North Dakota recognizes the obvious, defeats bill to make zygotes "persons"
Offline For some reason unknown to me, very few people seem to grasp the legal insanity that would result from granting personhood to fetuses. Luckily, the North Dakota Senate recognized the danger, and struck down a bill that would have done just that.
The Senate voted 29-16 Friday to defeat the controversial House Bill 1572, known as the personhood bill, with no debate.
Sen. Curt Olafson, R-Edinburg, the only person who spoke on it, said the bill would create more serious legal consequences for the state than any bill he’s ever seen as a lawmaker.
...He said it “reaches far beyond protecting human rights” into unrelated consequence because it declares all fertilized embryos persons for the purposes of myriad laws that have nothing to do protecting human rights.A physician “faces an impossible dilemma” if needing to treat a pregnant woman for cancer that could harm a fetus or embryo, or a woman experiencing an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, he said.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota released a statement Friday calling the defeated bill “poorly constructed” and which would have outlawed contraception as well as medical procedures needed to treat tubal pregnancies and infertility.
It “would have had a profound impact on the state, affecting everything from when property rights are granted to inheritance rights to access to the courts,” the organization said.
This, then, is the crux of the dilemma faced by anti-abortion lawmakers. They're faced with an internal contradiction. They have an ideological agenda which would be helped by defining a zygote as a human, but the reality is that they don't want fetuses to be people. They just want abortion to be illegal.
This highlights what I've been saying in various threads recently. Intuitively, we know that a fetus is not a person. It becomes patently obvious when we are faced with the legal realities of going against our intuition to push an agenda through. Opponents of abortion have a great emotional investment in controlling the behavior of others no matter what, but they really don't have any arguments good enough to enforce their will through reason. Instead, they are playing a very dangerous game of manipulating the definitions in our existing law.
If I were a slightly more sadistic person, I might wish that some state would go through with this insanity so I could sit back and laugh when the first Polly Homemaker was charged with involuntary manslaughter after having a spontaneous abortion. Since I care about my fellow humans more than that, I can only be thankful that reason has prevailed.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
...Hamby, I'd like you to enlighten me about these legal consequences.
I--still--consider myself to be basically pro-life. Don't shoot. Nice Rambo kitty.
Now, I'm confident that you know all the arguments as well as I do: complete genetic code which is not that of the mother; developmental process which does not apply to, say, a single liver cell; etc., etc. (We don't need to go over this, do we?) I have no desire to simply control people, but it does seem to me that there is a pretty serious principle at stake, here. You said, "Intuitively, we know that a fetus is not a person. It becomes patently obvious when we are faced with the legal realities of going against our intuition to push an agenda through." First, I've not experienced this intuition that you refer to. Could you say more about it? Second, as I've already indicated, I'd like to know more about the legal problems you forsee happening. Do you really think that a woman could get prosecuted for a miscarriage? (It seems a little farfetched to me. Then again, I'm the one who needs to ask the questions, here.)
My point is this: while I do think that, broadly speaking, women should be legally considered, and socially treated as, the complete equals of men, I also place a very high premium on the value of human life. History has far too many nightmares to ignore that one major lesson is the importance of human and civil rights; another lesson would be that mass murder is far easier when the targets, if you will, are denied recognition as human beings. I am somewhat suspicious of the ideas that I was taught about abortion, as they came from the same highly fallible source as many ideas which I have rejected. That said, I still haven't seen anything which persuades me that a fetus is not a human being, in any non-problematic fashion. (Examples of problematic arguments: the fetus is "too small," or "not intelligent enough," etc. Again, I assume that you're familiar with these arguments, as well.) I really am hoping to learn something, here.
Conor
Well, I'll give you a couple of examples. Persons who are incapable of expressing their wishes are required to have a guardian ad litum. Most of the time, for minors, this will be the parent. However, there are plenty of times when a parent has this right taken away. There are plenty of different ways in which a pregnant woman could end up in court defending herself against an attorney for the fetus. It's basically a gateway loophole that would allow virtually complete government control of a pregnant woman's actions.
Consider that most states have several different classes of wrongful death. The D.A. in most states is required to conduct investigations into any deaths that appear potentially wrongful. Are you ready to spend tax dollars on every spontaneous abortion in which the pregnant woman had recently participated in any kind of questionable behavior? Are you ready to send a woman to jail on manslaughter charges after she has a wreck while speeding and loses the fetus?
What if a fetus inherits money and is appointed a guardian by the state? Are you ready to give the state the authority to take away that money -- or real property -- based on the state's laws regarding appropriations of assets for wards of the state?
These are just a few examples that pop into my head. Just spend some time browsing your state or local ordinances for all the rights and obligations granted to persons, and imagine how a good lawyer could tie up a courtroom -- or a woman's life -- by exploiting that law on behalf of a fetus.
I only shoot when people are willfully stupid or ignorant.
Nope, but in order to make an argument, you need more than observations of processes. You need an interconnected series of statements which logically dictate your conclusion.
1. This, that and the other thing about fetuses.
2. ????
3. Therefore, fetuses have a right to be born.
Yes. I'm not speaking of the emotional appeal of seeing a fetus on an ultrasound or the warm fuzzies we tend to feel at the thought of becoming parents, or anything like that. These are all interesting emotions, but I'm not talking about emotions.
So... is this a human being?
The answer is obviously no, right? It's not a human being. It's a fetus. Now, after you look at the fetus and do some thinking, you'll reflect on your higher level thoughts about fetuses, and your emotional feelings about babies, and you'll say to yourself that this is a human being on some level or another, but the intuitive reaction to being shown this image is NOT that it's a human. We have to be conditioned by other arguments to the political position that this is a human.
Oh... and it's not a human. It's a rat fetus.
See what I mean? You can't even tell enough about it to know whether it's human or not.
Are you suggesting that you don't think anyone with some political clout would ever want to exploit a loophole in the law to his own advantage?
Want to buy a bridge?
Before you go making women second class citizens, please return to the beginning of this post and fill in #2. If you cannot, then you must admit that you're just trying to impose your particular value of human life.
I, for one, do not share your value for human life. I think I can make a very compelling case that in fact, humans are not inherently valuable. However, I have the decency to grant others their own value systems. I do not propose to take away your right to treat human life with as much value as you deem it to have.
I agree. That is why it's absurd to take them away from a human and give them to a non-human.
But in this case, this lesson is not applicable because fetuses are not human beings.
Please read the article I just linked.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I read your blog post that you cited. It's interesting but I still disagree that a human fetus isn't human. "It's just a bunch of cells" or "it doesn't look human" or "it looks like another animal's fetus" doesn't really matter to me. The DNA is human. To me whether or not a fetus or zygote is human doesn't factor in to whether or not someone should get an abortion. If it makes you feel better to not think of these things as human, that's fine, but I see no reason to think that.
If the zygote or fetus were scientifically classified as human beings or even persons(with rights), would you be against abortion? Why should it make a difference? And why would it have to be a person to have rights? We give animals rights, why shouldn't we give rights to human zygotes or fetuses?
IMO, calling it a person, or human, or giving it rights doesn't factor in to abortion. If you think abortions are a choice for the pregnant mother to make, then the classification of the zygote or fetus shouldn't make a difference. I think abortions shouldn't be used as birth control. I think this procedure should be only used when medically necessary. If the fetus is scientifically classified as human and a person with rights, but the pregnancy would kill the mother and/or fetus, then abortion is still appropriate.
It's like if you have conjoined twins, one is healthy, the other is not. But you have to separate them or they will both die. You separate them, even though the unhealthy one has rights and is a person and a human being.
The "is it human or not" debate is just an appeal to emotion, imo. Oh you can't kill it cause it's human, even though we can kill humans legally for other reasons(self-defense, capital punishment, etc). Or inversely, I can feel better about killing it cause it's not human, even though we protect non-humans from being killed(protected/endangered species, animal cruelty laws, etc).
I'm just rambling I guess...I'll just try to sum up my point: I'm pro-life, unless it's medically necessary, regardless if it's considered a person or not. I'm pro-life because I revere life, not just human life.
ciarin.com
Hamby might kick me for this, but I think you said this better than I've ever seen it said before. I don't disagree with anything you wrote here.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I third Ciarin's post.
I have no problem with Ciarin's post either. That's probably because the humanness of a human fetus had nothing to do with the proposed law.
The proposed law wanted to give a fetus the legal status of "personhood". Worst case scenario - have a miscarriage and get charged with manslaughter. Have an abortion and get sent up for murder (mother and doctor).
It's another attempt to do an end-around against Roe v. Wade.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
If it's legal to kill a person with rights in other areas, why would the mother or doctor be charged with murder or manslaughter? If it's legal to have an abortion and miscarriages aren't against the law, how can they be charged?
Are you saying that if a fetus were given rights, we'd have to make abortion illegal? If so why?
ciarin.com
The problem for me comes when an zygote/embryo/fetus is raised to personhood. I can't see giving something the legal definition of life when it doesn't have the medical one.
The main point of the bill is an attempt to return abortion to the status of "heinous crime" by using legal legerdemain to poof a blob of cells that can't live outside the mother into "a little baby".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Life(Mirriam/Webster):
1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body
- Insufficient. Bacteria alive. Virus' are alive. Neither of these examples are plants or animals.
b: a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
- but that means fire is alive.
In conclusion, the definition of life is broken and false. Hence, it can not be utilized in argumentation to support or condemn any side of any argument.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Then you understand the implications of the law. Abortion would not be legal except in that instance. The question is, why would we give foetuses person-hood? It opens a huge can of worms that Hamby briefly examined. I don't wish to repeat him, so what the hell, Ciarin? Is there are part of the legal meaning of 'person' that you don't understand? Are you incapable of following through the implications of giving a dependant, non-sentient growth the status of 'person'?
Why would you think that all abortion would remain legal and why would you think that someone would be exempt from murder if an abortion were performed if a foetus is a person?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
If abortion is legal, and a zygote or fetus has rights, then there's nohing to charge anyone with.
You think that if we give a zygote or fetus rights, then we can't have abortion. I disagree. I think we can still have abortion regardless of the fetus or zygote's classification. Did you read my analagy about the conjoined twins? Both twins have rights, both are persons, yet the medical procedure to separate them is not illegal.
ciarin.com
I don't see the similarity.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Like Ciarin said, it doesn't need to be classified as a person to have rights.
This is just a reduction ad absurdium
"Well, if abortion is wrong, then should we charge women for having a miscarriage?!?!?!?"
It's all just an outragous strawman, of my position at least.
Wel, Captain, the law that was shot down was quite specific. It proposed making them 'persons'. To follow through on the implications is not reduction ad absurdam nor is it an outrageous strawman.
And if it has rights, what rights should it have? And why should those rights trump the wishes of the person bound to carry the thing?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Ciarin, please read this stunningly bad bill for yourself:
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf
When you do, please pay special attention to section 2 subsection 3 paragraphs e, f and g.
Not only would it have outlawed abortion but birth control pills and IUDs would be illegal as well.
You might also want to pay attention to what it says about rape and incest. Actually, it says nothing at all about rape and it only says that incest is illegal. However, if conception occurs in either context, the pregnancy must be carried to term.
This draconian legislation is such a steaming pile of shit that I am surprised that it even got written on paper. Pretty much it would have turned the legal status of every woman in the state into reproduction slaves who would have the job of carrying all pregnancies that do not jeopardize their lives to term.
=
The right to develop seeing as the woman is pregnant for nine months, where as if the fetus was left to develop, it would become a person which will get to experience an entire lifetime [about what? 60-80 years?]
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Well, if it's aborted, then it most definetly won't become a person.
Here's a question:
If it was medically determined that this woman's pregnancy was pretty much guarenteed to develop into a human, then should a woman still be able to get an abortion for no other reason that she wants to?
Yes.
=
It's been medically determined that more people would get pregnant and therefore lead to more babies if people didn't use condoms (or abstain from sex altogether). Then should a woman still be able to use a condom for no other reason than that she wants to?
I suspect most humans would concur that choice is and has always been a large factor in producing new life within our species.
First of all, if your woman is using a trojan, then I don't think that "she" will get pregnant.
But for your point, NOT getting pregnant, will not end a potiental life. It just won't start one. However, once one is started [i.e she gets pregnant] then left alone, the fetus will develop into a human.
A woman is most certaintly well within her rights in order to PREVENT pregnancy.
Oh and as for whether or not the fetus MIGHT develop,
National Fetal death rates have been decreasing
Why does the woman's decision override the fact that the fetus would have developed into a person which will actually get to experience life?
[edit]
None.
Why is it that pro-lifers are treated like misogynists?
I'm sorry but woman's liberty still doesn't giver her the right to rob the fetus of experiencing human life.
[/edit]
Utilizing a condom in sexual practices is what I was referring to... nice attempt at humor though
So the argument is prevention is fine and within human rights, but stopping a started process is wrong in relation to human life. Both result in the same end of course, which is no baby coming to be. I was merely pointing out that most people will argue that they have the choice to have children, but it is still possible that a person using all known contraceptives in conjunction can still get pregnant. I think your argument would stand if it were possible to be certain that a contraceptive would work 100% of the time. Of course you would also have to ensure that everyone could obtain these contraceptives and that they understand how to use them. Also they would have to somehow be preferred in sexual relations than to just the natural way of it. Abortions happen because the end result of pregnancy is undesired to some. Condoms are used to prevent the end result of a pregnancy by preventing the pregnancy....
Does a woman have rights over her eggs?
If I'm making a bad case please tell me to shut up
Because pro-life is anti-woman.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Every egg that isn't feritilized would be essentially robbing it of eventually experiencing human life.
If we invented a way of making non-human life into human life... would it be immoral to not use this invention? Somehow something that naturally *can* become a human *must* be allowed to do.... just because the process has started? Is not sex a process which naturally results in pregnancy and therefore using a condom is stopping a process that has been begun from reaching its natural end result?
Freehugs, eggs don't develop into humans on their own. They need a sperm.
So the comparision between an egg and a zygote fails at that level.
Let me guess, is it because "I am trying to control her body"?
Nope, if I was trying to prevent her from having sex, that would be controlling, but this isn't since another life is involved, and that life will develop into a human.
She is no longer the only factor in this decision.
Pineapple, zygotes don't develop into humans on their own. They need a mother (womb/testube/etc). I have never heard of a zygote surviving on it's own. I have no idea what that would even be trying to suggest.
So the comparison fails on what level? That things require other things for their own existence? Humans need nourishment in order to survive... So is it a human if it doesn't have food?
No it isn't. Pro-life is anti-"unnecessary death". Half of all fetuses are females, btw.
ciarin.com
The comparison fails because an unfertilized egg, if left undisturbed, won't lead to a life being born. A zygote, left undisturbed in the womb, will tend to lead to a life being born.
Humans without food are human, but they'll be dead humans after a while.
ciarin.com
And that is where your argument falls apart. Why do you get to arbitrarily tack on 'in the womb' to the second sentance while someone else cannot equally arbitrarily tack on 'with a sperm' to the first?
Oh also, I have two questions;
1. Why should we give rights to the fetus/zygote based solely on its potential to become a person when we do not give any other rights to any other organism based solely on its potential to become something?
2. Who is the victim in an abortion?
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
No it doesn't. That's the natural habitat of a fetus. Remove it from it's natural habitat it will die. Take a fish out of water, it will die.
Because one doesn't compare to the other. Until the sperm fertilizes the egg it has no expectation of life. A zygote has an expectation of life, and it's natural habitat is in the womb(until modern medicine comes up with a way to recreate the womb without a woman being present).
I don't think it matters. One reason I can think of is that if a mother and unborn baby were murdered, the suspect would be charged with double homicide. Another reason is to give the unborn child protection from abuse, such as drinking or drug abuse from the mother.
We give rights to animals, why not unborn humans?
Everyone.
ciarin.com
Well, this right of which you speak simply cannot be accorded in a vacuum. In order to give a zygote the right to life, you simply may not do so without compelling and enforcing behavior on the part of the mother.
Next question:
Did you actually read the bill that made this thread possible? It is quite specific in the area of what an abortion is. Had this steaming pile of crap been passed into law, birth control pills and IUDs would have been outlawed because they can block the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Further, any doctor dealing in such materials would be subject to a mandatory 20 years in prison, even if the woman wanted a prescription written while still a virgin so that she would be safe when the time came, possibly months later.
Even in the case of rape or incest, the mother would have been legally required to carry the baby to term. Now if that is not controlling her body, then nothing is.
=
So from this it could be said that all things should be left undisturbed. Humans are going against nature by disturbing a lot of things. In fact a zygote is directly caused by disturbing an egg. How can you justify disturbing eggs but not zygotes. Both are human, both have potential for life. One is a requirement of the other to exist. The requirement can be disturbed... but not the product.
Should pregnant women be allowed to walk? If she trips should could potentially kill the child. I think pregnant women should be put into a situation which ensures the maximum chance of the zygote making it to term. I suggest some form of catatonic state with IV nourishment. Stupid women being allowed to jepordize their own potential future children.... it's like they want some choice in the matter.
Since this bill seems to have these implications, then no, I do not support it.
I'm not in favour of throwing doctors who give birth control in jail, nor am I in favour of outlawing birth control.
Just because I am in favour of controls on abortion, doesn't mean I am in favour of ALL controls, or the implications of the controls that I do not support.
[edit]
for the record, I am in favour of keeping abortion as a last resort, and the fact that the fetus will develop into a human into consideration.
[/edit]
No, from this it could be said that human zygotes should be left undisturbed, unless medically necessary. Other things get disturbed as a natural part of life. We eat things that were alive. We step on living things. We wash off living things. It happens. Other animals do same.
No. Humans are going against nature when they pollute it and damage it unnecessarily. Disturbing things is otherwise natural.
Fertilizing an egg is the method through which we procreate, this is natural.
If we don't procreate we become extinct.
Both do not have the potential. An unfertilized egg will never become life, ever.
Yes. If they are bed-ridden it could be bad for the pregnancy, as well as the mother's overall health. In fact, exercise while pregnant(with the guidance of your doctor) is usually recommended. I exercised regularly when I was pregnant.
True. That would suck.
That situation is proper nutrition, shelter, financial support and emotional, mental, and physical wellbeing. Also regular check-ups with the doctor. I'd also recommend lamaze classes, parenting classes, and family support.
That would not be healthy for the mother or the child. In fact it may cause a spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage, as well as mental trauma to the mother.
This makes no sense. Are you saying women should be allowed to jeopardize the health of their children? Or are you saying that unless we make pregnant women go catatonic, then they are jeopardizing their future children?
ciarin.com
So if something is natural it should not be disturbed unless it naturally gets disturbed. So you just need to prove that it isn't natural for man to choose.
It could be said that Humans go against nature... naturally. It is OUR nature to exploit nature. It is our nature to disturb natural processes to fit our own desires (abortion). When you say nature do you mean to say that Humans are not natural?
What about artificial insemination, is that natural? Is it ok to abort a zygote not made from sex (the natural method to fertilize an egg)?
So mankind can use science to create a computer (not created by nature unless you include man as a part of nature) but can not abort a zygote because it is produced by nature? Remember, abortion is not saying the destruction of ALL zygotes it merely suggests it is ok to remove unwanted ones.
Need I point out that abortion will not cause our extinction either.
Umm an unfertilized egg means that it has yet to be fertilized. If what you say is true... please explain how the human reproductive process works in your mind. They are a requirement for life and if we can disturb a natural process that affects them, then we can disturb a natural process that is a product of them.
Note: About the whole women walking thing... while I won't claim to have knowledge on what is best for a pregnant mother it can easily be supported that if you force her to carry zygotes to term and give those zygotes rights... the result will be a severe control in a woman's rights to prevent actions that would hold risk to the zygote. It would then be easy for people to argue about a ton of shit that pregnant women can not do. There could be enforced laws that force women to be under 24 supervision and whatnot.
I should have known that this would--still--be a hot topic.
Hamby, for the record, I'm not ignoring you, and I haven't forgotten you. I just want to take a day or two and chew on your post and link. In a case like this, I'd rather give you the most thoughtful reply that I can, than give you a fast reply.
Everyone (including Hamby,) kudos and thanks for staying calm, cool and collected. The last time I tried to gingerly take up this topic (on an entirely different website,) all I had to do was self-identify as pro-life, and you would have thought that a bomb went off. I'm immensely *relieved* to have an opportunity to discuss this in a way where I might actually learn something other than the latest put-downs. (Case in point: Hamby's picture of a rat fetus. It doesn't change my mind--not yet, anyway--but it was very cool to have an approach presented for this discussion which I had *not* encountered before.)
Thanks for your patience, Hamby.
Conor
The choices of man can either be natural or unnatural, it depends on the choice. It's natural to want to live, it's self-preservation. So if a pregnancy would kill you, then an abortion is a natural choice.
Humans are natural. Essentially, everything is natural. So you could argue anything anyone does is natural. But then natural doesn't really have a meaning anymore.
No, it's an artificial method to accomplish a natural ability. If it was natural, it wouldn't be called "artificial insemination".
If it's medically necessary.
I guess you assumed I would say it's not ok to abort a zygote not made from sex?
Abortion doesn't say anything. It's a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. I'd just prefer it wasn't used as a birth control method.
Did I say abortion causes extinction?
Really? I had no idea. I guess being pregnant gave me no insight in the reproductive process.
You should really have this discussion with your parents. Basically, a man and a woman get together, the man penetrates the woman with his penis by inserting it in to her vagina. He ejaculates in to the woman. The sperm travel inside the uterus, if there is an egg the sperm might fertilize it. If the egg is fertilized, the embryo attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. The cells split and the embryo gestates, becoming a fetus after 2 months. Birth occurs after approximately 40 weeks of gestation.
You can disturb anything you like. I just happen to disagree with whether we should use abortions as birth control. And I don't need to humanize, or give rights to, a zygote to have this opinion.
Women drink alcohol, abuse drugs, etc while pregnant all the time. There are laws in some jurisdictions that criminalize this as child abuse, neglect, etc. Are you against these laws?
ciarin.com
Rather than make another really long quotation post I'll just try to answer what you are saying.
For one I'd like to say I was being satirical in a lot of my "claims." I knew what your answer would be but was trying to follow your logic in other application of it. This was done to attempt to show you that having a preference or opinion on something doesn't make it right/wrong. If your ideas about abortion were simply based off opinion I don't think we should be having an argument at all. I would suggest that you would need evidence to back up your claims just like I would need evidence to back up mine.
First I would like to ask a you a question:
- Is the human ability to decide what it prefers and act accordingly in order to maximize its preferences natural or not?
I think that a good definition of natural would be need to be reached by us in order to even use natural in the argument to avoid confusion.
Secondly I'd like to point out that I never called or confused you with being a Christian. I consider the two debates (abortion or religion) separate unless someone brings religion into it.
Thirdly, you stated an unfertilized egg would never result in life. I stated that was false in that an unfertilized egg is a requirement of a fertilized egg. Without an unfertilized egg you could never have a fertilized egg and therefore no babies. The reason I bring this up is because we believe it is fine for humans to try to keep sperm and egg from meeting, but if they somehow meet its not fine to try to stop them from doing what they are supposed to do. If we had a way to ensure that 100% of the time a form of contraceptive worked and did not detract from the enjoyment of sex I don't think abortion would be a birth control issue. Since there are many issues with all forms of contraceptives it seems illogical to me to accept probability as a means to reach unwanted life that isn't allowed to be prevented.
- If a couple uses every form of contraception known to man and still finds themselves pregnant (after the Plan B pill would be effective) what would you suggest they do? Deal with it? (I'd like to point out that contraceptives are not all that cheap and impoverished people still have sex for recreation. Of course abortion is not cheap either but that is besides the point.)
I merely use my arguments as a way of refuting your own. If I at any time gave the impression that I take everything stated by me seriously I apologize.
I am not against the laws in place that restrict superfluous enjoyments against pregnant women. Notice that the laws are in place so mothers who plan to carry their baby to term don't hurt the child or women that don't want the child don't use alcohol/drugs/etc in order to cause a miscarriage or hurt the child purposely out of hate (this could be seen as inhumane and be done at anytime of the pregnancy). I am against laws that would effect the generally accepted way of life of a pregnant women. This could include being in a vehicle, using stairs, etc that could be seen as unnecessary risks for the "person" in side of her.
I am pro-choice but off the basis that we all have the right to choose our life. I would suggest having children to be a very important decision of a persons life. I find it sad that one of the most naturally appealing acts a person may enjoy naturally results in children. I am of the opinion that children that are born into willing and ready families are better suited for life. I don't think everyone should get an abortion because I think they should, but I think if a person wants an abortion it is up to only the person involved. I see education on proper safe sex practices important and the most likely way to stop teen/unwanted pregnancies but still support legalized abortion.
Note: I know about sex and human reproduction but because of your silly statement I felt maybe you knew something I didn't (unfertilized eggs not being a prerequisite for human life).
I'm glad you have an opinion!
[Free Hug]s
Except right and wrong is subjective.
The abortion issue is always about opinion.
I agree.
The ability to decide is a natural ability. The ability to act is alos a naturally ability. The choices a human makes canbe natural or unnatural.
existing in or formed by nature?
I don't recall stating you had.
It is a requirement. But an unfertilized egg would never spontaneously become fertilized and become life. So an unfertilized egg has no potential of life.
Sure, and without a ovaries you won't have unfertilized eggs, so ovaries must have the potential for life as well. We can go back further and further if you like, but before an egg is fertilized it has no chance to become a life.
Not just keep from meeting, but also keep from implanting. Emergency contraception also prevents a fertilized egg from being implanted, which prevents pregnancy.
If a blastocyst manages to implant itself on the wall, that's when a woman is pregnant, and it takes a few days. This is why you have to wait a few days before a pregnancy test and why you must take the morning after pill within 48 hours of sexual intercourse.
The male can cut his balls off, a female can have a hysterectomy. But you'd still have STD's.
It's the risk you accept when you choose to have vaginal intercourse.
I would suggest giving the child up for adoption.
ok.
I don't see how they could be seen as unnecessary risks for a normal pregnancy.
Your right to choose is limited, btw.
I agree.
I find it sad that there are people who think this.
I support sex education as well. I think people who don't want children shouldn't rely on abortion as their birth control.
Eggs are required for reproduction. Only fertilized eggs implanted in a uterus result in life.
ciarin.com
Sorry I read your sig as being in actual post. I apologize for that, but seeing that we are on a forum that discusses religion a lot it wouldn't be uncommon for someone to accuse someone of that. I knew from privious posts of yours that you were not Xtian and did find it odd that it appeared to me that you thought I was insinuating that you were. Bleh.
Yea I put that in my sig because many people think Theist=Christian so naturally I would be christian too. So instead of prefacing each post with "I'm not christian, btw", I just put it in my sig.
ciarin.com
Argh my bad. That's the problem with language, sometimes it's hard to remember the other person may not understand what you mean.
Restated:
If your ideas about abortion were simply based off opinion alone I don't think we should be having an argument at all.
About right/wrong subjectivity:
I should have stated that I meant this in application to society and law. It is objective that society has values of right/wrong. If someone made an argument to fit their opinion with no evidence (which is to say no disputed evidence) it should not be allowed to change societies views of right/wrong. I refute you arguments in order to show that your case is contested.
I think I caught you on something!
This (to me) is a big no no. Using that logic of inherent risks you end up supporting this:
- Living in a high population density areas has an inherent risk of facilitating the spread of disease (India, cities)
- To cure and treat disease or prevent the spread disease would be not accepting the risk of living in a high population density area (Sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics)
- Therefore people should accept the risk of living in high population density areas and do nothing against disease.
Maybe this one is bad (I'm tired)
Try again:
- Death is an inherent result and risk (100%) of life.
- To stop or prevent death when unwanted would be not accepting of the risk of life
- Therefore man should do nothing to prevent death. If death has begun (anything but brain dead) trying to stop it from happening if undesired would be against nature.
I know you could say initially life is not a choice, but to any who say life itself is not a choice... I say you can kill yourself. This would mean not doing so is the choice to live. Since we have life extending and death preventing technology in our lives, I would suggest you might have an issue with your argument. I would claim that if death was always preventable and people could logically live forever, people would eventually desire death.
Man refutes risk. He simply states "I will change the game." If there is an inherent risk in anything man tends to find ways to at least reduce the possibility of it if he is unable to eradicate it. Abortion simply takes risk (of sex) out of the equation. Man ultimately wants undesired results to not happen. Saying that because they do happen we should just deal, is of course against our nature.
Note: I am not saying you actually believe in my arguments, only that using your logic those arguments would be valid.
I expect you to prove me wrong and am open to further discussion.
(I gave dogs a special ability
)
So:
Let us say that all humans have dogs.
Man claims that he has the natural means and right to prevent the unwanted result of petting a dog and therefore man claims he as a right to control the result of petting a dog.
In this case the unwanted effect is cloning people caused by petting the dog.
Once a dog has started cloning a person it takes 9 hours to complete.
It is considered the most desired thing in the nature of man to pet dogs. It is impossible to pet caged dogs.
To prevent dogs from cloning people:
Man can put a muzzle on the dog, but the dog is then less friendly and less desirable as a companion. 99% of all muzzled dogs don't clone people.
Man can give the dog medication which will make the dog less likely to clone people but the medication doesn't work for all dogs and has been known to cause problems. It also requires a specific time everyday to take the medication and if forgotten once could stop it from working. 99% of all medicated dogs don't clone people.
Man can teach everyone about the safety of handling and being around dogs as well as good forms of prevention in order to prevent the criteria needed to cause dogs to clone people.
This education also covers the option of caging the dog in order to prevent the dog from ever being pet in the first place. 100% of all caged dogs can't clone people. Some people think caging the dog is ok but no other form of prevention is.
There is a way to prevent this cloning after it has begun. It is done by removing the dog from the person early on in the cloning process. Many argue this method is inhumane though results show otherwise. Only those forced to pet dogs are generally given this option.
For the sake of the story these are the only things man can do other than nothing at all.
The problem is that even with all this prevention there is no current way to always prevent the bite from occurring without going against the nature of man.
Finally an unwanted clone occurs. And many people just say "Deal with it. That is the risk of dogs being around people"
Most who would say this would also agree that when one finally does want to be cloned, it should be a serious decision to do so.
It seems that this goes against what man was claiming a right to do all along. Only those who go strictly against both their own nature and the idea that they should be able to control dogs (again nature?) cloning people could support the statement "Deal with it."
So: Does man have to right to control anything? If he goes by his nature without trying to control nature the unwanted effect of petting the dog will happen a lot. If he has the right to control the outcome of an event then he is justified in both prevention and removal of the dog cloning a person. If he claims that he can go against his nature but cannot go against nature in the form of dogs-human interacting (using any form of prevention or removal) he is merely contradicting himself.
____
It's ok to abstain
It's ok to prevent
It's not ok to abort?
All are forms of controlling an outcome.
None are currently forms of killing anything that even comes close to resembling a human being at the time.
The only difference is abortions take place post contraception. Unless you quantify and prove the soul and then prove that it is created when an egg and sperm meet... what is wrong with this?
I doubt it, but let's see shall we?
The thing is, life is full of risks and everyone has to take some. Risk is inherent to life in general. Now if you want to prevent a certain thing from happening, like pregnancy, then I suggest you take the steps necessary to do that. Get yourself sterilized, or refrain from vaginal intercourse. Otherwise you knowingly risk having a pregnancy. I have temporarily sterilized myself, with depo provera, which prevents me from ovulating. So I am not worried about getting pregnant but I still have the chance to get pregnant in the future if I want children. If I'm one of the few that get pregnant while on depo, I will have the child to term because I knowingly accept the 3% risk of pregnancy. In my opinion, that is the most responsible position to take. If you are so dead set on not having children, then permanent sterilization would be the answer for you.
Now let's look at your false analogies:
Your comparison is off. Why does preventing the spread of disease not be accepting the risk of living in a high population area? There's nothing wrong with prevention. As it relates to pregnancy, that would be equivalent to practicing safe sex. Safe sex also prevents the spread of STD's(not just pregnancy). Now safe sex still has some risk, just as sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics doesn't prevent all disease, but the risk is greatly reduced.
Death is a part of life, and it makes life valuable. Without death life would be meaningless. Risk is a part of life as well, we don't have a protective bubble around us to prevent every ailment, injury, disease etc. Risk doesn't disappear just because we try to heal the injured, cure the sick, etc. The risk is lowered somewhat, and many lives are prolonged, but death is always accepted. There is no way to stop or prevent death, you can only delay it.
So your analogy doesn't fit here as well since pregnancy isn't inevitable to everyone(death is inevitable), and we're able to prevent pregnancy for an entire lifetime(death can't be prevented).
I could but I don't.
Yes we generally have the choice to kill ourselves or not.
Name the piece of technology that prevents death because I do not know of anyone who is immortal anywhere in the world. Maybe you mean technology that delays it?
I certainly would. Like I said earlier without death life has no meaning.
Abortion isn't the answer to take the risk of pregnancy out of the equation. Sterilization would be more appropriate, more efficient and cheaper. Kinda like neutering or spaying your pets, you don't hear about many animal abortions, right? But you still have the risk of STD's, which man can only lower and has yet to eradicate.
Not really. You're comparisons are false.
A better analogy would be: I drive a car in a busy city. There is a risk of an accident, in fact it's one of the leading causes of preventable death every year. I accept these risks when I drive. I lower these risks by practicing safe driving and driving a safe car(2008 MINI Cooper). Now even though I lowered the risks, they are still there, which is why I have insurance. But unfortunately, even with all the safety feaures of my car, and the insurance to pay for medical care in a hospital, I still might end up dead or in a persistent vegetative state. I accept that risk, just as I accept the risk of pregnancy when engaging in vaginal intercourse with a fertile male.
Done.
ciarin.com
I'm going to sleep for a bit. I'm up for continuing this later though.
I agree your analogy is better
I knew mine weren't quite working but I decided to go with it anyway.
Let's say you could drive without risk. Not saying how. What would be wrong with driving without risk? If you could negate all the negative outcomes of driving what would be wrong with doing so?
The reason people don't get sterilized is because they may want children in the future. I don't want to die now, but if I had a terminal disease I might be open to death over sufferring. Things change.
There are pieces of technology that resucitate or bring back people from previously irreversable or nearly irreversable states of dying. I was just try to use them in my point that man strives to control in everything he does. For some reason when he reaches ultimate control he contests himself on whether it is right to have ultimate control. Abortion is ultimate control over having a child.
*Sigh*
So, the evidence doesn't matter to you as much as your feelings do... and you apparently take pride in this?
Ciarin, my snot has human DNA in it. Does that mean I shouldn't blow my nose?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
By this same logic, is not birth control that stops the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uteral wall doing the same thing, removing the the fertilized egg from its natural habitat?
So it isn't the zygote's natural habitat, so what? Our natural habitat isn't Antarctica, we still go there. Humans violate 'nature' every minute of their waking day unless you consider the works of man to also be natural, in which case the abortion is completely natural. Of course, by extention that means murder is completely natural, and thus we're back to square one as we realize that whether or not something is 'natural' is an utterly meaningless concern.
Also, the idea of the womb being a 'habitat' is naturally (heh) deceptive. Its an organic life support system, it is not an environment in which a happy smiling thinking zygote swims around, ingesting its own food and contributing to its own ecosystem. The zygote is entirely dependent on the woman for its nutrients and homeostasis, and could more accurately be compared to a parasite in the belly of a fish as opposed to a fish in the sea.
Actually, a Zygote itself has no expectation of life. It has no personhood until it is sentient and seperately functioning. Living Thinking Humans give the zygote an expectation of life. And here is the thing, a zygote on its own has no expectation of life anyways, because it cannot survive without the womb, if the unfertilized egg has no expectation of life because it requires a sperm to produce a child then why does the fertilized egg or the zygote have an expectation of life when it requires a womb to produce a child?
We don't give those rights to the unborn child. The mother will not be prosecuted until after the child is born, as far as I know, I admit my knowledge of pregnancy laws is limited, so if you can find an example of a woman being legally prevented from smoking or drinking, on pain of some official legal punishment, because she was pregnant I'm all ears.
Personally though, I think the conscious decision to carry the pregnancy gives the fetus temporary and extremely limited rights that are subject to the woman's revocation whenever she chooses, however should she revoke them she should get an abortion.
Personally, the double homicide thing has always pissed me off, because it is really just a back door method of piling more punishment on a person.
On this note, what would you prescribe as the punishment for having an illegal abortion?
Because the animals are sentient seperate organisms that can survive on their own, the unborn human is not. By the time it is capable of surviving on its own and is sentient then sure, abortion shouldn't happen, but frankly if the woman let it get that far she probably doesn't want an abortion anyways.
Frankly though, we give animals rights only because we like them. We protect cats and dogs from abuse because we don't like to see them feel pain, and we protect endangered species because we don't want them to go, largely from self interest as extinctions have this nasty habit of unbalancing ecosystems, or because we want to have something funny to look at in the zoo. Hell, zoos disprove your point right there, we arbitrarily pick up innocent specimens of various species and put them in cages for the rest of their lives so that we can watch them for our own amusement, so much for rights. There are no rights given to animals we want to eat, furthermore, unwanted animals that violate our property we have the right to kill. So okay, we give the same rights we give to animals to zygotes, so now unless you want to argue that the woman doesn't own her womb, she has the right to terminate any pregnancy she wants because the zygote is now an unwanted animal violating her property.
Also, I know it wasn't adressed to me, but I want to respond to these anyways;
Why is it that all pro-lifers innevitably seem to make the claim that people will end up relying on abortion as their only source of birth control? Because historically that isn't the case, as condom sales don't die when abortion is made legal.
We aren't supporting abortion as someone's sole method of birth control, but frankly, if someone wants to use only abortion I say fine, what right do I have to interfere with their use of their own body? What we are supporting, is the availability of a procedure that can accomplish a task.
And according to your logic, because the vegetative state is a possible end result of you driving a car, and you accept those risks, were it possible to bring you out of that state without harming any other living thinking humans, you would not want it to happen.
Which leads nicely to my last point;
Funny, I don't remember losing anything because of another person's abortion. Really, this was an overlydramatic 'answer' that doesn't actually answer my question.
Who is the victim of an abortion?
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...