefer the current laws to remain as they are.
Current laws state that killing a pregnant woman is considered double murder. It's also murder to kill an unborn child and not the mother.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You have to be born to receive citizenship. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life. We can also believe that the Constitution recognizes the right to life, and not just the life of American citizens (it's illegal to murder a non US citizen). It is unconstitutional for a State to deprive any person of life. Including the life of unborn persons.

Clearly it states the state has no right to deprive anyone of life. Where does it say that fetuses are ok to kill? It merely restricts citizenship to those who have been born but still protects the life of the unborn.

Good luck proving that an embryo is a person en par with a born U.S. citizen., especially given the inconsistency of what the pro-life movement considers "personhood" to be applied to.

I don't believe it's ok to abort in instances of rape or incest. I do support termination of a pregnancy if it is proven that the mother will die from complications. In this instance the killing is justified because it is self defense. I believe that a child conceived through rape or incest has every right to life that a planned child deserves.

That's great, for you. Not everyone in your movement agrees.

The only time abortion is justified is when it is to save the life of a mother because this killing is an action of self defense.

Great, so how do you respond to pro-life people who think it's not justified in that instance? Because they are just as staunch in what they believe.

I believe a fertilized egg should not be abortion. Life begins at conception, and once sperm fertilizes an egg, that completely human individual has the right to life. I'm fine with contraception and killing sperm and egg, as these are gametes and not an individual human organism.

Again, your definition. Not everyone in your movement even agrees with you.

Current laws state that killing a pregnant woman is considered double murder. It's also murder to kill an unborn child and not the mother.

I think it really depends on the case. The DA may try to charge for double murder but it doesn't mean they will succeed in conviction, especially if the woman was within the legal abortion window.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Good luck proving that an embryo is a person en par with a born U.S. citizen., especially given the inconsistency of what the pro-life movement considers "personhood" to be applied to.
It's really not that hard. A person is any individual human organism in any stage of life. I don't see inconsistency of what a person is in the pro-life movement, most believe a person begins at conception. However, there is a large inconsistency among the pro-choice movement. Many define a person as a fetus with brain activity. Other's believe a fetus becomes a person at a certain trimester or stage in pregnancy. Some believe a fetus becomes a person once it is born. And others believe it is a person when it is given a name, or even if it's simply a planned child that is wanted by the mother. My definition of person stems from science and genetics. I believe a zef is a person because it has its own set of unique human DNA. It is an individual human organism. And it is a living thing that belongs to the human species. These things are all fact. The pro-choice movement relies on some moral gray area where person-hood is subject to personal philosophies and the opinions of others. It isn't rooted in empirical fact, but instead lies within a spectrum of personal ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.

That's great, for you. Not everyone in your movement agrees.
Does that matter? I am an individual and I don't affiliate myself with any movement. I hold my beliefs as an individual. Regardless, I am not guilty nor are my beliefs any less valid because others of similar beliefs are hypocritical or inconsistent. That is a weak argument.
Great, so how do you respond to pro-life people who think it's not justified in that instance? Because they are just as staunch in what they believe.
I tell them that they are wrong and hypocritical for believing life begins at conception, yet life is not valid if it is conceived through rape or incest. I tell them you can't pick and chose who is worthy of life when you label life beginning at conception, and that if all life is sacred, then life conceived through rape and incest is also equally sacred. If abortion is murder, then why is it ok to kill a child conceived via rape and incest, but wrong to kill a child simply because one doesn't want to be pregnant? I have no problem calling them out on their hypocrisy and correcting it.
Again, your definition. Not everyone in your movement even agrees with you.
What does it matter? As I said, I am an individual and I don't affiliate myself with any movement. I'm independent in my beliefs. What others who claim to be
pro-life" believe doesn't affect me or my arguments. I am discussing and debating my beliefs on abortion, not a groups beliefs on abortion. I am debating as an individual, not as a member of a group.
I think it really depends on the case. The DA may try to charge for double murder but it doesn't mean they will succeed in conviction, especially if the woman was within the legal abortion window.
Regardless, the law states it is double murder to kill a pregnant woman, and it is murder to kill a fetus. The only reason they wouldn't succeed in conviction is if they evidence didn't prove they killed an unborn child or pregnant woman. Under the law, if the person killed a pregnant woman and the DA charged them with double murder, then that person will be convicted with double murder unless the evidence supports otherwise. The law is the law.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's really not that hard. A person is any individual human organism in any stage of life. I don't see inconsistency of what a person is in the pro-life movement, most believe a person begins at conception. However, there is a large inconsistency among the pro-choice movement. Many define a person as a fetus with brain activity. Other's believe a fetus becomes a person at a certain trimester or stage in pregnancy. Some believe a fetus becomes a person once it is born. And others believe it is a person when it is given a name, or even if it's simply a planned child that is wanted by the mother. My definition of person stems from science and genetics. I believe a zef is a person because it has its own set of unique human DNA. It is an individual human organism. And it is a living thing that belongs to the human species. These things are all fact. The pro-choice movement relies on some moral gray area where person-hood is subject to personal philosophies and the opinions of others. It isn't rooted in empirical fact, but instead lies within a spectrum of personal ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.

Those are all just things that pro-choice people use to establish reasonable doubt. I am pro-choice and even though I've used those arguments, I generally believe it is up to the perspective of the mother to decide if her fetus is her child or an organism to be expelled. Personhood tends to be determined based on if the mother has an attachment to her fetus, and that is all. Personhood is not rooted objectively in nature, but in our morals, and our morals are not collectively the same no matter how much you wish they were.

Does that matter? I am an individual and I don't affiliate myself with any movement. I hold my beliefs as an individual. Regardless, I am not guilty nor are my beliefs any less valid because others of similar beliefs are hypocritical or inconsistent. That is a weak argument.

It's not relevant to your individual argument, no, but it does relate to the power of your movement to change law.

What does it matter? As I said, I am an individual and I don't affiliate myself with any movement. I'm independent in my beliefs. What others who claim to be
pro-life" believe doesn't affect me or my arguments. I am discussing and debating my beliefs on abortion, not a groups beliefs on abortion. I am debating as an individual, not as a member of a group.

See last. It matters because it shows that personhood is not consistently provable, even among pro-life people. They also fail to account for how illegalizing abortion would affect the development it society. It shows that the movement does not have moral solvency.

You may wish to believe that your beliefs are disconnected from a political cause, but they're not. The pro-life movement is new. Even 200 years ago, religious people and the church were not fighting against abortion as they are now.

Regardless, the law states it is double murder to kill a pregnant woman, and it is murder to kill a fetus. The only reason they wouldn't succeed in conviction is if they evidence didn't prove they killed an unborn child or pregnant woman. Under the law, if the person killed a pregnant woman and the DA charged them with double murder, then that person will be convicted with double murder unless the evidence supports otherwise. The law is the law.

That doesn't relate to personhood though. Because abortion is up to the woman, killing her fetus against her will removes the choice from her, and thus the person can be charged with murder. If the woman got an abortion it would not be murder.

The term "murder" is an illegal killing of another person, and that form of killing is morally wrong in our society. It's why executions are not considered murder (though they are by me) or soldiers killing foreign enemies is not murder. Murder is moral relativisim, just like personhood is.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The term "murder" is an illegal killing of another person, and that form of killing is morally wrong in our society. It's why executions are not considered murder (though they are by me) ...

Let's think about that as it applies to we who think an abortion is a 'murder' too.

Shall we?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It is pretty clear that the wording of the law does not consider unborn fetuses to be persons by any stretch of the imagination.

It also did nothing to end slavery, despite the prevalent attitude that all men were created equal. Why? Because at that time, Africans were considered less than human.

On the moral front, not only does society routinely kill people for various justified reasons, the pro-life sect has continually demonstrated that it has an inconsistent view on what "life is sacred" means.

As do pro-choicers that promote abortion and condemn the death penalty.

For many, it's okay to abort in the instance of rape, incest, or medical reasons. So in those instances, it's okay to "murder the child"? Is that because you think a child that is the product of rape is somehow less than human? Or that a child who is the product of incest is an aberration?

Is it ok, or simply tolerated?

And medical reasons.... if you already want to deny the woman the right to abort early on - which would have spared her the eventual medical crisis in the first place - then why would you allow her to have a late term abortion just because the labour may kill her? I thought the life of the "child" is paramount?

Senseless...... you're making a lot of incorrect and or incomplete assumptions about how pro-lifers feel.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The term "murder" is an illegal killing of another person, and that form of killing is morally wrong in our society. It's why executions are not considered murder (though they are by me) or soldiers killing foreign enemies is not murder. Murder is moral relativisim, just like personhood is.

I also oppose the death penalty. Not because I don't think murderers and rapist don't deserve to die, but because I hold us to a higher standard than revenge. I do however find it absolutely absurd that someone could advocate the killing of the most innocent of us while opposing the killing of our most villainous.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It also did nothing to end slavery, despite the prevalent attitude that all men were created equal. Why? Because at that time, Africans were considered less than human.

Exactly... so despite what pro-life people want to imply, personhood is not inherently obvious, but is based on moral perceptions.

And I ask, if the fetus is a person, so what? Why does it have a right to exist? Why does it have a "right" to be born?

As do pro-choicers that promote abortion and condemn the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty because my tax dollars fund it, which means each person plays a role, however small, in the death of inmates. Last time I checked abortions were self-funded. If I were living in an American state with execution, I would not be given a choice over whether or not I support the execution of a criminal by virtue of my money being used to do it.

A woman's choice of abortion deals with her bodily sovereignty. There is a life form growing in her that is feeding off of her bodily resources against her will and it has no particular right to be there. She is the landlord and she decides if it stays.

Is it ok, or simply tolerated?

There is no meaningful distinction. Either the sanctity of life is sacred to you or it isn't. Even tolerating exceptions means that your morals are not as bulletproof as you claim, and therefore have no business dictating the rights of others.

Senseless...... you're making a lot of incorrect and or incomplete assumptions about how pro-lifers feel.

Not really. There was a thread a few months back where a pro-lifer said that if abortion became illegal, it may become necessary to strap some women down in order to ensure that their pregnancy follows through and that they do not seek illegal abortions.

These are the natural conclusions and ramifications of what the pro-life wants. Even if you are a more moderate pro-lifer who is in favor of therapeutic abortion, etc., the first step to further draconian measures is removing a woman's bodily sovereignty. Once the first step is accomplished, further steps will follow. The radical side of your movement will never rest until absolute control is attained, which is why the first step must never be allowed.

The fact remains that people who are against abortions will not seek abortions. That is their right. It is the right of others to decide for themselves and that is never going to change, especially given the inconsistency of the counterarguments. You cannot demonstrate that the life a fetus has universal value anymore than I can prove you or I have universal value. We are alive, that is it. That could change at any time.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I also oppose the death penalty. Not because I don't think murderers and rapist don't deserve to die, but because I hold us to a higher standard than revenge. I do however find it absolutely absurd that someone could advocate the killing of the most innocent of us while opposing the killing of our most villainous.

What makes you think that life has to commit a crime to be extinguished? Last time I checked we kill millions of lifestock each year. I think they were pretty innocent too. Or are you suggesting that human life is somehow more pertinent than animal life? The hypocrisy never ends. As I said, the only reason why I am against execution is because tax dollars fund it, and that means everyone is implicated in assisting homicide. I am in favor of measures that give people choice.

Life only has to be extinguished because it suits our needs or desires. It's what our government does, it's what the average person does when they swat a fly that is bothering them. It's what a woman does when decides her pregnancy does not suit what she wants. This is what I'm saying... the personhood debate is not really relevant as to whether or not life has value. Nature does not make that distinction, and if you take an honest look at the way our society operates, the distinctions we create are equally as irrational.

Abortion will always be happening whether it's illegal or not. As I stated before, there are some very easy means at our disposal to purge pregnancies. Pennyroyal root and leaf ground up and decocted for 20 minutes, then drank, produces abortion within 24 hours. (Have you never heard "Pennyroyal tea" by Nirvana?) Nature furnishes us with the means to dispose of unwanted pregnancies, and I always defer to nature. Woman have and always will have abortions if it suits them. The law is just for your moral satisfaction, but it has no basis in rationality.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
What makes you think that life has to commit a crime to be extinguished? Last time I checked we kill millions of lifestock each year. I think they were pretty innocent too. Or are you suggesting that human life is somehow more pertinent than animal life? The hypocrisy never ends. As I said, the only reason why I am against execution is because tax dollars fund it, and that means everyone is implicated in assisting homicide. I am in favor of measures that give people choice.

Life only has to be extinguished because it suits our needs or desires. It's what our government does, it's what the average person does when they swat a fly that is bothering them. It's what a woman does when decides her pregnancy does not suit what she wants. This is what I'm saying... the personhood debate is not really relevant as to whether or not life has value. Nature does not make that distinction, and if you take an honest look at the way our society operates, the distinctions we create are equally as irrational.

Abortion will always be happening whether it's illegal or not. As I stated before, there are some very easy means at our disposal to purge pregnancies. Pennyroyal root and leaf ground up and decocted for 20 minutes, then drank, produces abortion within 24 hours. (Have you never heard "Pennyroyal tea" by Nirvana?) Nature furnishes us with the means to dispose of unwanted pregnancies, and I always defer to nature. Woman have and always will have abortions if it suits them. The law is just for your moral satisfaction, but it has no basis in rationality.

Orion,... do you consider yourself a proponent for equal rights?

Second question; Do you think a child's right to their life should begin when their life does?
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The issue is ethics. Do you approve of all human killings? Murder has been common place sense history, but so have laws. The issue with abortion is the morality of being able to kill an unborn human. Do we aprove of it and support it? Or do we outlaw it and recognize it as murder?

If the issue is ethics and morality, we must consider all the consequences that are involved with the issue. How moral or ethical in each step of the following scenario?

I am a 16 year old girl and just found out I am pregnant. (How moral am I if I am pregnant without marriage?)
My boy friend said: "How do you know it is my baby? You can have slept with some other people as well." (How moral the society has been if the boy friend is allowed some chances to escape responsibility?)
My mother shrugs: "You made your bed, lie in it." (Is she moral or immoral to hold such attitude?)
I approached some pro-life person for personal financial help. Of course, he/she turns me down: "Why should I wipe your ass with my money? (Isn't he/she cruel?) But help is there. If you go to social worker so and so, I am sure the social worker can figure out how to help you; the government has money to help. (Isn't the pro-life person generous?) Just make sure you don't go for abortion; it is immoral."
The social worker then arranged all the pregnancy care for me. "Don't worry, honey, from doctor to hospital to baby formula to diapers; we'll pay them all." (We? Who are the "we"?)
"But after the baby comes out, my mother will not allow me to stay with her any more."
"Tell you mother you don't need her, Section 8 will cover you and your baby."
"Really?"
"Really, no matter how many babies you have! The more babies you have, the bigger the apartment the government will provide, that's all."
Wow, I figure I have done something right for my future. If I keep pumping babies out, I don't need to worry anything in my life except to recruit boy friends. (Moral? Does it bring me anything real?). I just hope that if I get more babies, they will really give me a bigger apartment, or house. "Of course," said the social worker.

While the above is merely a scenario, I did once have a 22 year old woman tenant who, according to her, had three children that each carries a different last name. I could not face this fact, and sold the building so that I don't have to come in direct contact with this kind of social phenomenon any more. At one time, a basket ball celebrity announced with pride in a Fox interview: "We have 8 siblings, and all are raised by one single parent."

If abortion had been allowed and even encouraged for irresponsible pregnancy, would the immoral practice, as well as immoral ideology, in the society have flooded in this scale?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Exactly... so despite what pro-life people want to imply, personhood is not inherently obvious, but is based on moral perceptions.

And I ask, if the fetus is a person, so what? Why does it have a right to exist? Why does it have a "right" to be born?

Actually, most pro-lifers don't give a rats ass on what constitutes personhood. To most pro-lifers, a fetus is a de facto human being. However, because a right is yet to be recognized does not deny it's existence.



I'm against the death penalty because my tax dollars fund it, which means each person plays a role, however small, in the death of inmates. Last time I checked abortions were self-funded. If I were living in an American state with execution, I would not be given a choice over whether or not I support the execution of a criminal by virtue of my money being used to do it.

A sizable portion of abortions are performed at clinics which are subsidized. Regardless, humanity is weighed by how much it costs you?

A woman's choice of abortion deals with her bodily sovereignty. There is a life form growing in her that is feeding off of her bodily resources against her will and it has no particular right to be there. She is the landlord and she decides if it stays.

Absurd. Primarily due to the presence of said "interloper" being a direct result of the "landlords" actions.

There is no meaningful distinction. Either the sanctity of life is sacred to you or it isn't. Even tolerating exceptions means that your morals are not as bulletproof as you claim, and therefore have no business dictating the rights of others.

Most pro-lifers truly don't support any abortion but tend to compromise in order to greatly reduce them in hope of ending it entirely some day. Since your morals are purely fiscal, I find it ludicrous that you judge others for theirs.

Not really. There was a thread a few months back where a pro-lifer said that if abortion became illegal, it may become necessary to strap some women down in order to ensure that their pregnancy follows through and that they do not seek illegal abortions.

well, damn, guess the cat's out of the bag.....

These are the natural conclusions and ramifications of what the pro-life wants. Even if you are a more moderate pro-lifer who is in favor of therapeutic abortion, etc., the first step to further draconian measures is removing a woman's bodily sovereignty. Once the first step is accomplished, further steps will follow. The radical side of your movement will never rest until absolute control is attained, which is why the first step must never be allowed.

Well. since abortion is not a natural phenomena, opposing it is not draconian. Further, there are limits to sovereignty, specifically where it infringes on the rights of another being.

The fact remains that people who are against abortions will not seek abortions. That is their right. It is the right of others to decide for themselves and that is never going to change, especially given the inconsistency of the counterarguments. You cannot demonstrate that the life a fetus has universal value anymore than I can prove you or I have universal value. We are alive, that is it. That could change at any time.

In a sense, I agree with this reasoning but could spend days pointing out to you why and how you are misusing this philosophical argument. Suffice it to say that there are inherent values that though the conscience may be unaware of exist nonetheless.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What makes you think that life has to commit a crime to be extinguished? Last time I checked we kill millions of lifestock each year. I think they were pretty innocent too. Or are you suggesting that human life is somehow more pertinent than animal life? The hypocrisy never ends. As I said, the only reason why I am against execution is because tax dollars fund it, and that means everyone is implicated in assisting homicide. I am in favor of measures that give people choice.

Life only has to be extinguished because it suits our needs or desires. It's what our government does, it's what the average person does when they swat a fly that is bothering them. It's what a woman does when decides her pregnancy does not suit what she wants. This is what I'm saying... the personhood debate is not really relevant as to whether or not life has value. Nature does not make that distinction, and if you take an honest look at the way our society operates, the distinctions we create are equally as irrational.

Abortion will always be happening whether it's illegal or not. As I stated before, there are some very easy means at our disposal to purge pregnancies. Pennyroyal root and leaf ground up and decocted for 20 minutes, then drank, produces abortion within 24 hours. (Have you never heard "Pennyroyal tea" by Nirvana?) Nature furnishes us with the means to dispose of unwanted pregnancies, and I always defer to nature. Woman have and always will have abortions if it suits them. The law is just for your moral satisfaction, but it has no basis in rationality.

This entire statement is absurd. Comparing human life to livestock is a common straw man, do something new.

There are a lot of things a lot of people do and have always done that are illegal, Abortion is but one of them. This doesn't legitimize the behavior.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
25,809
Reaction score
11,087
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Our Constitution (United States) says what it says.
It doesn't it and there are countless sources that explain to those who might be confused, what that wonderful compact means.

The ideas and ideals expressed in (for example) the 14th Amendment is that all persons have a right to their life, equal protection and due process.
Since this HAS been pointed out to you several times already, perhaps you will take the effort and do educate yourself on the Constitution, at least enough to not make the same embarrassing mistakes over and over. Especially when mentioning the XIVth.

There is no right to life affirmed, implied or enumerated in the entire Constitution and nothing in the XIV Amendment can even be remotely construed as such. While equal protection is one of the hallmarks of the Constitution, the XIV Amendment, specifies persons and then specifically excludes fetuses. It can not be any clearer than that.

The due process clause is irrelevant to the abortion issue. As it has also been repeatedly pointed out to you that the limitation of powers of government has no tangency to the abortion issue. It is just what the clause is called, a limitation on the powers of government and at least ill the government starts aborting it IS irrelevant to the topic.

Even if the writers did not have prebirth children in mind specifically at the time the Amendments were written,... I can't imagine they would have intended their writings to EXCLUDE any person who would in the the future be considered.
The limited imagination you are applying does not change the facts of the mater. Abortion WAs legal and practiced when the Constitution was being written, debated and adopted. If it would have been an issue that concerned the framers it would have been included. On the contrary, fetuses have been specifically excluded.

Our scientific advances have far outpaced what the writers of the Constitution could have imagined.
Yet our thinking, value of freedom and self determination remain much the same.

We know that an abortion kills a child.
No, you, due to a lack of coherent and rational argument, dishonestly assert that as an emotional appeal to support the otherwise baseless position.

Our laws define a 'person' as a human being,... and a child in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.
Actually only some of the laws, in some of the states define only some of the fetuses for a very specific and narrow scope, as human beings.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
25,809
Reaction score
11,087
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life.
The operative word being the State. As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution that is the limitation of powers of government and does not apply to the abortion issue.

We can also believe that the Constitution recognizes the right to life
You can believe anything you wish, but that does not make reality. In fact there is not such right enumerated or implied in the Constitution.

and not just the life of American citizens (it's illegal to murder a non US citizen).
That is the equal protection clause, not a right to life. Maybe you too should seek better understanding of the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional for a State to deprive any person of life.
As mentioned, limitation of the powers of government. The government is not performing the abortions, nor are they done at the direction of government. You must be confusing the US with China.

Including the life of unborn persons.
The unborn are not mentioned, thus this is just BS wishful thinking.

Clearly it states the state has no right to deprive anyone of life.
C;early you do not understand what that means.

Where does it say that fetuses are ok to kill?
Where does it say it is not OK to kill fetuses?

It merely restricts citizenship to those who have been born but still protects the life of the unborn.
Nothing of the sort.

The only time abortion is justified is when it is to save the life of a mother because this killing is an action of self defense.
Do you understand how that works?

I believe a fertilized egg should not be abortion.
That is a good belief, maybe you can tell us what it means.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
25,809
Reaction score
11,087
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A person is any individual human organism in any stage of life.
Is it? Do you know what an organism is?

My definition of person stems from science and genetics.
Really? Please share with us which peer reviewed scientific paper or text defines what a person is. By the way, genetics is also a science.

I believe a zef is a person because it has its own set of unique human DNA.
Ah, so now you wish to convey personhood to DNA. Why only human?

And it is a living thing that belongs to the human species.
Correct, but why only the human species?

Does that matter? I am an individual and I don't affiliate myself with any movement. I hold my beliefs as an individual. Regardless, I am not guilty nor are my beliefs any less valid because others of similar beliefs are hypocritical or inconsistent.
So, if your beliefs are not any less valid as anyone else's, why do you believe that others should be forced to conform to yours and not you to their beliefs?

That is a weak argument.
Yes that was a weak argument on your part.

Regardless, the law states it is double murder to kill a pregnant woman, and it is murder to kill a fetus. The only reason they wouldn't succeed in conviction is if they evidence didn't prove they killed an unborn child or pregnant woman. Under the law, if the person killed a pregnant woman and the DA charged them with double murder, then that person will be convicted with double murder unless the evidence supports otherwise. The law is the law.
You are misinterpreting what those laws are how they apply and what they mean to this debate.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I do too.

Indeed, at birth.

Are you aware that the Chinese consider a child a year old at birth? What makes your assumption of when life commences (at birth) valid?
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
25,809
Reaction score
11,087
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most pro-lifers truly don't support any abortion but tend to compromise in order to greatly reduce them in hope of ending it entirely some day.
So why not pursue the methods tha have proven to achieve those goals and abandon those that have NOT.

Well. since abortion is not a natural phenomena
But it is, evidenced by the fact that most fertilized egg either do not implant or are ejected very early. Now, considering that any number of these natural abortions could be prevented by some medical intervention and that many hold those life to be so sacred why aren't there ANY efforts made to limit the death of all THOSE INNOCENT LIVES? are they any less human or innocent?

Further, there are limits to sovereignty, specifically where it infringes on the rights of another being.
That is impossible. Sovereignty can not have a bearing on anyone else but the single individual... You are confusing sovereignty with free will.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
25,809
Reaction score
11,087
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you aware that the Chinese consider a child a year old at birth? What makes your assumption of when life commences (at birth) valid?
I did not know that. Is that some folk custom or legal standard?
 
Top Bottom