Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Calling every single stage of prenatal development an "unborn child" is loaded language.

Fill in with whatever word you want. I have no agenda here (on the fence).

The politically-relevant arguments are religiously-based, at least in the United States.

Not all. Some or even most, I'll agree, but not all.

Not a cut and dry separation of church and state like gay marriage, is all I'm saying.

I agree that the latter seems much better as you framed it. As such, I agree, if I impregnated a girl and the fetus was showing signs of a serious disability, I would tell her in my opinion I would like to keep it, although as I'm not the one carrying the baby the final say isn't exactly up to me... Regardless, I'm not sure that even though you and I would take that choice, everybody would take that same choice, thus isn't it better to be pro-choice and not make these choices for other people?

We as a society have an obligation to try and prevent murder, do we not? If we accept the premise that abortion = murder, then we have just as much an obligation to stop it as we do to stop people from throwing their children in dumpsters. So no, under that line of thinking, I do not think it should be up to them.


There are other ways to look at this where that might be applicable though. Obviously if we don't think the child to be human yet, then it has no more rights than a used condom, then the choice is entirely up to them. I don't accept the notion of "partial" people with "partial" rights, but that's another viewpoint that might accept your line of thinking.

Yea, I don't exactly see how the same person could be pro life and pro death penalty...

Easy, actually. Some believe that one can lose their right to life through their actions. An unborn fetus is 100% innocent of any crime.

[Montague]

Yea, I don't exactly see how the same person could be pro life and pro death penalty...

I'd say, the death penalty is a punishment reserved for people that have committed the most horrific crimes and thus their lives are justifiably forfeit.

While if you consider a fetus to be a person, then it doesn't deserve death because it has committed no crime?

[Max White]

So the debate once again comes down to "Does a fetus has the same legal rights as a person"
I would argue that the potential to be a person does not make one a person, especially as far as the law goes. Take for example citizenship, the fetus is not a member of any nationality until it is born, as such how can we give them the legal rights of that nationality?

While if you consider a fetus to be a person, then it doesn't deserve death because it has committed no crime?

Once again, assuming I accept the premise that a fetus is a person.

[G-Flex]

I just get tired of the pro-choice side of the movement behaving like there is no grey area to the subject at all, and that anybody who has reservations is completely irrational or anti-scientific.  At least that's the vibe I very often get.

I do as well. I personally don't see it as a black-and-white issue, considering that it's rather silly to consider a newborn infant a human life, but not think the same of a viable fetus of 8-9 months, for instance.

Go with spiritual Religion implies organization, and maybe dogma, etc.

... According to who? "Religion" very often refers simply to belief systems, not necessarily organization. There's a reason why the phrase "organized religion" isn't redundant.

And potential argument as argument from potential -- i.e. the waste of the potential of the life that could be. I'd agree with you the logical consequences of it are g'damn ridiculous, but it makes sense. It's a workable moral heuristic with a few terrifying consequences, like most moral heuristics

It doesn't make sense. That same argument could be used to argue that simply not having children should be illegal. Sure, aborting a fetus eliminates the potential that life had, but so does using birth control in the first place. There's also the opportunity cost; carrying the fetus to term eliminates the potential for the mother/parents to do whatever they'd be doing otherwise, including possibly having a different child at another time. You can't pretend to know all the future results of an inherently benign action. You don't know what potential a given life will have, or what potential the abortion of a fetus would have. Same goes for anything. And even then, it's not considered reasonable to outlaw something simply because it prevents something potentially good from happening.

The politically-relevant arguments are religiously-based, at least in the United States.

Not all. Some or even most, I'll agree, but not all.

I can't think of anything politically relevant that isn't. It's very much a religion-centric issue here.

I don't accept the notion of "partial" people with "partial" rights, but that's another viewpoint that might accept your line of thinking.

Even born children have "partial rights". It's a very normal part of our society. Adults have more rights than teenagers and toddlers. Extending this concept to prenatal children (or whatever you want to call them) is less absolutely impossible than you think.

[SalmonGod]

Go with spiritual Religion implies organization, and maybe dogma, etc.

... According to who? "Religion" very often refers simply to belief systems, not necessarily organization. There's a reason why the phrase "organized religion" isn't redundant.

I've always thought of religion as spiritual belief that includes worship of some divine being.  I'm sure my personal definition doesn't match up with any legal definitions or dictionaries, but I'm kind of used to that...

[Max White]

I've always thought of religion as spiritual belief that includes worship of some divine being.  I'm sure my personal definition doesn't match up with any legal definitions or dictionaries, but I'm kind of used to that...

No I agree with you, spirituality tends to involve a set of beliefs that are meant to encapsulate a moral guideline and make one feel better about them self, often without rational cause.
Religion is believing in, worshipping and obeying a deity, most of the time in exchange for a pimped out crib once they die.

[Montague]

So the debate once again comes down to "Does a fetus has the same legal rights as a person"
I would argue that the potential to be a person does not make one a person, especially as far as the law goes. Take for example citizenship, the fetus is not a member of any nationality until it is born, as such how can we give them the legal rights of that nationality?

I've actually never heard this argument before and seems valid if you were to argue the point of constitutional rights or somesuch.

However, it's still illegal to kill non-citizens, even in the USA and citizenship is also granted via Jus sanguinis which I suppose could be construed as not needing to be born to be a citizen.

[G-Flex]

I don't think we should be having this discussion based on vague personal definitions that other people don't necessarily share. In general parlance, "religion" does not necessitate a god or "divine being", or any sort of formal organization, or any of these other arbitrary restrictions people in this thread are placing upon it.

[SalmonGod]

I don't think we should be having this discussion based on vague personal definitions that other people don't necessarily share. In general parlance, "religion" does not necessitate a god or "divine being", or any sort of formal organization, or any of these other arbitrary restrictions people in this thread are placing upon it.

There are distinctions to be made... but I don't suppose they're relevant enough to the discussion.  Opposing abortion because of beliefs regarding the soul amounts to the same thing regardless, strictly in terms of political consequences.

[Frumple]

... According to who? "Religion" very often refers simply to belief systems, not necessarily organization. There's a reason why the phrase "organized religion" isn't redundant.

Generally spiritual people who aren't religious. There usually is a divide mentioned between religious and spiritual individuals, at least in my experiences running into theology and religious philosophy. Being fair, though, those tend to have somewhat more rigorous definitions of religion than general-use (which regularly and happily calls science a religion, so... yeah.). Organized religion usually refers to larger-scale (and/or hierarchical, in terms of clergy-equivalent) religious groups. Plain religion usually has some codification involved. Just spirituality gets a bit fuzzier.

In any case, the only reason I bring it up is because it's not just a vague personal definition -- m'drawing attention to the divide because I've ran into it a fair number of times.

It doesn't make sense. That same argument could be used to argue that simply not having children should be illegal.

That'd be the among ridiculous consequences I mentioned. It makes sense, in the sense that it doesn't logically contradict itself (on the short-term, anyway; it's got the same problems every infinite-resource assuming system does), not that the end results aren't just plain silly. It's pretty easy to follow, too.

[G-Flex]

I don't think we should be having this discussion based on vague personal definitions that other people don't necessarily share. In general parlance, "religion" does not necessitate a god or "divine being", or any sort of formal organization, or any of these other arbitrary restrictions people in this thread are placing upon it.

There are distinctions to be made... but I don't suppose they're relevant enough to the discussion.  Opposing abortion because of beliefs regarding the soul amounts to the same thing regardless, strictly in terms of political consequences.

There are certainly distinctions between different types of religious belief, and between religious belief and religious organizations, and between different types of religious groups/organizations. It's still all religious, in the sense in which the word is generally used.

Most of the time, people just don't like to use the word "religious" because of negative connotations of organized religion, dogma, and its history.

[Truean]

The issue:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptism_for_the_dead&mobileaction=view_normal_site#Jewish_Holocaust_victims

The hilarious revenge I just had to share:
http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/

[Montague]

There are legitimate arguments against abortion that don't involve religious, spiritual or metaphysical beliefs.

Human rights are a legal concept and suggesting human rights only apply the moment after a human has fully left the birth canal is about as morally validated as a legal technicality.

So at what point between conception and birth does it become a human being that deserves rights and legal protections?

The US courts has settled on a point where the fetus would be able to survive if it was fully birthed. Hence the ban on 3rd trimester abortions under most cases. There was not any religious basis on that ruling.

[kaijyuu]

So the debate once again comes down to "Does a fetus has the same legal rights as a person"

Eeyup. Simply because if we can answer that, we can answer every single other question relating to this. All other issues fall into place based on precedent.

Problem is, no one can really answer it in a satisfactory manner. Ultimately why I'm on the fence.

I would argue that the potential to be a person does not make one a person, especially as far as the law goes. Take for example citizenship, the fetus is not a member of any nationality until it is born, as such how can we give them the legal rights of that nationality?

Absolutely agreed. Oh, and as far as nationality goes: It's a whole 'nother can of worms, but laws regarding citizenship are totally borked, pretty much worldwide. It annoys me to no end that, for example, the president of the United States needs to be naturally born. Immigration/emmigration, outsourcing, etc are massively overcomplicated and are consequences of us caring way too much where someone "comes from."

I do as well. I personally don't see it as a black-and-white issue, considering that it's rather silly to consider a newborn infant a human life, but not think the same of a viable fetus of 8-9 months, for instance.

Yeah this bugs me too. I've seriously met people who think the umbilical cord defines someone as a person; as if your belly button is intrinsic to your being.

I can't think of anything politically relevant that isn't. It's very much a religion-centric issue here.

I'd argue, for whatever reason, this is a consequence of it being a social issue and it happening to be headed by those who love to put religion in their social issues. Also it's a consequence of sex, and censoring and punishing that is a very common goal of social conservatives.

Once upon a time I'd say the religious arguments were more of a face to bring religious voters on the side of pro-choice. It's now pretty much become that face, at least in the political arena. Don't have anything to back that up, but just my gut feeling.

/shrug

I don't accept the notion of "partial" people with "partial" rights, but that's another viewpoint that might accept your line of thinking.

Even born children have "partial rights". It's a very normal part of our society. Adults have more rights than teenagers and toddlers. Extending this concept to prenatal children (or whatever you want to call them) is less absolutely impossible than you think.

Hehe... Guess what. I'm pretty damn adamantly against such double standards based on age. I don't like arbitrarily labeling people inferior. Any concession I make in that arena (voting ages, parental rights, etc) is due to practicality.

If your point is other people DO carry such opinions, then yeah I know that. It's just never an argument I, personally, will accept. It goes contrary to my most basic moral tenets.

[G-Flex]

Hehe... Guess what. I'm pretty damn adamantly against such double standards based on age. I don't like arbitrarily labeling people inferior. Any concession I make in that arena (voting ages, parental rights, etc) is due to practicality.

So three-year-olds should be able to buy cigarettes and consent to sex with adults? Good to know, and good to know that you reject one of the basic tenets of being human, which is the simple fact that we start off as pretty blank slates and require a slow process of socialization, learning, and mental/social development guided and protected by elders. Children needing to be raised, protected, and controlled by adults isn't just some arbitrary social custom, you know.