The coming civil war over abortion

And yet the pill isn’t always 100% and condoms break.

 

I suppose .. if that child has been born already. I would even go as far as claiming that once "significant brain function" - known as Cognition- has been achieved, there are good arguments for the fetus being a living human/child exists.

There are no such good arguments in the early stages of pregnancy - and especially not at or near conception. Claiming a child defacto exists at this stage is abject nonsense.

 

If cognition is the deal breaker to whether we can kill people, what about the comatose?

 

Someone in a coma has significant brain function. Once the patient no longer has this ... the Doctor pulls the plug and the dirt nap begins.

In this case the patient is a human but it is no longer considered a living human. The patient is declared clinically dead.

It is then difficult - and well contradictory - to claim that an entity that lacks "significant brain function" is a living human when by medical definition the entity is clinically dead.

 

Ought to say "we know what's good for unborn fetus"

Just saying

 

If SHE has full rights to and for her body (which you insist she does), then she has full responsibility for it.

 

Enabling more of what makes babies, is never going to work. The only thing that will work is less of what makes babies. Not ABSTINENCE (no one here has advocated for abstinence), but responsibility and empowerment. That means not teaching kids that sex is unavoidable, and that they won't be able to say 'no', which is the very clear message sent by the kind of sex ed you're referring to. Also, it's not the job of schools and govt to teach self-discipline and self-control, it's the parents' job.

 

The pill, when used correctly, is essentially 100% effective.

 

It’s actually 99% effective

 

I of course was referring to Righties talking up civil war. Never said Righties were looking to start a civil war. Amazing how many things you see that aren’t there.
And the links you posted were about how the Right is talking up civil war, two were about how to avoid civil war by uniting over our differences and one was about the Nixon era.
You really are desperate.

 

Actually, it depends on the person. Some comatose patients are basically vegatables. Some aren't. It just seems like you're looking to find a reason for abortion, rather than a reason to declare one person viable over another.

With fetuses, we are talkinng about a comatose victim that will definitely become sentient if given the chance. That seems different to me.

 

We still do not have equal treatment and acceptance of the various races and ethnicities represented here in America.

And, it shouldn't be necessary for states to write laws that duplicate federal law.

 

Apparently not.

Apparently her body is controlled by old men.

So you waited until marriage, correct?

Never did it until after marriage and to procreate, correct?

 

A sperm will too if given the chance.

 

It doesn't. "Significant Brain Function" is something that is measured scientifically and has to do with brain activity. Someone who is comatose or a vegetable still is able to breath and their heart will beat without mechanical assistance. When the brain is so dead that it can not do those things .. you can measure it.

Regardless... we could set the bar for personhood well before this so that there is no doubt. Until the wiring of the brain is complete - nothing resembling human thought is going on in there.... no feeling of pain, nothing. The lights are not on and no one is home.

When the wiring is complete the brain lights up like a christmas tree.

This is not about viability - this is about what a coherent definition of what a person is.

 

Then we disagree. You eschew the notion that a fetus is more than likely going to be viable, and try to correlate that with people who the chances of that are less than nothing.

sorry, but we will have to disagree.

 

Not sure what you are disagreeing with to be honest. All I have done is point out what significant brain function is. I have yet to make a determination of personhood or lack thereof on this basis. I have only stated that on the basis on the coroner's definition - a living human does not yet exist.

I have not claimed that there are not other possible definitions and good arguments or even expanded on this perspective - known as the "Neurological approach" - there are 4 other Scientific perspective on "when human life begins" - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological.. What I will say is that arguments get weaker the earlier in term one gets.

The "Potential" argument - which is the argument you are making now - has long since been refuted - which is why most in this debate do not go down that route.

The question is not what the entity will be in the future. The question is "what is it now". A sperm in the future might form a human but, should we give it rights - including the right to life on this basis and start throwing people in jail for masturbation ?

The sperm is "innocent human life" - the nonsense cry heard so often from those that do not understand the difference between a noun (a human, a human being, a living human) and a descriptive adjective (human cell, human life, human feces) - or - in many cases - know the difference but feign ignorance. How could you kill innocent human life ? That sperm is a potential baby... you horrible person you.

Perhaps it should be law that all women who are not pregnant should avail themselves to the advances of any horny male that comes along (you know - like in nature) - as not doing so would deprive the world of potential human life .. since we value potential life so much - would this not be the logical thing to do.

Oh but we are just getting started. As we veer away from a strictly moral position and get into making law - which is the point of the anti abort movement after all - all kinds of crazy things are possible. If you thought the previous example was crazy ... that is just the beginning the various kinds of insane laws that could come about by wandering down that slippery slope.

Combined with Utilitarianism just about anything is possible - this is law on the basis of "what will increase happiness for the collective" This justification for law has no regard for individual liberty (hence the term collective).

Some examples are "if it saves one life" and/or "Harm Reduction" arguments. Things like banning supersize and various other nanny state laws come out of this justification for law.

The problem with this ideology (sans that it has no respect for individual liberty - the principle on which this nation was founded -and the problem of "who gets to decide ? - one mans poison is another mans pleasure) is that it is very insidious.

After all .. who does not want to save one life ? Right ? Why would anyone not want to save one life ? Don't you think that every life should be saved ?

If "If it saves one life" is valid justification for law .. should we not ban skiing ? Would this not save a few lives ?. What about boating - that is really dangerous .. one could drown. Driving a car ? Forget it. In fact you should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

This turns out to be a horrible justification for law. It allows for an end run around individual liberty - one of the primary safeguards against Tyranny/Totalitarianism. In a free society one has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves.

As you might realize - our society has already wandered down the slippery slope of utilitarianism.

Making law on the basis of "Potential" based on the context that are suggesting is opening up an big pandora's box. .. and just makes no logical sense in any case.

Perhaps we should force women to collect eggs during their monthly cycle - these are potential human lives didn't you know ? What kind of a horrible person would be for wasting this precious innocent human life. boo hoo hoo.

 

What federal law are you discussing?

 

Thanks for that well thought out response.

I wouldnt call a sperm a human life, nor would I call a woman's egg a human life. It is when the two meet is when a singular human life starts.

Nothing needs to be done to end the potential of sperm, nor a woman's egg. They come out, and well... they just dry up and thats that.

That said, if you think there is a rebuttal against the potential argument, I would love to hear it.

 

If the female has some fight to choose, by logic the male that delivered his sperm also has his right to choose. So he can't harm her body but we have posters who insist the baby is already harming her body so the male can deliver the knockout punch to the child harming the female by slipping her an abortion causing medication. That ends the harm by the non person and does not cost the female any money.The female did not contract with the male to keep his sperm. She does not own it.

 

Equal treatment is a function of the Government. Acceptance by the Government is in law.

When I call on the Feds to create an actual law, and the subject is the woman role in abortion,. i say it reminds me of the old supreme court ruling that a slave was property.

The problem was solved by the Congress creating a law that killed off slavery.

Since the congress fought off the Supreme Court and ended the discussion of slavery, that is the correct way for the Democrats to stop this fighting.

I believe as to the Democrats it is not that they want abortion to be legal, they want a fight at election times. I am surprised the media seems not to notice this or posters as well.

Republicans seldom have the two houses and the office of president otherwise my reply to republicans is create a law by getting both the house and Senate with the number in the Senate of more than 60 needed votes. But this has proven to be so difficult I can't recall any modern congress where this has actually happened. Republicans seem stuck at 55 votes or less in the Senate. As we saw when the Republicans were at top power in the House, it was at the Senate the power of the Democrats prevailed. They killed the try to end the ACA for an example.

 

Silly Rabbit .. I just gave you the refutation. Just because some entity has the potential to be a human in the future - does not mean that entity is a human now.

Your argument is that we should put some value on this potential. You then go on to contradict your own argument by devaluing that potential in the form of a sperm or egg. Just because a sperm might dry up does not mean the potential did not exist.

Your claim that the potential of the zygote is somehow more valuable because "nothing needs to be done to end that potential" is unsupported. Why is this claim true ? Prove this claim true or at least support this claim in some way. You will find that as soon as you start trying to prove this claim true - big holes in your argument will crop up.

Then explain why this potential is valuable to begin with. What is the value of "potential human life" or rather the potential that something might become a human in the future. Most zygotes do not end up creating a human. Nature and the God of Nature do not seem to care much about this potential so why should I care so much about some individual zygote and the potential of that zygote to create a human.

The Zygote is "Totipotent" = has the ability to create a human. So are the next 300 or so cells - all clones of the parent zygote = 300 potential humans. If this potential is so valuable .. should we not try to turn these 300 totipotent cells into 300 humans ? We have the technology.

So much for your "singular human life" argument. It is this and the twinning argument - and the fact that there is no "instant" of conception that is why the genetic perspective (while popular with the general public) has fallen out of favor among scientists.

Your claim that human life begins with the zygote contradicts the metabolic perspective. This perspective claims that animate does not come from inanimate. Life begets life. Human life is a continuum. Obviously the sperm and egg are both human and alive. Both are obviously precursors to the creation of a human - just as the zygote is a precursor to the creation of a human.

You deviated from your potential argument and went into arguing that the zygote is the beginning so I dealt with both.

You did not give any support for your potential claim other than "it will not die unless it dies" claim but you give no rational for why this imparts value to the zygote. Nothing needs to be done to end the life of a sperm .. so what ..nothing needs to be done to end the life of the zygote either. What does this have to do with the value of potential ?

There are 5 scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" Metablolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological.

The Genetic perspective supports your view - however - as stated - this perspective has fallen out of favor - in part for the reasons given.

1) Keep in mind that saying "this is the beginning of human life" is not the same as saying a living human exists. Some of these perspectives will also argue that a human exists - but not all. Remember that these are two different arguments. Just because something is "human life" does not make that entity a living human.

The Neurological and Ecological arguments basically claim that until some entity is "a human" it is not "human life". The other perspectives are arguing more on the basis of the beginning of "human life" - not really arguing that a living human exists at that point.

2) Sorry but - in order to claim defacto - "human life begins here" - you have to refute the 4 perspectives which contradict the Genetic perspective. That is what academic rigor is all about my friend and them's the rules.

Since this can not be done - the best place one can get to is "experts disagree"

The "experts disagree" issue will be a problem for Potential argument - it will be a big problem (one of many) from a moral perspective but an near impossible problem from a legal perspective.

Did I tell you that I took a Philosophy course where we dealt with the abortion issue for a month This was an interesting class. The prof gave us reading material prior to the class and the class time was spent debating - with the prof acting as the moderator. One of the thing you had to be able to do was from both sides of a issue - making the best argument you could for the side you opposed -as well as the side you agreed with.

With this in mind - I have searched out an article which agrees with your position.

As stated previously - this is not a popular argument

This is interesting as I made this argument , however, I disagree with the authors claim that this is one of the strongest objections to the argument from potential.

I am going to leave it here for now and leave you with the link. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892780/

 

Obviously don’t know Dick about or care about reducing infant mortality


Jest saying

 

Here in America, they already do. It's called taxes, which pay for food assistance, housing assistance, education, medical assistance, and on.

You'll need a better argument than that.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
She invited sex not pregnancy....I explained all that to you before....women cannot invite pregnancy or choose to become pregnant , they either get pregnant or they don't.

Oh my, you have no idea what immaculate conception means....must not be Catholic...