abortion

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If the child lives, despite his birth defect, I'm not sure the argument changes, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. A child is born with an obvious birth defect. His quality of life is irrepairably damaged. By now, both pro-life and pro-choice camps agree that he is a human being with rights. Doesn't it make sense to go after those responsible for damaging his present quality of life?

No, because a woman has no legal obligations to a fetus. The afterfact that someone becomes a human being does not retroactively supply you with the rights of a human being before you were one. The law does not consider what you might become later; it deals with what you are now. Otherwise, the 12 year old could drive and have a few beers because eventually he'll be old enough to do both. The same logic is applicable to a fetus; it has no rights though IF it lives long enough to exist on its own it will be a human being and have the same rights as other human beings.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Halitose, you are confusing two concepts. "Life" begins at conception; a fetus is alive just like a tapeworm and the germs that cause bad breath. But it is not, and has never been, considered a human being i.e. a human entity with the same rights as a child. That is what your claim is and to that, science has no answer.

No No1, I was asserting that it is not just any life, but human life. Fertilization is the inception of a unique individual of the Genus Homo sapien. Conception as the word itself denotes is the starting point of the long road of humanity. That embryo doesn't magically change into a human at the third trimester. By the end of the first trimester all the major organs are already in a stage of development.

Just like "infant", "pubescent" or "adult" refer to humans in their different stages of development, "fetus" denotes a pre-born human child.

Originally posted by Halitose
No No1, I was asserting that it is not just any life, but human life. Fertilization is the inception of a unique individual of the Genus Homo sapien. Conception as the word itself denotes is the starting point of the long road of humanity. That embryo doesn't magically change into a human at the third trimester. By the end of the first trimester all the ma ...[text shortened]... er to humans in their different stages of development, "fetus" denotes a pre-born human child.

You are deliberately obfuscating. You continue to use the terms "human life" and "human being" interchangeably. I believe you know they are different concepts.

Now please address my points regarding the legal ramifications on the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) that adoption of your radical, new legal concept that a zygote is a human being with the same rights as a child, would have. I notice you have steadfastly dodged the issue so far. You're not getting off that easily.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you would support in theory every miscarriage being investigated as a potential homicide with possible criminal consequences IF the medical evidence showed that any act or omission by the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) was the cause of the miscarriage? You just don't think that there would be many actual cases?

I'm going to keep this hypothetical.

IF it were decided legally that an unborn child is a human with rights, I agree that it's logical to prosecute a mother who causes a miscarriage by her extreme negligence. HOWEVER, I'm not convinced that this would be every case (as HG says), or even the majority of them. I don't think this argument should weigh heavily in deciding whether or not abortion is morally acceptable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, because a woman has no legal obligations to a fetus. The afterfact that someone becomes a human being does not retroactively supply you with the rights of a human being before you were one. The law does not consider what you might become later; it deals with what you are now. Otherwise, the 12 year old could drive and have a few beers because eventua ...[text shortened]... ugh to exist on its own it will be a human being and have the same rights as other human beings.

Alright, let's deal with the kid as he is now. He's 5 years old. He is paralyzed from the neck down due to a serious birth defect. If medical evidence reveals that his mother's heavy drinking caused this defect, isn't it logical to blame her for it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
KJ:
Your attempting to claim it is sciences job to assign worth


Apparently then you can't read or write.

No no1, please read what I said. I agree that it is not up to science
to assign worth, science does not deal in how we care about things.
What is apparent, is that one of us is not reading what the other
has written. Your ability to read and write is not in question, your
ability look past your prejudice is.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are deliberately obfuscating. You continue to use the terms "human life" and "human being" interchangeably. I believe you know they are different concepts.

Now please address my points regarding the legal ramifications on the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) that adoption of your radical, new legal concept that a zygote is a human bei ...[text shortened]... ave. I notice you have steadfastly dodged the issue so far. You're not getting off that easily.

Your views that the life inside the female shouldn't be given rights,
because it would be problematic does not address the life itself,
only that there would be additional issues if we accept that as true.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Kelly

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Alright, let's deal with the kid as he is now. He's 5 years old. He is paralyzed from the neck down due to a serious birth defect. If medical evidence reveals that his mother's heavy drinking caused this defect, isn't it logical to blame her for it?

No, not in a legal sense. Please re-read my post.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your views that the life inside the female shouldn't be given rights,
because it would be problematic does not address the life itself,
only that there would be additional issues if we accept that as true.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Kelly

To you, no. To the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) who's right to self-autonomy you would destroy, it's the heart of the matter.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I'm going to keep this hypothetical.

IF it were decided legally that an unborn child is a human with rights, I agree that it's logical to prosecute a mother who causes a miscarriage by her extreme negligence. HOWEVER, I'm not convinced that this would be every case (as HG says), or even the majority of them. I don't think this argument should weigh heavily in deciding whether or not abortion is morally acceptable.

Why merely "extreme negligence"? What about reckless behavior? What about not caring if the fetus-human "died" as a result of her behavior? The last could arguably be "depraved indifference" murder, which is second-degree murder in NY. Why should a fetus-human being's death be considered different from the death of any other human being?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No no1, please read what I said. I agree that it is not up to science
to assign worth, science does not deal in how we care about things.
What is apparent, is that one of us is not reading what the other
has written. Your ability to read and write is not in question, your
ability look past your prejudice is.
Kelly

No, KJ, you made a false statement that it was my opinion that science should assign "worth" (see above); I suggest you retract it. I have no prejudice on this matter except in favor of the fundamental right of self-autonomy that every woman possesses over the confines of her own body. I'm not dealing with your oft-repeated moral assertions because they are just that; your own assertions of what other people should think and do. I don't care about them or any person's moral assertions until it gets into the area of compelling others to follow these moral assertions by law or violence (essentially the same thing). Thus, I don't care if you keep harping over and over and over again that I don't care about human life because I oppose criminal laws against abortion; that is your idiotic opinion which is worthless to me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
To you, no. To the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) who's right to self-autonomy you would destroy, it's the heart of the matter.

Okay, one little test of reading ability here, show me where I have
used the words in any fashion in this discussion that I want to
destroy the self-autonomy of anyone? If you cannot, I'll tell you
why, it isn't anywhere to be found, because I said nothing along
those lines, but because of your prejudice you want to see and
believe something even when it isn't there.

If you come up with something I think you will have to twist
some text to make it sound like something that isn’t there, or your
other tactic to ignore the question. Much like you did when you
were belittling me was under discussion, you attacked me for
belittling someone else all the while you were calling me names
and insulting me. You find fault, but it was you, not I doing the
deed you were crying about; as it is here again with your failure
to grasp the meaning of some text, saying I’m pushing for
something I have not asked for. Hopefully you will get eyes to
see what is before you, as it stands now you reacting out of your
emotions and prejudice.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, KJ, you made a false statement that it was my opinion that science should assign "worth" (see above); I suggest you retract it. I have no prejudice on this matter except in favor of the fundamental right of self-autonomy that every woman possesses over the confines of her own body. I'm not dealing with your oft-repeated moral assertions because th ...[text shortened]... I oppose criminal laws against abortion; that is your idiotic opinion which is worthless to me.

It is possible I made a false statement, care to quote it and I will
indeed retact with apologies.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, one little test of reading ability here, show me where I have
used the words in any fashion in this discussion that I want to
destroy the self-autonomy of anyone? If you cannot, I'll tell you
why, it isn't anywhere to be found, because I said nothing along
those lines, but because of your prejudice you want to see and
believe something even whe ...[text shortened]... ee what is before you, as it stands now you reacting out of your
emotions and prejudice.
Kelly

Please stop responding to my posts if you don't favor criminal laws against abortion. I have repeatedly told you that is all I'm interested in. Parrot your moral assertions to someone else. And stop your crying!

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is possible I made a false statement, care to quote it and I will
indeed retact with apologies.
Kelly

I did quote it. Learn how to read.

EDIT: KJ:
Your attempting to claim it is sciences job to assign worth