Why pro-choice makes more sense

[talloulou]

"Bullies, who often have been bullied themselves, may pick on others to feel powerful, popular, important, or in control." This description applies to bullying dictators as well. They attack others in order to feel powerful themselves, or to impress others with how powerful they are. They are actually cowards as they never attack someone on an equal level.

A mother who pays to have her unborn killed is forcing an innocent human to give his or her life in order to pay for the burden the mother feels has been unfairly placed on her. She may be mad that she's pregnant, she may feel she doesn't get enough support to care for a baby, she may be worried about losing her job, ect.

I can sympathize with her anxiety, her fears, her worries but they aren't enough to justify her taking the life of another fellow human.

The abortion dr. who comes for the unborn is not attacking on an equal level.
The mother who pays the abortion dr. is trying to regain control of her life, ie power.

People who try to force their objections on pregnant women are just as much bullies as if they try to force her to have an abortion.

You can not reasonably compare people who object to one human killing another with people who force one human to kill another. That's just rot.

 

[OKgrannie]

:roll: :roll:

A mother who pays to have her unborn killed is forcing an innocent human to give his or her life in order to pay for the burden the mother feels has been unfairly placed on her.

A woman who doesn't have an abortion is forced by an "innocent":roll: human zef to endure pregnancy and childbirth, then spend the next 20 years providing for him/her.

She may be mad that she's pregnant, she may feel she doesn't get enough support to care for a baby, she may be worried about losing her job, ect.
I can sympathize with her anxiety, her fears, her worries but they aren't enough to justify her taking the life of another fellow human.

Since you aren't the one with the unwanted pregnancy, you can't know that she isn't justified. Your sympathy is extremely limited.

The abortion dr. who comes for the unborn is not attacking on an equal level.
The mother who pays the abortion dr. is trying to regain control of her life, ie power.

The abortion Dr. is not "attacking", he/she is helping the pregnant woman. It's true that an aborting woman is trying to regain control of her OWN life, that hardly makes her a power maniac.

You can not reasonably compare people who object to one human killing another with people who force one human to kill another. That's just rot.

Forcing a woman to have an abortion is comparable to forcing a woman to NOT have an abortion. That's reasonable. You don't see it as reasonable because you have come down heavily on one point of view making your viewpoint biased.

 

[talloulou]

:roll: :roll:

A woman who doesn't have an abortion is forced by an "innocent":roll: human zef to endure pregnancy and childbirth, then spend the next 20 years providing for him/her.

The ZEF is not responsible for its own creation. The ZEF didn't invade from outside and engage in a hostile takeover. The ZEF was created. Creation of life does not mean ownership of life. You don't own the ZEF. I don't own my children. The ZEF is a fellow human organism and unless the ZEF is threatening the mother's life any claims of "self defense" in the act of killing the ZEF are bogus.

Since you aren't the one with the unwanted pregnancy, you can't know that she isn't justified. Your sympathy is extremely limited.

When it comes to one human killing another my tolerance is extremely limited as it should be.

The abortion Dr. is not "attacking", he/she is helping the pregnant woman.

He or she is helping the woman by attacking and killing a fellow human organism. If the human ZEF was threatening the mother's life the help might be justified but if the mother is perfectly healthy the dr. is basically attacking a fellow human organism on the basis that another human organism dislikes the first.

It's true that an aborting woman is trying to regain control of her OWN life, that hardly makes her a power maniac.

I didn't say she was a power maniac. I said she was attacking a fellow human organism who is unquestionably weaker than herself in an attempt to gain power back.

Forcing a woman to have an abortion is comparable to forcing a woman to NOT have an abortion. That's reasonable. You don't see it as reasonable because you have come down heavily on one point of view making your viewpoint biased.

Is forcing a pedophile not to molest children comparable to forcing a pedophile to molest children????

Stretch your arguments too far and they become rather absurd.

 

[OKgrannie]

The ZEF is not responsible for its own creation. The ZEF didn't invade from outside and engage in a hostile takeover. The ZEF was created. Creation of life does not mean ownership of life. You don't own the ZEF. I don't own my children. The ZEF is a fellow human organism and unless the ZEF is threatening the mother's life any claims of "self defense" in the act of killing the ZEF are bogus.

A woman does OWN her OWN BODY, and therefore has a right to determine whether another resides within it.

He or she is helping the woman by attacking and killing a fellow human organism. If the human ZEF was threatening the mother's life the help might be justified but if the mother is perfectly healthy the dr. is basically attacking a fellow human organism on the basis that another human organism dislikes the first.

I didn't say she was a power maniac. I said she was attacking a fellow human organism who is unquestionably weaker than herself in an attempt to gain power back.

:sigh: In spite of the dramatic portrayal, a zef is not a "fellow human" until it has a brain. (Fellow as defined as "an equal in rank, power, or character)

Is forcing a pedophile not to molest children comparable to forcing a pedophile to molest children????

Stretch your arguments too far and they become rather absurd.

Does pregnancy have ANYTHING in common with pedophilia at all?

 

[Panache]

A woman does OWN her OWN BODY, and therefore has a right to determine whether another resides within it.

I OWN my OWN REAL ESTATE, but for some reason the government keeps saying that my tenets have all kinds of rights.

For example, even though I OWN the property, and theoretically have the right to determine whether another resides within it, I can't go kick them out on a whim at a moments notice.

I am required to give them adequate time to pack up their stuff and find another place to stay.

Why should it be any different for a person inside another person's belly? Especially considering that the only reason they are in the other person's belly to begin with is that the other person put them there.

 

[jallman]

I OWN my OWN REAL ESTATE, but for some reason the government keeps saying that my tenets have all kinds of rights.

That's because there are interactions between persons involved and there is a need to maintain fair practices between persons.

For example, even though I OWN the property, and theoretically have the right to determine whether another resides within it, I can't go kick them out on a whim at a moments notice.

I am required to give them adequate time to pack up their stuff and find another place to stay.

You waived part of your ownership rights when you made an agreement with a person that they could use your property for a specified time in exchange for a specified amount. It's called a lease...makes perfect sense as it is an establishment of a fair practice between persons.

Why should it be any different for a person inside another person's belly? Especially considering that the only reason they are in the other person's belly to begin with is that the other person put them there.

A body and a dwelling are not even comparable. For one, there is no agreement between persons when a woman becomes pregnant as the fetus is not a person. It is a fetus. Consent to sex is not automatic consent to pregnancy.

You are comparing legal interactions between legally recognized persons and a medical procedure to end a medical condition. In other words, apples and oranges. Strike that...apples and orange seeds.

 

[talloulou]

A woman does OWN her OWN BODY, and therefore has a right to determine whether another resides within it.

Pregnancy is unique in that one human resides for a time within the body of another. I do not believe this unique circumstance is reason enough to allow the mother to kill the unborn.

:sigh: In spite of the dramatic portrayal, a zef is not a "fellow human" until it has a brain. (Fellow as defined as "an equal in rank, power, or character)

If you believe all men are created equal then all humans deserve basic human rights and nothing, including age and stage of development, may be used to justify treating a fellow human with violence from prejudice.

 

[Felicity]

A woman does OWN her OWN BODY, and therefore has a right to determine whether another resides within it.

Nope.


Reason Magazine - Their Bodies, Our Selves

 

[Panache]

That's because there are interactions between persons involved and there is a need to maintain fair practices between persons.

There are also interactions between persons invloved as soon as the fetus becomes a person.

When would that be? Lets ask OKGrannie.

In spite of the dramatic portrayal, a zef is not a "fellow human" until it has a brain. (Fellow as defined as "an equal in rank, power, or character)

Now, the existance of brain tissue does not qualify you for personhood in my book until it is used to make a choice, but regardless, it occurs while the little guy is still a tenent of the Mommy's belly.

You waived part of your ownership rights when you made an agreement with a person that they could use your property for a specified time in exchange for a specified amount. It's called a lease...makes perfect sense as it is an establishment of a fair practice between persons.

You waive part of your ownership rights when you create a person inside your belly.

A body and a dwelling are not even comparable.

I am not even making a comparison. When a person dwells within another person's body, the other person's body is not LIKE a dwelling, it IS a dwelling.

For one, there is no agreement between persons when a woman becomes pregnant as the fetus is not a person.

Once the fetus becomes a person, the same rights should apply to him/her as apply to my tenents.

Consent to sex is not automatic consent to pregnancy.

Consent to driving, is not automatic consent to getting in an accident, so why should someone who is at fault in an accident have to suffer any consequences for their choice to drive?

You are comparing legal interactions between legally recognized persons and a medical procedure to end a medical condition. In other words, apples and oranges. Strike that...apples and orange seeds.

No, I am comparing kicking people out of the place that they live without giving them sufficient time to do so to kicking people out of the place that they live without giving them sufficient time to do so.

 

[jallman]

There are also interactions between persons invloved as soon as the fetus becomes a person.

When would that be? Lets ask OKGrannie.

We don't need to ask Grannie. It is generally agreed that the fetus is sentient and salient at around 21-22 weeks of pregnancy.

Now, the existance of brain tissue does not qualify you for personhood in my book until it is used to make a choice, but regardless, it occurs while the little guy is still a tenent of the Mommy's belly.

Yes, around 21-22 weeks.

You waive part of your ownership rights when you create a person inside your belly.

Only if you allow a person to develop. Until then, its just a medical condition and a fetus. No rights are waived by anyone.

I am not even making a comparison. When a person dwells within another person's body, the other person's body is not LIKE a dwelling, it IS a dwelling.

Not hardly. The person's body is a sovereign system and a collection of resources. It is not a dwelling.

Once the fetus becomes a person, the same rights should apply to him/her as apply to my tenents.

I have no argument there.

Consent to driving, is not automatic consent to getting in an accident, so why should someone who is at fault in an accident have to suffer any consequences for their choice to drive?

They don't if they are driving responsibly. Their insurance suffers the consequences. However, you are making another erroneous comparison. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy because only the woman gets to decide if she wants to be pregnant or not...no other person is involved. When you get on the road, it is an interaction between many people...or at least I was under the impression that to obtain a driver's license one had to be a legally recognized person.

No, I am comparing kicking people out of the place that they live without giving them sufficient time to do so to kicking people out of the place that they live without giving them sufficient time to do so.

No, you are comparing persons to non persons. Apples and orange seeds.

 

[talloulou]

We don't need to ask Grannie. It is generally agreed that the fetus is sentient and salient at around 21-22 weeks of pregnancy.

What if we grow humans and thwart the development of sentience? If we could purposely halt their brain development while allowing their bodies to grow? Would that be okay and could we then exploit their tissues 'cause they were humans but humans who lacked sentience due to our interventions?

Only if you allow a person to develop. Until then, its just a medical condition and a fetus. No rights are waived by anyone.

How can a legal and social construct require biological development?

Not hardly. The person's body is a sovereign system and a collection of resources. It is not a dwelling.

The womb becomes a dwelling during pregnancy. fact.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy because only the woman gets to decide if she wants to be pregnant or not...no other person is involved.

That's just how it is now legally and it's not even completely true. Many women have decided they want to be pregnant and their "want" is thwarted by biology and sometimes not even science and modern technology can aid their goal.

No, you are comparing persons to non persons. Apples and orange seeds.

We could just as easily deem that certain races or genders weren't persons. Trying to reclassify certain humans as less than other humans is hardly new or unique and rarely successful long term.

 

[Panache]

We don't need to ask Grannie. It is generally agreed that the fetus is sentient and salient at around 21-22 weeks of pregnancy.

And at that point they have rights, regardless of the fact that their current place of residence is OWNED by someone else.

Yes, around 21-22 weeks.

Around 21-22 weeks the fact that the belly in which the new person lives is OWNED by somone else does not eliminate his/her rights.

Not hardly. The person's body is a sovereign system and a collection of resources. It is not a dwelling.

If a person dwells there, its a dwelling.

I have no argument there.

Me either.

They don't if they are driving responsibly. Their insurance suffers the consequences.

And if one of those consequences is a neck injury? What if they only have liability insurance? Why should they have to pay to fix their car, when they didn't consent to get in an accident?

However, you are making another erroneous comparison. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy because only the woman gets to decide if she wants to be pregnant or not...no other person is involved.

Maybe my dad did a bad job of explaining the birds and the bees to me, but I was under the understanding that the majority of births are in fact the result of an interaction between at least two people.

Furthermore, even if no one else is on the road, consent to drive is not consent to hydroplane into a telephone pole. There is no interaction between people in that.

When you censent to drive, there is a risk that you will hydroplane into a telephone pole. If you don't drive safely, that risk increases. Even if you don't deliberately drive your car into a telephone pole, by driving on the road, you are consenting to accept the potential consequences of your actions.

Consent to sex is consent to accept responsibility for the potential consequences of having sex, one of which is pregnancy.

No, you are comparing persons to non persons. Apples and orange seeds.

Please quote where I ever compared persons to non-persons. Clearly, by my judicial use of the word "person" I was talking about fetuses of at least 21-22 weeks.

 

[jallman]

What if we grow humans and thwart the development of sentience? If we could purposely halt their brain development while allowing their bodies to grow? Would that be okay and could we then exploit their tissues 'cause they were humans but humans who lacked sentience due to our interventions?

Now come the hysterics and the hyperbolic vilifications but I will answer honestly: It would be perfectly acceptable if a bit distasteful.

How can a legal and social construct require biological development?

It already does. You just want the law to change so that it doesn't.

The womb becomes a dwelling during pregnancy. fact.

No, it does not. It becomes a vehicle of gestation.

That's just how it is now legally and it's not even completely true. Many women have decided they want to be pregnant and their "want" is thwarted by biology and sometimes not even science and modern technology can aid their goal.

That is a completely separate issue.

We could just as easily deem that certain races or genders weren't persons.

No we couldn't.

Trying to reclassify certain humans as less than other humans is hardly new or unique and rarely successful long term.

That is true of humans that have been introduced to society. The fetus is not a part of our society nor under the jurisdiction of anyone but the woman it belongs to.

 

[jallman]

Please quote where I ever compared persons to non-persons. Clearly, by my judicial use of the word "person" I was talking about fetuses of at least 21-22 weeks.

If that is the case, then you and I have no disagreement.

 

[Panache]

What if we grow humans and thwart the development of sentience? If we could purposely halt their brain development while allowing their bodies to grow? Would that be okay and could we then exploit their tissues 'cause they were humans but humans who lacked sentience due to our interventions?

I can honestly say it wouldn't bug me in the least. In fact, I think its an excellent way to get much needed organs and blood for people who need it, with no danger to any people.

 

[talloulou]

Now come the hysterics and the hyperbolic vilifications but I will answer honestly: It would be perfectly acceptable if a bit distasteful.

:shock: I'm absolutely shocked!

No, it does not. It becomes a vehicle of gestation.

Word games are merely distractions. :doh

That is true of humans that have been introduced to society. The fetus is not a part of our society nor under the jurisdiction of anyone but the woman it belongs to.

So if we developed lab wombs and raised non-sentient humans for parts as long as we never allowed them to enter society and stole their body parts painlessly
it would be perfectably acceptable but distasteful?

I refuse to believe you feel that way.

 

[talloulou]

I can honestly say it wouldn't bug me in the least. In fact, I think its an excellent way to get much needed organs and blood for people who need it, with no danger to any people.

Well we could easily declare the homeless, the mentally ill, and surely some others as non-persons and then hoist their body parts as necessary, provided it was done painlessly of course, and it would be highly beneficial if not a tad distasteful! After all it is not our humanity that must be valued but our personhood and that can be altered by merely raising generations on the idea that not all men are created equal. It would take time of course. Lies must be sold over generations in order to get them to stick. But at the end of the day we're mostly sheep like and a few generations down the road we can have all kinds of elitist requirements for personhood.

 

[WI Crippler]

I feel I would have a moral conflict within myself, if I were to extend my own life while denying another to potentially be a part of the world.

 

[talloulou]

I feel I would have a moral conflict within myself, if I were to extend my own life while denying another to potentially be a part of the world.

I agree. It's just so.... perverse.

 

[jallman]

:shock: I'm absolutely shocked!

I'm not sure why you would be. I am a pragmatist at heart and I have always been clear that personhood is the line of demarcation for me in this debate.

Word games are merely distractions. :doh

But when you get riled up you make silly games highly entertaining.

So if we developed lab wombs and raised non-sentient humans for parts as long as we never allowed them to enter society and stole their body parts painlessly it would be perfectly acceptable but distasteful?

Pain is so relative when you are talking about an organic mass with no central nervous system. It holds no more importance nor impact than an amoeba, no matter what its shape may be.

Now would I be comfortable with the idea of vats of human body parts growing? No. But my discomfort can be laid aside in pursuit of the greater good.

I refuse to believe you feel that way.

And you always have thought far too highly of me...:3oops:

 

[talloulou]

I'm not sure why you would be. I am a pragmatist at heart and I have always been clear that personhood is the line of demarcation for me in this debate.

But personhood is so meaningless. You make a law, get enough people to agree to it, and then it's truth? I can't put faith in that.

But when you get riled up you make silly games highly entertaining.

I'm glad I amuse you.

Now would I be comfortable with the idea of vats of human body parts growing? No. But my discomfort can be laid aside in pursuit of the greater good.

Oh the things that have been done with "greater good" in mind! :shock: Greater good allows the wolves to eat the sheep for dinner.

And you always have thought far too highly of me...:3oops:

Only because you confuse me with flattery from time to time and being the sucker that I am my brain is easily muddled. Know this: We are friends but I would never vote for you for anything! :2wave:

 

[Panache]

Well we could easily declare the homeless, the mentally ill, and surely some others as non-persons and then hoist their body parts as necessary, provided it was done painlessly of course, and it would be highly beneficial if not a tad distasteful! After all it is not our humanity that must be valued but our personhood and that can be altered by merely raising generations on the idea that not all men are created equal. It would take time of course. Lies must be sold over generations in order to get them to stick. But at the end of the day we're mostly sheep like and a few generations down the road we can have all kinds of elitist requirements for personhood.

Do the homeless, the mentally ill, and others make choices? Then they are persons.

After all it is not our humanity that must be valued but our personhood and that can be altered by merely raising generations on the idea that not all men are created equal.

I am not arguing that a non-sentient fetus is a non-person because society does not regard it as a person. I am arguing that a non-sentient fetus is a non-person because it does not make any choices.

Even if society decided that homeless humans were non-persons, I would just change my argument to say that both persons and non-persons should be protected, so long as the person or non-person in question was sentient.

I judge people not by the makeup of their DNA, but by the content of their character. No content, no character. Ergo, no person.

So if we developed lab wombs and raised non-sentient humans for parts as long as we never allowed them to enter society and stole their body parts painlessly
it would be perfectably acceptable but distasteful?

I wouldn't even find it distasteful. We raise non-sentient grains in order to harvest their parts. We raise non-sentient strawberry patches to harvest their parts. I don't see anyone standing up for the rights of grains and strawberries.

Maybe because grains and strawberries are not capable of thought.

Societal definition of personhood is nothing.

Choice is everything.

 

[talloulou]

Do the homeless, the mentally ill, and others make choices? Then they are persons.



I am not arguing that a non-sentient fetus is a non-person because society does not regard it as a person. I am arguing that a non-sentient fetus is a non-person because it does not make any choices.

But the unborn are different from vegetables on life support. Left alone, unmolested, if they don't die naturally they will progress to a point where they do make choices. It's not that they are some other type of organism incapable of choice. They are human organisms that develop choice over time as all of us have. Newborns hardly make choices.

If I completely take away someones ability to make money I can't blame them for not making money. If I refuse to allow someone to go to school I can't fault them for being uneducated. If I stand in the way of development which leads to choice and higher brain function then it is I who took the ability of choice and brain function away. You are faulting the unborn and accusing them of lacking something that you are simultaneously insuring they will never have by allowing others to interfere with them.

I judge people not by the makeup of their DNA, but by the content of their character. No content, no character. Ergo, no person.

Character develops over time. My character wasn't even established till well into my twenties. If you allow abortion you are thwarting the development of character and then blaming the unborn humans for not displaying character. It doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't even find it distasteful. We raise non-sentient grains in order to harvest their parts. We raise non-sentient strawberry patches to harvest their parts. I don't see anyone standing up for the rights of grains and strawberries.

An unborn human left unmolested will develop as all humans do. No humans display character in the womb. That doesn't make them strawberries. You dare to assert that you are superior to them because no one molested you in the womb and you were allowed to develop freely? That's like me walking in to an environment were women weren't allowed to go to school and claiming their stupid dolts.

 

[Panache]

But the unborn are different from vegetables on life support. Left alone, unmolested, if they don't die naturally they will progress to a point where they do make choices. It's not that they are some other type of organism incapable of choice. They are human organisms that develop choice over time as all of us have.

If they can do all that that "left alone" they don't really need a mother then do they?

I think you mean that if they are provided with additional matter in the form of nutrients with which to build new cells, in an environment which will allow them to do so.

Seriously though, you are arguing their potential to eventually develop sentience.

A human egg, left to its own devices has the potential to eventually develop sentience, so long as it is provided with additional matter in the form of sperm, and later with additional nutrients, in an envirionment which will allow it to continue its natural growth.

So by refusing to have sex with someone, you are, to use your own words, "thwarting the development of character."

Potential is nothing.

Choice is everything.

If I completely take away someones ability to make money I can't blame them for not making money. If I refuse to allow someone to go to school I can't fault them for being uneducated.

I am not "blaming" or "faulting" any non-sentient organic tissue for anything.

Here is a better analogy:

The money in my 401K is protected from being taxed.

If I decide to reduce my contribution from 10% to 8%, then I am preventing 2% of my income from gaining the protection afforded by 401K status.

Is it the money's fault that I chose to spend it on Stargate SG-1 DVDs?

I don't "blame" the money for not being in a 401K. It had the potential to be protected from tax, but its potential was violently thwarted.

The government seems to think it is ok to tax the money that I spend on Stargate SG-1 DVDs, even though that money had the potential to be protected from such taxes. I don't think the government "faults" my money for not being protected.:roll:

Character develops over time. My character wasn't even established till well into my twenties.

Your character is the sum of all the choices you have made in your life, beginning with the first choice you made when you were 21-22 weeks old. Prior to that first choice, there was no developing character.

An unborn human left unmolested will develop as all humans do. No humans display character in the womb.

Sure they do. When my mom was in her last month of pregnancy with my sister, she would start kicking violently any time there was a loud noise.

When she was in her last month of pregnancy with me, she says I hardly made a move compared to my sister.

Sounds like different characters to me.

You dare to assert that you are superior to them because no one molested you in the womb and you were allowed to develop freely?

I dare assert that I am superior now compared to the single celled organism that I was when I was concieved.

That's like me walking in to an environment were women weren't allowed to go to school and claiming their stupid dolts.

Its not at all like that. When did I walk into an envirionment full of aborted zygotes and start calling them names?

 

[talloulou]

I guess the problem I have is that I firmly believe all humans are created equal and deserve basic human rights.

If you could prove that the human organsims in the womb were genuinely less than older humans then I could see stripping them of basic rights.

However you would have to prove that they deserve this lesser classification and lesser consideration. In order to do so, for me, you'd have to basically prove they aren't human which is virtually impossible.

In order for me to hold the perspective that I deserve legal protections of basic human rights while they don't I would need to see clear evidence that they are not "like" me. Since I myself resided in a womb, took nutrients from a biological mother, and was allowed to develop through all the stages I've gone through thus far unmolested I find it very difficult to assert that any other human deserves lesser treatment.

I got where I am today because I have had a life where I was afforded basic human rights. Anyone who assualts me, acts violently towards me, or kills me will be legally punished and I imagine that this has made my world safer for me.

If any of us were fully sentient at conception then I could see how one could justify treating non-sentient young human organisms as lesser creatures. However ALL human organisms must develop sentience. Thus we are all the same in that regard and you have failed to show why they deserve lesser treatment then any of us have recieved.

If there are to be basic human rights then they must apply accross the board to ALL humans. Anything less than that asserts that all men are not created equal and I refuse to accept that.

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.-Abraham Lincoln.