Abortion Rights

[Roustabout]

Lol you're so insecure.

Insecure is just a word. There is no objective truth in a definition. Wait, maybe you, Clearwater, and rdj agree that I'm insecure. It's a consensus!! Good thing ad-populum is also just a word and there is no objective truth in a definition.

Maybe I am insecure. But, your response sounds like a guy who just got exposed and can only say, "I know you are, but what am I." :cray:

:hi:

 

[LouderVol]

A break? I stated that if you wanted to talk about whether that life has rights it's a different subject.
Black words, white page. I'm upset because you ignored what I wrote to accuse me of something else.

The question on rights can only be answered if you are willing to ground human rights. Where do these rights exist and come from?

I can tell you that when my wife took that pregnancy test, she was convinced about the person inside her, regardless of what stage of development it was at. Your scenario makes rights arbitrary, based strictly on the mood of the parents. Wanted pregnancy, human. Unwanted, not human.

this. and it disturbs me people are so cavalier with this.

 

[LouderVol]

again the zygote/blastocyst argument is a red herring. you can't even know your pregnant at that point. Blastocyst happens around day five and goes to about day 7. Doctors can accurately test around day 7-8, after the blastocyst phase. and that assumes you are at the doctor right at the day 7. then its however long that test takes, for arguments sake lets say it is pretty instantaneous. (I have no idea). you are still past the blastocyst phase. Implantation has happened, it has already moved into the uterus where it stays. At very best you have to argue you are aborting an embryo. and then it is however long until you get the actual abortion procedure. all said you are looking at around 2 weeks, well into embryonic stage.

if you are going to argue where the "thing" starts mattering at least use a timeline that actually can happen. Embryo not blastocyst.

to split some more hairs my understanding of abortion that actual procedure goes after an embryo in the uterus. most things before that are consider contraception. Pretty sure most "morning after" pills keep the blastocysts/embryos from getting embedded in the uterus. after that point you are aborting the embryo from the uterus.

 

[Roustabout]

again the zygote/blastocyst argument is a red herring. you can't even know your pregnant at that point. Blastocyst happens around day five and goes to about day 7. Doctors can accurately test around day 7-8, after the blastocyst phase. and that assumes you are at the doctor right at the day 7. then its however long that test takes, for arguments sake lets say it is pretty instantaneous. (I have no idea). you are still past the blastocyst phase. Implantation has happened, it has already moved into the uterus where it stays. At very best you have to argue you are aborting an embryo. and then it is however long until you get the actual abortion procedure. all said you are looking at around 2 weeks, well into embryonic stage.

if you are going to argue where the "thing" starts mattering at least use a timeline that actually can happen. Embryo not blastocyst.

to split some more hairs my understanding of abortion that actual procedure goes after an embryo in the uterus. most things before that are consider contraception. Pretty sure most "morning after" pills keep the blastocysts/embryos from getting embedded in the uterus. after that point you are aborting the embryo from the uterus.

Louder, thanks for your input.
I'd love to get your feedback on the argument i briefly summarized earlier in the thread. Over the years, i've taken a hard look at the pro-life and pro-choice positions.

Since i left the organized church about 3 years ago, I've evaluated several doctrines and positions to see if my beliefs hold up and are even necessary for my Christian worldview. What i discovered is that the argument, on both sides, is flawed. I knew something was wrong but i couldn't place my finger on it. I sincerely believe that both sides are sincere and convinced that they are doing the right thing. But, how can two sides be so diametrically opposed to one another? Pro-lifers have resolved that pro-choices are evil. Pro-choicers have resolved that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies and force their religious views on them. Both sides couldn't be more wrong.

The term 'personhood' and human rights kept coming up, but as has been covered, how do we define and support those terms with any objective grounding? As evidenced by the bail out and avoidance by several on this thread, it's clear that those terms cannot be objectively tied down, unless one takes the stance that God has imbued rights to people including the unborn.

Again, i found the arguments on this soft and of course this would result in imposing a religious view as law. For one, I don't think God has imbued us with "rights." I do, as a Christian, believe that God has purposed the human race and due this fact, humans have objective value. From this, we have a foundation to define 'rights.' But, this isn't the same as "rights" existing as some commodity. And, even if the secular world accepted this (and they won't, or should they have to) it still doesn't answer (at least not with any certainty) whether abortion is a violation of those rights. Because, it could still be argued that we don't know when a person becomes a person. Conception? Uterine Implantation? Heart beat? Birth?

So, i knew there had to be something based on the facts of biology and ethics that would resolve this question. I think this argument demonstrates why abortion is prima facie a moral wrong. And one doesn't have to believe in God to accept it.

 

[UT-Rex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roustabout View Post
You just went off the reservation.
Have fun.

You literally just made some of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in these discussions and that includes Waffles insanity.

One, any cell in our body isn't a potential human. And even if it were that wouldn't change the potential argument. Duh.

Next, you literally implied that the natural loss of an unborn child is justification for abortion, which is akin to saying natural death is justification for killing someone. "Hell, people die all the time by natural means."

If the morning after pill wasn't taken what would happen if things proceeded according to design?

A person would be born. The difference is you don't value the potential and future of that person.

Finally,
You disagree on where a persons rights come from (although I don't think you really even grasp my position) yet you've refused to tell me where you think they come from. I'm waiting?

First some housecleaning. I think literally everything I just stated flew right past you. Complete and utter misrepresentation of what I said.

At this point in history, is there the potential of any cell in the body that contains DNA to be a human? If you answer no to this question, you are flat wrong in every scientific and biological way. Period. We can make a human in a lab in a variety of ways and we do it all the time with in vitro. You brought up potential. POTENTIAL is absolutely there.

Where do you draw the line at potential? You are drawing at fertilization. Fine. I can arbitrarily draw it at the decision to have or not have sex, or the decision to clone or not clone a human, or utilize in vitro or not. This is why the potential argument is garbage. “Potential” can be started or stopped at a variety of points, by a variety of methods. I don’t know when that potential actualizes to a real person, but I certainly don’t think it is at the moment of conception.

And I didn’t imply anything about natural death as justification for abortion. I simply said that unnatural ends to fertilizations are not the only way they end as part of the potential argument. Nothing is guaranteed. My position has been clear. A blastocyst is not a person, it is a collection of human genetic material that may or may not result in a person. If you think it is a person I’m all ears and would love to hear it. If it is going to be another rabbit hole about where human rights come from, don’t bother or please start another thread.

What would happen if the morning after pill wasn’t taken if all things proceeded by design? OK, what would happen if a couple had decided to have sex instead of abstaining if everything proceeded by design? What would happen if they decided not to use birth control? Is there not POTENTIAL in every one of those cases to create a human?

The only answer to that question each of us can honestly say is “I don’t know”. Hell, “by design” might be a miscarriage.

Maybe this will resonate, what is being destroyed With the morning after pill, a person, or a POTENTIAL person? I doubt I get an answer on that

All that is completely different than aborting a fetus that has the capacity to feel, think, react, move, breathe, etc. and you damn well know that. At that point the arbitrary potential argument is gone and we have a real person we need to protect and worry about.

Which is all why the discussion always ends up to when is it a person? Which has been my question to you from the beginning.

rjd,

"human" / "human development"

Why do scientists call it "human development" only to turn around and have persons like you not be able to recognize/ understand that what they're looking at/ researching/ probing is, a human?

Seriously: they are studying "human" development, so it's up to you to prove at what stage in the development that the object is not human.

What is being developed/ is developing, is what is being killed (don't you see?).

Up to what day, then, is it not human?

Day 7, 8, other?

(the sperm is not a human; nor the egg, nor can a skin-cell be called a human; nor can a mouse be called a human)

And if you will, give us a Link to someone who made a human (with cells, other than by in vitro with egg + sperm) -- I'm seeing only mice.

 

[rjd970]

What is the Uniform Declaration of Death Act or UDDA

The UDDA offers two definitions for when an individual may legally be declared dead:

1.Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or

2.Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.

Does anyone think the second criteria is morally wrong? Do you consider that PERSON dead?

At this point, the body is still "alive" but there is no brain activity and the heart still may even beat on its own. The person is medically "dead" but there is very much a human thing there. Legally, it is even eligible for organ donation. Is it wrong to call this individual dead and harvest organs?

 

[LouderVol]

Louder, thanks for your input.
I'd love to get your feedback on the argument i briefly summarized earlier in the thread. Over the years, i've taken a hard look at the pro-life and pro-choice positions.

Since i left the organized church about 3 years ago, I've evaluated several doctrines and positions to see if my beliefs hold up and are even necessary for my Christian worldview. What i discovered is that the argument, on both sides, is flawed. I knew something was wrong but i couldn't place my finger on it. I sincerely believe that both sides are sincere and convinced that they are doing the right thing. But, how can two sides be so diametrically opposed to one another? Pro-lifers have resolved that pro-choices are evil. Pro-choicers have resolved that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies and force their religious views on them. Both sides couldn't be more wrong.

The term 'personhood' and human rights kept coming up, but as has been covered, how do we define and support those terms with any objective grounding? As evidenced by the bail out and avoidance by several on this thread, it's clear that those terms cannot be objectively tied down, unless one takes the stance that God has imbued rights to people including the unborn.

Again, i found the arguments on this soft and of course this would result in imposing a religious view as law. For one, I don't think God has imbued us with "rights." I do, as a Christian, believe that God has purposed the human race and due this fact, humans have objective value. From this, we have a foundation to define 'rights.' But, this isn't the same as "rights" existing as some commodity. And, even if the secular world accepted this (and they won't, or should they have to) it still doesn't answer (at least not with any certainty) whether abortion is a violation of those rights. Because, it could still be argued that we don't know when a person becomes a person. Conception? Uterine Implantation? Heart beat? Birth?

So, i knew there had to be something based on the facts of biology and ethics that would resolve this question. I think this argument demonstrates why abortion is prima facie a moral wrong. And one doesn't have to believe in God to accept it.

can you quote which particular argument phrasing you would like me to weigh in on? Not trying to be smart but there has been a lot thrown around, so if you have a specific or "best" argument you would like my opinion on I can give it.

 

[LouderVol]

What is the Uniform Declaration of Death Act or UDDA



Does anyone think the second criteria is morally wrong? Do you consider that PERSON dead?

At this point, the body is still "alive" but there is no brain activity and the heart still may even beat on its own. The person is medically "dead" but there is very much a human thing there. Legally, it is even eligible for organ donation. Is it wrong to call this individual dead and harvest organs?

using extremes to set the rule.

for me its up to the individual to set that. I respect both if a person wants to be maintained that way (brain dead) or is fine with a DNR. when it comes to those incapable of setting it themselves I will fault on the side of life.

 

[rjd970]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roustabout View Post
You just went off the reservation.
Have fun.

You literally just made some of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in these discussions and that includes Waffles insanity.

One, any cell in our body isn't a potential human. And even if it were that wouldn't change the potential argument. Duh.

Next, you literally implied that the natural loss of an unborn child is justification for abortion, which is akin to saying natural death is justification for killing someone. "Hell, people die all the time by natural means."

If the morning after pill wasn't taken what would happen if things proceeded according to design?

A person would be born. The difference is you don't value the potential and future of that person.

Finally,
You disagree on where a persons rights come from (although I don't think you really even grasp my position) yet you've refused to tell me where you think they come from. I'm waiting?



rjd,

"human" / "human development"

Why do scientists call it "human development" only to turn around and have persons like you not be able to recognize/ understand that what they're looking at/ researching/ probing is, a human?

Seriously: they are studying "human" development, so it's up to you to prove at what stage in the development that the object is not human.

What is being developed/ is developing, is what is being killed (don't you see?).

Up to what day, then, is it not human?

Day 7, 8, other?

(the sperm is not a human; nor the egg, nor can a skin-cell be called a human; nor can a mouse be called a human)

And if you will, give us a Link to someone who made a human (with cells, other than by in vitro with egg + sperm) -- I'm seeing only mice.

A fertilized egg is human, but I contend it is not a person. I think at a minimum, brain activity is a perquisite for being a person. I don't agree with destroying anything after the first trimester, and anything between weeks 8-12 (the last third of the first trimester) should be off the table.

If you think personhood starts earlier, I'm all ears.

 

[rjd970]

using extremes to set the rule.

for me its up to the individual to set that. I respect both if a person wants to be maintained that way (brain dead) or is fine with a DNR. when it comes to those incapable of setting it themselves I will fault on the side of life.

How do you weigh that against somebody the operating table needing a heart transplant to live? Not saying any answer is wrong, just curious as to your thought process.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I am glad to see you are as opinionated as ever.

He is. So are you. So am I.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

He is. So are you. So am I.

 

[LouderVol]

How do you weigh that against somebody the operating table needing a heart transplant to live? Not saying any answer is wrong, just curious as to your thought process.

triage. go with the one more likely to be saved. you do what you can for who you can. but you don't do it at a cost to others.

Saving the life of one over another is not the same as killing one and sparing another. (killing, not allowing to one to die to save another)

 

[rjd970]

triage. go with the one more likely to be saved. you do what you can for who you can. but you don't do it at a cost to others.

Saving the life of one over another is not the same as killing one and sparing another. (killing, not allowing to one to die to save another)

Not sure I understand. So you would cease the life of the irreversible brain dead individual to save the life of the individual needing a heart, given the prognosis is good for the transplant?

 

[LouderVol]

Not sure I understand. So you would cease the life of the irreversible brain dead individual to save the life of the individual needing a heart, given the prognosis is good for the transplant?

only if the brain dead person had a DNR or had stated as much.

if they had said keep them alive (and the money was there) or hadn't said one way or the other I would not pull the plug on them.

do no harm to others. if you start there I think you can answer a lot of questions.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

If confronted with a decision that will save one 3 year old child or 1,000,000 human embryos being stored in a freezer, which is the logical choice and why?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You still haven’t addressed the question. You’ve only dismissed it and stated all humans have objective value.

Is me taking a gun and killing a little girl have the same objective outcome as removing a blastocyst from a woman’s womb?

You asked his basis for human rights, and he gave it. He's asked yours several times, and you just refuse in favor of asking him more and more questions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The little girl is experiencing pain, fear, ceasing of brain activity, self awareness of being alive, a heartbeat, and a host of other biological functions. I don’t assume the for abortion to be wrong it has to be equivalent to some other moral atrocity. All I want to know is if you think removing a clump of 300 cells from a womb is murder of a person.

Again, where rights come from are separate from personhood. I’m not deflecting the question. This thread is about abortion rights, not where human rights come from.

How can you have the conversation without an agreement on the basis of such rights? We've seen the futility in how you're trying to do that. Big offers scripture, you guys mock, rinse, repeat.

Cart/Horse

(You don't want to answer because it defeats your ability to really even have the discussion.)

 

[Orange_Crush]

Roust- you've stated that all humans have rights and that is the source of their rights. That seems every bit as an arbitrary as my view that human rights are born in people's desire to survive and maintain an orderly society. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like hear more about this objective view.

He said he is a Christian, which bases those rights in a non-arbitrary foundation.

 

[LouderVol]

If confronted with a decision that will save one 3 year old child or 1,000,000 human embryos being stored in a freezer, which is the logical choice and why?

thats not the question at hand.

this is only about the embryos.

you have 1,000,000 embryos in freezer. do you dump them down the drain or save them? which is the logical choice and why?

 

[rjd970]

only if the brain dead person had a DNR or had stated as much.

if they had said keep them alive (and the money was there) or hadn't said one way or the other I would not pull the plug on them.

do no harm to others. if you start there I think you can answer a lot of questions.

Interesting.

I lean the other way. On one hand if I have an individual with a medically dead brain but functioning organs, and on the other I had a person that was experiencing real world suffering with a future ahead of them, I'm pulling the plug and transplanting the heart in the absence of other legal mitigating factors (DNR, etc). I see it as choosing to save a person over saving a life. I can't justify letting a person die over a life that is irreversibly brain dead and breathing only with the help of a machine.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I’ll save you the suspense. It’s a supernatural source and off to the races we go about whether God exists and this thread is no longer about abortion rights which is exactly what he wants at this point.

That's not what he wants at all. He wants you to then ground your perceived source of rights.

 

[LouderVol]

Interesting.

I lean the other way. On one hand if I have an individual with a medically dead brain but functioning organs, and on the other I had a person that was experiencing real world suffering with a future ahead of them, I'm pulling the plug and transplanting the heart in the absence of other legal mitigating factors (DNR, etc). I see it as choosing to save a person over saving a life. I can't justify letting a person die over a life that is irreversibly brain dead and breathing only with the help of a machine.

I don't. you have denied that person's personhood based solely on your beliefs and not what they as the individual may have wanted. so in that way you have denied them who they are/were.

if you follow your thinking thru you are essentially saying its ok to harvest organs from people who aren't donors. damn what they want, we need your organs.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

He said he is a Christian, which bases those rights in a non-arbitrary foundation.

How is it not arbitrary?

 

[LouderVol]

How is it not arbitrary?

his selection of those rights could be argued to be arbitrary but the rights themselves?

again, until one provides another basis of rights you can't argue to the relative nature of the one already presented.