New Abortion Law Wave

[Foxi4]

We're talking about the point at which it's considered a human life, and not life in the sense that any other cluster of cells is considered alive.

That's correct. You're still sounding silly, although I'm not 100% sure if you're aware as to why.

 

[kumikochan]

You must be having a laugh. There is a very clear and widely accepted consensus of what is and is not life - self-propagating organic organisms are alive, rocks are not. There are simply forms of life that we find acceptable to kill and those that we don't kill. The *meaning* of life is a mystery, the status of whether something's a form of life or not, not so much.

You should grab a textbook and have a bit of a refresher on how the reproductive system works, I don't think you're fully aware of how sperm works.

Nope here's a quote from a biology paper " biologists don’t agree on what ‘life’ actually is. While scientists have proposed hundreds of ways to define it, none have been widely accepted "

 

[Foxi4]

Nope here's a quote from a biology paper " biologists don’t agree on what ‘life’ actually is. While scientists have proposed hundreds of ways to define it, none have been widely accepted "

They're arguing on how to aptly define life, that's correct. There is *zero* disagreement on whether an algea is a living organism or not.

 

[Xzi]

That's correct. You're still sounding silly, although I'm not 100% if you're aware as to why.

No more silly than you are, but I'm not sure this role of overly-zealous religious fanatic really suits you. The reason abortion is and remains legal in the US is because ultimately the more pragmatic minds won out in this debate. A clearly-defined separation of church and state remains essential if we don't want to become exactly like the authoritarian Middle Eastern theocracies which we claim to despise.

 

[Deleted User]

Isn't all of this irrelevant to the discussion of the main topic anyway?

Does it matter if we consider algae or bactarium life or not? Millions of people eat kale yet no one is screaming about the mass genocide of plants.

The centre of this discussion is whether we should value human lives at conception the same way we do at twelve months old. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[tatripp]

A lot of people are saying really stupid things on here on both sides of the argument. Please try not to be emotional and to actually sincerely try to understand what someone else is saying. This is the way I see it:
1) The main question is when does life begin. Once we know this, we can determine our laws and rules more easily.
I believe life begins at conception. I don't believe this for religious reasons. I believe this because it seems most logical. This is when the two sex cells become fertilized and have all of the genetic material for the organism.
--I understand that some pro choicers don't think this, but I have never heard any of them give a clear example of when life begins. If you don't know when life begins, you cannot terminate it.
2) The viability argument- I have heard some prochoice people say that it is a person when it is viable (it could live if it were removed from the womb). The problem with this argument is that if you believe it, you have to accept that personhood is determined by medical technology and resources. A 6 month old child could be viable in a good hospital with a lot of resources in the US but that same child would not be viable in a small remove village in a country with obsolete medical technology.
3) It's a woman's right- You can't just declare something a right. This argument is a dishonest attempt to change the topic and to make the other side feel like they are anti-woman. Is it a woman's right to kill her one day old child? Is it her right to kill her child a minute before it is born? It depends on when life starts, but this argument avoids the real question.
4) You can't say anything because you're a man- This is the appeal to authority. Is the argument right or not? The validity of the argument is not dependent upon the person making the argument. I am pro life and a guy, so are my arguments any less valid than my girlfriend who is also pro life?
5) Republicans are only small government when they want to be- This might be true, but it is irrelevant.
6) Republicans only care about the babies before they are born- This might be true, but it is also irrelevant. Republicans don't want to pay taxes to support unwanted children. That doesn't mean that Republicans are okay with having children getting murdered (which is what abortion is from their perspective).
7)These arguments are fallacious and dishonest, and I haven't heard a convincing prochoice argument about why conception is not the start of life. I'm not even saying that all prolife arguments are honest. I'll be the first to admit that a lot of prolife arguments are just as dishonest as the prochoice ones. All I'm saying is that the prolife side seems logical while the prochoice side seems completely emotionally driven.
8) Once again, the main question that needs answering is: when does life begin? If we don't know, we should be cautious and not allow abortion. If it is conception, we should definitely not allow abortion.

 

[Foxi4]

No more silly than you are, but I'm not sure this role of overly-zealous religious fanatic really suits you. The reason abortion is and remains legal in the US is because ultimately the more pragmatic minds won out in this debate. Separation of church and state remains essential if we don't want to become exactly like the authoritarian Middle Eastern theocracies which we claim to despise.

Actually, the reason why it's legal in the U.S. is because a non-existent right to privacy that's never been enumerated in the Constitution has been usurped by bad actors to proclaim that a woman killing her unborn child at a doctor's office is permissable because it happens in private, which is an odd argument to make considering the fact that domestic violence happens in private too, but we don't see anyone fighting for the right to beat up wives and children. The way it was achieved was by duping a woman who was actually wronged by the system using legalese, and said woman has regretted it ever since. As for my stance, it is anything but fanatical, nor is it rooted in religion, but you're welcome to fight strawmen if you'd like. Regarding your homework, try to find the term "haploid", it might shed some light on why you're so confused regarding the mass genocide of gametes.

Isn't all of this irrelevant to the discussion of the main topic anyway?

Does it matter if we consider algae or bactarium life or not? Millions of people eat kale yet no one is screaming about the mass genocide of plants.

The centre of this discussion is whether we should value human lives at conception the same way we do at twelve months old. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have to establish what life is before you can establish what human life is. To me it's fairly simple - if it's a unique form of life that's human, it's a human life. It's as valuable at 2 days old as it is at 20 years old, however, I am also reasonable and am willing to make exceptions provided there's ample reason to grant them. The algea debate, although a distraction, was demonstrating a point. Let's say that it is just a clump of cells, so what? We're all clumps of cells of varying sizes.

 

[Xzi]

Regarding yoyr homework, try to find the term "haploid", it might shed some light on why you're so confused regarding the mass genocide of gametes.

And why exactly are the new fetus' cells considered more valuable/indisposable than the cells which created that fetus from either side of the equation? Going back to your argument before, that fetus has the potential to become a human before it's aborted, but following that logic, every individual sperm also has that same potential. You can believe that masturbation is genocide if you want, but personally my line for when the fetus is developed enough to be considered 'alive' in the human sense is going to remain in a more reasonable place.

 

[Foxi4]

And why exactly are the new fetus' cells considered more valuable/indisposable than the cells which created that fetus from either side of the equation? Going back to your argument before, that fetus has the potential to become a human before it's aborted, but following that logic, every individual sperm also has that same potential. You can believe that masturbation is genocide if you want, but personally my line for when the fetus is developed enough to be considered 'alive' in the human sense is going to remain in a more reasonable place.

See, you didn't do your homework. I told you to do it, and you didn't, and now you're sounding silly again. Let me do the heavy lifting for you.

You're assigning to me motivation that I never presented. I never even mentioned any potential to become anything at all, you have, which is strawman number one. A good point, for sure - one that I didn't bring up, but it's relevant.

Strawman number two is swimming in the seminal fluid - male gametes, or sperm, are haploid. They carry half of my genetic material, or one set of chromosomes. Not only are they not "human life" in and out of themselves since they're not independent organisms in any shape or form, they're *my cells*, just like my skin or any other organ of mine, so I get to decide what happens to them. You're acting as if I don't know this when I explicitly told you that I'm fully aware of it. I even told you to revise this line of attack, but you believed it was expedient to pursue it anyway, which frankly makes you look foolish.

Strawman the third are the circumstances. Not to sound too rude, but I can go around masturbating, or committing sperm genocide as you call it, all day long, shoot left and right, and the chances that my gametes happen to hit a female gamete are next to none unless I explicitly intend to do so. The chances that this will unintentionally occur in the perfect circumstances, as in inside a woman, are even slimmer, and the chances that it also happens in the perfect time for fertilisation are hard even when you're trying, and it's the circumstances that matter here. I explicitly stated that *human life* begins when the material of the mother and the father recombines and begins to multiply. At that point it is neither my genetic material nor the mother's, it is unique in its own right and growing independently, whether the mother or the father intend it to. To those uninitiated or confused, this process occurs in the womb, the spot that happens to be perfect for this stage of human growth. You can pretend that I believe sperm and a unique, growing human being are one and the same if it lets you sleep easy or feel good about yourself, but I never said that and you had to try hard to infer that.

All in all a bad show, you should start arguing in good faith, otherwise this isn't going to be very productive. What I said was that a new human life form begins its life cycle when the genetic material from the mother and the father combines into a brand-new human life which begins to multiply and grow. That's a little bit different than masturbating into a potted plant, which is what you're trying to reframe the argument into.

 

[Xzi]

Strawman number two is swimming in the seminal fluid - male gametes, or sperm, are haploid. They carry half of my genetic material, or one set of chromosomes. Not only are they not "human life" in and out of themselves since they're not independent organisms in any shape or form, they're *my cells*, just like my skin or any other organ of mine, so I get to decide what happens to them. You're acting as if I don't know this when I explicitly told you that I'm fully aware of it.

My point was that I was already aware of it, but that you're arbitrarily assigning value based on the amount of DNA carried by certain cells. Unfortunate that I have to spell it out so plainly for you.

What I said was that a new human life form begins its life cycle when the genetic material from the mother and the father combines into a brand-new human life which begins to multiply and grow.

Which is your belief. Not that it has combined into a new organism, I'm not debating that, but that that is the moment when it's developed enough to be considered human life. I believe that requires consciousness on some level.

All in all a bad show, you should start arguing in good faith, otherwise this isn't going to be very productive.

Riiight...and you sure haven't been mischaracterizing my positions or been ridiculously hyperbolic throughout this whole debate.

I understand it's a touchy issue, but emotionally-charged arguments aren't going to win anybody over. That's why this has continuously been a losing issue for conservatives and why pragmatic solutions will continue to win out.

 

[Foxi4]

My point was that I was already aware of it, but that you're arbitrarily assigning value based on the amount of DNA carried by certain cells. Unfortunate that I have to spell it out so plainly for you.

Which is your belief. Not that it has combined into a new organism, I'm not debating that, but that that is the moment when it's developed enough to be considered human life. I believe that requires consciousness on some level.

Riiight...and you sure haven't been mischaracterizing my positions or ridiculously hyperbolic throughout this whole debate.

I understand it's a touchy issue, but emotionally-charged arguments aren't going to win anybody over. That's why this has continuously been a losing issue for conservatives and why pragmatic solutions will continue to win out.

It's not "an emotional debate" because I'm conservative, nor is it a touchy subject, I simply dislike when a purely science-based argument is being reduced to, I quote, "religious fanaticism" because it is politically expedient for you to make that claim. "He conservative, so he think that because Space Book say baby murder bad" is not a good argument - it puts you in a bad light, not me, and I know you're smarter than that from our previous encounters. You say that you see the difference, and yet you don't - my own cells carry my own material, and only half of it at that, the cells of the fetus are not mine, or the mother's - they're unique. It's not about "the amount of DNA", it's not about whether it's in the sink or in a potted plant, it's about whether it's a unique, living human organism or not - my sperm is not an organism, an egg is not an organism, but together they are more than the sum of the parts. You draw the line at consciousness, which at least is some form of a definite answer to the question, but it breeds more questions. Is it okay to kill someone in a coma? What if I'm just asleep, or passed out - am I still a person then? My approach seems a little bit more universal. I will give you credit where credit is due - at least you admit it's a growing human organism, even if you're unwilling to call it life - that's good enough for me. Now, as I said, I am more than willing to make exceptions. I already made them in terms of legitimate health issues, rape and incest. I'll even happily throw in the morning after pill, since technically the egg isn't nested in the womb yet and preventing that will prevent the pregnancy from occurring, that's ample wiggle room available for everyone, whole three days to get out of the dilemma. What more do you want, exactly? What I described above fits well-within your desired "safe, legal and rare" definition. Is it religious fanaticism for me to draw the line before we get to dismemberment of a growing baby? I don't think it is, I think I'm being perfectly fair.

 

[Xzi]

You draw the line of consciousness, which at least is some form of a definite answer to the question, but it breeds more questions. Is it okay to kill someone in a coma? What if I'm just asleep, or passed out - am I still a person then?

It's obvious by context that I meant the first sign of consciousness.

My approach seems a little bit more universal.

It's universal, but also arbitrary, and certainly too restrictive. You're suggesting that it's a human and has all the rights of a human before the mother even knows she's pregnant. Effectively outlawing abortion. Basically the same idea put forth by Mississippi's 'heartbeat bill' which was just struck down by a federal judge.

 

[Foxi4]

It's obvious by context that I meant the first sign of consciousness.

It's universal, but also arbitrary, and certainly too restrictive. You're suggesting that it's a human and has all the rights of a human before the mother even knows she's pregnant. Effectively outlawing abortion. Basically the same idea put forth by Mississippi's 'heartbeat bill' which was just struck down by a federal judge.

I said that it is a human life, I never said anything about rights. As I said, in the interest of fairness, I am willing to sacrifice some lives to save others. If I were as strict as you imply, I would be perfectly comfortable with rape and incest babies as long as they didn't endanger the mother's life and had no immediate life-threatening disabilities, which is obviously not what I'm saying. Three days is a lot of time to make up your mind. I also don't agree with the "mommy doesn't know" narrative - a woman is perfectly aware of the consequences of having sex, especially if it's unprotected. You're asking me to treat adults like children which I am unwilling to do. If a condom breaks and a woman is not on the pill, she should *assume* that time is ticking there and then. I respect women enough not to assume that they have the IQ of a kumquat.

Edit: As a side note, there's nothing arbitrary in assuming that human life begins at the point at which it literally starts, but I'll let that one slide since we're beating a dead horse.

 

[Xzi]

You're asking me to treat adults like children which I am unwilling to do. If a condom breaks and a woman is not on the pill, she should *assume* that time is ticking there and then. I respect women enough not to assume that they have the IQ of a kumquat.

As we've already discussed, adults are not the only ones having sex. Additionally, it is possible for a condom to break without anyone being the wiser, and other forms of birth control can also unexpectedly fail. Regardless of the context, I simply don't believe the government should have more agency over a woman's body than the woman herself.

 

[Foxi4]

As we've already discussed, adults are not the only ones having sex. Additionally, it is possible for a condom to break without anyone being the wiser, and other forms of birth control can also unexpectedly fail. Regardless of the context, I simply don't believe the government should have more agency over a woman's body than the woman herself.

It's not the woman's body. It's not her spleen, it's not her liver, it's a separate living being. We've established that it is an entity separate from the mother and the father and unique in its own right, which you, by your own admission, are not going to argue with since it's demonstrable fact. It merely happens to temporarily reside in the womb, which is where the convenience aspect comes into play. If people are having sex below the age of consent then that's statutory rape, go find the culprit. If both are kids then you certainly have a conundrum - one for the parents to unravel, but I'll even give you that one since I'm generous. Anything besides that is a calculated risk that the two participants of the act undertake and accept - sorry. When you drive your car, your insurance isn't a magical shield that repels vehicles, you're supposed to exercise caution, but even then you might get into a wreck, often times through no fault of your own. Is it fair? Not really. Is it a calculated risk you take by participating in traffic? Absolutely.

Edit: As for burst condoms, that's an intensely hilarious argument to me, and one that always shows up in these discussions. The scenario you describe has never happened in the history of time, provided no foul play was involved. Any man who has ever burst a condom knows exactly that it burst, it's actually fairly obvious - once those things tear, they tear. The men who say this are just lying, I am yet to see or experience one of those covert invisible holes in a condom, but then again, I have a sample size of one, myself, so this may be a bit too subjective on my part. I doubt it though.

 

[Xzi]

It's not the woman's body. It's not her spleen, it's not her liver, it's a separate living being.

It's a separate living being inside the woman's body, connected to the woman's body by feeding tube, and whose fate is intrinsically tied to the woman's. If the fetus took only days to gestate before it could live apart from the woman, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As things are, I maintain that the woman providing the fetus with life support needs to have more agency over decisions involving that fetus than the government. There's no chance in hell we'd ever let them legislate anything pertaining to men's bodies, after all. It's not only a double-standard, it sets a bad precedent for the government overstepping its boundaries.

 

[Jokey_Carrot]

protesting abortion is like protesting masturbating saying you're wasting millions on human lives

 

[Foxi4]

It's a separate living being inside the woman's body, connected to the woman's body by feeding tube, and whose fate is intrinsically tied to the woman's. If the fetus took only days to gestate before it could live apart from the woman, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As things are, I maintain that the woman providing the fetus with life support needs to have more agency over decisions involving that fetus than the government. There's no chance in hell we'd ever let them legislate anything pertaining to men's bodies, after all.

Oh, I fully support the woman's right to bodily autonomy - at no point should the government ever legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies. As far as I'm concerned, they can tie their tubes in a knot with a bow on top. I'm not concerned about that at all, it's not even in my calculus. As soon as we devise a method for women to take the growing baby out of the womb and put it in a magical container that'll do the job, I have no issues whotsoever - until then, sadly, they don't get to kill babies that grow inside of them willy-nilly. It is the constitutional obligation of the government to protect the life of anyone under its jurisdiction, in fact, it's the primary purpose of having a government in the first place. Once again, the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy is regrettable, but it doesn't give anyone the right to terminate another human life, especially not without due legal process.

 

[Xzi]

Once again, the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy is regrettable, but it doesn't give anyone the right to terminate another human life, especially not without due legal process.

Once again, it's almost never about the 'temporary inconvenience' of pregnancy, but rather about the 18 years that follow. The economics of raising a child become more and more daunting every year, especially for single mothers. And while you seem perfectly fine with the idea of putting a band-aid over a broken bone, the fact of the matter is that this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, and outlawing abortion would only contribute to other major problems for this country.

 

[Foxi4]

Once again, it's almost never about the 'temporary inconvenience' of pregnancy, but rather about the 18 years that follow. The economics of raising a child become more and more daunting every year, especially for single mothers. And while you seem perfectly fine with the idea of putting a band-aid over a broken bone, the fact of the matter is that this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, and outlawing abortion would only contribute to other major problems for this country.

Oh, by no means, no band-aids at all. I simply feel more comfortable investing time, effort and money into creating an environment where raising a child for 18 years, or at the very least finding someone to raise said child, is not an issue, as opposed to just killing it. If anything, the latter seems to be the band-aid solution to the far bigger problem of unwanted pregnancies, particularly in economically underprivileged areas of the country. I know that the issue of unwanted pregnancies magically goes away if you just get rid of all the pregnancies that are inconvenient, but I firmly believe that there are better solutions - ones that actually address the root causes, not merely one of the many symptoms. For instance, you mentioned absentee dads as being a part of the problem. One of the big reasons why there's an epidemic of absentee dads is that they're too busy being in prison for minor drug offenses that, for all intents and purposes, do not warrant jail time in the already overcrowded prison system. Question time! Do you think that relaxing the drug laws would in turn result in a reduction of abortions? When given the choice between "not putting the father in prison for smoking weed" and "killing an unborn baby", I tend to lean towards the obviously less destructive, less expensive, more reasonable solution. It's extremely easy to put your foot down and say that "it's a woman's choice" and everything else is a "band-aid", but at the end of the day, you're still not addressing the root causes for why women choose to abort their pregnancies in the first place, and those causes are both complex and numerous. Aren't you offering a "band-aid solution" yourself? By offering a never-ending abortion tap and never actually doing anything to reduce the total number of abortions you're once again going against your "Safe, legal and rare" mantra. The safe and legal is what we can both get behind, it's the "rare" bit that we can't seem to agree on.