Pro-Life

[Asimov]

You can try to justify it any way you can, but the point is one is destroying life.

You can try to justify your hunger any way, but the point is you are destroying life.

Due to advances in medicine, a fetus can live outside the womb at an earlier and earlier state. To say "its not a baby" simply because it has not passed out of the birth canal is ridiculous.

Why? There are changes that occur when a child is born. To deny that is ridiculous.

Once again your argument does not make sense. It can't be murder for one person and not murder for the other one. Since according to you a fetus is not a person, the most one could get for assaulting a pregant woman's stomach would be simple assault, not murder.

No, US law states that if someone other than the mother causes the death of a fetus, the punishment will the same as if it were murder. They do not say that it is murder and they do not say that it is a person. It's not MY argument, it's the US Law.

 

[GeoMetro]

"It's not MY argument, it's the US Law."

You think the law should be changed ?

 

[Asimov]

"It's not MY argument, it's the US Law."

You think the law should be changed ?

In a couple ways.

 

[morningstar2651]

So...what are your views on ectopic pregnancy? Should the fetus be allowed to continue growing until the mother dies of internal bleeding, at which point both die, or should the fetus be aborted?

 

[GeoMetro]

I am Pro-Life.
I think abortion should be illegal, unless the mother's life is in danger.

.

 

[poohgirl]

So...what are your views on ectopic pregnancy? Should the fetus be allowed to continue growing until the mother dies of internal bleeding, at which point both die, or should the fetus be aborted?

I'm going with saving the only one who can be saved, the mother. I'm prolife and so I wouldn't support both dying.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm going with saving the only one who can be saved, the mother. I'm prolife and so I wouldn't support both dying.

I've never met a person who isn't pro-life. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, but I would prefer that she choose life.

 

[GeoMetro]

I've never met a person who isn't pro-life. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, but I would prefer that she choose life.

Choose life, vote pro-life.

 

[faithmouse]

Indeed, because it's a person. But we're not talking about babies; we're talking about fetuses.

Psalm 139:13-16. For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

​

Luke 1:15. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.

​

Jeremiah. 1:5. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.







​

 

[Zlex]

If you say so!

Applying cold logic to the question of why a foetus which is intended to be carried to term is afforded different rights from a foetus which is terminated by its mother is quite foolish. The law exists because of the feelings of the expectant mother, not because of the rights of the foetus. The foetus does not have a right not to be murdered. The expectant mother's emotional response to losing a foetus which she expected to carry to term, and which she probably already thinks of as her baby, has everything to do with it.

Anyway, either way, it would be more than assault to punch a pregnant woman in the abdomen with the intention to kill the foetus inside, because the woman's right to control over her reproductive system has been infringed by another person.

So, a fetus has rights if The Strong deem it to be so. Interesting how we squirm around this issue of rights of Future Generations.

Cantata, let's say I've got a perfectly good solution to the yuk at Yucca flats; it will last 300 years, then explode in a huge fireball, spewing yuk all over Las Vegas.

Is there a problem with this? If so, why? I'll be dead, and so will everyone who is currently alive, and already been born. Do future generations hold any rights? Has my current solution to the problems of actual folks with defendable rights violated the rights of any any other human being with rights?

If you believe, as I do, that we in fact must actually consider the rights of future generations, then the big question is why?

Why must we consider the rights of future unborn generations, even if we consider them only in the sense of maintaining a trust that they can only actually access after their birth?

Is there a logical reason for that?

Does it really come down to something like rooting for 'our' football team; the future of homo sapiens? Individually, and collectively, we acknowledge that consideration must be given for 'future generations not here yet'. But...why? What is the motivation?

If it is not important that any single individual is in the future, then why is it important for the sum of all of us to be around in the future?

We could survive long-term by selectively practicing abortion, abortion is no threat to the species as a whole.

Ditto, selective murder,

Ditto, what Hitler imagined to build.

Ditto, selective dumping of garbage or nuclear waste.

So, is there a reason beyond what we can get away with which holds what this species is wired to do and not do? To me, it sounds like there is an importance placed on future survival of the sum of all unwinding human DNA, while no importance placed on the survival of any individual instance of unwinding DNA.

The more I examine the contradiction between 'survival of future generations' and 'survival of this individual instance of a future generation,' the more it looks like simply the mob vs. the individual.

The tribe must survive; the species, uber alles. So, the justification to remove any particular strand of already unwinding DNA can be based on convenience, whatever, without impacting the survival of the tribe.

To squirm from this, the argument must be made, and I can see it in every post: "nuh-uh, not an individual yet." Ie, jarringly apply temporal bias to conveniently dismiss rights to a DNA process already unfolding and inevitably on its way to becoming an indisputable individual with rights. Not dormant sperm; not dormant egg; not mere DNA. That is all miss the point entirely strawman noise.

But rather, a DNA process already specifically triggered and unfolding in a continuum from conception to death; ie, human life. A natural response to a specific act of invitation to same.

I don't think the government should aim its guns to make abortion outlawed, but it is not some moral right to be trumped upon the chest. It is simply the group/mob/Strong asserting its dominance over the weak; aka The Jungle. Hopefully our leaders will use their voices so we can evolve out of the jungle on our own.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Psalm 139:13-16. For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

​

Luke 1:15. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.

​

Jeremiah. 1:5. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.







​

This proves nothing beyond that God is a Prescient Entity and knows what we're going to turn into before we're even conceived. Clearly, some fetuses aren't meant to be born and become humans; otherwise, God wouldn't allow two-thirds of all pregnancies to end in spontaneous termination.

 

[cantata]

So, a fetus has rights if The Strong deem it to be so. Interesting how we squirm around this issue of rights of Future Generations.

Cantata, let's say I've got a perfectly good solution to the yuk at Yucca flats; it will last 300 years, then explode in a huge fireball, spewing yuk all over Las Vegas.

Is there a problem with this? If so, why? I'll be dead, and so will everyone who is currently alive, and already been born. Do future generations hold any rights? Has my current solution to the problems of actual folks with defendable rights violated the rights of any any other human being with rights?

If you believe, as I do, that we in fact must actually consider the rights of future generations, then the big question is why?

Why must we consider the rights of future unborn generations, even if we consider them only in the sense of maintaining a trust that they can only actually access after their birth?

Is there a logical reason for that?

Does it really come down to something like rooting for 'our' football team; the future of homo sapiens? Individually, and collectively, we acknowledge that consideration must be given for 'future generations not here yet'. But...why? What is the motivation?

If it is not important that any single individual is in the future, then why is it important for the sum of all of us to be around in the future?

We could survive long-term by selectively practicing abortion, abortion is no threat to the species as a whole.

Ditto, selective murder,

Ditto, what Hitler imagined to build.

Ditto, selective dumping of garbage or nuclear waste.

So, is there a reason beyond what we can get away with which holds what this species is wired to do and not do? To me, it sounds like there is an importance placed on future survival of the sum of all unwinding human DNA, while no importance placed on the survival of any individual instance of unwinding DNA.

The more I examine the contradiction between 'survival of future generations' and 'survival of this individual instance of a future generation,' the more it looks like simply the mob vs. the individual.

The tribe must survive; the species, uber alles. So, the justification to remove any particular strand of already unwinding DNA can be based on convenience, whatever, without impacting the survival of the tribe.

To squirm from this, the argument must be made, and I can see it in every post: "nuh-uh, not an individual yet." Ie, jarringly apply temporal bias to conveniently dismiss rights to a DNA process already unfolding and inevitably on its way to becoming an indisputable individual with rights. Not dormant sperm; not dormant egg; not mere DNA. That is all miss the point entirely strawman noise.

But rather, a DNA process already specifically triggered and unfolding in a continuum from conception to death; ie, human life. A natural response to a specific act of invitation to same.

I don't think the government should aim its guns to make abortion outlawed, but it is not some moral right to be trumped upon the chest. It is simply the group/mob/Strong asserting its dominance over the weak; aka The Jungle. Hopefully our leaders will use their voices so we can evolve out of the jungle on our own.

That's all very nice, Zlex.

However, if you can't see the difference between an act which will kill or harm independent, viable people, and an act which kills dependent, non-viable foetuses, we have no point of contact at which to have a discussion. Whining about DNA isn't going to make any difference, because human suffering, and not existence/non-existence, is my concern. To knowingly cause human suffering, whether now or in the future, is not okay. Stopping a line of potential descendants from coming to fruition before it has even started is a completely different act with completely different moral consequences.

I find the sort of selective abortion you refer to (OMIGOD HITLER DID IT; I call Godwin) a troubling notion only because of the implications for the character of the sort of people who'd think that was a good idea. You'll notice that we already have selective abortion; foetuses are screened for disability and deformity and many parents, rightly or wrongly, decide to abort. However, the reason for an abortion makes no difference to the foetus. The foetus is dead, either way.

I can see you dragging up counter-examples ("What if we did something now that caused all the pregnancies of some generation in the future to spontaneously abort?"), but these all need to be measured in terms of human suffering, and by "human" I mean post-birth individuals. DNA is a red herring.

 

[LJSGM]

Humans are more then just DNA, so lets instead define what a human is, and why it's immoral to kill a human, how about that?

You could make the argument that humans are just DNA with emotions, and that killing one would not make one bit of difference at all.

Why does it make a difference?

 

[IzzyPop]

So, a fetus has rights if The Strong deem it to be so. Interesting how we squirm around this issue of rights of Future Generations.

Cantata, let's say I've got a perfectly good solution to the yuk at Yucca flats; it will last 300 years, then explode in a huge fireball, spewing yuk all over Las Vegas.

Is there a problem with this? If so, why? I'll be dead, and so will everyone who is currently alive, and already been born. Do future generations hold any rights? Has my current solution to the problems of actual folks with defendable rights violated the rights of any any other human being with rights?

If you believe, as I do, that we in fact must actually consider the rights of future generations, then the big question is why?

Why must we consider the rights of future unborn generations, even if we consider them only in the sense of maintaining a trust that they can only actually access after their birth?

Is there a logical reason for that?

Does it really come down to something like rooting for 'our' football team; the future of homo sapiens? Individually, and collectively, we acknowledge that consideration must be given for 'future generations not here yet'. But...why? What is the motivation?

If it is not important that any single individual is in the future, then why is it important for the sum of all of us to be around in the future?

We could survive long-term by selectively practicing abortion, abortion is no threat to the species as a whole.

Ditto, selective murder,

Ditto, what Hitler imagined to build.

Ditto, selective dumping of garbage or nuclear waste.

So, is there a reason beyond what we can get away with which holds what this species is wired to do and not do? To me, it sounds like there is an importance placed on future survival of the sum of all unwinding human DNA, while no importance placed on the survival of any individual instance of unwinding DNA.

The more I examine the contradiction between 'survival of future generations' and 'survival of this individual instance of a future generation,' the more it looks like simply the mob vs. the individual.

The tribe must survive; the species, uber alles. So, the justification to remove any particular strand of already unwinding DNA can be based on convenience, whatever, without impacting the survival of the tribe.

To squirm from this, the argument must be made, and I can see it in every post: "nuh-uh, not an individual yet." Ie, jarringly apply temporal bias to conveniently dismiss rights to a DNA process already unfolding and inevitably on its way to becoming an indisputable individual with rights. Not dormant sperm; not dormant egg; not mere DNA. That is all miss the point entirely strawman noise.

But rather, a DNA process already specifically triggered and unfolding in a continuum from conception to death; ie, human life. A natural response to a specific act of invitation to same.

I don't think the government should aim its guns to make abortion outlawed, but it is not some moral right to be trumped upon the chest. It is simply the group/mob/Strong asserting its dominance over the weak; aka The Jungle. Hopefully our leaders will use their voices so we can evolve out of the jungle on our own.

Interesting take, but how does potentiality trump actuality? In other words, you are making several assumptions about the distant future and limiting your current options based upon that assumption.

Abortion is an ethical dilemma on multiple levels here in the US. Politically it is all about where someone's rights end and someone else's begin. It is all about who's rights are more valid - the current person, the potential person, or some uninvolved third party.

Personally it is about whether some woman is ready to have children. Who are we to make that decision for her?

 

[Zlex]

That's all very nice, Zlex.

However, if you can't see the difference between an act which will kill or harm independent, viable people, and an act which kills dependent, non-viable foetuses, we have no point of contact at which to have a discussion. Whining about DNA isn't going to make any difference, because human suffering, and not existence/non-existence, is my concern. To knowingly cause human suffering, whether now or in the future, is not okay. Stopping a line of potential descendants from coming to fruition before it has even started is a completely different act with completely different moral consequences.

I find the sort of selective abortion you refer to (OMIGOD HITLER DID IT; I call Godwin) a troubling notion only because of the implications for the character of the sort of people who'd think that was a good idea. You'll notice that we already have selective abortion; foetuses are screened for disability and deformity and many parents, rightly or wrongly, decide to abort. However, the reason for an abortion makes no difference to the foetus. The foetus is dead, either way.

I can see you dragging up counter-examples ("What if we did something now that caused all the pregnancies of some generation in the future to spontaneously abort?"), but these all need to be measured in terms of human suffering, and by "human" I mean post-birth individuals. DNA is a red herring.

There is no OneSizeFitsAll response to anything, including murder in the feral wild. There are lots of human traits that are 'taught' out of feral mankind.

Indeed, I've never met anybody who has actually had an abortion that felt wonderful about it.

My wondering about this is not a hostile act; I don't believe, for instance, that the gov't should make abortion illegal, but neither do I believe that anybody should be campaigning to make it a Holy thing, a 'right', a proud moment in the history of mankind to be thumped like a ribbon on the chest.

I'm saying this as someone who is deeply ashamed that I only accidentally did not 'terminate' the process that is my youngest son, who is definitely not a pimple.

I wonder, if only for myself, where my own once rationalization came from. We'll get a CVS test, they'll test for a handful of known defects, if any pop up, ZIPPPPP! no problem, flush the inconvenience/cost down the drain, and back to the Banquet Table.

Why else do you ask for a CVS test?

That was me and my wife, perfectly willing to rationalize our Holy choice, and permitted to by the cloak of a temporal bias(ie, he, incomplete with his genetic deletion/Williams Syndrome which snuck by the CVS screening, just wasn't here, yet.)

It would have been easy, because we didn't know him yet. And, we could have fooled ourselves into believing that the impediment to our actually knowing his process was other than our active decision to terminate it, which would have been, in fact, the only impediment to that which now makes it impossible to comprehend without feeling sick to our stomachs.

I've been accused of 'torturous logic,' because I point out the logical truth that every single factual instance of hypothetrical future generations arrives 'here' by way of the state of being merely conceived. I'll accept it as 'torturous' when someone provides the first counter example.

At best, I am told that the Royal 'we' should only have ethical/moral concerns for the nameless purely hypothetical future generations, but none whatsoever for the far less hypothetical actual instances of them that actually show up knocking on the door as explicitely invited processes more or less on their way to an inevitability.

There is something that gives us all pause, or at least, should give us all pause, when we consider taking a dump on merely hypothetical future generations, none of which that we actually know or love yet.

What is it, and where does it go when considering the merely conceived, and why? As best as I can see, the 'why' is, because the costs and inconveniences are immediate, and because we can.

In other words, the same old selfish instincts that the better angels among us claim to scoff at when they condemn some bastard burying toxic waste in some short term disposal scheme because it was 'more convenient and less costly' then considering merely hypothetical future generations that we don't know or love yet.

When he says to us, today, and not 50 years ahead in some continuum of time when we will know and love folks unborn today, "But it will last 200 years," on what basis do we say 'ick' that is not good enough?