Political Crossfire Forums

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

That life was created by the other. That person isnt capable of surviving independently because it is young. Its how we all start out, young and immature. Its dependence shouldnt have anything to do with it as it is a direct result of its mothers actions.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

That life was created by the other. That person isnt capable of surviving independently because it is young. Its how we all start out, young and immature. Its dependence shouldnt have anything to do with it as it is a direct result of its mothers actions.
Direct result or not, I see no compelling reason to extend rights to an embryo/fetus that is incapable of survival outside the body of the mother.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

That life was created by the other. That person isnt capable of surviving independently because it is young. Its how we all start out, young and immature. Its dependence shouldnt have anything to do with it as it is a direct result of its mothers actions.
Direct result or not, I see no compelling reason to extend rights to an embryo/fetus that is incapable of survival outside the body of the mother. How about its capability to survive in its natural habitat? As someone else put it, its like disqualifying someone from a 10 mile race because they are only on the 5th mile. Youre not giving them the chance they deserve as a living human to experience life. How about instead of needing a reason to not kill it, needing a reason TO kill it?

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

That life was created by the other. That person isnt capable of surviving independently because it is young. Its how we all start out, young and immature. Its dependence shouldnt have anything to do with it as it is a direct result of its mothers actions.
Direct result or not, I see no compelling reason to extend rights to an embryo/fetus that is incapable of survival outside the body of the mother. How about its capability to survive in its natural habitat? As someone else put it, its like disqualifying someone from a 10 mile race because they are only on the 5th mile. Youre not giving them the chance they deserve as a living human to experience life. How about instead of needing a reason to not kill it, needing a reason TO kill it?
Still, you have not provided anything that would make me rethink my position. I see no compelling reason, even with your myriad of hypotheticals and emotional appeals, to extend rights to the unborn.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

That life was created by the other. That person isnt capable of surviving independently because it is young. Its how we all start out, young and immature. Its dependence shouldnt have anything to do with it as it is a direct result of its mothers actions.
Direct result or not, I see no compelling reason to extend rights to an embryo/fetus that is incapable of survival outside the body of the mother. How about its capability to survive in its natural habitat? As someone else put it, its like disqualifying someone from a 10 mile race because they are only on the 5th mile. Youre not giving them the chance they deserve as a living human to experience life. How about instead of needing a reason to not kill it, needing a reason TO kill it?
Still, you have not provided anything that would make me rethink my position. I see no compelling reason, even with your myriad of hypotheticals and emotional appeals, to extend rights to the unborn. I see no compelling reason to not extend rights to the unborn. The compelling reason to be anti abortion is that its the end of an innocent human's life.

[AllAmericanMan]

I love how cheaply my arguments are called emotional appeals and dismissed because of it. The biggest emotional appeal of them all is the pro choice "its my body" liberty speech. Everyone is trained to get upset at the thought of our precious liberties being eroded. Never mention the fact that an unborn child is being killed in cold blood. Is that emotional? Well maybe, but it should be because its true and happening every day.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

UrielsFyre wrote: Plodder wrote: he is paying you a complement and thanking you for your support. and here is another. congrats on being at berkeley AND being pro life. its rare over there. Quote: No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. a parasite also harms the host. a baby doe snot harm the host. a tape worm can kill you. a baby will, except in extreme cases never kill the mother.
You are adding something to the definition, which does not exist, only to help your case. In biology, we can see that a parasite, by definition, "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

I'm sorry, but, biologically speaking, a baby is a parasite until it is born.
You're going by the very basic dictionary terminology. If you go by the biological terminology you will see that an fetus in utero does not satisfy any of the types of parasitism.

Quote: Parasites that live inside the body of the host are called endoparasites (e.g., hookworms that live in the host gut) and those that live on the outside are called ectoparasites (e.g., mosquitos). An epiparasite is a parasite that feeds on another parasite. Many endoparasites acquire hosts by passive mechanisms, such as the nematode Ascaris lumbricoides, an endoparasite of the human intestine. A. lumbricoides produces large numbers of eggs which are passed from the host's digestive tract into the external environment, relying on other humans to inadvertently ingest them in places without good sanitation. Ectoparasites, on the other hand, often have elaborate mechanisms and strategies for finding hosts. Some aquatic leeches, for example, locate hosts by sensing movement and then confirm their identity through skin temperature and chemical cues before attaching.

Necrotrophs are parasites that use another organism's tissue for their own nutritional benefit until the host dies from loss of needed tissues or nutrients. Necrotrophs are also known as parasitoids. Biotrophic parasites cannot survive in a dead host and therefore keep their hosts alive. Many viruses, for example, are biotrophic because they use the host's genetic and cellular processes to multiply.

Some parasites are social parasites, taking advantage of interactions between members of a social host species such as ants or termites to their detriment. Kleptoparasitism involves the parasite stealing food that the host has caught or otherwise prepared. A specialized type of kleptoparasitism is brood parasitism, such as that engaged in by many species of cuckoo. Many cuckoos use other birds as lifetime "babysitters": cuckoo young are raised and fed by adults of the host species, but adult cuckoos fend for themselves.

Cheating or exploitation types of parasitism are often found in situations where there are generalized non-specific mutualisms between broad classes of organisms, such as mycorrhizal relationships between plants and many types of fungi. Some myco-heterotrophic plants behave as "mycorrhizal cheaters", establishing mycorrhiza-like interactions with a fungal symbiont, but taking carbon from the fungus (which the fungus, in turn, gets from other plants) rather than donating carbon.

[AllAmericanMan]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Plodder wrote: he is paying you a complement and thanking you for your support. and here is another. congrats on being at berkeley AND being pro life. its rare over there. Quote: No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. a parasite also harms the host. a baby doe snot harm the host. a tape worm can kill you. a baby will, except in extreme cases never kill the mother.
You are adding something to the definition, which does not exist, only to help your case. In biology, we can see that a parasite, by definition, "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

I'm sorry, but, biologically speaking, a baby is a parasite until it is born.
You're going by the very basic dictionary terminology. If you go by the biological terminology you will see that an fetus in utero does not satisfy any of the types of parasitism.

Quote: Parasites that live inside the body of the host are called endoparasites (e.g., hookworms that live in the host gut) and those that live on the outside are called ectoparasites (e.g., mosquitos). An epiparasite is a parasite that feeds on another parasite. Many endoparasites acquire hosts by passive mechanisms, such as the nematode Ascaris lumbricoides, an endoparasite of the human intestine. A. lumbricoides produces large numbers of eggs which are passed from the host's digestive tract into the external environment, relying on other humans to inadvertently ingest them in places without good sanitation. Ectoparasites, on the other hand, often have elaborate mechanisms and strategies for finding hosts. Some aquatic leeches, for example, locate hosts by sensing movement and then confirm their identity through skin temperature and chemical cues before attaching.

Necrotrophs are parasites that use another organism's tissue for their own nutritional benefit until the host dies from loss of needed tissues or nutrients. Necrotrophs are also known as parasitoids. Biotrophic parasites cannot survive in a dead host and therefore keep their hosts alive. Many viruses, for example, are biotrophic because they use the host's genetic and cellular processes to multiply.

Some parasites are social parasites, taking advantage of interactions between members of a social host species such as ants or termites to their detriment. Kleptoparasitism involves the parasite stealing food that the host has caught or otherwise prepared. A specialized type of kleptoparasitism is brood parasitism, such as that engaged in by many species of cuckoo. Many cuckoos use other birds as lifetime "babysitters": cuckoo young are raised and fed by adults of the host species, but adult cuckoos fend for themselves.

Cheating or exploitation types of parasitism are often found in situations where there are generalized non-specific mutualisms between broad classes of organisms, such as mycorrhizal relationships between plants and many types of fungi. Some myco-heterotrophic plants behave as "mycorrhizal cheaters", establishing mycorrhiza-like interactions with a fungal symbiont, but taking carbon from the fungus (which the fungus, in turn, gets from other plants) rather than donating carbon.

I got him to concede the point already :wink: Just scroll back a page I think.

[Plodder]

Quote: I love how cheaply my arguments are called emotional appeals and dismissed because of it. The biggest emotional appeal of them all is the pro choice "its my body" liberty speech. Everyone is trained to get upset at the thought of our precious liberties being eroded. Never mention the fact that an unborn child is being killed in cold blood. Is that emotional? Well maybe, but it should be because its true and happening every day the liberal speakers are alway crying women. a (/11 widow, that woman outside of Bush's Ranch, ect ect ect

[AllAmericanMan]

CAN NOBODY SCROLL BACK TO PAGE 1 AND SHOW ME WHERE I AM WRONG?

[Gilbert1908]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

But even a new born has virtually NO rights other than the right to life.

No human being have much legal standing until they have developed much further.

By your logic it would "morally" acceptable (since morals are relative) for us to set developmental standards for new borns and destroy any that failed to meet those standards.

[Enoch]

Gilbert1908 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

But even a new born has virtually NO rights other than the right to life.

No human being have much legal standing until they have developed much further.

By your logic it would "morally" acceptable (since morals are relative) for us to set developmental standards for new borns and destroy any that failed to meet those standards.
A new born has every right that a fully developed person has, they just may not be able to excercise them yet. They have the right to free speech, but can't yet excercise it. You "logical" extension of my argument is hardly logical at all.

I say again, until such time as a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is not deserving of any rights.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

But even a new born has virtually NO rights other than the right to life.

No human being have much legal standing until they have developed much further.

By your logic it would "morally" acceptable (since morals are relative) for us to set developmental standards for new borns and destroy any that failed to meet those standards.
I new born has every right that a fully developed person has, they just may not be able to excercise them yet. They have the right to free speech, but can't yet excercise it. You "logical" extension of my argument is hardly logical at all.

I say again, until such time as a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is not deserving of any rights. A new born cant survive on its own. Youre standard is arbitrary. Scientifically abortion is killing a human being, embryo or otherwise. Any stripping of rights at any stage of human development is arbitrary and immoral.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

But even a new born has virtually NO rights other than the right to life.

No human being have much legal standing until they have developed much further.

By your logic it would "morally" acceptable (since morals are relative) for us to set developmental standards for new borns and destroy any that failed to meet those standards.
I new born has every right that a fully developed person has, they just may not be able to excercise them yet. They have the right to free speech, but can't yet excercise it. You "logical" extension of my argument is hardly logical at all.

I say again, until such time as a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is not deserving of any rights. A new born cant survive on its own. Youre standard is arbitrary. Scientifically abortion is killing a human being, embryo or otherwise. Any stripping of rights at any stage of human development is arbitrary and immoral.
But, a new born can survive independently of the biological processes of another.

[Gilbert1908]

UrielsFyre wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

But even a new born has virtually NO rights other than the right to life.

No human being have much legal standing until they have developed much further.

By your logic it would "morally" acceptable (since morals are relative) for us to set developmental standards for new borns and destroy any that failed to meet those standards.
A new born has every right that a fully developed person has, they just may not be able to excercise them yet. They have the right to free speech, but can't yet excercise it. You "logical" extension of my argument is hardly logical at all.

I say again, until such time as a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is not deserving of any rights.

A new born certainly does not have the right of free speech.

Every child is legally subjugated to its parents. The parents have control and charge of their children until the child achieves the age of consent.

Any parent can (and in my opinion should exercise more often) their perogative to limit the free speech of their child as THEY see fit.

While a child is a citizen and certainly should have protection they simply DO NOT have legal standing simply by virtue of being alive.

It may come as shock to you, but children have only one right that a fetus does not have and that is protection that it can not be terminated. A parent must abdicate his/her rights by abandoning or abusing the child and even then the child is put in the custody of another adult or adult entity.

Again my point is that by creating an arbitrary s set of tandards based solely on developmental points in the life continuum and by assuming morality is relative you can not object to another group applying a different set of logical but arbitrary standards to achieve the same result that you seek.

Your objection MUST be on moral ground since there is NO question that the standards are arbitrary.

[Izzibeth]

i'm sorry... i still am not seeing any females in these forums. where are all of you?


it IS MY BODY. and if i get pregnant and feel i am not ready for a child, if it is conceived through rape/incest, if carrying the child will kill me, if i just don't feel like having a baby, i WILL ABORT the pregnancy. and there is nothing you can do, short of strapping me to a bed for 10 months and depriving me of all MY rights, to stop me from doing so. because it is MY body. people act as if abortion is the decision of choice in these scenarios. i have not met a woman yet who has had an abortion who went all for it without hesitation. but it was her body and her choice. unfortunately the forming embryo could not make a choice but who is to say they would WANT to be born? we make that choice for them in conceiving and birthing. they don't have a choice in the matter. we make that choice.

it is MY body.

[Enoch]

Gilbert1908 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic. No, I am saying that when a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is deserving of rights.

But even a new born has virtually NO rights other than the right to life.

No human being have much legal standing until they have developed much further.

By your logic it would "morally" acceptable (since morals are relative) for us to set developmental standards for new borns and destroy any that failed to meet those standards.
A new born has every right that a fully developed person has, they just may not be able to excercise them yet. They have the right to free speech, but can't yet excercise it. You "logical" extension of my argument is hardly logical at all.

I say again, until such time as a person is capable of survival independently of the biological processes of another, then said person is not deserving of any rights.

A new born certainly does not have the right of free speech.

Every child is legally subjugated to its parents. The parents have control and charge of their children until the child achieves the age of consent.

Any parent can (and in my opinion should exercise more often) their perogative to limit the free speech of their child as THEY see fit.

While a child is a citizen and certainly should have protection they simply DO NOT have legal standing simply by virtue of being alive.

It may come as shock to you, but children have only one right that a fetus does not have and that is protection that it can not be terminated. A parent must abdicate his/her rights by abandoning or abusing the child and even then the child is put in the custody of another adult or adult entity.

Again my point is that by creating an arbitrary s set of tandards based solely on developmental points in the life continuum and by assuming morality is relative you can not object to another group applying a different set of logical but arbitrary standards to achieve the same result that you seek.

Your objection MUST be on moral ground since there is NO question that the standards are arbitrary. Yes, a child does have the right to free speech. Just because their parents may censor what they say does not mean they don't have first amendment protections. Those protections dictate that the state can not silence them. Parents still can.

Their first amendment protection of free speech is NOT being infringed upon when their parents say "you can't say that." Those protections only apply as protection against censorship by the state or police (as agents of the state).

I'm sorry that you don't understand that a new born baby has all of their rights, even if they can't yet excercise them.

[Izzibeth]

i got sick of this debate and so stopped posting, but i would like to say that making abortion illegal will accomplish nothing other than making you feel better about yourself.

the number of abortions or attempted abortions will not decline. it will only appear that way since the statistics will not be as readily available. and, just as there were before Roe v. Wade.. underground, illegal abortion clinics will be established and will have no shortage of women who require their services. the fight will go on in this country and this issue will be the type to go through many stages.. illegal one generation, allowable the next, illegal the next, and so on. but either way, abortions will continue as women are the only ones who can make the decision regarding the potential life/life of their unborn children.

[Gilbert1908]

UrielsFyre wrote:

I'm sorry that you don't understand that a new born baby has all of their rights, even if they can't yet excercise them.

How is an unexercisable right a right?

How does a 2 year old child, who has NO legal standing in a court of law have any way of claiming a right????

You sound like you are making a MORAL argument, which, by the way we would agree on.