Miscarriage = baby; Abortion = "mass of cells"

[jmdrake]

I addressed this in another thread, but I felt it deserved its own thread. I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy in our society that pretends the humanity of an unborn child depends on whether its "wanted" or not. My wife and I lost our first child about halfway into the pregnancy. I was firmly "pro choice" at the time. I didn't understand why my wife was so devastated. Then I read the books she was given from the hospital. One was called "the loneliest grief." All of these books emphasized how we had really "lost a child" and that it was "okay to grieve because its the same as if you had lost any other child." I'm sure any public figure who told a woman who had a miscarriage to "get over it" because she "just lost a parasite" or a "tumor" or a "mass of cells" would be vilified in the media. And yet....I hear these terms used to describe aborted babies. I hear people falsely claim that if you believe an unborn child is a human being that must be because of "religious reasons". Well my religion hasn't changed. My understanding of what happens inside the womb prior to birth has. My understanding of the hypocrisy of a society that treats children differently based on whether or not they are "wanted" has changed. Ron Paul put it well when he talked about how as an obstetrician he could be held criminally liable for harming an unborn child....as long as that child was "wanted".

Now I know all of the arguments of the other side. That we "shouldn't enslave women for 9 months" or that there will be "thousands or millions of back alley abortions" if Roe v Wade is overturned (an inflated claim IMO that ignores excess deaths of women from legal abortions) and that we "don't want pregnancy police" etc. I even respect some of those arguments. But I have no respect for the arguments put forward by those who say that there is no reason, other than religion, to believe a fetus is actually a human being who's life should be respected and, at least to some degree, protected. That position displays either extreme ignorance or dishonesty. I'm not mad at those who have it. I used to be extremely ignorant on the subject. I just ask, if you have that position, to go to any obstetrician worth his/her salt and ask what counsel is given to those who have had a miscarriage. You may be surprised by the answer. I certainly was.

[cheapseats]

Howzabout the Liberty Moovement grooms an Independent candidate for a bid in 2016, in case Rand's candidacy goes the way of his LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION father?

[jmdrake]

Howzabout the Liberty Moovement grooms an Independent candidate for a bid in 2016, in case Rand's candidacy goes the way of his LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION father?

Howzabout you forget about politics for a moment and try to actually educate yourself about miscarriages?

[Todd]

Howzabout you forget about politics for a moment and try to actually educate yourself about miscarriages?

+1

[cheapseats]

Howzabout you forget about politics for a moment...

Why? Because I disagree with you?



...and try to actually educate yourself about miscarriages?

Why? Because it interests you?

By contrast, there IS good cause to groom an Independent candidate...have a PLAN B...in case Rand loses the GOP nomination, RIGHT?

[Smart3]

I mean you no disrespect, but I find it completely ridiculous for people to say they lost a child that never existed - it had no birthday, no memories, no name, no clothes and you didn't even hold it on your arms. Miscarriages (abortions) are a common occurrence, and if one believes in a god then one must also believe that God chooses which fetuses survive and which do not. In your case, your first attempt resulted in failure - and it was God's will.

Not sure if you tried again, but I assume you did? I was always taught growing up in a fundie environment that miscarriages were a blessing from God, meant to strengthen a person and lead them to either be better biological parents or to adopt.

[FriedChicken]

Why? Because I disagree with you?




Why? Because it interests you?

By contrast, there IS good cause to groom an Independent candidate...have a PLAN B...in case Rand loses the GOP nomination, RIGHT?

I don't think the OP meant for this to be a Rand discussion, otherwise I'm sure it would be in Rand's sub-forum.

PS,
what I see on my screen is different from what I see in my text box after I clicked 'reply w/ quote' ... just you just edit your post or something?

[jmdrake]

Why? Because I disagree with you?




Why? Because it interests you?

By contrast, there IS good cause to groom an Independent candidate...have a PLAN B...in case Rand loses the GOP nomination, RIGHT?

I care not whether you disagree with me. And if you chose to remain willfully ignorant, that's on you.

[FriedChicken]

I mean you no disrespect, but I find it completely ridiculous for people to say they lost a child that never existed - it had no birthday, no memories, no name, no clothes and you didn't even hold it on your arms. Miscarriages (abortions) are a common occurrence, and if one believes in a god then one must also believe that God chooses which fetuses survive and which do not. In your case, your first attempt resulted in failure - and it was God's will.

Not sure if you tried again, but I assume you did? I was always taught growing up in a fundie environment that miscarriages were a blessing from God, meant to strengthen a person and lead them to either be better biological parents or to adopt.

wow ... I would bet 1 million dollars that you're not a woman who has ever been pregnant. Neither am I but my wife is due in 5 to 6 weeks - if she lost the baby now she would completely devastated - and no, it wasn't planned, we weren't trying (in fact I remember trying to NOT get pregnant).
The fact that she never got to hold it would contribute to her being more depressed by it, not less.

[cheapseats]

I don't think the OP meant for this to be a Rand discussion, otherwise I'm sure it would be in Rand's sub-forum.


Anti Abortion threads ABOUND. There are more threads on Abortion than on Afghanistan and Syria COMBINED. Y'know, where LIVING people are being killed.

"Social Conservatives" are HARPING on abortion, and it IS hurting the fractious Liberty Moovement.

[jmdrake]

No disrespect taken. But I think you missed my point. My post had nothing to do with "growing up in a fundie environment." As I said, I was firmly pro choice well into adulthood and didn't understand why my wife was so broken up by the miscarriage until I read the book she was given by the hospital and her obstetrician. I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that this same obstetrician performed abortions. (I'm going by the law of averages here as most have and we didn't specifically seek out a religious obstetrician.) I'm making a general observation that non-religious society treats babies who die from miscarriages differently from those who die from abortion. If you take the "In either case it's no biggie" position, then at least you are being consistent. Most of the rest of society, religious or otherwise, is not. That's my point.


I mean you no disrespect, but I find it completely ridiculous for people to say they lost a child that never existed - it had no birthday, no memories, no name, no clothes and you didn't even hold it on your arms. Miscarriages (abortions) are a common occurrence, and if one believes in a god then one must also believe that God chooses which fetuses survive and which do not. In your case, your first attempt resulted in failure - and it was God's will.

Not sure if you tried again, but I assume you did? I was always taught growing up in a fundie environment that miscarriages were a blessing from God, meant to strengthen a person and lead them to either be better biological parents or to adopt.

[erowe1]

I mean you no disrespect, but I find it completely ridiculous for people to say they lost a child that never existed - it had no birthday, no memories, no name, no clothes and you didn't even hold it on your arms. Miscarriages (abortions) are a common occurrence, and if one believes in a god then one must also believe that God chooses which fetuses survive and which do not. In your case, your first attempt resulted in failure - and it was God's will.

Not sure if you tried again, but I assume you did? I was always taught growing up in a fundie environment that miscarriages were a blessing from God, meant to strengthen a person and lead them to either be better biological parents or to adopt.

I don't see why it's being God's will should make a difference. Everyone dies at precisely the time that God determined they would, whether in the womb or at 100. And, yes, we should find some consolation in knowing that God has a good purpose for all things. But that doesn't mean we don't grieve over the deaths of loved ones.

[Smart3]

No disrespect taken. But I think you missed my point. My post had nothing to do with "growing up in a fundie environment." As I said, I was firmly pro choice well into adulthood and didn't understand why my wife was so broken up by the miscarriage until I read the book she was given by the hospital and her obstetrician. I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that this same obstetrician performed abortions. (I'm going by the law of averages here as most have and we didn't specifically seek out a religious obstetrician.) I'm making a general observation that non-religious society treats babies who die from miscarriages differently from those who die from abortion. If you take the "In either case it's no biggie" position, then at least you are being consistent. Most of the rest of society, religious or otherwise, is not. That's my point.

I understand. I also dislike the hypocrisy. A bit like how people are OK with pornography but not OK with prostitution.

I'm curious why this book changed your perspective, it had to be from a religious perspective, as I've never heard of a non-religious grieving book impacting someone's worldview.

In the extremely unlikely event this happens to a loved one of mine, I'd tell them the same thing I told you.

___

We need to stop calling them miscarriages and call them what they really are - involuntary abortions.

[Brett85]

Howzabout the Liberty Moovement grooms an Independent candidate for a bid in 2016, in case Rand's candidacy goes the way of his LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION father?

You act like a troll when you constantly criticize Ron in his own forum.

[RockEnds]

I've seen those things that hospitals give out for miscarriages. I'm sorry, but I think they're beyond creepy. I had a miscarriage at about 3 1/2 months gestation. It was in an emergency room, and they didn't send me the post "care" package. I'm glad.

I think it would be really difficult to live in a place and time where it wasn't unusual to lose multiple young children to disease. I do genealogy, and when I'm mapping a cemetery, I always feel sad when I see the old gravestones for three or four children of the same family who all died within days of each other. I can't imagine the will power it took for those parents to wake up the next morning. But they did it. We're here because they did it. I have three live children and one early term miscarriage. I count my lucky stars. Some of those old timers lost more kids in a week than I've birthed in a lifetime. I just don't see it as the same.

[Nirvikalpa]

Miscarriages occur mostly within the first trimester, although of course they can occur during the second and third trimester as well. 10-25% of all pregnancies will end in miscarriage, and some of those miscarriages will occur so early that a woman believes it is her menstrual flow - this is called a chemical pregnancy, and it's around 50-75% of those miscarriages. But they occur mostly in the first trimester due to the body recognizing something is usually not right with the growing embryo - most spontaneously aborted pregnancies tend to have either genetic or other medical abnormalities which would prevent the embryo from dividing/growing properly in utero.

There are also different types of miscarriages a woman can experience, from an ectopic pregnancy and molar pregnancy, to an incomplete miscarriage and a missed miscarriage.

There have been studied that show most miscarriages affect male embryos, and the mother's immune cells can indeed see a male embryo as "foreign," and work it's hardest to expel it. Women who have had male children do indeed, more often than not, have immunity cells within their body that were created to act upon their male children in utero, as well as have more pregnancy-related complications with pregnancies after giving birth to a boy:


Fetal cells can cross the placenta during pregnancy and male DNA is detectable in the maternal circulation both during and after an ongoing pregnancy and can persist in the circulation up to 27 years post-partum (Bianchi et al., 1996, 2001).


Prior birth of boys is associated with a decrease in birthweight, an increased risk of stillbirth and preterm birth, and reduced reproductive success among subsequently born children in the background population. These findings support the hypothesis of non-tolerated maternal immune responses against H-Y-antigens as a possible mechanism behind SRM and also some so far unexplained obstetric complications in the background population.


It also remains to be explored how or whether the initially specific anti-H-Y response suggested to develop after the birth of boys in SRM may also affects subsequent female fetuses. Although male fetuses seem to be at the highest risk of demise after a previous birth of a boy in SRM, female fetuses also seem to be in a higher than normal risk of miscarriage.

In truth, much more can go wrong with a developing male embryo than a female embryo.

Some cool studies:

Male fetuses are particularly affected by maternal alloimmunization to D antigen: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1537-2995.1999.39299154731.x/abstract;jsessionid=EDA88C8DA5C3D769E50524C545E640 03.d02t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Secondary recurrent miscarriage and H-Y immunity: http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/558.long

--------

So, there's a little science behind miscarriage. Before I get called a "sexist," and green73 quotes me with his usual "you seem to have a low opinion of men, why do you stick around?" I just want to point out that autoimmunity was a subject I studied for my honors thesis, which I coupled with my degree - reproductive biology, so it's just random knowledge I remember that I thought I'd share.

As for the emotional aspect of abortion... I can't honestly have an opinion, and I would feel wrong to have one. I have never been pregnant or lost a pregnancy. I do know some women take their miscarriages better than others. I know some women are extremely distraught after a miscarriage (I've had those EMS calls), and I know there are women who believe it to be God's will, and while they are sad about it, they work through it. Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know the "right" way to handle a miscarriage.

[The Free Hornet]

Now I know all of the arguments of the other side.

No, you don't.

1) the anti-abortion movement is now Obamacare - congrats "Mission Accomplished"

2) I don't believe in the choice to kill a human but in the fallibility of government and force (my "pro choice" is nothing like your faux choice past)

3) the pro-life movement has near zero appetite to prosecute murder as murder and the liberty minded do not rush to the defense of increased regulatory authority of the medical markets

4) the stats do not seem to support your prohibitions as effective (http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/01/26/abortion-laws-and-global-abortion-rates/) - if we could reduce murders, of adults, by eliminating laws against murder, I would seriously consider it

[The Free Hornet]

I'm making a general observation that non-religious society treats babies who die from miscarriages differently from those who die from abortion.

Not true, IMO. My family and relatives are extremely Catholic with few exceptions. They've held a FULL funeral for a miscarriage (long, complicated story). In your world, the DA would have to clear this as a natural miscarriage or something. They'd exume the little guy's casket looking for evidence of foul play.


If you take the "In either case it's no biggie" position, then at least you are being consistent. Most of the rest of society, religious or otherwise, is not. That's my point.

Neither is no biggie in my non-religious opinion. Wanting and not getting can be just as bad just as not wanting and killing.

Regardless, you commit the fallacy of thinking through this issue emotionally and trying to come to the right decision and enforcing that with government force. My position is that the mother is in best position to defend a fetus, not the government. If I'm wrong, that she ought not be a mother, then the problem is largely self correcting.

Here is another,

5) Not supporting government where it hasn't been effective historically, deeply interferes in our personal lives, and the issue itself creates artificial divisions (congrats)

Not a single reason of mine regarding abortion has to do with some 'clump of cells' arguments. Why YOU ever thought that way or would ascribe that position to others is beyond belief.

[jmdrake]

I understand. I also dislike the hypocrisy. A bit like how people are OK with pornography but not OK with prostitution.

I'm curious why this book changed your perspective, it had to be from a religious perspective, as I've never heard of a non-religious grieving book impacting someone's worldview.

In the extremely unlikely event this happens to a loved one of mine, I'd tell them the same thing I told you.

___

We need to stop calling them miscarriages and call them what they really are - involuntary abortions.

The book was not at all religious. It didn't mention God or spirituality or anything of the sort. I'll have to look in our library to see if I can find it. What changed for me is that I couldn't understand how the same medical profession that consoles a woman who has an abortion by saying "Well it wasn't really a child" would turn around and console a woman who had a miscarriage by saying "It really was a child and ignore the people who tell you otherwise."

Oh, something else that I thought about. While you are correct that a pre born baby has "never had a birthday", that doesn't mean that he/she hasn't bonded with both parents. Quite the to contrary, science shows that in utero infants can recognize not only their mother's voice, but their father's as well! Some pregnant moms not only talk, sing and play music to their children prior to birth, but even get responses. I've heard moms say "I told him to move because he was in an uncomfortable position for me...and he moved." Coincidence? Maybe, but I think not. So there very well may be memories, a name etc. The child may not have been "held in arms" but have you ever had a pregnant mom tell you "Come touch my baby?" I have. And without getting to much into the nature of God's will, I agree with ewore1's point that anything you say about a miscarriage and God's will could also be said regarding the death of anyone else. Yes, we had other children. But I don't see that as any different from parents who lose their only child or children in a car accident having other children. Yes you're happy for the ones you have while remembering the ones you lost.

[The Free Hornet]

Howzabout the Liberty Moovement grooms an Independent candidate for a bid in 2016, in case Rand's candidacy goes the way of his LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION father?

Human life does begin at conception. It isn't canine life and previously, neither sperm nor egg alone were a full human blueprint (from the chromosome perpsective, right - I understand other variables are in play).

Conception is an important milestone regardless of your beliefs on abortion or religion.

[jmdrake]

No, you don't.

You've gained the ability to read minds now?



1) the anti-abortion movement is now Obamacare - congrats "Mission Accomplished"


Ummm....okay. I'll admit I don't know ^this one. What point are you attempting to make?



2) I don't believe in the choice to kill a human but in the fallibility of government and force (my "pro choice" is nothing like your faux choice past)


Yep. I've heard ^that one.



3) the pro-life movement has near zero appetite to prosecute murder as murder and the liberty minded do not rush to the defense of increased regulatory authority of the medical markets


Yep. I've heard ^that one.



4) the stats do not seem to support your prohibitions as effective (http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/01/26/abortion-laws-and-global-abortion-rates/) - if we could reduce murders, of adults, by eliminating laws against murder, I would seriously consider it

Yep. I've heard ^that one too.

[SWATH]

My wife was pregnant with twins. One was miscarried and the other was born healthy but after 11 months got cancer. Both events were equally devastating.

[otherone]

I believed X until something happened personally to me; now I believe Y...and everyone else should believe Y now, too.

about sums it up.

[jmdrake]

I said
Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I'm making a general observation that non-religious society treats babies who die from miscarriages differently from those who die from abortion.

And you said:


Not true, IMO. My family and relatives are extremely Catholic with few exceptions. They've held a FULL funeral for a miscarriage (long, complicated story). In your world, the DA would have to clear this as a natural miscarriage or something. They'd exume the little guy's casket looking for evidence of foul play.

Please explain why you believe your family and relatives who are "extremely Catholic" are "non religious." :confused:



Neither is no biggie in my non-religious opinion. Wanting and not getting can be just as bad just as not wanting and killing.

Ummmm....huh?



Regardless, you commit the fallacy of thinking through this issue emotionally and trying to come to the right decision and enforcing that with government force. My position is that the mother is in best position to defend a fetus, not the government. If I'm wrong, that she ought not be a mother, then the problem is largely self correcting.


I haven't committed any "fallacy". You've committed the fallacy of trying to make more of the thread then it is. My simple point in this thread is that it's inconsistent to say a fetus is a "person" if there is a miscarriage but not a "person" if there is an abortion. The implications of that fact or the application of that implication is beyond the scope of the thread.



Here is another,

5) Not supporting government where it hasn't been effective historically, deeply interferes in our personal lives, and the issue itself creates artificial divisions (congrats)

Not a single reason of mine regarding abortion has to do with some 'clump of cells' arguments. Why YOU ever thought that way or would ascribe that position to others is beyond belief.

Then I'm not talking to you and you had no reason to respond to the thread. Seriously. I was talking strictly about those who claim that you have to be "religious" to believe life begins before birth. If you're of the opinion that a fetus is a human being, but you still don't think the state should protect it, that's a different conversation altogether. Some people don't think the state should even enforce laws against murder with regards to adults. That's a totally different thread entirely. And let me add that you certainly have the right to respond in this thread if you desire, but your response just doesn't make sense for what was being discussed.

[The Free Hornet]

You've gained the ability to read minds now?

No. I deny your ability to do such: "Now I know all of the arguments of the other side."


Ummm....okay. I'll admit I don't know ^this one. What point are you attempting to make?

Anti-abortion is one of the earliest AMA power grabs. It involved reducing the competition and putting more medical decisions under the control of their statist guild.


Through the efforts primarily of physicians, the American Medical Association, and legislators, most abortions in the US had been outlawed by 1900.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#19th_century_to_present
http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/history-of-abortion/

This nuggest in particular shows how little bits of power expand (from post office to control of information to suppressing unpopular ideas):


1873 Supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Comstock Act bans the [B]dissemination by mail of information on abortion or artificial contraceptives.

[jmdrake]

about sums it up.

Really? I said what everyone else should believe? Okay. Dishonest on your part, but okay. People are free to believe that 1 + 1 = 7. It's not logical but they are free to believe that. Cognitive dissonance comes from trying to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at once. And the two contradictory ideas are that a fetus is a person if it's wanted but not a person if it's not. And actually I didn't hold those contradictory ideas in my head. I believed the fetus wasn't a person under either circumstance. Now I believe its a person under both circumstances. What do you believe? Are you willing to state your own beliefs or just attack the beliefs of others?

[jmdrake]

No. I deny your ability to do such: "Now I know all of the arguments of the other side." [bullshit]

So far I haven't seen you give one I haven't heard.



Anti-abortion is one of the earliest AMA power grabs. It involved reducing the competition and putting more medical decisions under the control of their statist guild.


Ah. So your argument is "I should be against something because someone I don't like is for it." Ummm....okay. Extremely weak but okay. The communists in China support abortion. I never saw that as a strong "pro life" argument. Edit: But you still don't win the "I came up with a new argument" prize, because this is just a different take on the "anti-abortion is just a power grab by religious fundamentalists" argument. You're just substituting the AMA for the fundies.

[otherone]

Are you willing to state your own beliefs or just attack the beliefs of others?

Both, actually.
If you are against abortion, don't have one. Problem solved.

[jmdrake]

Both, actually.
If you are against abortion, don't have one. Problem solved.

If you're against murder don't commit it. Problem solved.

If you're against rape don't rape anyone. Problem solved.

In each of these cases the problem isn't solved for the victims.

Edit: And again, like "freehornet", you apparently can't resist going past the scope of the point of the thread which is whether there is really a difference between a "wanted" fetus and an "unwanted" one to whether or not abortion should be legal. Different thread.

[RockEnds]

If you're of the opinion that a fetus is a human being, but you still don't think the state should protect it, that's a different conversation altogether.

This is really the heart of the matter. How much "protecting" would you empower the state to do? Would you mandate procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? Some doctors think those are necessary to protect both the mother and the child. How authoritarian should pregnancy be to adequately "protect" the unborn?

[jmdrake]

Thanks for your analysis!


Miscarriages occur mostly within the first trimester, although of course they can occur during the second and third trimester as well. 10-25% of all pregnancies will end in miscarriage, and some of those miscarriages will occur so early that a woman believes it is her menstrual flow - this is called a chemical pregnancy, and it's around 50-75% of those miscarriages. But they occur mostly in the first trimester due to the body recognizing something is usually not right with the growing embryo - most spontaneously aborted pregnancies tend to have either genetic or other medical abnormalities which would prevent the embryo from dividing/growing properly in utero.

There are also different types of miscarriages a woman can experience, from an ectopic pregnancy and molar pregnancy, to an incomplete miscarriage and a missed miscarriage.

There have been studied that show most miscarriages affect male embryos, and the mother's immune cells can indeed see a male embryo as "foreign," and work it's hardest to expel it. Women who have had male children do indeed, more often than not, have immunity cells within their body that were created to act upon their male children in utero, as well as have more pregnancy-related complications with pregnancies after giving birth to a boy:







In truth, much more can go wrong with a developing male embryo than a female embryo.

Some cool studies:

Male fetuses are particularly affected by maternal alloimmunization to D antigen: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1537-2995.1999.39299154731.x/abstract;jsessionid=EDA88C8DA5C3D769E50524C545E640 03.d02t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Secondary recurrent miscarriage and H-Y immunity: http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/558.long

--------

So, there's a little science behind miscarriage. Before I get called a "sexist," and green73 quotes me with his usual "you seem to have a low opinion of men, why do you stick around?" I just want to point out that autoimmunity was a subject I studied for my honors thesis, which I coupled with my degree - reproductive biology, so it's just random knowledge I remember that I thought I'd share.

As for the emotional aspect of abortion... I can't honestly have an opinion, and I would feel wrong to have one. I have never been pregnant or lost a pregnancy. I do know some women take their miscarriages better than others. I know some women are extremely distraught after a miscarriage (I've had those EMS calls), and I know there are women who believe it to be God's will, and while they are sad about it, they work through it. Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know the "right" way to handle a miscarriage.

[The Free Hornet]

Then I'm not talking to you and you had no reason to respond to the thread. Seriously. I was talking strictly about those who claim that you have to be "religious" to believe life begins before birth.

Fine, restrict your conversations to strawmen.

[jmdrake]

This is really the heart of the matter. How much "protecting" would you empower the state to do? Would you mandate procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? Some doctors think those are necessary to protect both the mother and the child. How authoritarian should pregnancy be to adequately "protect" the unborn?

That's a good question. I think a good starting place is, what restrictions are there currently on procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? As Dr. Paul (Ron) pointed out, he could be held criminally liable for the life of an unborn child under his care as long as the mother actually wanted the child. So I don't see the end of Roe v. Wade as such a sea change for the normal practice of medicine. Others disagree I'm sure. And that's why this should be sent back to the states. Rather than have a hard fast rule where everyone has to follow, let the individual states see what works and what doesn't.

[otherone]

Edit: And again, like "freehornet", you apparently can't resist going past the scope of the point of the thread which is whether there is really a difference between a "wanted" fetus and an "unwanted" one to whether or not abortion should be legal. Different thread.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult and can have a profound impact on a woman's life, just as miscarriage does. In either case, there are support systems available to provide counseling, whether labelled a tissue mass or a lost child. The emphasis after either event is placed on the woman involved. It isn't "hypocrisy" to minimize the grief of a 12 year-old rape victim who just had an abortion instead of telling her she just murdered her child.

[jmdrake]

Fine, restrict your conversations to strawmen.

For you to say that shows you don't know what the term "strawmen" even means. I started the thread precisely to talk about the particular case of someone claiming that you had to be "religious" to believe life started at conception. That's not true. You want to talk about something else? Fine. But you are the one creating the strawmen. (Bringing up a point the other side didn't make in order to knock it down).

[Brian4Liberty]

Not surprising that the medical profession contradicts itself, and hands out inappropriate literature (or hands it out without any thought to individual circumstances). One size fits all, right? It must be the best they could come up with in a committee of doctors with differing agendas and perspectives. The only thing that could improve the process is if they could pass it through Congress for some editing and debate...

[jmdrake]

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult and can have a profound impact on a woman's life, just as miscarriage does. In either case, there are support systems available to provide counseling, whether labelled a tissue mass or a lost child. The emphasis after either event is placed on the woman involved. It isn't "hypocrisy" to minimize the grief of a 12 year-old rape victim who just had an abortion instead of telling her she just murdered her child.

Hopefully the 12 y/o rape victim was given emergency contraception, in which case the doctor can honestly say "You probably haven't even conceived yet so this isn't technically an abortion." That said, the language of "not a baby, baby", is not restricted to a woman in a clinic. It's dishonest to claim that.

[Christian Liberty]

Howzabout the Liberty Moovement grooms an Independent candidate for a bid in 2016, in case Rand's candidacy goes the way of his LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION father?

Seriously? You would refuse to support Rand not because of his iffy foreign policy, but because of this?

Lol. Epic lol. I'm not a Rand worshipper, but come on.


Anti Abortion threads ABOUND. There are more threads on Abortion than on Afghanistan and Syria COMBINED. Y'know, where LIVING people are being killed.

"Social Conservatives" are HARPING on abortion, and it IS hurting the fractious Liberty Moovement.

The unborn are living too. I think its possible for the liberty movement to make a truce on this. We could easily agree that however we personally feel about abortion, we will fight for the decision to be kept out of the Federal government's hands, and allow the states to make their own laws.

The problem is, liberals already have the upper ground, so they will never accept this. It seems "Pro-choice" libertarians aren't either. "Leave it up to the individual" is not a solution here like it is with prostitutiton or drug use. I can completely disagree with what you do, but if there's no victim, I'll let you do it. Abortion, to many does (From the looks of this forum I'd even say "Most" of the liberty movement agrees that abortion does) have a victim.

Personally, I'm not going to refuse to vote for a pro-choice libertarian who gets everything else right. The GOP is total crap on being "pro-life", even on the issue of abortion itself they are usually extremely hypocritical and weak, let alone on other "Life" issues such as war and such (Someone will inevitably take this to the death penalty as well. I respectfully disagree since in that case we are actually dealing with someone who has already violated the right to life, while abortion and war always kill the innocent.) I'm not going to support a Republican who wants to commit mass murder just because he says he does, but does not really, support abortion restrictions. If I had to pick between the state standing by and doing nothing while women and doctors murder their children, or actually murdering children overseas, I'd pick the former. Doing nothing is never as serious as doing evil. Doubly so when the person who wants to do evil also wants to do nothing on the abortion issue as well.

Really, the issue of abortion is something of a joke in American politics. Many say they want to ban abortion, but few actually do. I can look past it when voting... somewhat... but I'm still not going to stop talking about what is a very important issue and what is essentially genocide of the youngest Americans.


Fine, restrict your conversations to strawmen.

[jmdrake]

Not surprising that the medical profession contradicts itself, and hands out inappropriate literature (or hands it out without any thought to individual circumstances). One size fits all, right? It must be the best they could come up with in a committee of doctors with differing agendas and perspectives. The only thing that could improve the process is if they could pass it through Congress for some editing and debate...

Hey, hand out what you want. Just don't go to congress saying "It's a mass of cells" if you don't actually believe that.

[Christian Liberty]

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is difficult and can have a profound impact on a woman's life, just as miscarriage does. In either case, there are support systems available to provide counseling, whether labelled a tissue mass or a lost child. The emphasis after either event is placed on the woman involved. It isn't "hypocrisy" to minimize the grief of a 12 year-old rape victim who just had an abortion instead of telling her she just murdered her child.
If she's 12 she probably didn't do it. The doctor and the parents probably did, and should be charged with murder.

[The Free Hornet]

So far I haven't seen you give one I haven't heard.

I'll try again:

6) JMDRAKE is an untrustworthy liar who should not be entrusted with power over other people's lives.

Anyway, it is nice to see you doubledown on the omniscience required to know EVERY ARGUMENT that is contrary to your own. You go from believing in an omniscient super being to claiming to actually be that being, or its emissary.

[otherone]

That said, the language of "not a baby, baby", is not restricted to a woman in a clinic. It's dishonest to claim that.

You're tilting at windmills.

[otherone]

"Social Conservatives" are HARPING on abortion, and it IS hurting the fractious Liberty Moovement.

Only so much as advocating for more government and less government at the same time.

[Christian Liberty]

That's a massive strawman. It just so happens that murder is sometimes legal right now. Just because I think you have a right to own a machine gun, or shoot heroin, or kill yourself, or work for any wage you want, or not be under insane tax regulations, or (Insert something here) doesn't mean I don't want murder completely and always banned.

Apparently Ron Paul was a big government guy under this BS standard.

[erowe1]

That's a massive strawman. It just so happens that murder is sometimes legal right now. Just because I think you have a right to own a machine gun, or shoot heroin, or kill yourself, or work for any wage you want, or not be under insane tax regulations, or (Insert something here) doesn't mean I don't want murder completely and always banned.

Apparently Ron Paul was a big government guy under this BS standard.

Do you think the regime in DC should send the military to take over China to make them outlaw abortion and other murders there?

I don't. I don't support them doing that to Massachusets either.

[otherone]

That's a massive strawman.

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

[The Free Hornet]

Hopefully the 12 y/o rape victim was given emergency contraception, in which case the doctor can honestly say "You probably haven't even conceived yet so this isn't technically an abortion." That said, the language of "not a baby, baby", is not restricted to a woman in a clinic. It's dishonest to claim that.

And hopefully this occured before conception not after and prior to implantation. That said, how playing russian roulette with a fetus elevates your moral stature is beyond my comprehension.




For you to say that shows you don't know what the term "strawmen" even means. I started the thread precisely to talk about the particular case of someone claiming that you had to be "religious" to believe life started at conception. That's not true. You want to talk about something else? Fine. But you are the one creating the strawmen. (Bringing up a point the other side didn't make in order to knock it down).

The strawman is yours from post #1: "... pretends the humanity of an unborn child depends on whether its 'wanted' or not. ... people falsely claim that if you believe an unborn child is a human being that must be because of 'religious reasons'. ... those who say that there is no reason, other than religion, to believe a fetus is actually a human being...".

Regardless, I'll try to be more respectful the next time your strawmen get uppity.

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think the regime in DC should send the military to take over China to make them outlaw abortion and other murders there?'


No. And so what? That doesn't mean it isn't murder. I do think murder should be banned though. I just don't believe in world government, period. I support decentralization. But whatever governments we do have should make laws against murder in their jurisdiction. I apply that to abortion as well.


I don't. I don't support them doing that to Massachusets either.

I don't either. The Federal government is way too big, and besides, there's no provision for it in the constitution. If it were up to me, I'd pass an amendment banning abortion (We shouldn't invade a state that refuses, but we should kick them out of the Union, if they insist on legalizing murder we should refuse to associate with them.) Realizing that this will not happen, in accordance with the 10th amendment, this is a state issue.

If, regardless of our personal views, we could agree that its a 10th amendment issue, and agree to make that the expected position for liberty candidates going forward, we could spend more time focusing on other issues since its impossible to really convince anyone of the abortion issue and the amendment will never happen.

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

So does Ron Paul... apparently...

[erowe1]

(We shouldn't invade a state that refuses, but we should kick them out of the Union, if they insist on legalizing murder we should refuse to associate with them.)

I'd be for that.

The problem is, kicking them out of the Union is practically a reward.

[cheapseats]

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.


B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.



States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in 2011

January 5, 2012

By almost any measure, issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level received unprecedented attention in 2011. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related “provisions,” rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.)

Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005...

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html

[otherone]

B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.

Some of us want to starve the beast, others want to occasionally slip it a little snack once in a while. ;)

[jmdrake]

And hopefully this occured before conception not after and prior to implantation. That said, how playing russian roulette with a fetus elevates your moral stature is beyond my comprehension.

A lot seems beyond your comprehension. This isn't about elevating "moral status" either. As Nirva pointed out, miscarriages that happen this early aren't even noticed. And you don't typically see IVF mothers grieving over the embryos that didn't take. I'm talking about a consistent position.




The strawman is yours from post #1: "... pretends the humanity of an unborn child depends on whether its 'wanted' or not. ... people falsely claim that if you believe an unborn child is a human being that must be because of 'religious reasons'. ... those who say that there is no reason, other than religion, to believe a fetus is actually a human being...".


You can't slow enough to actually believe what you just wrote. This thread was started out of my responding to someone who said that if you believed an unborn child was human it must be because of religious reasons. So quit trying to claim I'm the one that started the straw man when I was responding to an actual argument. It is logically impossible to start a conversation with a strawman. Only someone ignorant about debate would even claim such a thing. A strawman argument is when you make up a position for someone you are already engaged in debate with.



Regardless, I'll try to be more respectful the next time your strawmen get uppity.

Again, you're just showing your ignorance. I care not if you are respectful.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's a massive strawman. It just so happens that murder is sometimes legal right now. Just because I think you have a right to own a machine gun, or shoot heroin, or kill yourself, or work for any wage you want, or not be under insane tax regulations, or (Insert something here) doesn't mean I don't want murder completely and always banned.

Apparently Ron Paul was a big government guy under this BS standard.
Murder is never legal. Manslaughter and certain cases of homicide are.

[jmdrake]

You're tilting at windmills.

You're dodging a valid point because it hurts your worldview.

[jmdrake]

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

Ah. So now we need an all powerful federal government to make sure that government is not intrusive. Mmmmm.....okay. Part of the reason federal elections have become the focus of the electorate, and by extension concentrating power in the hands of interest groups, is the "We need a federal rule for everything" mentality. Fights for/against abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, drugs etc should happen at the state level instead of the federal IMO.

[jmdrake]

I'll try again:

6) JMDRAKE is an untrustworthy liar who should not be entrusted with power over other people's lives.

Anyway, it is nice to see you doubledown on the omniscience required to know EVERY ARGUMENT that is contrary to your own. You go from believing in an omniscient super being to claiming to actually be that being, or its emissary.

Well you've proven yourself to be the liar in this thread, but whatever you want to believe. I'm not claiming to be an "omniscient super being." I'm just going from my own experience. And that is that I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again. And...you proved me right. Your "AMA" argument was just a play on the "Let's keep abortion legal because we can't trust the group that's trying to ban it" argument. Only now it's not the AMA trying to ban it. And the thread wasn't even about banning abortion. It was about countering a specific argument that I had recently heard. Rather than focus on that, you dishonestly tried to change the subject, then said I was the one making strawmen. Ummm...okay

[otherone]

You're dodging a valid point because it hurts your worldview.

Your valid point is that some people are hypocritical? I wouldn't suggest that as your doctorate thesis.

[The Free Hornet]

But whatever governments we do have should make laws against murder in their jurisdiction. I apply that to abortion as well.

To be clear then, you would oppose like 100% of the politicians and laws that are allegedly "pro-life" but do absolutely nothing of the sort you suggest. The pro-lifers (in power) do NOT treat abortion as murder. In fact, they have been adament in opposition to exactly what you suggest. They want lots of exceptions (rape, incest, health of mother) and have near zero appetite to punish the mother. Those are your fearless pro-life leaders.


If it were up to me, I'd pass an amendment banning abortion

When you say abortion, do you mean murdering a fetus or a medical procedure? If it is murder, then you simply want the Ron Paul personhood amendment so that you don't need to add superfluous laws (separate but equal, eh?). Pro-lifers opposed Ron Paul en masse partly because he doesn't support their intrusions. Also, as a medical procedure, extraction of the fetus can be performed on a non-live fetus (miscarriage) and this is not something most pro-lifers disagree with (AFAIK). Or perhaps you want a loved one to wait for the county medical examiner and a judge to get around to signing off on such.

People here should be wise enough not to propose laws.


I don't either. The Federal government is way too big, and besides, there's no provision for it in the constitution. If it were up to me, I'd pass an amendment banning abortion (We shouldn't invade a state that refuses, but we should kick them out of the Union, if they insist on legalizing murder we should refuse to associate with them.)

Any easy path to state independence and erasure of your share of debt: don't do what the feds want, get kicked out of the union.



If, regardless of our personal views, we could agree that its a 10th amendment issue, and agree to make that the expected position for liberty candidates going forward, we could spend more time focusing on other issues since its impossible to really convince anyone of the abortion issue and the amendment will never happen.

Huh? Since people will NOT agree we do not want to make any "expected position [on abortion] for liberty candidates going forward".

Abortion as an issue only works for two-party candidates. For liberty candidates, it is toxic.

Do not make abortion (pro, con, indifferent, mother chooses/state chooses) a litmus test!!!!!!

[jmdrake]

B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.

If abortions is soooooo popular among the public at large then it shouldn't be hard to find states where it's legal. And you should be able to vote out the legislators in the 36 states that voted to ban abortion. Also in the "free marketplace of ideas" you ought to be able to see whether or not the 36 states that put restrictions on abortion become oppressive anti-women backwaters.

[jmdrake]

Your valid point is that some people are hypocritical? I wouldn't suggest that as your doctorate thesis.

My valid point is that you don't have to be religious to recognize life at conception as many of the same people who say it doesn't start at conception turn around and say that it does without referring to religion. Now I leave you to your "the sky will fall if R v W is overturned" goal line stance on abortion rights.

[Christian Liberty]

Murder is never legal. Manslaughter and certain cases of homicide are.

I assume your being legalistic here? Abortion is every bit as evil as any other form of unjustified killing, and yet its legal. I hate the government a lot, but not enough to allow that to remain legal if I have a chance to vote on it.


Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

Again, so does Ron Paul, by this BS standard.

Its not even true though. Even if I'm completely wrong on this issue, I'm supporting more government intervention on one issue, and less on probably a thousand issues (Number for effect, I don't know the exact number, but I support MUCH less government on everything except this). Overall, therefore, I'm supporting repealing more than enough government that I'm still supporting a far more libertarian situation than the status quo even as I advocate more state-level intervention on this one issue.


I'd be for that.

The problem is, kicking them out of the Union is practically a reward.
Well, true. Its not so much a punishment as it is a "If you aren't willing to ban murder, we aren't associating with you in any way, good luck." Personally, if I were the governor of one of the, say, 30 states that had laws against this child murder, I wouldn't want to put any resources into helping defend the other 20 states that would not. That doesn't mean I want to declare war on them, but it does mean I would basically be saying "Screw them" if someone did. So I guess it is a type of incentive in a way, but not exactly... I guess. We don't think it should be illegal to discriminate against black people, but we would refuse to associate with someone who did. I don't think the Federal government should intrude on state laws, but I do think we should refuse to associate with groups that won't protect the unborn.

Then again, I understand that that could theoretically go down forever. If you can go down to the state level, you can go down to the county level, city level, or even individual level. And going to the individual level for murder (For the sake of argument, let's assume we mean murder of the actually born) is clearly insane. So why do I draw the line at state? I don't know, constitutionally the states have authority here and the Federal government does not. To give it to them without an impossible amendment is to condone power overreach, which is clearly not good.

Of course, for this to work in any way, voluntary secession would have to also be legal, which it should be. It actually is, but the guys with guns will kill people in a state that tries anyway.


B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.

I'm proud to say that I support government abolition of murder. Would you have made this stupid comment if you had lived when slavery* was legal? If not, your issue is that you don't agree with me that an act of aggression is committed with abortion. Not that you question the concept of government banning acts of aggression, even if they happen to already be legal.





*Yes, I know Block and Nozick supported the right to sell yourself into slavery. While I disagree, I am not referring to this more controversial point here, but the obvious point of coercive slavery.

[The Free Hornet]

Well you've proven yourself to be the liar in this thread, but whatever you want to believe. I'm not claiming to be an "omniscient super being." I'm just going from my own experience. And that is that I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again. And...you proved me right. Your "AMA" argument was just a play on the "Let's keep abortion legal because we can't trust the group that's trying to ban it" argument. Only now it's not the AMA trying to ban it. And the thread wasn't even about banning abortion. It was about countering a specific argument that I had recently heard. Rather than focus on that, you dishonestly tried to change the subject, then said I was the one making strawmen. Ummm...okay

Regarding, "Only now it's not the AMA trying to ban it.".

You are 100% incorrect. It *****WAS******* the AMA like 100-200 years ago. The AMA has flip-flopped, gotten the control they want, and will happily provide this doctor-required medical procedure:


Opinion 2.01 - Abortion

The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV)

www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion201.page (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion201.page)

You thought this abortion issue was about abortion? How foolish!

[otherone]

My valid point is that you don't have to be religious to recognize life at conception as many of the same people who say it doesn't start at conception turn around and say that it does without referring to religion. Now I leave you to your "the sky will fall if R v W is overturned" goal line stance on abortion rights.

Why should I believe what you claim "many people say" when you can't even understand what I'M saying? When did I mention RvW? I believe abortion laws should be determined at the state level, and I am dead set against any constitutional amendment claiming when personhood begins. The federal government needs to stay the fuck out of people's uterii.

[The Free Hornet]

Would you have made this stupid comment if you had lived when slavery* was legal?

I might have been inclined to support repeal of the 'fugitive slave cause' as a first measure:


No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause)

[This clause is presumably moot but still in effect. If your community service or conscription is not defined as slavery...]

[jmdrake]

Why should I believe what you claim "many people say" when you can't even understand what I'M saying? When did I mention RvW? I believe abortion laws should be determined at the state level, and I am dead set against any constitutional amendment claiming when personhood begins. The federal government needs to stay the fuck out of people's uterii.

Part of the "logic" under girding Roe v. Wade is that states don't have a compelling interest in protecting the fetus because the fetus isn't a person. That's the point of Rand's personhood bill and the one Ron proposed before it.

[otherone]

Part of the "logic" under girding Roe v. Wade is that states don't have a compelling interest in protecting the fetus because the fetus isn't a person. That's the point of Rand's personhood bill and the one Ron proposed before it.

A SSN application with every pregnancy test. brilliant. Like I said....it's a state issue, not a federal one.

[jmdrake]

A SSN application with every pregnancy test. brilliant. Like I said....it's a state issue, not a federal one.

You aren't required to do an SSN application even after every birth right now, so obviously one isn't required after every pregnancy test. But again, Rand (and Ron's) approach to abortion was not and is not the point of this thread. That said, if you have a better idea on how to get Roe v Wade overturned by all means pitch it.

[otherone]

You aren't required to do an SSN application even after every birth right now, so obviously one isn't required after every pregnancy test. But again, Rand (and Ron's) approach to abortion was not and is not the point of this thread. That said, if you have a better idea on how to get Roe v Wade overturned by all means pitch it.

It was hyperbole. As far as overturning RvW, there is a long list of decisions I would love to see overturned. The scotus has failed us.

[Origanalist]

Ah. So now we need an all powerful federal government to make sure that government is not intrusive. Mmmmm.....okay. Part of the reason federal elections have become the focus of the electorate, and by extension concentrating power in the hands of interest groups, is the "We need a federal rule for everything" mentality. Fights for/against abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, drugs etc should happen at the state level instead of the federal IMO.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

[PattyFromTexas]

if one believes in a god then one must also believe that God chooses which fetuses survive and which do not. In your case, your first attempt resulted in failure - and it was God's will. Religion has nothing to do with it. The libertarian philosophy is based on the non-violence principal. Hurting another human being is wrong unless it's in self defense. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that, and taking a life is the ultimate hurt. A fetus isn't a human being you say? They have a beating heart at 1 month gestation, functioning ears at 5 months, they respond to their mothers voice, they startle at loud noises, they LOOK like babies as early as 12 weeks, before a woman even starts to show. Their personalities are showing long before they are born. My daughter was active all throughout my pregnancy and is still a very active girl. My son was so lazy I visited the doctor to make sure he was still ok at 6 months gestation, a characteristic he still exhibits today. When does a fetus become a human being? I don't know the answer to that, neither do you, neither does anyone else. I'm an atheist, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and taking someone else's life is wrong, because this life is all you get. There is no afterlife, there is no Heaven or Hell, there are no ghosts. In the famous worlds of Will Munny " It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have"

[cheapseats]

Originally Posted by cheapseats
B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.




Would you have made this stupid comment if you had lived when slavery* was legal?


I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.

[Neil Desmond]

Anti Abortion threads ABOUND. There are more threads on Abortion than on Afghanistan and Syria COMBINED. Y'know, where LIVING people are being killed.

"Social Conservatives" are HARPING on abortion, and it IS hurting the fractious Liberty Moovement.
Willfully killing innocent and defenseless human beings, or being in favor of it, has nothing to do with liberty or being part of the liberty movement.

[heavenlyboy34]

I assume your being legalistic here? Abortion is every bit as evil as any other form of unjustified killing, and yet its legal. I hate the government a lot, but not enough to allow that to remain legal if I have a chance to vote on it.


Yes, I was being legalistic. I also agree that abortion is evil, though.

[cheapseats]

Willfully killing innocent and defenseless human beings, or being in favor of it, has nothing to do with liberty or being part of the liberty movement.


Once AGAIN, a "pro life" person asserts the very point under contention as a done-deal premise.

[heavenlyboy34]

I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.
So birthed babies with severe disabilities that prevent them from walking, talking, and being fully aware aren't human? Why or why not?

[heavenlyboy34]

Once AGAIN, a "pro life" person asserts the very point under contention as a done-deal premise.
Your statement in post 71 has a similar prescriptive premise, though on the other side of the debate.

[cheapseats]

Your statement in post 71 has a similar prescriptive premise, though on the other side of the debate.

"I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos" is an assertion of MY belief/position.

"Willfully killing innocent and defenseless human beings, or being in favor of it" presumes LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

[cheapseats]

Originally Posted by cheapseats
I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.



So birthed babies with severe disabilities that prevent them from walking, talking, and being fully aware aren't human? Why or why not?


Jeepers, no, heavenlyboy34. I was NOT implying that formed-but-handicapped humans outside of the womb are not human.

I am familiar with newly minted TEENAGERS mounting such "arguments".

[juleswin]

So birthed babies with severe disabilities that prevent them from walking, talking, and being fully aware aren't human? Why or why not?

I think there is a level of deformity/genetic mutation/birth defect that makes you eligible for euthanasia and since I support euthanasia, I think it is the parents call on that when the newborn cannot speak for him/herself. And I am not going to be that person that tells they parents that they have to raise such a being or inflict such a punishment on the newborn by forcing him/her to live in that way.

There are conditions far worse than death and in those rare rare occasions, I will support euthanasia authorized by the mother.

[heavenlyboy34]

I am familiar with newly minted TEENAGERS mounting such "arguments".
Then you should have had an easy time with a response instead of a snarky remark, yes?

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, I was being legalistic. I also agree that abortion is evil, though.

I'm surprised that an anarchist such as yourself would even go with legalism. I'm not even an anarchist and I still call Barack Obama a murderer somewhere online on a near-daily basis.

Consider that my quota for today;)

All that said, I am all for reducing the government to the point where it does not regulate any victimless crimes, does not wage war whatsoever unless attacked, does not disobey the Bill of Rights, does not tax except to pay for police, courts, and defense, does not print money, except possibly gold-backed money... (This is probably not a complete list.)

But I believe that stopping crimes with victims wherever possible, and to help the victim attain justice if it fails at this, is a fundamental duty of government. At the very least you would have to concede that if government is to exist, it should do so.

As such, as I believe abortion is a crime against a living human being, and that government has the obligation to protect the innocent and to help victims attain justice, I am perfectly fine with "Expanding government" to ban abortion even while I advocate the legalization of heroin, prostitution, blackmail (As distinct from extortion, as Walter Block correctly points out), non-abusive child labor, working at any wage the market will allow, burning the flag to ashes, ownership of automatic weapons, discrimination in employment, or any other situation, abolition of entitlement programs ASAP.... (This is almost certainly not a complete list, nor is it in any particular order.)

Why? Becuase I want to grow the government? No. Because I want government to do the very thing it is supposed to do, protect the innocent, and help victims attain justice when the innocent are victimized by the guilty. I'm sorry that our government is a group of idiots who has laws against almost anything you can think of, but happens to have left some murder legalized. I'm still going to advocate that they outlaw the murder, even while I advocate they legalize anything else. I don't "Trust" them as far as I can throw them but that doesn't change the fact that in punishing, or even executing, as ought to be done, the abortionist, the government is doing something just. No, it won't happen, no, its not practical to enforce with the number of pro-choice people that exist, but that's completely irrelevant in the same manner that it is irrelevant that you can't have a libertarian society made up of 95% authoritarians. You CAN'T but its still JUSTIFIED and so we advocate for it until it happens or we die. Same thing here for me.

[Neil Desmond]

Both, actually.
If you are against abortion, don't have one. Problem solved.
What about this: if you don't believe in rape, don't do it. Is that also supposed to be good enough?

EDIT: nevermind, I see it has already been brought up.

[juleswin]

What about this: if you don't believe in rape, don't do it. Is that also supposed to be good enough?

Its more like if you dont like drugs, dont do it.

With rape everyone agrees you are committing violence on another being but in case of abortion, the woman can claim that all she is doing is eviction(I know it sounds horrible but bear with me) the resident in her womb. She doesn't have to kill anyone, just cut off the nutrition and it is over. If you are Oh so depended on one person and one person alone for survival, then how can you make the argument that you are your own person?

[Origanalist]

Well jm, you got the ghoulies all shook up. Maybe this will help settle them down.....

http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/pendergraft3.jpg

http://www.ksbw.com/image/view/-/15361586/medRes/2/-/maxh/460/maxw/620/-/9o47qi/-/Abortion-clinic-jpg.jpg

[cheapseats]

Then you should have had an easy time with a response instead of a snarky remark, yes?


I DID have an easy time with the response.

And I let PLENTY of penny-ante provocation slide.

I added that snarky remark afterward, deliberately, because I thought you were ABOVE crap like that.

It will be easy to NOT add snark in the future because A.) I reckon we don't have a whole lot to say to each other and B.) I now know you are NOT above crap like that.

[Neil Desmond]

This is really the heart of the matter. How much "protecting" would you empower the state to do? Would you mandate procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? Some doctors think those are necessary to protect both the mother and the child. How authoritarian should pregnancy be to adequately "protect" the unborn?
It's very simple; the purpose of the state is to protect victims (and I believe it should not be in the business of punishing people for committing victimless "crimes"). If the unborn child is deliberately killed, then it is a victim - just as much as a child (or adult) is a victim if they're also unjustifiably killed.

[Neil Desmond]

Once AGAIN, a "pro life" person asserts the very point under contention as a done-deal premise.
What exactly is the point under contention?

[juleswin]

What exactly is the point under contention?

Whether a fetus/embryo/pre born human is a human being with full rights that needs protecting

[Neil Desmond]

Whether a fetus/embryo/pre born human is a human being with full rights that needs protecting
In that case, is the assertion that a human being has full rights that needs protecting a done-deal premise too, for humans after they're born? If so, then how can one be a "done deal" but not the other? This would be inconsistent.

[otherone]

It's very simple; the purpose of the state is to protect victims

Victims assume a committed crime, and nothing can "protect" a victim after the fact. I assume you are saying that "a" (not "the") purpose of government is to protect those powerless to protect themselves. The problem is the legal status of the unborn, in as much as they don't have Rights. It's difficult, if not impossible to recognize their Rights under the law as they cannot be properly qualified as "individuals".

[Christian Liberty]

Its more like if you dont like drugs, dont do it.

With rape everyone agrees you are committing violence on another being but in case of abortion, the woman can claim that all she is doing is eviction(I know it sounds horrible but bear with me) the resident in her womb. She doesn't have to kill anyone, just cut off the nutrition and it is over. If you are Oh so depended on one person and one person alone for survival, then how can you make the argument that you are your own person?

Well, with drugs there is ABSOLUTELY no victim, no questions asked. Granted, you COULD use drugs AND victimize somebody but those are two distinct acts.

As for the eviction argument, Walter Block I believed invented it and his argument is more justifiable than the standard pro-choice arguments. However, for it to work it requires the fetus to be a tresspasser. Now, there are two different things here. First of all, I think a fetus being a tresspasser is absurd in the same sense as your five year old being a tresspasser. You can give your child up for adoption, if someone will take them, but you can't just kick them out on the street, doubly so if you live in the middle of nowhere or in the middle of a blizzard. I think that most of us would agree that even in a city, you don't have a right to evict your child from your home, but at least in that case maybe he has a chance to survive (Rather like a late-term eviction.) So even if he doesn't have permission to sit in the womb, it doesn't matter, you have a legal obligation. In an adoption case, if it takes 9 months to find parents to adopt the child, than that's what it takes. Ditto for a pregnancy. It takes 9 months for the fetus to be born so he/she can be adopted... too bad. You don't have a right to "Evict" from the womb anymore than you have a right to evict your child from your house.

In addition to this, the fetus isn't a tresspasser because, in most cases, he was invited to the womb. Unless one is an idiot, one knows that an act of intercourse can lead to pregnancy. And idiocy is no more a defense than someone who can't read ordering items in a restaurant and then being asked to pay. Ignorance would be no excuse in either case, since the information is freely available. Now, in a case of consensual sexual intercourse, both parties are consenting to the act which they know MIGHT create an innocent human life inside the woman's womb through no choice of his own. Now, this does not mean only the woman is responsible. I believe the man has an equal responsibility to the child should they decide together to keep it (I'm not sure exactly what would/should occur if one party wants to keep the child while the other wants to put him/her up for adoption, but I'm sure the courts or at least lawmakers smarter than me should be able to figure this out.))

Now, what about rape? Someone who says a woman was tresspassed against during rape cases is no doubt correct. The question is not whether tresspass occurs, but WHO commits tresspass? The answer, in my mind, is that it is the rapist, and not the fetus. The fetus did not even exist when the act occurred, so how can he be the tresspasser? He never chose to enter. My answer to this difficult situation is that the woman must give birth to the innocent child, however, a crime was still committed against her, not only rape but also being forced, by the rapist, to be tresspassed against. In addition to the rapist being punished for rape, he should also have to pay reparations for this infringement on the woman's bodily freedom if she gets pregnant through rape.


Well jm, you got the ghoulies all shook up. Maybe this will help settle them down.....

http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/pendergraft3.jpg

http://www.ksbw.com/image/view/-/15361586/medRes/2/-/maxh/460/maxw/620/-/9o47qi/-/Abortion-clinic-jpg.jpg

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well, with drugs there is ABSOLUTELY no victim, no questions asked. Granted, you COULD use drugs AND victimize somebody but those are two distinct acts.

As for the eviction argument, Walter Block I believed invented it and his argument is more justifiable than the standard pro-choice arguments. However, for it to work it requires the fetus to be a tresspasser. Now, there are two different things here. First of all, I think a fetus being a tresspasser is absurd in the same sense as your five year old being a tresspasser. You can give your child up for adoption, if someone will take them, but you can't just kick them out on the street, doubly so if you live in the middle of nowhere or in the middle of a blizzard. I think that most of us would agree that even in a city, you don't have a right to evict your child from your home, but at least in that case maybe he has a chance to survive (Rather like a late-term eviction.) So even if he doesn't have permission to sit in the womb, it doesn't matter, you have a legal obligation. In an adoption case, if it takes 9 months to find parents to adopt the child, than that's what it takes. Ditto for a pregnancy. It takes 9 months for the fetus to be born so he/she can be adopted... too bad. You don't have a right to "Evict" from the womb anymore than you have a right to evict your child from your house.

In addition to this, the fetus isn't a tresspasser because, in most cases, he was invited to the womb. Unless one is an idiot, one knows that an act of intercourse can lead to pregnancy. And idiocy is no more a defense than someone who can't read ordering items in a restaurant and then being asked to pay. Ignorance would be no excuse in either case, since the information is freely available. Now, in a case of consensual sexual intercourse, both parties are consenting to the act which they know MIGHT create an innocent human life inside the woman's womb through no choice of his own. Now, this does not mean only the woman is responsible. I believe the man has an equal responsibility to the child should they decide together to keep it (I'm not sure exactly what would/should occur if one party wants to keep the child while the other wants to put him/her up for adoption, but I'm sure the courts or at least lawmakers smarter than me should be able to figure this out.))

Now, what about rape? Someone who says a woman was tresspassed against during rape cases is no doubt correct. The question is not whether tresspass occurs, but WHO commits tresspass? The answer, in my mind, is that it is the rapist, and not the fetus. The fetus did not even exist when the act occurred, so how can he be the tresspasser? He never chose to enter. My answer to this difficult situation is that the woman must give birth to the innocent child, however, a crime was still committed against her, not only rape but also being forced, by the rapist, to be tresspassed against. In addition to the rapist being punished for rape, he should also have to pay reparations for this infringement on the woman's bodily freedom if she gets pregnant through rape.

If a child has a right - an enforceable legal claim - to shelter, food, etc, then you'll need to square that somehow with one of the following, since that is certainly not a libertarian idea:

1. Rights are, in fact, designated by group. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, at least some groups of people have the right to have another person take care of them.

Or, the more consistent position:

2. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, and rights are not designated by identification with specific groups, all humans have the right to have another person take care of them.

Either way, by legislating morality in this manner, you've committed yourself to the philosophical underpinnings of the entirety of the welfare state, from Social Security all the way down to food stamps and free cell phones.

[erowe1]

If a child has a right - an enforceable legal claim - to shelter, food, etc, then you'll need to square that somehow with one of the following, since that is certainly not a libertarian idea:

1. Rights are, in fact, designated by group. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, at least some groups of people have the right to have another person take care of them.

Or, the more consistent position:

2. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, and rights are not designated by identification with specific groups, all humans have the right to have another person take care of them.

Either way, by legislating morality in this manner, you've committed yourself to the philosophical underpinnings of the entirety of the welfare state, from Social Security all the way down to food stamps and free cell phones.

Your option #1 is an undeniable moral fact. Do you actually dispute it?

[Neil Desmond]

Victims assume a committed crime, and nothing can "protect" a victim after the fact.
Sure, but the way I see it a victim is someone who has been wronged by the intent (or in some cases, the neglect of an agreed-upon obligation) of someone else. When there is a victim, the goverment is (theoretically) a system that sees to it that the victim is compensated for the damages caused by another.


I assume you are saying that "a" (not "the") purpose of government is to protect those powerless to protect themselves.
Well, I think that's the only purpose has or should have, but ok let's go with "a" if that makes you happy.


The problem is the legal status of the unborn, in as much as they don't have Rights. It's difficult, if not impossible to recognize their Rights under the law as they cannot be properly qualified as "individuals".
Even if someone feels that way, shouldn't they still error on the side of caution and see to it that they get protection as though they are individuals? Doesn't this take us back again to the argument that chattel aren't individuals so they don't have a right to life?

One of the problems I see is that there are actually 2 things involved in an abortion procedure, the termination of a pregnancy and the termination of the life of a fetus. The termination of a pregnancy is in itself not something anyone (that I know of) is actually opposed to, only the termination of the life of the fetus. For example, if we had the technology to transfer the fetus to another womb (surrogate mother, special type of incubator, whatever) and let it grow from there, or at least attempt to, then that would be fine (at least with me it would).

[FriedChicken]

This is really the heart of the matter. How much "protecting" would you empower the state to do? Would you mandate procedures that pose a risk of miscarriage? Some doctors think those are necessary to protect both the mother and the child. How authoritarian should pregnancy be to adequately "protect" the unborn?

The line would be somewhere around, say, killing/removing it in a matter that purposely leads to its death for no other reason than convenience ...
Other laws make a great comparison - lets say rape ["r" word] ... how far are you willing to go to make sure that women are protected from rape? No, no one wants an authoritarian government with a million checks to make sure no one is raped, but we all feel its a violation or rights and should be punished when committed.

(I purposely chose rape over murder because people quit listening when abortion is compared to murder ... even though ... thats actually, according to science, what it is technically)

[otherone]

Well, I think that's the only purpose has or should have, but ok let's go with "a" if that makes you happy.

It's not simply semantics. I believe the primary goal of government is to protect our Rights. It is our job to protect our asses. By asking government to protect the weak you are advocating the nanny-state.



Even if someone feels that way, shouldn't they still error on the side of caution and see to it that they get protection as though they are individuals? Doesn't this take us back again to the argument that chattel aren't individuals so they don't have a right to life?


Obviously slaves are "individuals". The unborn are not, in so much as that they are not distinct from their mother. Any "Rights" of the unborn are considered only as part of the Rights of the mother.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm surprised that an anarchist such as yourself would even go with legalism.
Well, I don't consider myself an anarchist, though I agree with anarchists on a lot. I consider myself a "voluntaryist" in the strictest sense-that is, anyone can associate or disassociate with a government at any time. (of course, the "social contract" theory is BS to me)

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with Neil Desmond, and that would be the fine. The debate is, in the real world, where you usually can't keep the right to choose without the right to kill, whose rights are more important?

I argue that the mother invited the fetus (Or in rare cases, a rapist tresspassed against her and is so obligated to pay money for the fetus to be "Allowed" to stay there but the innocent baby is still not a criminal.


If a child has a right - an enforceable legal claim - to shelter, food, etc, then you'll need to square that somehow with one of the following, since that is certainly not a libertarian idea:

1. Rights are, in fact, designated by group. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, at least some groups of people have the right to have another person take care of them.

Or, the more consistent position:

2. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, and rights are not designated by identification with specific groups, all humans have the right to have another person take care of them.

Either way, by legislating morality in this manner, you've committed yourself to the philosophical underpinnings of the entirety of the welfare state, from Social Security all the way down to food stamps and free cell phones.

That's a little bit ridiculous. To say that just because I support the responsibility of parents to either take care of their own children or find someone else who will do so is supporting the entire welfare state is as absurd as saying that someone who supports interracial marriage but doesn't support the right of a man to marry his pets is being a hypocrite. Of course he isn't! Its absurd. There's no logical contradiction here.

I think that the idea that child neglect should be a crime can be defended on libertarian grounds, although even if they couldn't, I'd still support them. While I enjoy philosophy, and will usually argue in a philosophical "Style", sometimes it just doesn't work.

That said, I think you can defend children's rights from a libertarian perspective as well. Implied contract. You chose to bring that child into existance. As such, you have no right to deliberately deprive them of what they need to remain in existance. The same wouldn't apply to someone else's child, so the "Liberal welfare state" argument falls.

[The Free Hornet]

1. Rights are, in fact, designated by group. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, at least some groups of people have the right to have another person take care of them.

Or, the more consistent position:

2. Since children (and fetuses, for that matter) are human, and rights are not designated by identification with specific groups, all humans have the right to have another person take care of them.



Your option #1 is an undeniable moral fact. Do you actually dispute it?

I dispute it AND I deny it. Having denied it, you are now proven wrong as the "undeniable" has, in fact, been denied.



Objectivists reject alternative notions of rights, such as positive rights,[70] collective rights, or animal rights.[71] Objectivism holds that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism,[72] specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism."[73] Objectivism regards capitalism as the social system which is most beneficial to the poor, but that this isn't its primary justification.[74] Rather, it is the only moral social system. Objectivism maintains that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right to self-determination.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Politics:_individual_ri ghts_and_capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Politics:_individual_ri ghts_and_capitalism)

[Neil Desmond]

It's not simply semantics. I believe the primary goal of government is to protect our Rights. It is our job to protect our asses. By asking government to protect the weak you are advocating the nanny-state.
Well, I see a difference. To me a nanny state (i.e., socialism) is a system in which the state is taking care of people financially who are not victims of a specific crime, per se. The idea behind the state is to see to it that one does not wrong another (at least that's how I perceive it).



Obviously slaves are "individuals". The unborn are not, in so much as that they are not distinct from their mother. Any "Rights" of the unborn are considered only as part of the Rights of the mother.
You can "invert" that to get this this: Obviously slaves are "individuals". The mothers are not, in so much as that they are not distinct from their unborn. Any "Rights" of the mother are considered only as part of the Rights of the unborn.

[erowe1]

I dispute it AND I deny it. Having denied it, you are now proven wrong as the "undeniable" has, in fact, been denied.

But you don't really believe that. You know full well that parents have an obligation to take care of their children.

The fact that Objectivists try to deny something this obvious only points to the absurdity of Objectivism. You might as well deny some basic theorem of geometry.

[jmdrake]

But you don't really believe that. You know full well that parents have an obligation to take care of their children.

The fact that Objectivists try to deny something this obvious only points to the absurdity of Objectivism. You might as well deny some basic theorem of geometry.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.

[otherone]

Well, I see a difference. To me a nanny state (i.e., socialism) is a system in which the state is taking care of people financially who are not victims of a specific crime, per se. The idea behind the state is to see to it that one does not wrong another (at least that's how I perceive it).

Socialism deals with money, primarily. A nanny-state is Authoritarianism. Think of it this way; Child restraint seats in automobiles. People don't need a law to protect their children, but they demand a law to protect other people's children. What they fail to understand is that they are giving the state yet another way to intrude into their lives, and that these demands have repercussions...such as having another reason to be stopped by cops. "Scared" cops, as admitted by Fivezeroes.



You can "invert" that to get this this: Obviously slaves are "individuals". The mothers are not, in so much as that they are not distinct from their unborn. Any "Rights" of the mother are considered only as part of the Rights of the unborn.

The "real politik" of Rights is that they are backed by violence. We only have those Rights that we can defend. This is why the 2nd amendment is so vital. As you've pointed out, the unborn are defenseless....so no, my statement cannot be inverted. Even in a "gestalt" mother/unborn situation, the mother alone would have to advocate for their combined Rights.

[Smart3]

Religion has nothing to do with it. The libertarian philosophy is based on the non-violence principal. Hurting another human being is wrong unless it's in self defense. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that, and taking a life is the ultimate hurt. A fetus isn't a human being you say? They have a beating heart at 1 month gestation, functioning ears at 5 months, they respond to their mothers voice, they startle at loud noises, they LOOK like babies as early as 12 weeks, before a woman even starts to show. Their personalities are showing long before they are born. My daughter was active all throughout my pregnancy and is still a very active girl. My son was so lazy I visited the doctor to make sure he was still ok at 6 months gestation, a characteristic he still exhibits today. When does a fetus become a human being? I don't know the answer to that, neither do you, neither does anyone else. I'm an atheist, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and taking someone else's life is wrong, because this life is all you get. There is no afterlife, there is no Heaven or Hell, there are no ghosts. In the famous worlds of Will Munny " It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have"
A fetus can not become a human being. The act of becoming a human being is being removed from the woman in question and taking in the first breath of oxygen - as an independent non-parasitic organism. Sure, it still needs to be raised and taken care of, but it is now a person with an identity/birthday/parents. It is now roughly equivalent to you and I.

and I completely agree with you that it is always wrong to take a life, even in self-defense, because that individual no longer exists and never will be brought back into existence. There was some value to that individual, even if they were trying to kill you.

However, there are varying degrees of homicide - some of which are legal and some of which are not. Clearly murder and voluntary manslaughter are not equivalent to involuntary manslaughter and abortion. We don't (and shouldn't) throw people in jail for making mistakes or doing unethical things. We don't (and shouldn't) throw people in jail for being irresponsible.

[heavenlyboy34]

I DID have an easy time with the response.

And I let PLENTY of penny-ante provocation slide.

I added that snarky remark afterward, deliberately, because I thought you were ABOVE crap like that.

It will be easy to NOT add snark in the future because A.) I reckon we don't have a whole lot to say to each other and B.) I now know you are NOT above crap like that.
What are you talking about? I didn't use any "crap" or provocation (at least, not intentionally).


I am familiar with newly minted TEENAGERS mounting such "arguments". Do you think this^^ is a reasonable way to respond to someone you perceive as snarky to get the conversation back on track? Good sir, I don't know of anyone who would consider this approach reasonable.

I really don't have anything against you personally, and I hope you don't hold a grudge. I apologize if I wronged you. I make a serious effort not to do that, and sometimes fail. :(

[robert68]

But you don't really believe that. You know full well that parents have an obligation to take care of their children.

The fact that Objectivists try to deny something this obvious only points to the absurdity of Objectivism. You might as well deny some basic theorem of geometry.

Are you saying it always is that way or should be that way? You know parents have options.

Unchosen positive obligations are at odds with negative rights. The logic of the positive “right to life” can justify just about every kind of aggression.

Edited: "Unchosen positive obligations..."

[heavenlyboy34]

A fetus can not become a human being. The act of becoming a human being is being removed from the woman in question and taking in the first breath of oxygen - as an independent non-parasitic organism. Sure, it still needs to be raised and taken care of, but it is now a person with an identity/birthday/parents. It is now roughly equivalent to you and I.

and I completely agree with you that it is always wrong to take a life, even in self-defense, because that individual no longer exists and never will be brought back into existence. There was some value to that individual, even if they were trying to kill you.

However, there are varying degrees of homicide - some of which are legal and some of which are not. Clearly murder and voluntary manslaughter are not equivalent to involuntary manslaughter and abortion. We don't (and shouldn't) throw people in jail for making mistakes or doing unethical things. We don't (and shouldn't) throw people in jail for being irresponsible.
Psychologists generally argue that a baby doesn't become a "Human Being" until it develops an ego (typically 6 months-2 years out of the womb). What do you think of this?

Just to nitpick, people are thrown in jail for being irresponsible. This is the legal notion of "Criminal Neglect", "Criminal Negligence", etc.

[Smart3]

Psychologists generally argue that a baby doesn't become a "Human Being" until it develops an ego (typically 6 months-2 years out of the womb). What do you think of this?

Just to nitpick, people are thrown in jail for being irresponsible. This is the legal notion of "Criminal Neglect", "Criminal Negligence", etc.

I haven't decided on that issue, I just can't make up my mind.

I wish people were thrown in jail for actual crimes.

[heavenlyboy34]

I haven't decided on that issue, I just can't make up my mind.

I wish people were thrown in jail for actual crimes.
Absolutely, 1000% agreed. A lot of people are in jail for "pre-crime" and various petty things that really don't warrant being thrown in a rape cage. Welcome to Incarceration Nation. :(

[WarAnonymous]

I mean you no disrespect, but I find it completely ridiculous for people to say they lost a child that never existed - it had no birthday, no memories, no name, no clothes and you didn't even hold it on your arms. Miscarriages (abortions) are a common occurrence, and if one believes in a god then one must also believe that God chooses which fetuses survive and which do not. In your case, your first attempt resulted in failure - and it was God's will.

Not sure if you tried again, but I assume you did? I was always taught growing up in a fundie environment that miscarriages were a blessing from God, meant to strengthen a person and lead them to either be better biological parents or to adopt.

...

...

Never existed? to something that has been "apart" of you for an extended period of time? Something that you can feel, something that makes you sick, something you can feel kicking (depending on how far we are talking here), something you might have already gave a name and reffer to it as, making plans of things you will do with your child, thinking of years to come, feeling the closeness that has come between you and your significant other... Maybe the rediculous statement isn't "the child that never existed." I am so blown away how someone can question this issue.

[Smart3]

...

...

Never existed? to something that has been "apart" of you for an extended period of time? Something that you can feel, something that makes you sick, something you can feel kicking (depending on how far we are talking here), something you might have already gave a name and reffer to it as, making plans of things you will do with your child, thinking of years to come, feeling the closeness that has come between you and your significant other... Maybe the rediculous statement isn't "the child that never existed." I am so blown away how someone can question this issue.

Glad I burst your bubble.

[TheTexan]

This is a problem that can't be solved by the state. Try as you might, involving the state in this matter will always do more harm than good.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is a problem that can't be solved by the state. Try as you might, involving the state in this matter will always do more harm than good.
True. I suspect any solution the regime comes up with for us will result in an armistice between the various sides of the issue-not peace.

[jmdrake]

This is a problem that can't be solved by the state. Try as you might, involving the state in this matter will always do more harm than good.

You know what? I didn't offer a "state solution" to the problem. I argued against a mentality and mindset that has developed IMO by people seeking state protection for abortion. It's easy to kill something if you have dehumanized it. We see that in war all the time. I hear some people who claim to be pro choice say that they really don't want to see abortions happen, but they just want it to be "legal and safe". (It's legal, but the safety of it is questionable). If that's really what the other side wants, then they should applaud efforts to humanize the fetus so that more women will "choose life". Of course a concern is that in our society, if someone sees someone else as "human" they are more likely to want to extend legal protection to that person even if it means going to extremes to do so. We saw that in our own U.S. civil war.[1] It's easier to enslave a group of people if you believe that group is "not quite human". Sure, you can still believe that and be against slavery. And you can concede the humanity of all people and still support slavery for other reasons. But in general it's easier to kill, enslave or other wise mistreat someone who's "not quite a person."


[1] Regardless of what one may think of Lincoln's motives, the debate over slavery was a driving force for the passions for both sides as seen by one senator caning another almost to death because his brother had been called a "pimp for slavery" on the senate floor.

[Neil Desmond]

Socialism deals with money, primarily. A nanny-state is Authoritarianism.
Ok, well this is semantics, splitting hairs, etc. It's the actions and what's done (or not done) that actually matters.


Think of it this way; Child restraint seats in automobiles. People don't need a law to protect their children, but they demand a law to protect other people's children. What they fail to understand is that they are giving the state yet another way to intrude into their lives, and that these demands have repercussions...such as having another reason to be stopped by cops. "Scared" cops, as admitted by Fivezeroes.
Well, I can't speak for anyone in the law enforcement business, but in general when someone chooses to go into the law enforcement business they ought to be getting training on the risks involved (I can't imagine that they don't); if a person doesn't want to deal with those risks then they should look for a different career, look for ways to better handle those risks (invent something, come up with better procedures, etc.), or find ways to reduce or eliminate most or all of those risks.

I'm not saying that I approve or condone of the existence of those risks. In fact, you could basically say that I fall under the category of someone who wants to find ways to reduce or eliminate most or all of those risks & that's why I'm also a participant on the Zeitgeist Movement forum. My interest is essentially to try to eliminate the dependency on money and trade to in turn phase out crime, corruption, war, poverty, pollution, etc. by advocating the use of automation and advancements in technology, persuading people to study robotics, engineering, etc. The idea is that society's problems are technical, not political, and the idea is to reduce or eliminate the need for the state or law enforcement.

Developing a special kind of incubator, or coming up with techniques for transferring a fetus to a surrogate mother, are solutions that would benefit a mother that either doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, has a medical problem or complications that pose a problem to the pregnancy, a mother or father that wants to keep the child, the child itself, and a society that doesn't condone killing unborn children or considers it immoral.

Regarding laws to protect children or other people, instead of having laws mandating procedures, design and build technology so accidents won't happen anymore (or at least to significantly reduce them). For example, this could be achieved with the use of air bags, sensors, communication between each vehicle and intersection systems, driverless cars, etc. (in fact, some of these ideas have or are starting to be implemented). Imagine no more need for traffic lights, traffic jams being a thing of the past, cars alternately criss-crossing each other through intersections (like internet packets through routers), etc.



The "real politik" of Rights is that they are backed by violence. We only have those Rights that we can defend. This is why the 2nd amendment is so vital. As you've pointed out, the unborn are defenseless....so no, my statement cannot be inverted. Even in a "gestalt" mother/unborn situation, the mother alone would have to advocate for their combined Rights.
The idea behind having a state is specifically to preserve rights regardless of an individual's ability to defend them; otherwise, we have anarchy.

[dinosaur]

This is a problem that can't be solved by the state. Try as you might, involving the state in this matter will always do more harm than good.

State involvement will not solve the murder problem, but states can prosecute murderers. Abortion is murder, and therefore a state issue.

[erowe1]

Are you saying it always is that way or should be that way? You know parents have options.

Positive rights are at odds with negative rights. The logic of the positive “right to life” can justify just about every kind of aggression.

Everybody has options. Somebody contemplating breaking into another person's house to steal their stuff has options.

Put in the abstract as a "right to life" of course that phrase can be abused. But there do exist at least some positive rights. Children have a right to the care of their parents. I do not have have the right to kick my kids out of my house in the cold of winter with nowhere to go and tell them to fend for themselves. That would be robbing them of what is rightfully theirs. They own property in me.

To your first question, yes, I'm saying what should be, not what always is. Whenever we talk about rights (and wrongs), we are talking about ought, not is.

[Eagles' Wings]

I addressed this in another thread, but I felt it deserved its own thread. I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy in our society that pretends the humanity of an unborn child depends on whether its "wanted" or not. My wife and I lost our first child about halfway into the pregnancy. I was firmly "pro choice" at the time. I didn't understand why my wife was so devastated. Then I read the books she was given from the hospital. One was called "the loneliest grief." All of these books emphasized how we had really "lost a child" and that it was "okay to grieve because its the same as if you had lost any other child." I'm sure any public figure who told a woman who had a miscarriage to "get over it" because she "just lost a parasite" or a "tumor" or a "mass of cells" would be vilified in the media. And yet....I hear these terms used to describe aborted babies. I hear people falsely claim that if you believe an unborn child is a human being that must be because of "religious reasons". Well my religion hasn't changed. My understanding of what happens inside the womb prior to birth has. My understanding of the hypocrisy of a society that treats children differently based on whether or not they are "wanted" has changed. Ron Paul put it well when he talked about how as an obstetrician he could be held criminally liable for harming an unborn child....as long as that child was "wanted".

Now I know all of the arguments of the other side. That we "shouldn't enslave women for 9 months" or that there will be "thousands or millions of back alley abortions" if Roe v Wade is overturned (an inflated claim IMO that ignores excess deaths of women from legal abortions) and that we "don't want pregnancy police" etc. I even respect some of those arguments. But I have no respect for the arguments put forward by those who say that there is no reason, other than religion, to believe a fetus is actually a human being who's life should be respected and, at least to some degree, protected. That position displays either extreme ignorance or dishonesty. I'm not mad at those who have it. I used to be extremely ignorant on the subject. I just ask, if you have that position, to go to any obstetrician worth his/her salt and ask what counsel is given to those who have had a miscarriage. You may be surprised by the answer. I certainly was.Jm, thank you for bringing up this important subject. THe grief of miscarriage is so real and even though some time has passed, may you and your wife find consolation with one another and with God. I've had two miscarriages, many years ago, and then not able to have more children. I do love the babies and still choke up when holding one and seeing their loving and trusting eyes.

[robert68]

Everybody has options. Somebody contemplating breaking into another person's house to steal their stuff has options.

Put in the abstract as a "right to life" of course that phrase can be abused. But there do exist at least some positive rights. Children have a right to the care of their parents. I do not have have the right to kick my kids out of my house in the cold of winter with nowhere to go and tell them to fend for themselves. That would be robbing them of what is rightfully theirs. They own property in me.

In those situations, the parents responsibility is to make the child available to others who might wish to take over guardianship.



To your first question, yes, I'm saying what should be, not what always is. Whenever we talk about rights (and wrongs), we are talking about ought, not is.

[Made some changes from first post.]

[erowe1]

Yes, but after the parents have consented to taking those parental responsibilities. "Positive rights" can come from consensual agreement.
Obviously a parent who kicks their kid out of the house and tells them to fend for themselves does not consent to parental responsibilities. That lack of consent doesn't remove the obligations.


If they’re the biological parents, they usually have the option early on of not having those obligations. We discussed this recently in another thread wrt the biological mother.
They can delegate those responsibilities. They can put their child up for adoption or something. But if you really believe that parents have no obligation to their children to begin with, then you don't believe they are obligated to do even that. A mother could give birth in a field and leave her baby there, and taking what you've said at face value, your view would entail that in doing that she did nothing wrong.

[robert68]

Obviously a parent who kicks their kid out of the house and tells them to fend for themselves does not consent to parental responsibilities. That lack of consent doesn't remove the obligations.


The consent I was referring to had already taken place. Also, a child is not better off being raised by a parent who would do that.

[I<3Liberty]

This is a major misconception. The "clump of cells" thing mostly comes from the argument over embryonic stem cell research. Most pro and anti abortion folks agree that a fetus is not "just a mass of cells". The opposite can be said about some extreme pro-lifers calling this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray40.png a child. I'm not denying that it is not a form of life, I'm just saying calling it a "child" is a bit of a far stretch. Both portray the subject at hand differently depending on the argument they wish to make.

[AGRP]

Welcome to the world of politics? Someone made a topic on these word games a while ago.

[WhistlinDave]

This would make an awesome name for a Christian rock (or punk) band. "Clump of Cells"

[KrokHead]

Miscarriage = baby; Abortion = "mass of cells"

Get that straight or your chick will argue your brains out.


This would make an awesome name for a Christian rock (or punk) band. "Clump of Cells"

Reminds me of a song from Bride (on their numetal album) called "Beginning of the End," with the 'classy' lyrics "Politics are assassins, and doctors fill the graves." Too bad it's not on youtube and I actually paid for it.

[I<3Liberty]

Just to add on to my previous post... I think this is another alternative that would be helpful: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/artificial-womb.html

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

We're all a mass of cells, so with that logic, anyone should be able to be aborted by their mother at any time.