A Pro-Choice Consideration

[Dyrwen]

It is of your pro-life thought that you feel all children, or humans that may become children, deserve to live and it's solely the parents' responsibility to keep it alive. Although realistically, they choose to have sex, the baby did not choose to become alive, it just happened to get a sperm attached to the egg. It was a luck's draw for such an occurence to happen, to say it's their responsibility to keep it alive is a bit presumptious. The child may have the potential to live through birth, but perhaps they don't want a child? It is solely their creation, it is their sperm and egg, at this time the baby has no thought on the matter, it is merely in the womb and connected to the mother for life.

It could be removed later, but up until a certain period it doesn't even have enough organs to live, let alone survive outside of that womb. It is just a parasitic mammal while it dwells in that womb, simply put. It relies on that mother for nutrients while it lives. Technically speaking, it is a parasite, whether you want to talk about it as that or not, it just is one until it gets to a certain size to survive outside of the womb. Sure, when it gets out it also needs nutrients and such from the mother, but there is at least a chance it could survive on it's own or with another, it's less of a parasite and more of a child then. My mother does realize the definition is proper and I was a parasite in that womb, for one of you people's information, as it was asked.

It remains completely up to the creators involved (mother & father) in what occurs with the outcome of the pregnancy. It is an organism, not completely alive, just a ball of cells for most of it's development and eventually a living organism with parasitic properties. You give the fetus, zygote, baby inside the woman too much control when it has no place in the matter. We can't ask it "Do you want to live? Tap once for yes, twice for no." while it is in there, so the parents govern responsibility over what they wish to do with the child.

They may choose to let the child develop and become birthed and be seen as "pro-life" or let the child be destroyed before it is born and be labelled improperly as "pro-choice." It remains their decision, as the child holds no way to voice it's decision upon it's soon-to-be life, it has no say and for you to give it say merely denies the parents their rights over the organism's future.

This is all my opinion, but it is also allowing the rights of the parents more of a property means over their creation before it becomes another citizen taxed and fed like the rest of us.

 

[Lifesaver]

Yes, it is your opinion, and a flawed one, as will be shown.

In the end, your whole argument rests on the fact that the fetus cannot choose or speak whether it wants or not to live (though its behaviour, the consumption of nutrients, is a clear indication of its natural drive to survive).

Anyway, using that same reasoning, we can come to the conclusion that, whenever someone is unable to choose whether they wish or not to live, their parents have the right to kill them.

In other words, if a teenager got into a traffic accident, and is in a coma, the parents should have the right to kill him even if they know there is a good chance he will recover consciousness after some months. This is inhumane.

For that matter, a very young baby (up to 2 years) cannot possibly deal with the question of whether it wants or not to live. Its mental limitations do not allow for such concepts such as life and death to be understood by it, and it cannot answer such a question. According to your reasoning, the parents also have the right to kill their child as long as it can't form its mind on whether it wants or not to live.

Needless to say, this is absurd. When someone's opinion is unknown, we MUST choose in favour of their life, not their death.

Therefore, it is concluded that the lack of consciousness or the ability to choose whether they want to live or not is NOT a good reason to give parents the power of life and death over their children.

ADDITION: the claim that fetuses are parasites and therefore it is right to kill them has already been successfully rebuked by another poster. If you claim that, then an infant is also a parasite (just like a leeche is a parasite) and therefore it is right to kill him.
By that same logic, everyone who is ill and poor is a parasite (either of their family, friends, or even the whole society) and it is right to kill them as well.

 

[Dyrwen]

In the end, your whole argument rests on the fact that the fetus cannot choose or speak whether it wants or not to live (though its behaviour, the consumption of nutrients, is a clear indication of its natural drive to survive).

Instincts do not imply anything more than that, a prisoner also wishes to live, does that mean he should be allowed to live if on death row?

Anyway, using that same reasoning, we can come to the conclusion that, whenever someone is unable to choose whether they wish or not to live, their parents have the right to kill them.

In other words, if a teenager got into a traffic accident, and is in a coma, the parents should have the right to kill him even if they know there is a good chance he will recover consciousness after some months. This is inhumane.

I feel they should be allowed to know if the child has a chance to live in the future. A freak "miracle outing" of his coma is not exactly a high possibility, so it's usually said they may not come out of it. I feel it IS right for a parent to have that right, so long as they're informed of the possibilities of survival to a reasonable degree. I'd give a year usually to decide upon such a matter for the comatosed sort, but that's nothing required, at least then they'd be able to tell the child certainly isn't coming back anytime soon.

According to your reasoning, the parents also have the right to kill their child as long as it can't form its mind on whether it wants or not to live.

Needless to say, this is absurd. When someone's opinion is unknown, we MUST choose in favour of their life, not their death.

Therefore, it is concluded that the lack of consciousness or the ability to choose whether they want to live or not is NOT a good reason to give parents the power of life and death over their children.

It has the capability of survival even at that young age, so it may not be murdered as it is a person existing in this world with others. This is a decision over a parasitic human being in the womb, not one over a living human being in the world fending for itself.

Your opinion remains flawed in my eyes as mine does in mine, but so differences go, eh? Just because you don't like how it turns out, doesn't make me false, just wrong for you.

Your 'addition' was pure lunacy as all have the capability to survive on their own once out of the womb, unless they fall into a coma as I showed. It was a lesser point you attempted to make and quite frankly, I only see an emotional angle from it. We're all parasitic, but we can also survive without stealing nutrients from our parents. At the time in the womb, it NEEDS that mother to live, but even an infant if given the chance has at least a possibility to survive in the world more so than a half way developed fetus.

 

[Lifesaver]

[I feel they should be allowed to know if the child has a chance to live in the future. A freak "miracle outing" of his coma is not exactly a high possibility, so it's usually said they may not come out of it. I feel it IS right for a parent to have that right, so long as they're informed of the possibilities of survival to a reasonable degree. I'd give a year usually to decide upon such a matter for the comatosed sort, but that's nothing required, at least then they'd be able to tell the child certainly isn't coming back anytime soon.

Once again you are completely missing the point. We're talking about cases where, just like in pregnancy, the person has a big chance of gaining consciousness.
If the doctor says to the parents "From my experience, your teenage son has a 90% of chance of coming out of the coma in the next 6 months", is it alright for the parents to kill their son? According to your reasoning, it is.

It has the capability of survival even at that young age, so it may not be murdered as it is a person existing in this world with others. This is a decision over a parasitic human being in the womb, not one over a living human being in the world fending for itself.

This is border line insane. A young baby has the chance to fend for itself in the world?!
No, it doesn't. It needs nourishment and protection from other people.
To use your parasite analogy, if it doesn't find a "host", it will die.

Your opinion remains flawed in my eyes as mine does in mine, but so differences go, eh? Just because you don't like how it turns out, doesn't make me false, just wrong for you.

I'm showing you how YOUR opinion can be used to justify the killing of a lot of human beings (born babies, ill people, those unconscious or uncapable of making the conscious decision of living or not).
Sure, I can't force you to follow logic, but imposing your baseless distinctions on everyone else is unnacceptable.

Your 'addition' was pure lunacy as all have the capability to survive on their own once out of the womb, unless they fall into a coma as I showed. It was a lesser point you attempted to make and quite frankly, I only see an emotional angle from it. We're all parasitic, but we can also survive without stealing nutrients from our parents. At the time in the womb, it NEEDS that mother to live, but even an infant if given the chance has at least a possibility to survive in the world more so than a half way developed fetus.

Explain how a young baby can fend for itself.
Explain how someone with no limbs can fend for themselves without external help.
Explain how someone with Downs Syndrome can fend for themselves without external help.

They can't, and by your definition of parasite (which you made up), they are all parasites, for they can't "survive on their own".

The fact is you didn't even think your definition through, or else you would have noticed how nonsensical it is.

 

[Dyrwen]

Whether it be nonsensical or not, I still feel the woman and man who created the being inside her hold the responsibility over it and deserve the right to control whether or not it is born.

Outside of that, is a whole other discussion. This is about a parents right to choice over whether or not they should be allowed to have a child exist after birth.

I think they deserve that right, whether you find it wrong or right is not my concern. My regard for human life is not one of a high state, and quite frankly, my own protection of a person's rights is quite amazing considering the low regard I hold human beings at, so stick with what you feel is right, my initial point of the discussion stands on the first page.

A pro-choicer isn't "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" merely pro-choice.

 

[flicka]

It's been interesting watching two young men argue about abortion. I dont mean to step on anyone toes here but I'd like to clarify that refering to a fetus as a 'parasite' referes to the fact that it is physically attached to dependant on another life for survival. ie. if the mother dies so does the fetus. This is not the same as being dependent on other people, because if the mother dies after a baby is born the baby will not die. Its just ignorant to argue that they are the same thing.

Now, as much as I admire people standing up for what they believe I'd like to suggest that you are fighting the wrong fight.
As a male your fight should be to keep yourself and other males from impregnating females in the first place! Wether you choose to fight for 100% male abstanence or better male birth control is up to you..and either would be noble causes in my book. Woman have been bearing the brunt of birth control for years now, subjecting themselves to dangerous chemicals and implants that can cause permenant injury not just to prevent pregnancy but to allow men to enjoy carefree sex! For you to jump straight to the end you are ignoring the process leading up to the problem of unwanted pregnancies and only focusing on the part that you can regulate by imposing laws that will effect half the population in ways you cant even imagine. You will then sleep better at night thinking that you have 'saved babies' while knowing full well its a problem you will never have to personally experience. And as I've said before, until we can eliminate unwanted pregnancies the health and welfare of the living, breathing woman who is already here must always be our first priority, otherwise your implying that a pregnant woman to nothing more than a host for the contents of her womb.

 

[Dyrwen]

Good message flicka. I believe there is a pill in testing for males to take that makes them sterile for a certain period of time.. I'm certainly getting a vasectomy whenever possible myself..

Glad someone picked up the irony of "two men deciding the fate of a woman's body" though.

 

[Lifesaver]

It's been interesting watching two young men argue about abortion. I dont mean to step on anyone toes here but I'd like to clarify that refering to a fetus as a 'parasite' referes to the fact that it is physically attached to dependant on another life for survival. ie. if the mother dies so does the fetus. This is not the same as being dependent on other people, because if the mother dies after a baby is born the baby will not die. Its just ignorant to argue that they are the same thing.

A leech is a parasite. If the host dies, it doesn't.

Now, as much as I admire people standing up for what they believe I'd like to suggest that you are fighting the wrong fight.
As a male your fight should be to keep yourself and other males from impregnating females in the first place! Wether you choose to fight for 100% male abstanence or better male birth control is up to you..and either would be noble causes in my book. Woman have been bearing the brunt of birth control for years now, subjecting themselves to dangerous chemicals and implants that can cause permenant injury not just to prevent pregnancy but to allow men to enjoy carefree sex! For you to jump straight to the end you are ignoring the process leading up to the problem of unwanted pregnancies and only focusing on the part that you can regulate by imposing laws that will effect half the population in ways you cant even imagine. You will then sleep better at night thinking that you have 'saved babies' while knowing full well its a problem you will never have to personally experience. And as I've said before, until we can eliminate unwanted pregnancies the health and welfare of the living, breathing woman who is already here must always be our first priority, otherwise your implying that a pregnant woman to nothing more than a host for the contents of her womb.

No-one is ignoring that. I fully agree with you that there are very serious issues that need to be adressed that would end the need for a debate on abortion.
But while they aren't solved (and this seems less likely everyday), abortion is a serious thing that must be dealt with.
Analogously, it would be better if we would take more steps to prevent lung cancer in most people, but in the cases where these steps have already not been taken, we must treat the disease itself.

 

[Lifesaver]

Whether it be nonsensical or not, I still feel the woman and man who created the being inside her hold the responsibility over it and deserve the right to control whether or not it is born.

Your feelings have no place in a discussion of what is right and wrong. You have to come up with something better before you let people kill their children.

I think they deserve that right, whether you find it wrong or right is not my concern. My regard for human life is not one of a high state, and quite frankly, my own protection of a person's rights is quite amazing considering the low regard I hold human beings at, so stick with what you feel is right, my initial point of the discussion stands on the first page.

You think they deserve that right. But your feeling that it is right to kill the fetus and wrong to kill the born baby are inconsistent with each other.
I am not arguing from feeling. I am arguing from the position that: if it is wrong to kill a born baby, it is wrong to kill a fetus in the womb.

The burden lies on you to provide the relevant distinction between killing someone inside or outside the womb.

A pro-choicer isn't "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" merely pro-choice.

Thanks, but I know that.

What I'm showing is that giving someone the freedom to kill the fetus is the same as giving someone the freedom to kill their born children.

 

[flicka]

A leech is a parasite. If the host dies, it doesn't.

That comparison implys a leech is a more independent life than a fetus, I'm pretty sure thats not the point you want to make.

abortion is a serious thing that must be dealt with.

We both agree on that point. The only differece is I believe the one to deal with it is the woman whos life is effected, not you or the legal system.

 

[Lifesaver]

That comparison implys a leech is a more independent life than a fetus, I'm pretty sure thats not the point you want to make.

No, if you read the whole argument you'll see that dyrwen began by equating the fetus to a parasite. I rebuked that by saying that, if he wished to be consistent in his comparison, then the young baby is also a parasite, for it sucks out his nourishment from the mother. A poor sick person gets their treatment from their family and friends or from the State, and is likewise a parasite according to his definition.

Then you replied a parasite dies when the host dies, and I showed it's not so in all cases (such as the leech).

My point being: it is absurd to equate a fetus to a parasite!
It is merely a cheap empty rhetoric maneuver used by pro-choicers who have no real argument.

We both agree on that point. The only differece is I believe the one to deal with it is the woman whos life is effected, not you or the legal system.

It is not only the woman's life which is affected. The baby's life is also affected, and it is not up to the mother to decide whether she will or not kill her children, no matter what.

 

[Dyrwen]

Your feelings have no place in a discussion of what is right and wrong. You have to come up with something better before you let people kill their children.

You think they deserve that right. But your feeling that it is right to kill the fetus and wrong to kill the born baby are inconsistent with each other.
I am not arguing from feeling. I am arguing from the position that: if it is wrong to kill a born baby, it is wrong to kill a fetus in the womb.

Thanks, but I know that.

Last I checked. I'm 1. A male who therefore has no real way to hold any power over what women do with their legal right to their own bodies 2. Also I happen to just be a voter, so I'm not "letting" or "not letting" anyone do anything.

Unless I become a congressman anytime soon, I certainly don't hold any power over anyone's rights to do what they wish with themselves. My opinions are merely that, my own. I can attempt to get them to become lawful, but still, just one man here.

You make it out like I am running around killing fetuses inside their wombs when all I'm doing is supporting a woman's right to do what she wishes.

But, meh, I've had about all I can take of this "debate".

 

[flicka]

DYRWEN...thanks for the post! I have been reading about more male bc options and I hope something good comes from it all. A vasectomy can be a great choice for people who know they dont want children or if they feel their family is complete. Don't rush into any decision too young though because children are a wonderful thing!!

 

[Lifesaver]

Last I checked. I'm 1. A male who therefore has no real way to hold any power over what women do with their legal right to their own bodies 2. Also I happen to just be a voter, so I'm not "letting" or "not letting" anyone do anything.
Unless I become a congressman anytime soon, I certainly don't hold any power over anyone's rights to do what they wish with themselves. My opinions are merely that, my own. I can attempt to get them to become lawful, but still, just one man here.

You live in a democratic system. As little as your power may be among the legion of voters, you have the power to make a small change.
You have the power to talk to people, and convince them of how abortion is wrong, even when they feel it is right.

You make it out like I am running around killing fetuses inside their wombs when all I'm doing is supporting a woman's right to do what she wishes.

But "what she wishes" must not come before the life of the baby!
What if a law were passed that allowed women to kill babies up to 2 years old? Would you still support their right to do as they wish? I know I won't, and I hope you won't as well.
I'm not asking any American to go out killing abortion doctors, but to change the general opinion on this so very serious issue.

But, meh, I've had about all I can take of this "debate".

Yes, all of your points have been thoroughly rebuked and you produced no new argument. I'm aware that everyone (including me) feels very strongly in any debate they get into, and will very rarely change positions right after it ends. However, I hope that in the long run this will help you in seeing how inconsistent and immoral your current position on this issue is.

 

[Dyrwen]

I suppose you missed my title as "Godless Reprobate" to know how much I care about being seen as "immoral". Eh?

 

[Lifesaver]

Being atheist does not mean being ammoral or lack any code of ethics.

In fact, many atheist philosophers have come up with moral and ethical codes.

Anyway, since I know you think murder is wrong, I just hope you will, with time, see that abortion is no different than ordinary murder.

 

[Dyrwen]

I've no problem with murder so long as I'm the one doing it.

That was why I pointed out my "reprobate" title. The godless portion wasn't part of the point, it just happened to be there. I suppose that is for a whole other thread though. heh

 

[Blessed75]

No dear, it's your opinion that abortion isn't murder. Until you come up with a good argument, there is no reason to differentiate between a very young human and a fully grown one.

and that about sums that up!

 

[Blessed75]

^That about sums it up.

I concur!

 

[Blessed75]

Actually, it's a scientific fact that abortion is homicide. following is an excerpt from another post of mine about this which I've utilized earlier in this thread...

Human in this context will refer to the genus and species of the homo-sapient. It is a scientific fact that when the genetic material of a male and female homo-sapient combine, the outcome will necessarily be another homo sapient. Therefore, scientifically speaking, (apart from any religious discussion of a soul) we have established that from conception, we have genetically unique homo-sapient "material".

Next we must determine if it is a "living being". Again, scientifically speaking, the most fundamental of all life indicators is metabolism. Once the egg and sperm unite, metabolism immediately begins. Additionally, the first act of self preservation (see my earlier post in this thread) occurs before cell division even begins. So therefore, according to strictly scientific standards, we have at conception, a discernable unique organism of the homo-sapient genus/species.

Think this is new information? It's not! In fact, this Objective scientific criterion for the discernment of life was disregarded in the Roe Vs. Wade decision in favor of a Subjective appearance-based criterion. This travesty is not apparent to the unlearned and therefore many have substituted passion for solid understanding. As a result, they have placed much emotion behind a faulty premise.

This is also why there are many who oppose Roe Vs. Wade on simply legal, scientific, and ethical grounds. Appearance is the absolute least reasonable or definitive criterion to discern human (or any other) life.

It's not a choice, it's a LIFE! (scientifically speaking that is)

Oh puhleeze - and I could come up with a million articles that back up my point of view but what's the point? It's not going to change your mind and that's fine - you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. Not going to sit here and waste my time arguing with you.........