Unworthy of Life

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2021.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Disregarding the inaccurate and emotive term "baby" for the moment ... so what?

    Why are you worried about the innocent baby losing its life while it still in the mother's womb? You haven't explained what is precious to you about the "baby" yet. Until we know that, your arguments seem to be unmotivated by anything other than a desire to stir the pot for your own amusement.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Your own preferred arbitrary definition uses the term "human being". For some reason, "human being" is sacrosanct, while any other form of life is fair game.

    Do you eat meat? That's innocent life you're taking, every time you do that. But that doesn't worry you, does it? Only human life, from the moment of conception, is sacred to you. (Or so you say.)

    Care to explain the difference?

    Tell me why your "human" is less arbitrary than my "person". If you can, that is.

    Bear in mind that you're making a moral argument. Your claim is, essentially, "It is always wrong to kill a human being". My parallel claim would be "It is always wrong to kill a person". You need to tell me why your category "human being" is morally more worthy than my category of "person".
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    I did. Like what did you think I was talking about, the weather? Claiming to be stupid is not a defense for bad arguments. With this statement you prove your only intention is to troll. Do you honestly want to claim to be this stupid?

    no such thing happened. Again not having the intellect to understand the argument doesn’t mean you are winning.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Like bells james it was obvious from my initial post I was talking about bodily autonomy right? I’m not setting the bar to high here to have expected that to be understood?
  8. Bells Staff Member

    But that's not what you were saying and what I was responding to.

    Here is what I said:

    "I never attributed it as being a "human life", because it is not. It has the potential to be a human life. And that's it, nothing more, nothing less."

    In the context of this discussion and how you were addressing "human life", it was quite clear.

    But you are a dishonest hack, so this is to be expected.

    As for your "temporary inconvenience".. For some women, being forced to give birth can cost her her life, her livelihood, her ability to have more children, it can render her disabled, traumatised, scarred, etc. Of course this is very easy for you to dismiss, because you will never be placed in a position where you could be forced to have your body play host for 9 months without your consent and against your will.

    And yet you are a vocal supporter of being allowed to own guns, which does take human lives, on a daily basis. Those children who die from guns not worthy of human rights that should render them protected through gun laws? Why do the human rights of the unborn, rank higher than that of a born child? Why does your right to own a firearm, rank higher than a woman's rights over her own body, Vociferous?

    What "people" have I said aren't human, exactly?
    On the contrary! Where have I said that?

    I think a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy and decides to have an abortion is definitely facing and dealing with the consequences. Hence the choice to have an abortion.

    I mean, I get it. You're the type of guy who thinks it's acceptable to force women to remain pregnant for 9 months, face the risk of death and injury and face the risk of never being able to have more children if she so chooses, because she may or may not have made the "choice" to have sex. It's all about because she had sex. The man? None for him. It's because for men like you, a woman who has sex and ends up with an unwanted pregnancy should be punished for 9 months to teach her a lesson about the consequences of her actions. Pretty sick and twisted.

    Morning after pill?

    I thought you were all about not taking "human life", etc? Do you not understand how the morning after pill works and how conception happens?

    So you're fine with "taking human life" before implantation then?

    See, this is how I know you're a hypocritical troll and that your biggest issue is really about women having control over their own bodies. You're in this thread whining about women facing the consequences of their choices and endorsing forcing them to remain pregnant without their consent, because they chose to have sex, blah blah, and how abortion is murder, blah blah, and how the beginning is a "human being", blah blah... But you're advocating the morning after pill, which literally prevents what you keep referring as the "human life" and "human being" from implanting, thus killing it.

    But you legalise the tools that allows people to kill children and others whenever they damn well feel like it.

    And what woman is killing a baby when she has an abortion? I mean, you're advocating the use of the morning after pill.. Aren't you allowing women to "kill babies"?

    For your information, women aren't having abortions for no reason whatsoever. Their reasons are valid to them.

    Women have the fundamental human right to their own bodies. That right, trumps your rights or twisted personal beliefs over and about her body.

    When you deny women or any person rights over their own bodies, then you become tyrants. Why are you a tyrant Vociferous? Why do you support tyranny?
    What baby?
    And yet you're repeatedly touting the morning after pill?

    20 fingers and 20 toes?
    Are your parents closely related?
    Dude, you're suggesting people have 20 fingers and 20 toes.. You don't get to accuse anyone of anything regarding science or anything else really.
    pjdude1219 and James R like this.
  9. Bells Staff Member

    If you have 20 fingers and 20 toes, it's okay if you wish to decide that your stomach is a goat. You get to be whatever you wish to be!

    Onto more serious matters. A woman has fundamental human rights and autonomy and she gets to decide the fate of her body and what happens to it. No one can force you to undergo any treatment you don't wish to, for example. That would be illegal and a gross violation of your human rights. Along the same line, forcing a woman to remain pregnant without her consent and against her will would be a gross violation of her fundamental human rights.

    When you deem that she has no say, you are literally no longer recognising her as an individual or a person. You are classifying us as being less than human if we happen to be pregnant, because you have assigned more rights to the blastocyst/embryo/foetus than you are willing to grant the woman.

    Why are we less human to you, Vociferous? Why do you think we are less deserving of human rights? Why should you have more rights over your body than I should have to mine?

    Because you keep ignoring this point. You keep ignoring the woman's human rights in this discussion. If you force a woman to remain pregnant without her consent and against her will, then you have completely disregarded her human rights and her autonomy.
    You're the one assigning personhood to a blastocyst. Not me.

    It's interesting that you bring up slavery. The irony is that you don't think there's anything wrong with forcing someone to do something against their will and without their consent, and basically remove their personhood, because you have deemed her pregnancy to be more worthy of rights than you allow her.. Thereby removing her personhood, because you've removed her autonomy. That is slavery. At the heart of slavery was the denial of choice, autonomy and rights over their person and they legalised it by not classifying slaves as being human beings, or classifying white people as being more human than black people. Just what you believe her pregnancy is more worthy of rights and thus, denying her her autonomy and denying her personhood and making her less than..
    Right to more guns! What could possibly go wrong...?

    Too bad women have no human rights whatsoever if pregnant!
    I am not saying anything of the sort. You are the one who keeps going on about women facing the consequences of their choices, etc..

    Abortion is a means to be responsible. Why do you find that so difficult?

    What "other"?

    Let me ask you this. When do you believe "other" comes into existence?

    Because thus far, you have clearly shown support for one form of abortion, which is the morning after pill - after all, if the egg is fertilised - acting to prevent it from implanting is a form of abortion.. But you don't think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion.. So this could mean a few things.. That you don't understand biology, or you are a hypocrite or you have a clear belief of when the "other" or "baby" or "human being" comes into existence. Can you explain when by your beliefs and understanding?

    And one other thing. Do you believe an ectopic pregnancy is murder? How about a miscarriage?

    Yep. Damn women, choosing to have sex!

    But you don't think women should have a choice when it comes to their bodies when they are pregnant. Nor do you think forcing them to remain pregnant without their consent is an issue.

    Why should you have more rights over your house and property than a woman has over her own body?

    You just don't think his murdering is murder..
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2021
    James R likes this.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    One state in the US has banned abortions even in cases of rape and incest, essentially making it illegal before the woman even knows she's pregnant and has made the wording for medical reasons and even miscarriage suitably vague. There are already instances of women being denied essential medical care even in cases of miscarriages and ectopic pregnancy in the US if there is a foetal heartbeat and this has been happening for years..

    In another case, Dr H, from the same Catholic-owned hospital in the Midwest, sent her patient by ambulance 90 miles to the nearest institution where the patient could have an abortion because the ethics committee refused to approve her case.

    She was very early, 14 weeks. She came in … and there was a hand sticking out of the cervix. Clearly the membranes had ruptured and she was trying to deliver… . There was a heart rate, and [we called] the ethics committee, and they [said], “Nope, can't do anything.” So we had to send her to [the university hospital]… . You know, these things don't happen that often, but from what I understand it, it's pretty clear. Even if mom is very sick, you know, potentially life threatening, can't do anything.
    In residency, Dr P and Dr H had been taught to perform uterine evacuation or labor induction on patients during inevitable miscarriage whether fetal heart tones were present or not. In their new Catholic-owned hospital environment, such treatment was considered a prohibited abortion by the governing ethics committee because the fetus is still alive and the patient is not yet experiencing “a life-threatening pathology” such as sepsis. Physicians such as Dr H found that in some cases, transporting the patient to another hospital for dilation and curettage (D&C) was quicker and safer than waiting for the fetal heartbeat to stop while trying to stave off infection and excessive blood loss.

    Dr B, an obstetrician–gynecologist working in an academic medical center, described how a Catholic-owned hospital in her western urban area asked her to accept a patient who was already septic. When she received the request, she recommended that the physician from the Catholic-owned hospital perform a uterine aspiration there and not further risk the health of the woman by delaying her care with the transport.

    Because the fetus was still alive, they wouldn't intervene. And she was hemorrhaging, and they called me and wanted to transport her, and I said, “It sounds like she's unstable, and it sounds like you need to take care of her there.” And I was on a recorded line, I reported them as an EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] violation. And the physician [said], “This isn't something that we can take care of.” And I [said], “Well, if I don't accept her, what are you going to do with her?” [He answered], “We'll put her on a floor [i.e., admit her to a bed in the hospital instead of keeping her in the emergency room]; we'll transfuse her as much as we can, and we'll just wait till the fetus dies.”

    This isn't a red herring. This is the reality of denying women their human rights. Do you think this is acceptable?

    What do you think is going to happen when abortion is banned?

    And the man could have chosen to not have sex with the woman in case she gets pregnant..

    And if a woman's choice to have sex leads her to get pregnant, and she does not wish to be pregnant, then she should have the right to end the pregnancy. That would be the responsible thing to do, instead of forcing her to remain pregnant without her consent.

    Most women don't know they even miscarried.

    And secondly, if a woman wants to and chooses to be pregnant and miscarries, then it is certainly a tragedy for her.
    Why would I do that?

    If a woman intends to give birth, then she clearly wanted to remain pregnant. I tend to not assign or say anything about a woman's pregnancy unless invited to do so and I'll respond and address her and her pregnancy as she wants me to address it. Something something about reading the room and understanding verbal cues. You should try it sometime!

    It really comes down to state and local authorities to actually get the guns out of people’s hands. They may not be able to pass a federal background check at a licensed gun dealer, but they may be able to keep hold of guns they owned before they were prohibited, and they may be able to buy from private individuals in a state that doesn’t have universal background checks.”

    You've just repeated the same misogynistic bullshit and literally deemed women less than human because you seem to believe that they lose their autonomy, choice or say over their own bodies if they are pregnant.

    The issue of choice really escapes you, doesn't it?

    If a woman chooses to have a baby, that's terrific and it is her absolute right because it is her body. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, then that is her absolute right because it is her body.

    Do you understand this?
    So you don't believe women have the right to self defence either?

    Seriously though, a woman having her fundamental human rights and bodily autonomy does not mean she's killing anyone and she actually is not killing anyone by doing so.

    I'm agreeing with the guy who sees you for the misogynistic hypocrite that you are.
    James R likes this.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    About 45% of pregnancies end in miscarriages. (I suspect the '1 in 3' number you were quoting was from the number of miscarriages that were noticed and reported by the woman.) If you add in failure to implant, where the embryo never fully implants in the uterine lining and is flushed out with the next menses, then it's closer to 60%. That equates to about 10 million embryos and fetuses a year spontaneously aborted in the US alone. To put it another way, 92% of the aborted embryos and fetuses in the US are naturally aborted.

    Or, to use SetiAlpha's language/logic:

    "Millions upon millions who were deemed to be unworthy of life by their own God, who presides over his own personal neverending slaughter of the unborn innocent in the womb."
    James R and pjdude1219 like this.
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Then define it in some objective way.
    Why don't you think life is sacrosanct?! What's wrong with you that you'd even ask such a question?
    There's a significant difference between an innocent life, that had no hand in its own fate, and a criminal, whose many choices directly contributed to his. There's also a significant difference between intentionally killing a baby in the womb and, arguably, not intending to kill anyone (unless you truly believe Chauvin thought he could get away with murder on video).
    Unless you're playing dumb, what else am I to assume when you make non sequitur arguments?
    Then try really hard to respond to what you quote instead of making non sequitur statements. That's how you demonstrate you actually know what was said.
    No, I was directly addressing your non sequitur. And apparently you don't even have the nerve to justify this obvious red herring.
    Not against her will. I the vast majority of cases, she made choices that any adult should know could lead to that consequence. Now if you're claiming women have no agency, you might be onto a logically consistent argument. Is that what you're trying to say?
    Again, for the love of God, simple English. That literally says "your baby" is also described as "a fetus."
    I said, calling it a fetus instead of a baby (e.g. "not a baby"). So again, what medical experts are telling intentionally pregnant women that it "is not a baby" they carry?
    Yes, "baby" is not a technical term, but neither is "man" or "woman." That doesn't make their usage any less legit. "Not officially described as" does not mean "not a baby."
    Then cite me a medical source on how a baby and a fetus are mutually exclusive terms.
    Oh, is your self-worth dependent upon the feelings and opinions of others?
    He says, again making proclamations instead any reasoned argument.
    Since you don't live in the US, I'll cut you some slack. Here, men are held accountable, without any say over if an unwanted pregnancy is brought to term or not, even if the woman trapped them by intentionally sabotaging birth control. They cannot escape responsibility, as they will be tracked down and have their paychecks docked by the government. So, as you see, there is no "men be held responsible" argument to be had. They already are.
    What give anyone the right to kill babies? If you kill a pregnant woman, you will be charged for killing two people (see Unborn Victims of Violence Act + laws in 38 states). A woman is no one's property, but neither is a female baby in the womb anyone's property, to do with as they see fit like a slave owner.
    Trying to make my argument about me, personally, means you can't refute the fact that plenty of people are looking to adopt.
    Again, fathers, willing or not, are already held accountable in the US. Are they not in Oz?
    False dilemma.

    While it is difficult to find an exact, accurate number to answer this question, Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

    If we ever surpass that demand, the government can bank on the surplus of future taxpayers to boost revenue.
    And there's no guarantee that any child is loved or privileged, even by biological parents who opt to keep them.
    I care for all the children I bring into this world, and in the US, all men are held financially responsible for their children.
    Maybe you should educate yourself, so you can quit making pointless arguments.
    "Not technical" is not the same as "inaccurate." Yes, we get that you're callously indifferent to the loss of human life.
    I get that basic morality may be alien to you. That you may believe that you can deem some human life as less worthy, like a slave owner. For me, it's just a matter of ethical consistency. The question isn't why I'm worried. The question is why aren't you. It's like having a serial killer on the loose. Most sane people wouldn't even think to ask me why I'd want to stop the killer, but the vast majority of people would be very leery of you not wanting to.
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Easy. Homo sapiens is a scientific classification, while your personhood is not. Again, you're a moderator on a supposedly "science forum," no?
    human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens.

    In biological terms, a human being, or human, is any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens
    If homo sapiens is arbitrary, then so are higher classifications such as the biological kingdoms, making the distinction between animal and plant equally arbitrary, and vegans equally guilty of "taking innocent life." If that's the case, you lose all grounds to condemn murder at all, since everyone has to do it to survive.
    I never said "It is always wrong to kill a human being," as self-defense and consequences for wrongdoings are clear exceptions.
    Notice how you keep deflecting to my scientific definition of homo sapiens, while you arduously avoid defining your arbitrary "person."
    Just as soon as you tell me what your 'category of "person"' is, then can I compare how homo sapiens is "morally more worthy."
    What do natural deaths have to do with intentional killings? Do heart attacks make murder more palatable?
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Yes, and words like "human life" have meaning, which your claim directly contradicts. You're claiming that X is not X, but only potentially X. Blatant logical contradiction. Science says it is human life. Quit denying the science.
    Risk to her life is completely irrelevant, as there are no anti-abortion laws that do not make exceptions for immediate risk to the life of the mother. Every adult has to deal with the consequences of their own actions and choices, and that includes failing to account for those other risks. A woman has already given consent, by choosing to do things that have pregnancy as a possible consequence. Again, making a special pleading that women should be less accountable for their own choices isn't very enlightened.
    The moment a gun is used illegally, it is a crime. All other guns are used to defend life from said criminals, whether in the hands of law-abiding citizens or law enforcement. Criminals are such because they do not follow the laws. They actually target "gun free zones," like schools, knowing people will be less defended. My right to own a guns is contingent upon me using it legally. If I choose to use it to harm or threaten someone, I lose that right. Only consistent for those seeking to harm the unborn as well. One doesn't rank higher than the other. They both defend life.
    "I never attributed it as being a "human life", because it is not."​
    And don't even try equivocating over the word "people." Slave owners also claimed they had objective reasons why their slaves weren't "people."
    You obvious just don't understand how you're even continuing to say it here. Taking the extreme action of killing a human life to escape the natural consequences is not "dealing with the consequences." That you even think so demonstrates that you think women should be expected to take such extreme measures to avoid accountability for their own actions.
    Don't know about where you're from, but in the US all men are held financially responsible for any child he fathers, regardless of if he ever wanted it or not. Since there is no escaping that unless the woman does abort the baby, many men try to pressure women to abort (some even resorting to violence). That's sick.
    A person can be pro-life and not believe in life from the moment of conception (which science does not support). I can't help you if your thinking is too black and white to admit that possibility.
    Apparently you don't understand how the morning after pill works.
    Sperm can live inside your body for up to six days after sex, waiting for an egg to show up. If you ovulate during that time, the sperm can meet up with your egg and cause pregnancy. Morning-after pills work by temporarily stopping your ovary from releasing an egg. It’s kind of like pulling the emergency brake on ovulation. Where you’re at in your menstrual cycle and how soon after unprotected sex you take the morning-after pill can affect how well it prevents pregnancy. Morning-after pills won’t work if your body has already started ovulating.

    Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted. They work primarily by delaying or preventing ovulation.
    You cannot produce a new, unique DNA if sperm and egg never meet. Biology 101. Again, you moderate a "science forum"?
    If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).

    Some people believe Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus. This belief is based on the product's FDA labeling. Research, however, has not confirmed the information on the FDA label.
    Research does not support this theory about how Plan B works, though.

    In fact, studies have shown that Plan B does not decrease the rate of pregnancy when taken after ovulation. This suggests it may not interfere with fertilization or implantation, just ovulation.

    As far as we know, Plan B is no longer effective once an egg is fertilized. It doesn’t prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, or interfere with a zygote that has already been implanted.
    Even so, an embryo implants at the end of the first week after conception. The first signs of a nervous system occur around day 14, when some countries cut off embryonic experimentation.
    Again, an adult who consents to any action consents to the possible, natural consequences of that action. The man knowing consents to supporting any resulting children as well. Please, stop with the "implanting" argument. That just makes you sound ignorant.
    Again, they are not "legalized" to kill anyone.
    Answered above.
    That goes for women in utero too. Why do you support denying unborn women their right of body autonomy? Why are you a tyrant, Bells?
    The ones you have to deny science to dismiss as "not human."
    Educate yourself. I've provided plenty of citations above, including Planned Parenthood.
    If you really think the fetus is a part of the woman's body, that's your claim. Glad you recognize how ridiculous it is. Maybe you'll actually stopped making that dumb argument.
    No, that's what you're claiming every time you says "Because it is her body."
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    She has those rights in utero too.
    Her consent already occurred, when she knowingly took that risk.
    Just like a man (you know, equality), she has the same say he does, prior to taking that risk.
    You're not. Why don't you believe in gender equality, Bells?
    If you take the life of a woman in utero, "you have completely disregarded her human rights and her autonomy."
    Quit lying. But it's telling that you feel you have to project your own argument on me, when you can't even manage to make an argument about personhood yourself. I haven't argued anything about the arbitrary philosophical notion or personhood. I've been talking about the scientific definition of human life.
    She has rights, like anyone else, up until those rights infringe on the life and rights of another human. She made the consensual choice to accept the risk of pregnancy, just like the man did. Aside from indentured servitude, no slave ever made a consensual choice that led to their own enslavement. That's the difference. But there is no difference between you denying that the unborn is human and slavers denying that black people were human. You don't even seem capable of justifying that cognitive dissonance without denying science.
    Cherry-picked examples of two obviously untrained/irresponsible people and a police officer dealing with someone resisting.
    The definition of anecdotal, including an argumentum ad populum.
    Then why can't women be expected to responsibly take birth control and the morning after pill instead of abortion?
    No, abortion is a way to escape the consequences, at the cost of a human life. Why do you find that so difficult?
    Again, the baby, according to science.
    Man, you really are that ignorant of the science. Studies have not shown the morning after pill capable of aborting a fertilized egg, by preventing implantation. The morning after pill is not "one form of abortion." Those who believe in life from the moment of conception think it is, but science does not support that belief. Obviously, it is you who doesn't understand biology. Again, if the egg is never fertilized, there is no new life. Biology 101.
    Do you think a heart attack, or any other natural cause of death, is murder? Of course not, because one has nothing to do with the other, just like ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage have nothing to do with abortion. They're just intellectually dishonest red herrings.
    I, personally, like when women decide to have sex. I encourage it. And I take every precaution I can, since, according to you, women apparently can't be expected to do so themselves.
    Why should any human, have more rights over another human than that human? Aside from you denying the science about in utero humans still being human, that's what you're claiming.
    No, I don't think it met the legal definition. And all you can offer in rebuttal is the argument ad populum of the jury verdict.
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Well until you can tell me you'd be willing to ban all abortions except for immediate risk to the life of the mother, rape, or incest, it's completely irrelevant. Catholic-owned hospitals is obvious cherry-picking that has more to do with them than it does the subject of abortion in general.
    Not a red herring, cherry-picking. Like I already said, "ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage have nothing to do with abortion." These are issues with Catholic beliefs, not anti-abortion laws. If you want to put Catholic hospitals out of business, do that, with my blessing. But in the same vein as above, if you're not willing to allow individual doctors to freely exercise their conscience, you'd be lying to claim you only wanted to keep "religiously owned institutions" from doing the same.
    Absolutely. But if she does, the man knows he will be held financially responsible, whether he ever wanted a child or not. You know, the bit that woman can escape all responsibility for.
    The man has no choice after deciding to have sex, but you insist the woman still should. Why don't you believe in gender equality, Bells?
    If you were really egalitarian, you'd simply advocate men being completely let off the hook if they don't want the child too, whether the women decides to keep it or not (and without the end-around of men in general supporting the child through taxes and welfare). But I'm assuming you want your cake and to eat it too.
    No disagreement there. It's a tragedy because the woman knows it was a baby.
    That's what you keep telling me.
    So I guess you'd just lie to pregnant women. Your beliefs are malleable under social pressure. Got it.
    Yeah, I'd lie too, if I believed a woman loved a lump a cells in her belly. I'd have to be a pretty shitty person to believe a mother's love is delusional.
    News flash, criminals break the law. The solution is for victims of domestic abuse to leave the situation and arm themselves. An ex boyfriend or husband can kill a woman with his bare hands.
    No, it's you who has been arguing the misogynistic notion that women cannot be expected to be responsible for their own choices. Why do you keep doing that, Bells? Are women somehow more responsible since the advent of safe abortions?
    Again, you're back to your silly nonsense that a woman can determine what it is just because it's in her body. Barring mental illness, that doesn't work for anything else, but you're making a special pleading for pregnant women.
    Why, are you going to argue some bullshit about the fetus attacking the woman?
    Again, the woman generally made choices leading to that consequence. If abortion were not available, they'd just make different choices as they reassess the risk. Are you saying they wold continue to be just as irresponsible with birth control and the morning after pill even if they couldn't get a safe abortion?
    Science says it's a human life. Quit denying the science. #FollowTheScience
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Here's some more relevant information, from here:

    Consequences of Unintended Pregnancy - The Best Intentions - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

    Here's just one extract from there. Bold is my emphasis for the TL;DR crowd.

    ...about half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Accordingly, the occurrence of abortion can be seen as one of the primary consequences of unintended pregnancy. Voluntary interruption of pregnancy is an ancient and enduring intervention that occurs globally whether it is legal or not. The legalization of abortion in all of the United States, accomplished through the 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, served in large part to replace illegal abortion (as well as abortion obtained outside of the United States) with legal abortion in this country. It is estimated that before the legalization of abortion, about 1 million abortions were being performed annually, few of them legally, and somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 women died annually from complications following these often poorly performed procedures. Before the Supreme Court ruling, abortion was probably the most common criminal activity in this country, surpassed only by gambling and narcotics violations (Luker, 1984; Jaffe et al., 1981).

    A 1975 report by the Institute of Medicine documented the benefits to public health by the legalization of abortion. The Supreme Court decision was followed not only by a decline in the number of pregnancy-related deaths in young women (Cates et al., 1978) but also by a decline in hospital emergency room admissions because of incomplete or septic abortions, conditions that are more common with illegally induced abortions (Institute of Medicine, 1975).

    Given the long-standing reliance on abortion to resolve many unintended pregnancies, it is important to consider available information about the major medical and psychological risks that this procedure may pose (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Reproductive Epidemiology Unit, 1994; Frye et al., 1994; Lawson et al., 1994). From the voluminous data available for review, two important findings stand out that are often overlooked in the controversy over this procedure. First, whatever the risks associated with legal abortion in the United States, it remains a far less risky medical procedure for the woman than childbirth; over the 1979–1985 interval, for example, the mortality associated with childbirth was more than 10 times that of induced abortion (Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, 1992). Second, abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy carries fewer risks to health than abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and beyond.
    Clearly, anybody who was truly "pro-life" would care about the welfare of pregnant women as least as much as they pretend to care about the lives of unborn foetuses and the like.

    The real reasons for people being anti-choice are many and varied, but being "pro-life" isn't usually the real motivation for taking such a stance.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Here's a basic primer on abortion and the concept of personhood, for those who, like Vociferous, don't have a good understanding of the concept:

    Abortion | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)

    This article doesn't have a particular bias towards the sort of hard-line conservative view that Vociferous is trying to push, or towards what the article refers to as a hard-line liberal view. In practice, proponents at both ends of the spectrum often try to defend their views by appealing to their own preferred line-drawing on the issue of "personhood".

    In the present context, the fact that Vociferous can't even recognise that he has a specific criterion for "personhood" that he insists upon means that this article should provide a useful starting education on the relevant issues for him.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2021
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You're barking up the wrong tree.

    You won't ever be able to decide on the morality of abortion by appealing to a "scientific classification". What you need is to be able to make the best moral choice you can make, and science alone won't ever be able to decide that for you.
    Okay, so you have this bad habit, which you seemingly can't shake, of constantly trying to insult people who disagree with you. I don't know where that came from, but you really ought to get over it. It makes you a vulgar human being.

    Because I am an administrator here, I have not "reported" you or taken any action so far for your repeated breaches of our site posting guidelines - as any other member in the same position would be perfectly entitled to do. But my patience is starting to wear thin. So, I will ask you once to try to control your appalling lack of manners. If you are unable to converse without trying to insult, then I might have to start you on the cycle towards a permanent ban. Be aware that, if that happens, it is very unlikely that I will be so tolerant as to allow you to return to membership of this forum for a third time.
    I have nowhere argued that the category "homo sapiens" is arbitrary (although it is technically true to say that all lines between species are arbitrarily drawn, to a degree).

    What you need to show is why members of the species Homo sapiens have special moral rights, not accorded to plants, elephants, rocks, etc. If you wish to do that, I'm afraid you'll have to make a moral argument, at some point.
    Substitute "innocent human being" if you want to be more specific. I assumed we were talking about unborn foetuses in the womb, not rampaging murderous foetuses with automatic weapons that you'll need to defend yourself against.
    Start with philosopher Mary Anne Warren's definition (from 1973 - this stuff has been available for a long time now, if you cared to look), if you like:

    "the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood . . . are, very roughly, the following: 1. consciousness . . . and in particular the capacity to feel pain; 2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types . . . ; 5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness. . . ."​

    Your time starts now. Go.
    pjdude1219 and exchemist like this.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Probably for the same reasons you don't, in general, think that life is sacrosanct. On the other hand, I don't share your religious prejudices in regards to human life.
    In terms of a "right to life", you mean?

    Do you support the death penalty? As a hard line gun-totin' conservative American, I'd be almost disappointed if you didn't.
    Unwanted pregnancy. That means that keeping the pregnancy is against her will. #FollowtheScience (as they say).
    Don't pretend that the minority of cases where she didn't have a choice influence your opinions. You support the Texas anti-abortion law, don't you? No exceptions for rape, incest etc.?
    You're a bright guy (aren't you?). You work it out.
    Your reluctance to recognise that babies develop from a single fertilised ovum means that you have obvious difficulty discussing a complex issue such as abortion.
    You missed the point. Hopefully things are now clearer for you, following my previous post.
    You sound like you disapprove. Do you consider yourself a "mens rights" advocate? Resent the "preferential" treatment the government gives to women?
    Moral justification, I suppose. That's the only thing that can give moral rights to do anything at all. There's also the law, of course, but that's supposed to be based on moral justifications, a lot of the time.
    In your opinion, are a woman's ova her property to do with as she sees fit?

    Consider an ovum one minute before fertilisation and one minute after. Your claim is that, one minute after, there is a "baby" and the mother no longer gets to decide what happens to it. Instead, you get to decide. What happened in that vital minute that made all the moral difference? Please explain why it made the difference.
    No. I'm just questioning where the buck stops when the rubber hits the road, so to speak, on your anti-abortion stance and your professed reverence for the lives of the little innocent babies. It sounds like, once you've forced women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, you personally want no further involvement, whereas before the birth you're determined to stick your big nose in to tell them what they can and can't do. What do you think gives you the right?
    Is that a good thing, in your opinion?
    Well, no. Not if you get your way and ban abortion in your country. It doesn't sound to me like you personally intend to take on any additional child-care responsibilities if you get your way. Or am I wrong?
    (Is that the Royal "we"?)

    On the contrary, it is precisely because I'm not indifferent to human life - particularly the lives of women - that I support the right to choose.
    Hardly. It's clear that I'm much better versed on basic morality than you are, at least when it comes to this particular topic. You're the guy who is claiming that the concept of "personhood" is arbitrary, while simultaneously espousing an arbitrary definition of personhood, without even realising it.
    You still haven't explained why all human life is equally worthy. Can you do that, or are you just going to keep trying to reflect my question back on me while you pretend you have an answer?
    It's clear to me that you have double standards. All this (feigned?) care for the innocent unborn, while no practical concern for the innocent just-born.
    That poor excuse for an argument sounds almost like an admission of defeat from you. Want to try again? Can you come up with a coherent defence of your position? I wonder.
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on when a "growth" (for want of a better neutral term) becomes a human life in its own right, as opposed to a wart, a mole, a skin cell, a cancer, etc.
    Sure, a fertilised egg has potential to be more, so is it the potential we are holding valuable?

    If it really is the "life" of the fertilised egg, what sets it apart from the skin cell, the wart, the mole etc, other than potential? If "life" begins at some later stage of pregnancy, when? What differentiates the fetus assigned to be "life" and one that is in an earlier stage of development such that is not?

    But I have never found scientific consensus on when that might be, and I'm not even sure that there is a "scientific answer". It is surely a moral position one takes on this matter, not one of science.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    You just equated a fetus to a wart, a mole, a skin cell, a cancer, etc.

Share This Page