What do Pro-Lifers hope for?

[dies-l]

You seem to be confused on terminology.... You abort a pregnancy, you can't abort a person.

So what do you call the termination of life that occurs when a pregnancy is aborted?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So what do you call the termination of life that occurs when a pregnancy is aborted?

The fetus dies when an abortion is performed. Same way a fetus dies if there's a miscarriage.

 

[dies-l]

The fetus dies when an abortion is performed. Same way a fetus dies if there's a miscarriage.

Couldn't the same be said if people who die after they're born? A person dies when (a gun is fired at him, he is stabbed, etc.). Same way as if he dies of natural or accidental causes. It sounds almost like you're acknowledging that abortion is a form of killing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Couldn't the same be said if people who die after they're born? A person dies when (a gun is fired at him, he is stabbed, etc.). Same way as if he dies of natural or accidental causes. It sounds almost like you're acknowledging that abortion is a form of killing.

The death of the fetus is a byproduct of an abortion.

The difference is slight, but significant. The main issue is that nobody is required to use their own body to sustain the life of anyone else.

Nobody can compel you to donate blood, bone marrow or anything else to keep someone alive, even if it your teenage kid. The same goes for a woman providing sustenance to a fetus or embryo.

Don't get me wrong, I completely advocate providing whatever is possible to keep someone alive. But, I also believe the right to sovereignty over your own body trumps the rights of others to use your body.

That's why it should be your choice.

 

[dysert]

The fetus dies when an abortion is performed. Same way a fetus dies if there's a miscarriage.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying. When the fetus dies via abortion it is most certainly *not* the same way the fetus dies if there's a miscarriage. For example, abortions may involve poisoning the fetus with saline solution, dismembering him/her with a vacuum, severing his/her spinal cord, etc. I have to be misunderstanding you. I can't imagine anyone thinking that a miscarriage is the same as an abortion.

 

[dysert]

The death of the fetus is a byproduct of an abortion.

No, the death of the fetus is the *reason* for the abortion. No one goes into an abortion clinic hoping that the abortion will result in delivering a healthy baby.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying. When the fetus dies via abortion it is most certainly *not* the same way the fetus dies if there's a miscarriage. For example, abortions may involve poisoning the fetus with saline solution, dismembering him/her with a vacuum, severing his/her spinal cord, etc. I have to be misunderstanding you. I can't imagine anyone thinking that a miscarriage is the same as an abortion.

I wasn't talking about the procedure responsible for the death, obviously one is naturally occurring while one is induced.

I was talking about the language used. Death has any forms, murder, euthanasia, simple death, etc... I was referring to (for example) if you cut off the source of nutrients to the fetus (i.e. cutting the umbilical cord) it will die.

Another way to put it is that you have chosen to remove the fetus from your body, the death is a byproduct of that choice. It's quite analogous to refusing to donate blood or bone marrow to a sick person, you are not under any legal obligation to offer up the use of your body to sustain anyone elses life.

And again, if I personally was placed in that position, I'd certainly offer up blood or bone marrow, and if I was a woman I probably would choose to carry through with a pregnancy at this stage in my life. However the choice must still be made available if you care about individual rights, namely sovereignty over your own body.

 

[dies-l]

The death of the fetus is a byproduct of an abortion.

The difference is slight, but significant. The main issue is that nobody is required to use their own body to sustain the life of anyone else.

Nobody can compel you to donate blood, bone marrow or anything else to keep someone alive, even if it your teenage kid. The same goes for a woman providing sustenance to a fetus or embryo.

Don't get me wrong, I completely advocate providing whatever is possible to keep someone alive. But, I also believe the right to sovereignty over your own body trumps the rights of others to use your body.

That's why it should be your choice.

I would be halfway willing to accept that argument if abortions were done in such a manner that would allow a viable fetus to live.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I would be halfway willing to accept that argument if abortions were done in such a manner that would allow a viable fetus to live.

By the time a fetus is viable it would be illegal to perform an elective abortion as it currently stands.

And that's how it should be.

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe it is arbitrary. But I think we'd both agree that life does begin at some point in time.

Like all definitions of life, there's not a clear bright line. That's why some people feel that contraception is murder, while others have less inclusive definitions. The fact that it is so hard to define when life begins may point to the fact that this is the wrong question to be worrying about when discussing abortion.

Would you like to define its beginning at 18-years of age?

No. What ever would give you that idea?

 

[quilbilly]

Life begins with first breath

 

[dysert]

Would you like to define its beginning at 18-years of age?

No. What ever would give you that idea?

Not slamming you personally, just trying to show how ridiculous it could get. One could easily define life as beginning at:

• Conception
• Brain activity
• Heart activity
• Viability
• Birth
• Self-sustainability

I think most pro-lifers would prefer to err with the earliest date rather than something later.

 

[dies-l]

By the time a fetus is viable it would be illegal to perform an elective abortion as it currently stands.

And that's how it should be.

In some states, yes. In other states no. I agree that that should be a bare minimum.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In some states, yes. In other states no. I agree that that should be a bare minimum.

Fair enough, I think we agree on that point then.

 

[Paradoxum]

Not slamming you personally, just trying to show how ridiculous it could get. One could easily define life as beginning at:

• Conception
• Brain activity
• Heart activity
• Viability
• Birth
• Self-sustainability

Sorry, I'm just jumping in here. Why does it matter when life begins? I don't understand why people talk about when life begins. Bacteria are alive and we have no problem killing them... so clearly whether something is alive or not has little to do with whether it can be killer or not.

The important questions appear to be about what the right to life is, when it begins, and why?

All the possible starting points you give can't be when the right to life begins because they can apply to almost any living creature... not just persons.

I think most pro-lifers would prefer to err with the earliest date rather than something later.

Why don't they err on the side of granting the right to life to all animals, if they are concerned about erring on the side of extreme caution? They seem to be quite happy to potentially murder animals.

My point isn't that they should become vegetarians, but that their erring towards conception is just as extreme (or perhaps more so) than that of assuming killing animals is murder. I say perhaps more so, because most animals are more like someone who is obviously a person than an embryo. An embryo is more like a rock than a person.

I hope you don't mind me pushing in and commenting here, and I hope I haven't offended.

 

[Belk]

Not slamming you personally, just trying to show how ridiculous it could get. One could easily define life as beginning at:

• Conception
• Brain activity
• Heart activity
• Viability
• Birth
• Self-sustainability

I think most pro-lifers would prefer to err with the earliest date rather than something later.

If I might suggest? After being in many of these debates perhaps it would be better to identify when it is a "person" in a legal sense then when it is "Alive"? Alive is a biological term and leads to a lot of confusion since both sperm and ovum are alive. Roe V Wade hinged on when it became a "person" with protections and legal rights so it might make things less confusing to argue from that standpoint.

 

[muichimotsu]

I am not suggesting the two are the same, I’m just saying some of the same reasons some say drugs should be illegal can be used to say abortion shold be illegal.

But that's incidental at best and doesn't get at more precise reasons for each action being perceived to be wrong.

Just because there are less people involved doesn’t mean people aren’t gonna object to it.

But if the only real victims are less, the problem is lessened and arguably, abortion isn't creating some decline in birth rate, especially with how many people are personally pro life, but also manage to not see any contradiction in accepting that abortion is an option.

Now why are you trying to play the “race card”? This is about abortion, not racism; stop it!

Racism can be a factor in abortion debates, unfortunately. People allege that more black children are aborted, or some people would argue that because so many white children are aborted, the non whites will have more prominence and demographic distribution.

The objection to abortion is not so much as how they are killed but the fact that they are killed.

This assumes everyone cares about something that we aren't absolutely aware of usually until at least 2-4 weeks into the pregnancy to begin with. Not to mention we can't neglect the distinction of killing versus letting die, though that's more pertinent to euthanasia, but one isn't killing with negative intention in abortion by necessity.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, they feel that humans still in the womb are still people and deserve equal protection to others and act in this regard.

Which is ridiculous. That's like protecting frozen vegetables because they could be, like frozen embryos, potential lives that matter. I seriously doubt the average person is going to consider something that can't even survive outside the womb as having the same value as an infant recently born, which can.

Most pro-choice persons also argue from it from a subjective emotional perspective rather than a logic based one.

You cannot base other peoples arguments in debate based just upon the majority viewpoint. For instance while I am pro-choice myself, I find the reasons most other pro-choice persons are they way they are to be irrational or even unethical. Thus I do not like getting my arguments clumped in with theirs any more than rational pro-life individuals would like their arguments lumped in with all the appeals to emotion.

By all means show where a pro choice argument comes to emotion. I can imagine a few, but not precisely speaking.

If we're making an assumption the person is religious, not to be generalizing, but the emotional arguments are fairly common. Then again, lack of education would be the deciding factor as to whether you understand arguments and rhetoric to begin with, not your religion or lack thereof.

 

[muichimotsu]

I would be halfway willing to accept that argument if abortions were done in such a manner that would allow a viable fetus to live.

If it were anything but an abortion, an extraction of a fetus that is viable or even unviable, but allowed to survive through technology wouldn't be called an abortion, since that entails loss of life in some sense of the word, even if it isn't strictly a person in all cases.

 

[dysert]

Sorry, I'm just jumping in here. Why does it matter when life begins? I don't understand why people talk about when life begins. Bacteria are alive and we have no problem killing them... so clearly whether something is alive or not has little to do with whether it can be killer or not.

We're talking about *human* life, here. It matters very much when human life begins.

Why don't they err on the side of granting the right to life to all animals, if they are concerned about erring on the side of extreme caution? They seem to be quite happy to potentially murder animals.

For some reason I wouldn't use the term "murder" when talking about animals. The point is that Christians believe that humans are at a higher level than are animals. Humans are made in the image of God, animals aren't. That makes us special in some way. Though I have respect for the life of an animal, if it's a choice between an animal dying or a human dying, I choose life for the human every time because the human is made in the image of God.

My point isn't that they should become vegetarians, but that their erring towards conception is just as extreme (or perhaps more so) than that of assuming killing animals is murder. I say perhaps more so, because most animals are more like someone who is obviously a person than an embryo. An embryo is more like a rock than a person.

The point is that (I believe) a human embryo is still something created in the image of God. It has an immortal soul and spirit whereas animals don't. Though on the outside, an embryo may look like a rock, inside, where it matters, a human embryo is still special when compared to an animal.

I hope you don't mind me pushing in and commenting here, and I hope I haven't offended.

No offense at all. As far as I'm concerned, you're always welcome.