If Life begins at conception

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, it's absurd. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. I brought an argument to its logical conclusion.

The tradeoff between the satisfaction of the pregnant mother and the maximization of safety for the fetus (by decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion, i.e. the murder of an innocent person) can't be denied.

1. The fetus is a human being.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. If any miscarriage is partially due to the mother's insufficient attempts at decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion,
4. then the mother is partly responsible for murdering an innocent person.

Sorry, but that's taking the "fetus=person" and the "abortion=murder" argument to its logical conclusion. The mother should've took more care in reducing the risk of a miscarriage. The greatest way to reduce that risk is to sit in a hospital bed for nine months and be fed "perfect" food through tubes, etc.

No, because by that same reasoning,you could also indict any parent who let their child go outside, cross the street, ride in a car, join the soccer team or eat a cheeseburger. You're throwing in the extra absurd assertion that ANY choice that may increase the risk of something is the same as a premeditated course of action to accomplish that something. I dealt with the issue of different levels of responsibility for the end of someone's life in the other part of my post, which you conveniently left out. Look it up.

Those aren't similar scenarios. The mother is in full control of her own fetus. She is the gatekeeper of the inputs into her fetus-person. The kid running around outside or playing soccer is exposed to risks which are beyond the mother's control. A mother can't help it if the soccer ball hits her kid in the head. A mother can protect her fetus by not playing soccer, thus mitigating the risk of having her fetus-person getting hit by a soccer ball. The two scenarios are different.

In my scenario, the mother has considerable control over the inputs into her mind and body. Enough responsibility lies with how she cares for her body, which in turn means how much she cares for the person-fetus.

If she doesn't want to risk the unjust killing of her fetus-person, why shouldn't she mitigate the risks of miscarriage? What's the optimal balance between the mother's satisfaction and the fetus-person's safety? How far does moral obligation extend?

Edit on second thought, I'll just re- post it:

Now the semantic problem with the term "murder" is a little more complex. There are many different circumstances under which one might end a life, and not all of them are "murder". Situations that most would say are certainly not "murder" would include self-defense, and the defense of other lives. Beyond that there are a whole range of circumstances with varying degrees of controversiality (e.g. war). In the legal system various circumstances are called "manslaughter" or even "justifiable homicide". These take into account the mental state and motivation of the person. To be considered "murder" there has to be a degree of specific malice toward the deceased, among other things. If someone is convinced that the, let's use the term "embryo", is just a lump of tissue, or part of the mother's body that is just being removed, that hardly fits.

The problems with the oversimplified slogan “Abortion is murder” do not in any way contradict the well-considered, and I believe true, position that the child in the womb is a person, and that abortion means ending her life. We can discuss the complexities of the various circumstances, and the efficacy of various consequences, but that is a different issue.

Murder = unjust killing. It's not just to kill someone by acting negligently. So, my argument is still fine.

[saxitoxin]

Either that or abstain from sex.

Good point, BvP. One time I abstained from sex for 17 years so it's clearly possible.

[Baron Von PWN]

Either that or abstain from sex.

Good point, BvP. One time I abstained from sex for 17 years so it's clearly possible.

was that from birth till 17?

[saxitoxin]

Either that or abstain from sex.

Good point, BvP. One time I abstained from sex for 17 years so it's clearly possible.

was that from birth till 17?

I still proved it's possible.

[john9blue]

hey saxi i found an article that will make you rage

https://torrentfreak.com/pirating-uk-st ... us-120313/

[saxitoxin]

hey saxi i found an article that will make you rage

https://torrentfreak.com/pirating-uk-st ... us-120313/

I LOL'ed!

[bedub1]

hey saxi i found an article that will make you rage

https://torrentfreak.com/pirating-uk-st ... us-120313/

I LOL'ed!

You don't think it's bullshit? The UK should have told the US to f*ck off.

[saxitoxin]

hey saxi i found an article that will make you rage

https://torrentfreak.com/pirating-uk-st ... us-120313/

I LOL'ed!

You don't think it's bullshit? The UK should have told the US to f*ck off.

If it were Libya. But this is the bed the UK made for themselves. Now they have to sleep in it.

[natty dread]

Shit like that makes me want to join al qaida.

[saxitoxin]

I liked the comments where people were whining "I can't believe the U.S. is doing this to us!"

LMAO, not a single bullet was fired. Their own police packaged him up and delivered him to the U.S., obediently doing as they were told. That leaves two options: (1) your democratic government is carrying out the democratic desires of your population, (2) your country is a puppet state under foreign control. Everyone keeps breathlessly telling me #2 is FALSE so, by default, that leaves only option 1: the extradition was widely supported by the bulk of Britishers and no one has anything about which to complain.

[saxitoxin]

Shit like that makes me want to join al qaida.

Al Qaeda is anti-abortion, IIRC.

Saxi bringing this one full-circle ...

[Symmetry]

Now the semantic problem with the term "murder" is a little more complex. There are many different circumstances under which one might end a life, and not all of them are "murder". Situations that most would say are certainly not "murder" would include self-defense, and the defense of other lives. Beyond that there are a whole range of circumstances with varying degrees of controversiality (e.g. war). In the legal system various circumstances are called "manslaughter" or even "justifiable homicide". These take into account the mental state and motivation of the person. To be considered "murder" there has to be a degree of specific malice toward the deceased, among other things. If someone is convinced that the, let's use the term "embryo", is just a lump of tissue, or part of the mother's body that is just being removed, that hardly fits.

The problems with the oversimplified slogan “Abortion is murder” do not in any way contradict the well-considered, and I believe true, position that the child in the womb is a person, and that abortion means ending her life. We can discuss the complexities of the various circumstances, and the efficacy of various consequences, but that is a different issue.

It's good to see a pro-lifer acknowledge the huge problems within the movement when its advocates spout the "abortion is murder" line. It's a weird, thoughtless argument that seems more about polarisation than actually reducing the number of abortions. I guess the follow up question would be that given making abortion illegal doesn't seem to actually reduce abortion rates, are you merely advocating that women who have abortions, their doctors (or I guess, backstreet providers), and relations should be prosecuted?

Quite a large number of people you seem to want incarcerated. I don't think it's unfair to talk about the practicalities, do you? After all, ignoring them would be over-simplifying.

[PLAYER57832]

I won't go over the same old bits again, bt here are 2 points I did not see mentioned above.

First many times the decision to abort is based on a desire to have other children or to protect existing children. I don't say its wrong or right, but that fact is often dismissed or not even acknowledged by the extremists. It is a point that needs to be considered in a reasonable and full discussion of this topic.

Second, in many religions, including ancient Judaism, there is the idea of purity and sanctity that includes physical perfection or freedom of serious defect. I tie this to quarantine, rather than any idea of "evil". However, the reason is sort of irrelevant (or rather might vary with beliefs). The point is that many belief systems hold that itsnot enough to just create life. You have a responsibility to ensure that it is GOOD life. My grandmother talks of midwifes who were trained to always have a bucket of water nearby. The reasn turns my stomache. If a "monstor" (her words.. the words of that time) was born, the bucket would ensure the was not even a cry. It turns my stomache, but I am not in a world where a child who cannot walk well is almost certainly condemned to poverty, where a child with an extra limb or such would be ostracized to the point that about the only place they might really be welcome would be the circus side shows.

Today, we have a very different set of questions. Children born with extra limbs are fixed with surgery, not to mention the fact that medical science to a large extent helps prevent such things from happening through better nutrition and better knowledge of medicines, etc. However, we live in a world where an adult can sign a living will, talk to their doctor and say "at this point.. enough already.. do NOT revive me 20 times, do NOT perform major surgary when I am 90 and on death's door" But, if its a child... a decision made before birth to say "I will not condemn my child to a life like this (unable to breath freely, without a brain, in serious pain.. whatever the circumstances)" AFter birth, they not only often cannot make any choice, they are forced to pay for the results of the choice they did not want to make.. no matter how many other children are impacts.

[Victor Sullivan]

yeah but the catholic church violated some kids, which is SO MUCH WORSE, because kids who are dead can't go through emotional trauma, and kids who are raped can.

the catholic church also hates abortions. so it's probably a good idea to do abortions, because those child molesters can't be trusted

Logic

Yes, the people who claim to SPEAK FOR THE FUCKIN CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and are therefore morally superior to all of us, betrayed the trust of their followers in the most heinous way possible.

But it's no biggy, it's all cool.

I'm not Catholic

-Sully

[saxitoxin]

(unable to breath freely, without a brain, in serious pain.. whatever the circumstances)

A lot of people can live a fulfilling life without a brain as these forums prove.

[Haggis_McMutton]

yeah but the catholic church violated some kids, which is SO MUCH WORSE, because kids who are dead can't go through emotional trauma, and kids who are raped can.

the catholic church also hates abortions. so it's probably a good idea to do abortions, because those child molesters can't be trusted

Logic

Yes, the people who claim to SPEAK FOR THE FUCKIN CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and are therefore morally superior to all of us, betrayed the trust of their followers in the most heinous way possible.

But it's no biggy, it's all cool.

I'm not Catholic

-Sully

my reply was to john's comment, unless ... hmm, are you revealing you're john's multi here?

you know I always suspected something.

[john9blue]

my reply was to john's comment, unless ... hmm, are you revealing you're john's multi here?

you know I always suspected something.

victor sullivan is me from 30 years in the future

he/i pretended to be named "victor" and to be a math teacher instead of a computer scientist

he's trying to influence the current me to not make poor decisions, but he can't reveal to me that he's my future self, due to the paradoxes that would occur.

we will not truly be "multis" until our timelines converge in 2042

[daddy1gringo]

Now the semantic problem with the term "murder" is a little more complex. There are many different circumstances under which one might end a life, and not all of them are "murder". Situations that most would say are certainly not "murder" would include self-defense, and the defense of other lives. Beyond that there are a whole range of circumstances with varying degrees of controversiality (e.g. war). In the legal system various circumstances are called "manslaughter" or even "justifiable homicide". These take into account the mental state and motivation of the person. To be considered "murder" there has to be a degree of specific malice toward the deceased, among other things. If someone is convinced that the, let's use the term "embryo", is just a lump of tissue, or part of the mother's body that is just being removed, that hardly fits.

The problems with the oversimplified slogan “Abortion is murder” do not in any way contradict the well-considered, and I believe true, position that the child in the womb is a person, and that abortion means ending her life. We can discuss the complexities of the various circumstances, and the efficacy of various consequences, but that is a different issue.

It's good to see a pro-lifer acknowledge the huge problems within the movement when its advocates spout the "abortion is murder" line. It's a weird, thoughtless argument that seems more about polarisation than actually reducing the number of abortions.

Like I said, it's not an argument, it's a slogan, and as such it doesn't take into account a lot of things.

I guess the follow up question would be that given making abortion illegal doesn't seem to actually reduce abortion rates, are you merely advocating that women who have abortions, their doctors (or I guess, backstreet providers), and relations should be prosecuted?

That's a good question, and I have to say that when I first saw it when you posted it in another thread some time ago, it made me stop and think a few things through. No, the goal is certainly not to take a lot of already-traumatized girls and throw them in jail.

My answer has to begin with the fact that I don't take your "given" ("making abortion illegal doesn't seem to actually reduce abortion rates") as a given. For obvious reasons there aren't going to be any reliable statistics on abortions performed when it was illegal, but abortion is a huge industry. In the united States alone there are over a million abortions per year, according to the "pro-choice" Guttmacher institute (1.37 million in 2001). It is legally and socially acceptable. Many high schools have arrangements with local abortion clinics to bring pregnant students there without even the parents being told. There is no reason to believe that rates used to be anywhere near this high.

Prohibition is used as an example of the idea that prohibiting something doesn't prevent people from doing it. Once again, there aren't going to be any reliable direct stats on who was still drinking when it was illegal, but the CDC tracked historical levels of various alcohol-related conditions, like cirrhosis of the liver, and it indicated that alcohol consumption did indeed decrease significantly during those years and increase after. Prohibition was a "failure" only in the sense that it was repealed. Evidently a great many people will indeed take legality into account in their decisions. I know, I know, the gangster movies show everybody, including the mayors and police chiefs at the "speakeasies", but a movie is just a movie after all.

So no, the goal is not to incarcerate a lot of people, but through changing the way that it is dealt with, to discourage this particular choice, and encourage other choices, like adoption, or like being responsible in the first place. There is a lot more to say about other policies that would have to be instituted along with changing the legal status of abortion in order to do so, but I think you get the idea, and I'm tired.

Edit
BTW, recognizing that "abortion is murder" is a gross oversimplification, but recognizing the child in the womb as a human life, would allow for dialogue on subjects like the health of the mother, the quality of life of the child, rape, incest, and perhaps others. What would definitely be excluded would be that one is willing to sacrifice someone else's life in order that one may continue living one's own irresponsibly.

[BigBallinStalin]

Prohibition is used as an example of the idea that prohibiting something doesn't prevent people from doing it. Once again, there aren't going to be any reliable direct stats on who was still drinking when it was illegal, but the CDC tracked historical levels of various alcohol-related conditions, like cirrhosis of the liver, and it indicated that alcohol consumption did indeed decrease significantly during those years and increase after. Prohibition was a "failure" only in the sense that it was repealed. Evidently a great many people will indeed take legality into account in their decisions. I know, I know, the gangster movies show everybody, including the mayors and police chiefs at the "speakeasies", but a movie is just a movie after all.

Unfortunately, it's more complex than that. It's not wise to say the underlined because you're just focusing on one of the many consequences. I'm not going to debate this further with you because of your reaction to the ridiculousness of how the "fetus=person" and "abortion=murder/unjust killing" argument plays out, so here ya go:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol

[Symmetry]

Now the semantic problem with the term "murder" is a little more complex. There are many different circumstances under which one might end a life, and not all of them are "murder". Situations that most would say are certainly not "murder" would include self-defense, and the defense of other lives. Beyond that there are a whole range of circumstances with varying degrees of controversiality (e.g. war). In the legal system various circumstances are called "manslaughter" or even "justifiable homicide". These take into account the mental state and motivation of the person. To be considered "murder" there has to be a degree of specific malice toward the deceased, among other things. If someone is convinced that the, let's use the term "embryo", is just a lump of tissue, or part of the mother's body that is just being removed, that hardly fits.

The problems with the oversimplified slogan “Abortion is murder” do not in any way contradict the well-considered, and I believe true, position that the child in the womb is a person, and that abortion means ending her life. We can discuss the complexities of the various circumstances, and the efficacy of various consequences, but that is a different issue.

It's good to see a pro-lifer acknowledge the huge problems within the movement when its advocates spout the "abortion is murder" line. It's a weird, thoughtless argument that seems more about polarisation than actually reducing the number of abortions.

Like I said, it's not an argument, it's a slogan, and as such it doesn't take into account a lot of things.

I guess the follow up question would be that given making abortion illegal doesn't seem to actually reduce abortion rates, are you merely advocating that women who have abortions, their doctors (or I guess, backstreet providers), and relations should be prosecuted?

That's a good question, and I have to say that when I first saw it when you posted it in another thread some time ago, it made me stop and think a few things through. No, the goal is certainly not to take a lot of already-traumatized girls and throw them in jail.

My answer has to begin with the fact that I don't take your "given" ("making abortion illegal doesn't seem to actually reduce abortion rates") as a given. For obvious reasons there aren't going to be any reliable statistics on abortions performed when it was illegal, but abortion is a huge industry. In the united States alone there are over a million abortions per year, according to the "pro-choice" Guttmacher institute (1.37 million in 2001). It is legally and socially acceptable. Many high schools have arrangements with local abortion clinics to bring pregnant students there without even the parents being told. There is no reason to believe that rates used to be anywhere near this high.

Prohibition is used as an example of the idea that prohibiting something doesn't prevent people from doing it. Once again, there aren't going to be any reliable direct stats on who was still drinking when it was illegal, but the CDC tracked historical levels of various alcohol-related conditions, like cirrhosis of the liver, and it indicated that alcohol consumption did indeed decrease significantly during those years and increase after. Prohibition was a "failure" only in the sense that it was repealed. Evidently a great many people will indeed take legality into account in their decisions. I know, I know, the gangster movies show everybody, including the mayors and police chiefs at the "speakeasies", but a movie is just a movie after all.

So no, the goal is not to incarcerate a lot of people, but through changing the way that it is dealt with, to discourage this particular choice, and encourage other choices, like adoption, or like being responsible in the first place. There is a lot more to say about other policies that would have to be instituted along with changing the legal status of abortion in order to do so, but I think you get the idea, and I'm tired.

Edit
BTW, recognizing that "abortion is murder" is a gross oversimplification, but recognizing the child in the womb as a human life, would allow for dialogue on subjects like the health of the mother, the quality of life of the child, rape, incest, and perhaps others. What would definitely be excluded would be that one is willing to sacrifice someone else's life in order that one may continue living one's own irresponsibly.

Hmm, bit of a long post, and to be fair I wasn't referring to prohibition, but rather to countries that have made abortion illegal. Given that those countries have similar, and sometimes higher rates of abortion, and of course, those abortions are significantly less safe, it seems that abortion providers do a pretty good job of advising people of the various options available to them,

Link

I would kind of turn that last sentence of yours around. Your arguments seem a little irresponsible. Rather than look at the actual practicalities of your argument, you seem to be claiming a moral high ground regardless of consequence.

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[Symmetry]

You keep mentioning consequences of making abortion illegal.
Since I am anti-abortion, I would like to know what are the consequences of making abortion illegal?

You would have to prosecute women who have abortions, as well as anyone who helped them receive and abortion, and, of course, the provider of the abortion. If we're taking the abortion is murder line, that's a lot of very serious prosecutions.

Going by 2004 data from wiki:

In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women

That's just women receiving abortions, of course- not their doctors, nurse, family members, friends etc. who would also be implicated in a criminal act.

The other factor, of course, given that making it illegal doesn't really decrease rates of abortion, would be that abortion would be more dangerous. More likely to kill the woman.

The third issue, I would say, is that women seeking abortions would be less likely to have other options presented to them, what with the illegalisation of professional advice.

What benefits do you see from illegalisation?

[saxitoxin]

You keep mentioning consequences of making abortion illegal.
Since I am anti-abortion, I would like to know what are the consequences of making abortion illegal?

You would have to prosecute women who have abortions, as well as anyone who helped them receive and abortion, and, of course, the provider of the abortion. If we're taking the abortion is murder line, that's a lot of very serious prosecutions.

I'm pro-abortion rah rah rah and all that, however, this is not true and borders on hysterical hyperbole.

There are many proscribed medical procedures. For instance, it's illegal for a physician to trepan someone, generally. If someone were trepanned, however, they're not indictable for allowing themselves to be trepanned. However, the physician could face license forfeiture or loss of accreditation for performing an illegal medical procedure.

[BigBallinStalin]

Nice hat, sax!

[bedub1]

People do what they want. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs is a major failure. Prohibition of abortions would have the same results.