Liberals: Personhood Starts With Paul Ryan’s Jizz

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's because we believe that abortion ends the life of another person - and that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. The issue isn't, how should we regulate people's lives", the issue is, "how do we protect the natural rights of the unborn", in the same way as we protect the natural rights of everyone else. Again - if you can take away the right to life of the unborn - it never stops there - you are attacking everyone's natural rights.

"Natural rights" are bull****. A purely human construct. Go out into the woods unarmed and discuss your natural rights with a hungry grizzly bear. The issue is regulating other people's lives, because pro-lifers make this overarching assumption (even in case of rape, where the woman's consent to impregnation was never given) that the "rights" of a blob of cells biologically dependent on a host organism trump the rights of a mere woman to decide whether or not she should be impregnated. We're not arguing elective third-trimester abortions here, we're talking "no exception for rape, no matter the stage of development of the blastocyst/embryo/fetus."

I presume I count as a prolifer? Now you know one.

Do you advocate criminally charging a pregnant woman with child abuse or child endangerment if she drinks alcohol, smokes, or eats foods or does other things which medically are demonstrated to be likely to affect fetal development?

So you believe that there is a connection between abortion and contraception? That demand for one drives demand for the other?

They are both derived from patriarchal societies' fetish with controlling women, aka male DNA propagation factories. You can go back to suffrage, property ownership, all sorts of things dating back centuries and crossing multiple cultural boundaries. Women were nothing more than men's sperm bakeries to propagate the male's progeny, and do a little **** work while they're at it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I use the word "anti-choice" because people who oppose abortion co-opted the word, "pro-life" unfairly, as if implicating that pro-choice people are sadistic and place no value on human life. So since I can't think of another choice of words other than "anti-choice," I use that. Unless you have a suggested choice?

For decades, the labels that have been stuck to the two sides have been pro-life and pro-choice. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" are labels used by one side to vilify the others or spin their policies or beliefs. Kind of like "gay rights" becoming transformed to "the homosexual agenda." (though personally, I prefer the term "Evil Sodomite Agenda^(tm)" - sounds like something the UN is using to undermine our national sovereignty. )

Personally, I prefer focusing on substantive policy issues rather than on labels.

[Ben Kenobi]

IVF assumes nothing.

Which is why lesbians flip through books looking for doctor sperm?

IVF works because there is continuity throughout the entire process. If it did not - then sexual reproduction would not work the way it does - nor could we conceive a child outside the womb in a petri dish and still be able to say that the same child conceived in the petri dish, is the same child eventually born at the end of the process.

The difference is that a child will, even if removed from its mother, be sustainable and capable of growth and development

Which child? When does the child become the child? I argue that the child in the womb is exactly the same child as the child outside of the womb.

The fact that it's genetically distinct is meaningless.

To whom? You?

Really? Nonsense. Nobody thinks that - not the lesbians going to the IVF clinic - not the couples having issues conceiving. They all believe that the child conceived in the petri dish is going to be the same child they get at the end when the child is born. Otherwise there is no point in going to the IVF clinic.

A zygote in a test tube is not.

So let me ask you a question - MTG. The standard that I am putting forth is an empirical one. I can test it. I can confirm - biologically, that the child in the petri dish is the same child that is born. We've known this for over 30 years now.

Is your standard empirical, or does it depend on opinion? If you were looking on things from outside - which is the most empirical definition? Yours or mine?

[Dinner]

I use the word "anti-choice" because people who oppose abortion co-opted the word, "pro-life" unfairly, as if implicating that pro-choice people are sadistic and place no value on human life. So since I can't think of another choice of words other than "anti-choice," I use that. Unless you have a suggested choice?

Exactly. The supposedly "pro-life" people also widely support the death penalty, hate public assistance for the needy, they not only widely support foreign wars but constantly push for ever more new wars, and are generally just some of the worst hypocrites in the country. They are NOT pro-life and instead their defining feature is that they are anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-sex ed, want their personal religion enshrined into law & forced upon everyone else, and generally just stupid people.

[MrFun]

For decades, the labels that have been stuck to the two sides have been pro-life and pro-choice. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" are labels used by one side to vilify the others or spin their policies or beliefs. Kind of like "gay rights" becoming transformed to "the homosexual agenda." (though personally, I prefer the term "Evil Sodomite Agenda^(tm)" - sounds like something the UN is using to undermine our national sovereignty. )

Personally, I prefer focusing on substantive policy issues rather than on labels.

That's a nice philosophical ideal to hold onto, and be a purist about labels.

But in the real world, in the course of debates and discussions, labels can have a strong effect. So hence, my issue with the "pro-life" label.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you advocate criminally charging a pregnant woman with child abuse or child endangerment if she drinks alcohol, smokes, or eats foods or does other things which medically are demonstrated to be likely to affect fetal development?

Yes to alcohol, smoking and ingestion of harmful crap. Interesting debate - is it child abuse to feed your unborn child non-organic foods?

"Natural rights" are bull****. A purely human construct. Go out into the woods unarmed and discuss your natural rights with a hungry grizzly bear. The issue is regulating other people's lives

No, it's not. The issue is whether the unborn child should be considered a person. If the unborn child is a person, then it is wrong to kill a person just because another person wants to kill her.

that the "rights" of a blob of cells biologically dependent on a host organism trump the rights of a mere woman to decide whether or not she should be impregnated. We're not arguing elective third-trimester abortions here, we're talking "no exception for rape, no matter the stage of development of the blastocyst/embryo/fetus."

You're exactly right - we are making this overarching assumption that the unborn child is a person. This is why this is the crux of the entire argument. If the unborn child is established as a person - your argument no longer works. You cannot support depriving one person's rights at the bequest of another. You do support natural rights by arguing that 'we should not interfere in another person's rights - you are arguing that rights end where another's rights begin.

So you believe that there is a connection between abortion and contraception? That demand for one drives demand for the other? They are both derived from patriarchal societies' fetish with controlling women, aka male DNA propagation factories. You can go back to suffrage, property ownership, all sorts of things dating back centuries and crossing multiple cultural boundaries. Women were nothing more than men's sperm bakeries to propagate the male's progeny, and do a little **** work while they're at it.

You didn't answer the question MtG - do you believe that demand for contraception and abortion are connected? That demand for one drives demand of the other? You say there were 6 years apart. That suggests to me pretty strong linkage, and that you are making the case that the two are intimately connected.

[Ben Kenobi]

But in the real world, in the course of debates and discussions, labels can have a strong effect. So hence, my issue with the "pro-life" label.

Yeah, it sucks being on the anti-life side.

[DinoDoc]

I use the word "anti-choice" because ...

You're a partisan douche?

[Ben Kenobi]

The supposedly "pro-life" people also widely support the death penalty, hate public assistance for the needy, they not only widely support foreign wars but constantly push for ever more new wars, and are generally just some of the worst hypocrites in the country. They are NOT pro-life and instead their defining feature is that they are anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-sex ed, want their personal religion enshrined into law & forced upon everyone else, and generally just stupid people.

So prolife means being against the death penalty, mugging people for 'the needy', abandoning your allies and supporting abortion? Interesting argument Oerdin.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If we applied the same definition of 'person' before birth as after birth, then 3rd term abortions would be murder.

In many states, they are. And unless it's a medical necessity to save the life of the mother, they should be.

Many people are dependent, in many different ways, on another. At many points in their lives.

A newborn is just as dependent as a baby 2 weeks before birth.

You misunderstand dependency. I'm referring to biological dependency on a specific individual. 2 weeks before birth, you can induce labor, have the kid born, and then immediately kill the mother and have someone else provide for the baby's needs, without affecting the baby. If not told later on, it might never know. This was more or less done in Argentina, although they didn't induce early labor.

If you take a 10 week fetus or 2 week embryo, and the mother dies, there is no way at all, zero chance, none, to "save the baby" because it is an incomplete organism which is totally biologically dependent on one living host organism, and no others. That is what I'm referring to as dependent, not who will give it a bottle or cover it with a blanky or rock it to sleep.

And in the third trimester, the baby is perfectly viable.

Yes it is, and Roe v. Wade expressly gives the states the right to regulate third trimester abortions and treat them as murder or manslaughter. It's up to the states, as murder is a state offense, not federal.

We don't allow people to decide that ****ing 12 year-olds is OK or not.

We do allow people to decide if a 60 year-old with a 18 year-old is OK or not. (some would say yes, some would say no)

We don't allow people to decide that killing a 3 year-old is OK or not.

We do (or should) allow people to decide to die themselves if there is no medical hope/etc.

This difference is obvious. And obviously different then legalization drugs/alcohol/prostitution/etc.

JM

The difference is not at all obvious, or medically or scientifically sound, when you fail to distinguish a viable fetus from an indisputably non-viable embryo.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes to alcohol, smoking and ingestion of harmful crap. Interesting debate - is it child abuse to feed your unborn child non-organic foods?

So do you imprison the drunk mother to be, or a hand-slap ticket? And how do you set up and fund the Prego-police?

No, it's not. The issue is whether the unborn child should be considered a person. If the unborn child is a person, then it is wrong to kill a person just because another person wants to kill her.

Yes, it is, because you've already drawn a bright line back to the "moment of conception" without regard for medical or scientific evidence other than it's genetically distinct. We're also on the verge of being able to clone a developable human zygote from only a single donor, so you won't even have genetically distinct to hang your hat on. To me, the issue is where is the appropriate point to draw the line. You've already drawn it someplace based on religious dogma and contrary to medical and scientific sense.

I think third trimester abortions are murder, unless you have a situation (similar with conjoined twin surgeries) where you have the life of the mother at significant risk. That's a medical professional decision, not a legislative one.

If the unborn child is established as a person - your argument no longer works. You cannot support depriving one person's rights at the bequest of another.

You start with the pre-determined answer and then want to fit the question (by legislative, or preferably superlegislative, fiat) to reach the answer you've already picked. I start with the question and look for medical and scientific evidence to provide the answer.

You do support natural rights by arguing that 'we should not interfere in another person's rights - you are arguing that rights end where another's rights begin.

Those aren't natural rights. They are humanly constructed rights.

You didn't answer the question MtG - do you believe that demand for contraception and abortion are connected? That demand for one drives demand of the other? You say there were 6 years apart. That suggests to me pretty strong linkage, and that you are making the case that the two are intimately connected.

I don't really know or care. I'm extermely unlikely to have an abortion, and I wouldn't need my hubby's permission to go on the pill, although my doc might refer me to a shrink instead if I asked her for a prescription. It suggests that we were in a somewhat enlightened era when long-standing laws designed to oppress and constrain women to their "natural law" roles as sperm bakeries and hausfraus were being challenged. Call it the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights movement.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's a nice philosophical ideal to hold onto, and be a purist about labels.

But in the real world, in the course of debates and discussions, labels can have a strong effect. So hence, my issue with the "pro-life" label.

In the real world, we don't get a ****ing thing done because the two sides sit on opposite sides of the fence and moon each other and call each other names.

[Dinner]

So prolife means being against the death penalty, mugging people for 'the needy', abandoning your allies and supporting abortion? Interesting argument Oerdin.

You can't be "pro-life" and want to kill people, or let them starve to death, or want to start expensive and unnecessary wars in foreign countries which will end up killing hundreds of thousands of people. That's why they're simply "anti-abortion" and not pro-life.

[Ben Kenobi]

So do you imprison the drunk mother to be, or a hand-slap ticket? And how do you set up and fund the Prego-police?

Public education and awareness seems pretty effective already - but yes, prison and detox if necessary to get them clean.

Yes, it is, because you've already drawn a bright line back to the "moment of conception" without regard for medical or scientific evidence

Scientific evidence is pretty solid in establishing continuity of the person back from fertilization all the way to birth. Again, IVF relies on this to work, and that's what, a several trillion dollar industry? Don't believe me - believe them.

We're also on the verge of being able to clone a developable human zygote from only a single donor, so you won't even have genetically distinct to hang your hat on.

We can cross that bridge if it comes. As it is - we've got individuals who are distinct from fertilization onwards.

You've already drawn it someplace based on religious dogma and contrary to medical and scientific sense.

How exactly has my argument relied on religion MtG?

I think third trimester abortions are murder, unless you have a situation (similar with conjoined twin surgeries) where you have the life of the mother at significant risk. That's a medical professional decision, not a legislative one.

That's an opinion. Children are viable after about 22 weeks or so. Third trimester is what? 27? So you aren't even consistant with yourself, if you're being honest by saying that viability is your standard.

look for medical and scientific evidence to provide the answer.

Which is why you simply dismissed the argument, "the DNA doesn't change", by saying that "it's irrelevant"? Again, to whom, is it irrelevant? The several trillion dollars being spent on IVF? To you?

Those aren't natural rights. They are humanly constructed rights.

If they are humanly constructed rights, then they can be taken away by other persons. Do you believe that Non-intervention is a right irrespective of what someone believes?

Call it the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights movement

Ok, fair enough. I'm amused that despite different presuppositions we share this conclusion.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't be "pro-life" and want to kill people, or let them starve to death, or want to start expensive and unnecessary wars in foreign countries which will end up killing hundreds of thousands of people. That's why they're simply "anti-abortion" and not pro-life.

So, you are assuming that all persons are of equal value?