Political Crossfire Forums

ReelBigSpikey · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 1877

But what about all this rhetoric from the pro-life camp about an embryo being a human? Isn't that the crux of their argument? They say that an embryo is a human, therefore aborting it is tantamount to murder. If an embryo is indeed human, and this is your belief, then you shoul clearly choose to save the hundreds of human lives in the petri dish over the two year old child.

It looks like there truly is consensus. An embryo is in fact not equivalent at all to a 2 year old.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:46 am Post subject:

Seems like the premise “Someone is just as much of a human being as you or I from conception” that the anti-choicers like to use all the time is falling apart. Since everyone would save the real person, and not the hundreds of potential people, the anti choicers demonstrate that even they do not really believe their own precarious premise, when really pressed. Good thread ReelBigSpikey.

I obviously picked the two year old child as well, since I believe saving a person takes precedence over saving hundreds of not-yet-people.

ReelBigSpikey wrote:
It looks like there truly is consensus. An embryo is in fact not equivalent at all to a 2 year old.

Yup. Even Anti-Choicers voted in this, and we have a unanimous vote.

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1575

Last time I checked when someone is having an abortion they are not choosing between an embryo and a 2 year old child, they are choosing between an embryo and their own convenience (in 90% of cases). When the choice is thus I choose the embryo [ahem] baby.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:

alclarkey wrote: Last time I checked when someone is having an abortion they are not choosing between an embryo and a 2 year old child, they are choosing between an embryo and their own convenience (in 90% of cases). When the choice is thus I choose the embryo [ahem] baby.

Irrelevant. The poll was meant to demonstrate consensus that people do not believe that an embryo, even many of them, are of the same value as an already born child. We accept that any person has equal value to another, and so, it concludes so far that 14-0 do not believe that an embryo is a person. Since only people get rights, the mother already has the right to body sovereignty, and so her wish to maintain body sovereignty, which is her right, takes precedence over the existence of something that is not a person. This is what ReelBigSpikey meant to demonstrate.

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1575

What if the choice were between a Osama Bin Laden and a 2 year old child? Osama bin Laden is technically a human being, but is less deserving of life than a 2 year old child. The embryos of course do not have the same value as a 2 year old child, but they are not more deserving of death. They are more deserving of life than a grown woman is of her convenience.

ReelBigSpikey · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 1877

Wow, someone actually voted to save the embryos? I'd like to hear the reasoning on that one.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

alclarkey wrote: Last time I checked when someone is having an abortion they are not choosing between an embryo and a 2 year old child, they are choosing between an embryo and their own convenience (in 90% of cases). When the choice is thus I choose the embryo [ahem] baby.

No, someone having an abortion is choosing between the potential for be a life, and to end that potential. An embryo is not an individual person. It does not think, or act, as an individual, but rather as an extension of the mother carrying it. By telling someone they cannot have an abortion, you are dictating the right to the mother's own body. Anyone remember Descartes? "I think, therefore I am"? Well, and embryo does not think, and does not act, therefore I do not believe it is a life.

alclarkey wrote: They are more deserving of life than a grown woman is of her convenience.

It's not an issue of convenience. If that was your basis for being anti-individual liberty, then you would also advocate reviewing every single abortion case by the federal government. Well, you'd create thousands of new bureaucratic jobs and increase the government two-fold... I guess that's a plus to some people...

Two year old child, Snarf said it best.

Snarf wrote: Real life before potential life...

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1575

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Last time I checked when someone is having an abortion they are not choosing between an embryo and a 2 year old child, they are choosing between an embryo and their own convenience (in 90% of cases). When the choice is thus I choose the embryo [ahem] baby.

No, someone having an abortion is choosing between the potential for be a life, and to end that potential. An embryo is not an individual person. It does not think, or act, as an individual, but rather as an extension of the mother carrying it. By telling someone they cannot have an abortion, you are dictating the right to the mother's own body. Anyone remember Descartes? "I think, therefore I am"? Well, and embryo does not think, and does not act, therefore I do not believe it is a life.
Are you inside the mind of an embryo? Can you see what goes on there, to be able to say that it does not think? Come back when you can.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: They are more deserving of life than a grown woman is of her convenience.
It's not an issue of convenience. If that was your basis for being anti-individual liberty, then you would also advocate reviewing every single abortion case by the federal government. Well, you'd create thousands of new bureaucratic jobs and increase the government two-fold... I guess that's a plus to some people...
No you wouldn't. We all know that the true case where an abortion is prudent (given a pro-lifers view) is an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs in 1 in 50 pregnancies, which ammounts to roughly 50,000 abortions per year. Simply divide that ammount based on the population of state and local government's, and you know how many should be performed by any particular hospital, if that hospital seems to be doing an exorbitant ammount of abortions, that might raise some eyebrows and would merit investigation. Now apparantly some illegal abortions would slip through cracks and the punishment for those abortions would be left up to God to administer, but it's a damn sight better than 1.5 million a year. Besides it wouldn't be up to the federal goverment, it would be up to the individual states.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Two year old child, Snarf said it best.

Snarf wrote: Real life before potential life...

How about real life before convience?

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Real Life>PotentialLife>Convenience.....

The mother is not faced with death. She is faced with a loss of convenience and burdened with responsibility, which she herself brought on.

This thread is non-sense. All it shows is that when faced with a burning building, and a choice to make on who to save the life of, people would choose the 2 year old over a bunch of embryos.

This thread has nothing to do with abortion. In this case, its the death of a 2 year old, vs the death of potential life. In abortion, it is the death of potential life vs......?? Not the death of the mother. The convenience of the mother. There is hardly a comparison between the two. IN one you have to chose between TWO sides dying. In abortion, only ONE side is faced with death. This thread, and the poll, show nothing at all about Pro-Lifers and their argument against abortion. It only takes up space on the inter-web....

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

alclarkey wrote: Are you inside the mind of an embryo? Can you see what goes on there, to be able to say that it does not think? Come back when you can.

And who are you to say that it can? I guess it is something that is left up to individual belief. I can only tell you what I believe, and why I believe it. I cannot expect you to share my view, only listen to it.

alclarkey wrote: No you wouldn't. We all know that the true case where an abortion is prudent (given a pro-lifers view) is an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs in 1 in 50 pregnancies, which ammounts to roughly 50,000 abortions per year. Simply divide that ammount based on the population of state and local government's, and you know how many should be performed by any particular hospital, if that hospital seems to be doing an exorbitant ammount of abortions, that might raise some eyebrows and would merit investigation. Now apparantly some illegal abortions would slip through cracks and the punishment for those abortions would be left up to God to administer, but it's a damn sight better than 1.5 million a year. Besides it wouldn't be up to the federal goverment, it would be up to the individual states.

Regardless of what government conducts the reviews, it is still a governmental review. I apologize for the harshness of my last post, and I hope that you did not take any direct offense to it. But, it is still surrendering the individual's health to the government, state or otherwise. If an individual does not have the right to their own body, then what other rights do they have? No one can hope to have control over external factors, when they have no control over their own internal affairs. The right to one's own body is something that I fear will never fall into the hands of anyone but the individual. I suppose that those who are pro-life are just going to have to have some trust in their fellow human to do the "right" thing.

alclarkey wrote: How about real life before convience?

Again, difference of opinion. It all comes down to the individual's interpretation of what an embryo is. Is it life, or potential life? I cannot tell you what it is anymore than you can tell me what it is. I suppose it is something that we will never know.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Just to point out, nobody has complete control over there own body. If we did, we would have heroine addicts walking around with needles and drugs in plain sight, shooting up as they please....Drugs wouldnt be illegal. This is why I dont think the "right to privacy" and the "right to ones own body" arguments are very strong for abortion. JMO though...

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1575

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Are you inside the mind of an embryo? Can you see what goes on there, to be able to say that it does not think? Come back when you can.

And who are you to say that it can? I guess it is something that is left up to individual belief. I can only tell you what I believe, and why I believe it. I cannot expect you to share my view, only listen to it.
Because we cannot be inside the mind of a fetus to whether or not it thinks, we do not have moral justification in killing it. Think of it this way: If you take the risk that killing it OK and you are wrong, what punishment do you think you would recieve from God? However there is no chance of wrongdoing by allowing it to live.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: No you wouldn't. We all know that the true case where an abortion is prudent (given a pro-lifers view) is an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs in 1 in 50 pregnancies, which ammounts to roughly 50,000 abortions per year. Simply divide that ammount based on the population of state and local government's, and you know how many should be performed by any particular hospital, if that hospital seems to be doing an exorbitant ammount of abortions, that might raise some eyebrows and would merit investigation. Now apparantly some illegal abortions would slip through cracks and the punishment for those abortions would be left up to God to administer, but it's a damn sight better than 1.5 million a year. Besides it wouldn't be up to the federal goverment, it would be up to the individual states.

Regardless of what government conducts the reviews, it is still a governmental review. I apologize for the harshness of my last post, and I hope that you did not take any direct offense to it.
I didn't find anything particularly offensive about your post, other than you being wrong... :wink:

LostSoul3412 wrote: But, it is still surrendering the individual's health to the government, state or otherwise. If an individual does not have the right to their own body, then what other rights do they have? No one can hope to have control over external factors, when they have no control over their own internal affairs. The right to one's own body is something that I fear will never fall into the hands of anyone but the individual. I suppose that those who are pro-life are just going to have to have some trust in their fellow human to do the "right" thing.
The "slippery slope" thing does not work with abortion, as pro-lifers have no other motivation than to protect innocent life. I have no problem with an individual having control over their own body, and if abortion were illegal as it should be, they would still have control over their body. Don't want to be pregnant? Abstain from sex, wear a condom, get your tubes tied, or get your lover to have a vasectomy.

I would seek an amendment to the constitution that said something like this:

No citizen of these United States shall have the rights to his or her bodily functions infringed upon, except as punishment for a crime, or to preserve the life of one or more unborn children which are not threatening the life of the mother with their existence.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: How about real life before convience?

Again, difference of opinion. It all comes down to the individual's interpretation of what an embryo is. Is it life, or potential life? I cannot tell you what it is anymore than you can tell me what it is. I suppose it is something that we will never know.
Like I said previously, not knowing whether or not it is life, do you feel qualified to sentance it to death?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

alclarkey wrote: Because we cannot be inside the mind of a fetus to whether or not it thinks, we do not have moral justification in killing it. Think of it this way: If you take the risk that killing it OK and you are wrong, what punishment do you think you would recieve from God? However there is no chance of wrongdoing by allowing it to live.

Fear from a divine judge is no basis for an argument, especially when there are billions of people following all types of different religions. For example, I follow my own faith. I believe that there is some cosmic energy flowing though every single thing in the universe, which connects us all to each other. It has no effect on our daily lives, but it connects us to nature, and to each other. I am connected to a rock the same way I am connected to another individual, at least on a cosmic level. I call myself a Transcendental Deist, because of the transcendental philosophy that there is some energy in the universe, and the deist ideals that the divine does nothing to effect our lives. So, punishment from a "God" would not bother me in the least.

alclarkey wrote: The "slippery slope" thing does not work with abortion, as pro-lifers have no other motivation than to protect innocent life. I have no problem with an individual having control over their own body, and if abortion were illegal as it should be, they would still have control over their body. Don't want to be pregnant? Abstain from sex, wear a condom, get your tubes tied, or get your lover to have a vasectomy.

I would seek an amendment to the constitution that said something like this:

No citizen of these United States shall have the rights to his or her bodily functions infringed upon, except as punishment for a crime, or to preserve the life of one or more unborn children which are not threatening the life of the mother with their existence.

Of course the best way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain, but we cannot expect everyone to do that. One of the big problems in the world is lack of education about birth control, and in many instances people do not know about how to use them or where to get them. Also, with the drive for teenagers to act upon their hormones, it is completely irrational to expect 100% of them to abstain or use protection.

It is not a slippery slope at all, it is the issue itself that I am concerned about. Even with your amendment, you are still infringing on the rights of the individual to their own body. If abortion were made illegal, then the individual would lose the right to their own choice to not have a child. And sometimes, accidents happen. A condom breaks, can't pull out in time, and even birth control pills are only 99% effective; there's still that 1%. Infringing on the right of a mother to do what they want with their own body is something that I would never endorse into a law, or amendment, even if I agreed with it. And since all laws do that, this is a choice that is up to the individual, not the government.

alclarkey wrote: Like I said previously, not knowing whether or not it is life, do you feel qualified to sentance it to death?

If it was my potential children, then yes. If it is my body, my children, then it is my choice, and the government has no right to tell me otherwise.

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1575

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Because we cannot be inside the mind of a fetus to whether or not it thinks, we do not have moral justification in killing it. Think of it this way: If you take the risk that killing it OK and you are wrong, what punishment do you think you would recieve from God? However there is no chance of wrongdoing by allowing it to live.

Fear from a divine judge is no basis for an argument, especially when there are billions of people following all types of different religions. For example, I follow my own faith. I believe that there is some cosmic energy flowing though every single thing in the universe, which connects us all to each other. It has no effect on our daily lives, but it connects us to nature, and to each other. I am connected to a rock the same way I am connected to another individual, at least on a cosmic level. I call myself a Transcendental Deist, because of the transcendental philosophy that there is some energy in the universe, and the deist ideals that the divine does nothing to effect our lives. So, punishment from a "God" would not bother me in the least.
The point was, how would you feel to find out that you were unequivocally wrong. That would make you a murderer. If I were unequivocally wrong, what would I be guilty of? Not murder.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: The "slippery slope" thing does not work with abortion, as pro-lifers have no other motivation than to protect innocent life. I have no problem with an individual having control over their own body, and if abortion were illegal as it should be, they would still have control over their body. Don't want to be pregnant? Abstain from sex, wear a condom, get your tubes tied, or get your lover to have a vasectomy.

I would seek an amendment to the constitution that said something like this:

No citizen of these United States shall have the rights to his or her bodily functions infringed upon, except as punishment for a crime, or to preserve the life of one or more unborn children which are not threatening the life of the mother with their existence.

Of course the best way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain, but we cannot expect everyone to do that. One of the big problems in the world is lack of education about birth control, and in many instances people do not know about how to use them or where to get them. Also, with the drive for teenagers to act upon their hormones, it is completely irrational to expect 100% of them to abstain or use protection.

It is not a slippery slope at all, it is the issue itself that I am concerned about. Even with your amendment, you are still infringing on the rights of the individual to their own body. If abortion were made illegal, then the individual would lose the right to their own choice to not have a child. And sometimes, accidents happen. A condom breaks, can't pull out in time, and even birth control pills are only 99% effective; there's still that 1%. Infringing on the right of a mother to do what they want with their own body is something that I would never endorse into a law, or amendment, even if I agreed with it. And since all laws do that, this is a choice that is up to the individual, not the government.
People used to abstain a hell of lot more in the past, why couldn't it work now? Has the human psyche changed that much that would could not turn America back into a more sexually respectful country? And for those who absolutely cannot wait to have sex (until they were ready for a child), they would not be belittled or derided for their mistake, they could always put their children up for adoption.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Like I said previously, not knowing whether or not it is life, do you feel qualified to sentance it to death?

If it was my potential children, then yes. If it is my body, my children, then it is my choice, and the government has no right to tell me otherwise.

What happens after birth then? Does the same argument apply? Should government not intervene if you should decide to plant a knife in your childs heart? I mean after all it is your child.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

alclarkey wrote: The point was, how would you feel to find out that you were unequivocally wrong. That would make you a murderer. If I were unequivocally wrong, what would I be guilty of? Not murder.

But that's just it. I'm not unequivocally wrong, because I don't believe in any "higher truth". My truth is what I believe, and there is no greater being than the individual. I am my own God.

alclarkey wrote: People used to abstain a hell of lot more in the past, why couldn't it work now? Has the human psyche changed that much that would could not turn America back into a more sexually respectful country? And for those who absolutely cannot wait to have sex (until they were ready for a child), they would not be belittled or derided for their mistake, they could always put their children up for adoption.

No, the human psyche has changed to accept its own freedom, as opposed to have a government decide it for them. People are becoming more and more in control of their own life, and less dependent on a government or societal confounds. Part of the reason we're not as "sexually respectful" is because of the censorship we have on it in the first place. Sex sells in current American society, because it is something not usually seen in public media. Tear down censorship, and then society will have a different idea about sex.

alclarkey wrote: What happens after birth then? Does the same argument apply? Should government not intervene if you should decide to plant a knife in your childs heart? I mean after all it is your child.

In an ideal world, there would be no government at all to tell me what to do with my children or otherwise. But assuming you're talking about the current governmental system, then the same rules would not apply. After birth, the embryo becomes a human life, like an egg hatches into a chicken. Once that individual is an independent being, then it has the same rights as you or me under the United States government. Until it becomes an individual, and not a extension of the mother with the potential to become life, it is not alive, and therefore has no rights.

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1575

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: The point was, how would you feel to find out that you were unequivocally wrong. That would make you a murderer. If I were unequivocally wrong, what would I be guilty of? Not murder.

But that's just it. I'm not unequivocally wrong, because I don't believe in any "higher truth". My truth is what I believe, and there is no greater being than the individual. I am my own God.
You do have morals, I hope. And if you do, then you must regard the taking of the life of another person as imoral. However by your standards you do not regard a fetus to be another person and therefore it is not immoral (by your standards) to remove it. What if at some point in the future technology advances to the point where you could put yourself into the mind of a fetus and find that it does have thoughts and a personality of its own and that it is not just a piece of tissue, but a sentient person. How then would you feel about having killed it? I with my beliefs do not have such a worry.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: People used to abstain a hell of lot more in the past, why couldn't it work now? Has the human psyche changed that much that would could not turn America back into a more sexually respectful country? And for those who absolutely cannot wait to have sex (until they were ready for a child), they would not be belittled or derided for their mistake, they could always put their children up for adoption.

No, the human psyche has changed to accept its own freedom, as opposed to have a government decide it for them. People are becoming more and more in control of their own life, and less dependent on a government or societal confounds. Part of the reason we're not as "sexually respectful" is because of the censorship we have on it in the first place. Sex sells in current American society, because it is something not usually seen in public media. Tear down censorship, and then society will have a different idea about sex.
That is incorrect. The forbidden fruit factor does not work here. Sex has been more and more uncensored as time goes on, and one can see the direct result in that more people are having pre-marital, and promiscuous sex. Does seeing two people have sex help the situation? No. Does hearing from your parents the responsibilities that come with sex, help? Yes. If thats what you are talking about, about parents being afraid to talk with their children about sex, then I am in agreement with you.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: What happens after birth then? Does the same argument apply? Should government not intervene if you should decide to plant a knife in your childs heart? I mean after all it is your child.

In an ideal world, there would be no government at all to tell me what to do with my children or otherwise. But assuming you're talking about the current governmental system, then the same rules would not apply. After birth, the embryo becomes a human life, like an egg hatches into a chicken. Once that individual is an independent being, then it has the same rights as you or me under the United States government. Until it becomes an individual, and not a extension of the mother with the potential to become life, it is not alive, and therefore has no rights.

But it is not an extension of the mother, she only provides nourishment and a safe place to grow. She has no control of its individual limbs or it's thought patterns. It is indeed and individual person.

X-Shocker · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 167 Location: All around you

LostSoul,

Well said. Nice posts.

Our freedom is being challenged more and more, these days, by extremists. There are some choices which I do not think some people should have, but I will never vote for their rights to be taken away because losing rights will lead to the destruction of our freedom.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

alclarkey wrote: You do have morals, I hope. And if you do, then you must regard the taking of the life of another person as imoral. However by your standards you do not regard a fetus to be another person and therefore it is not immoral (by your standards) to remove it. What if at some point in the future technology advances to the point where you could put yourself into the mind of a fetus and find that it does have thoughts and a personality of its own and that it is not just a piece of tissue, but a sentient person. How then would you feel about having killed it? I with my beliefs do not have such a worry.

It seems like you believe what you believe out of fear of being wrong. The way I see it, human fallacy is something that cannot be reversed, or changed. Having said that, believing in something out of fear is not a belief at all, it is cowardice. I apologize if this is inflammatory, but saying that you have no fear of being wrong is not a belief at all. You are simply taking the easy road out, as opposed to standing up for your own rights. Saying that if I was wrong, then I would be endorsing murder is completely dishonorable and cowardly. On top of that, even if I was able to be put in an embryo's position, then it still would not prove anything. I am a sentient being, and an independent thinker. My mind in another body would change nothing but my physical state.

alclarkey wrote: That is incorrect. The forbidden fruit factor does not work here. Sex has been more and more uncensored as time goes on, and one can see the direct result in that more people are having pre-marital, and promiscuous sex. Does seeing two people have sex help the situation? No. Does hearing from your parents the responsibilities that come with sex, help? Yes. If thats what you are talking about, about parents being afraid to talk with their children about sex, then I am in agreement with you.

And yet the censorship does not keep pace with the evolving psyche of America. Freedom is something that many people are seeking and taking control of. Censorship only works against that. Besides, that was a hypothese, not a factual claim. Much in the same way "God" is not a factual claim.

alclarkey wrote: But it is not an extension of the mother, she only provides nourishment and a safe place to grow. She has no control of its individual limbs or it's thought patterns. It is indeed and individual person.

Again, just a difference of opinion. Regardless of what an embryo actually is, the fact still stands that a law forbidding abortions would go against the individual choice of the mothers. If she provides nourishment and a safe place for the potential child to become a full child, then why does she not have the right to choose not to provide that?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

X-Shocker wrote: LostSoul,

Well said. Nice posts.

Our freedom is being challenged more and more, these days, by extremists. There are some choices which I do not think some people should have, but I will never vote for their rights to be taken away because losing rights will lead to the destruction of our freedom.

Thank you, it is glad to see others who would put individual liberty before your own personal morals. Regardless of our own position, we cannot force the rest of the population to agree with it.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

LostSoul3412 wrote: X-Shocker wrote: LostSoul,

Well said. Nice posts.

Our freedom is being challenged more and more, these days, by extremists. There are some choices which I do not think some people should have, but I will never vote for their rights to be taken away because losing rights will lead to the destruction of our freedom.

Thank you, it is glad to see others who would put individual liberty before your own personal morals. Regardless of our own position, we cannot force the rest of the population to agree with it.

Youre right, you can never force anyone else to agree with what you believe. I will never agree with abortion....but as it stands right now, I have to live with it. The same would be true if it were the other way around and abortion were illegal, or R v W was overturned. Pro-Choice people would have to live with it, but not agree with it.