Victory For Now....

[Socrates]

Nobody thinks this way about other animals in the natural order, so why are humans perceived as being so crude that they don't actually exist until they are naturally born? 

 

It's one of the ineffable mysteries of Militant Atheism.

[HisChildForever]

So what is the baby before it "develops into a human being"?  Does the baby change species at birth?

 

The idea that a baby magically turns into a completely different creature upon leaving the womb is superstitious and irrational.

 

Amazing, isn't it?

[Maggyie]

It's a great point that newborns are 100% as parasitical as unborn children. The main difference is that newborns can cry and are cute, and aren't intellectual abstractions like unborn children are.

 

Literally - the physical and mental development differences at say, 37 weeks, vs a 40 week born baby are close to zero.

 

And yet the 37 week fetus has no rights- and the 40 week old fetus doesn't any rights either, actually. Until the fetus successfully makes its journey down the Magical Vaginal Canal of Human Rights, it can be destroyed.

 

You don't have to be religious to be pro-life, you just have to reject Magic Vagina Theory.

[4588686]

 
Human reproduction consists of the making of a new human being (sexual intercourse resulting in fertilization and conception).  Abortion kills a new human being already existing.  I don't think there's anything magical about the location of the womb that makes killing a baby there acceptable, and a baby in the cradle not.  Deliberately killing an innocent human being is always wrong, end of story. 
 
 

Abortion is by definition the killing of an unborn human being.  That's a scientific fact.  You apparently think killing some innocent human beings is acceptable, and that's where the disagreement lies.  That it's wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being is a pretty straightforward moral principle.  You could use the "too complex a moral decision" line to justify legalizing absolutely anything  - murder, theft, whatever - it's a weak and meaningless cop-out, rather than an argument. 

 

 
Abortion is killing an unborn human being (by surgical or chemical procedures.)  I'm not sure what you think abortion is, or why you think it should have so much less regulation.  Looks like you're avoiding the issue.
 
Currently, burger stands and tattoo parlors are subject to more health and sanitation regulations than abortion clinics.  Dr. Gosnell's filthy little slaughter-house was actually hardly unique.
 
 

 
I don't know what a Circasion is (something like a Caucasian?), but as the bill has nothing to do with anyone's race or ethnicity, you've brought up yet another irrelevant non-sequitur.

 

1-So the development of the fetus is not part of reproduction?  You're being vague.  

 

2-Well, the difference between a crib and a woman is that a woman is a human person cognizant of her existence and capable of conceptualizing preferences.  A crib, on the other hand, is an inanimate object.   So that is why it is different if a baby is in a crib as opposed to in a woman.

 

3-That is actually not the definition of abortion.  Not that you're one to let facts get in the way of spewing bullpoo.  

 

Here's are two questions.  I doubt you'll answer them with anything other than your usual sophistry but who knows

 

I) Would it be wrong for the state to permit a surgery where a fetus/zygote et cetera is removed from the mother's body prior to viability.  The fetus would die but not from any anything the surgeon did to the fetus but only because it was removed prior to viability.

 

II) Should the state be able to force you to donate bodily organs and substances in order to save the lives of patients who would otherwise die?

 

4-I don't think it's a cop out to admit I have a fallible moral judgement.  I don't get to project my preferences onto an imaginary friend who makes the rules.  An abortion is a collision of interests.  Our social interests in maintaining an appreciation for human life and the fetus' presumed (at the time of the abortion a fetus has no interests) future interests in living collide with a woman's interest and preferences regarding her body.  I don't see anything immoral at all about ending a pregnancy where the egg has just been fertilized and there is absolutely no justification for prioritizing the (assumed) interests of a newly fertilized egg over those of a developed woman except religious dogma.  On the other hand, elective late-term abortions are much more morally complicated.  You have a fetus with the capacity to maintain some primitive preferences versus a woman who has preferences regarding her body.  I wouldn't have a problem with laws restricting the right to elective late-term abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother.  

 

5-Abortions are not surgeries.  

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jul/05/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-abortions-are-nations-second-most-/

 

6-I'm sure you have statistics supporting your claim that Grosnell's clinic was hardly unique.  I'd love to see them

 

7-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adyghe_people

 

8-I didn't say that race had anything to do with this.  The point was that regulations can be constitutional or unconstitutional depending on intent.  Since you seemed to miss this point earlier with your inapt example I was trying to illuminate this point for you.  I would have done it actually using the constitutional right of abortion but since you deny abortion is a right I thought I'd use another example that wouldn't give you a segway to avoid the point and start rambling on about activist judges.  

[4588686]

It's a great point that newborns are 100% as parasitical as unborn children. The main difference is that newborns can cry and are cute, and aren't intellectual abstractions like unborn children are.

 

Literally - the physical and mental development differences at say, 37 weeks, vs a 40 week born baby are close to zero.

 

And yet the 37 week fetus has no rights- and the 40 week old fetus doesn't any rights either, actually. Until the fetus successfully makes its journey down the Magical Vaginal Canal of Human Rights, it can be destroyed.

 

You don't have to be religious to be pro-life, you just have to reject Magic Vagina Theory.

 

I'd actually also like to ask you the two questions I posed to Socrates.  And unlike Socrates I think you'll probably have an interesting answer to them that actually engages the questions:
 

I) Would it be wrong for the state to permit a surgery where a fetus/zygote et cetera is removed from the mother's body prior to viability.  The fetus would die but not from any anything the surgeon did to the fetus but only because it was removed prior to viability.

 

II) Should the state be able to force you to donate bodily organs and substances in order to save the lives of patients who would otherwise die?

[Maggyie]

I'd actually also like to ask you the two questions I posed to Socrates.  And unlike Socrates I think you'll probably have an interesting answer to them that actually engages the questions:
 

I) Would it be wrong for the state to permit a surgery where a fetus/zygote et cetera is removed from the mother's body prior to viability.  The fetus would die but not from any anything the surgeon did to the fetus but only because it was removed prior to viability.

 

II) Should the state be able to force you to donate bodily organs and substances in order to save the lives of patients who would otherwise die?

 

 

1. Consider a case of ectopic pregnancy. The fallopian tube with the baby inside is removed, the baby is certainly not viable and must die, but its death was an unintended consequence of removing the diseased tube. The key issue is why is the surgeon removing the fetus? Is he removing the fetus in order to end a pregnancy, or is his removal an unfortunate side effect of some other treatment?

 

From the pro-life perspective, viability is a great standard because as our technology improves, we'll be able to move the yardstick earlier and earlier in pregnancy. But Roe v Wade allows abortions after fetal viability, if necessary to preserve "the life and health" of the mother. And "health" includes mental health, which in practice is an extremely elastic standard. it can mean whatever you'd like it to mean. So from my POV it's kind of a moot point.

 

2. This is an interesting question. Obviously it would have to be spare organs that we have two of. And how would we determine who "has" to donate? A lottery based on age? An alternate way of paying a debt to society (instead of going to jail, you have to donate a kidney)? Obviously it's much preferable for people to step forward on their own. But suppose there was some kind of horrific crisis and there was a tremendous need for donated blood, and not enough donors were coming forward. Some kind of galloping disease, where the CDC can only get in front of it by getting massive amounts of plasma or something. I could see a doomsday scenario where the state could declare an emergency and require that people donate a certain amount of body parts or fluids if they are in good enough health.

 

We've had a draft at different moments of crisis right? And that doesn't force people to just give up a spare body part, but potentially to surrender their lives for the community.

 

It would probably be unconstitutional but in the right circumstances... probably not immoral. I don't think so anyway.

 

 

 

[Socrates]

1-So the development of the fetus is not part of reproduction?  You're being vague.  

 

"Reproduction" is defined in biology as the production of offspring by an organism.  In human beings, this consists of the fertilization of egg by sperm.  Once there is a fertilized egg, the new human being (different from both mother and father) has already been produced.  The mother houses and nourishes the growing baby, but this process actually continues after birth when a woman nurses her baby.

 

"Reproductive rights" is an extremely vague and poorly defined term (what does it even mean?), and trying to claim it as a principle which trumps all other rights is absurd.  For instance, "reproductive rights" don't give a man the right to rape a woman with the purpose of impregnating her. Neither do "reproductive rights" give parents the right to murder their offspring.

 

The right to life is far greater than the "rights" of people to do whatever they like with their bodies - we have no right to kill an innocent human being.

 

(Trying to frame abortion as a women's rights issue is also inaccurate and unfair, as many women are pressured and coerced by men to get abortions, and many women regret their abortions.)

 

 

 

2-Well, the difference between a crib and a woman is that a woman is a human person cognizant of her existence and capable of conceptualizing preferences.  A crib, on the other hand, is an inanimate object.   So that is why it is different if a baby is in a crib as opposed to in a woman.

 

 

Abortion takes the life of a baby, not a woman or a crib.  Where the baby happens to be located has no bearing on whether it is a human being with a right to life.  Humanity and the right to life is not determined by location.  Nice try at evasion, though.

 

 

3-That is actually not the definition of abortion.  Not that you're one to let facts get in the way of spewing bullpoo.  

 

Here's are two questions.  I doubt you'll answer them with anything other than your usual sophistry but who knows

 

 

Abortion is defined as removing an unborn baby from the womb to terminate a pregnancy, or the surgical methods used to do so.  My earlier description is accurate, because voluntary abortion (what's being discussed here) does in fact kill the baby.  Late-term abortions involve killing the baby first so it won't survive the abortion.  

 

As usual, you have no actual argument or definition of your own, only your usual spewing of insults and accusations.  And as usual, the bullpoo and sophistry is entirely on your end.

 

 

I) Would it be wrong for the state to permit a surgery where a fetus/zygote et cetera is removed from the mother's body prior to viability.  The fetus would die but not from any anything the surgeon did to the fetus but only because it was removed prior to viability.

 

II) Should the state be able to force you to donate bodily organs and substances in order to save the lives of patients who would otherwise die?

 

 

I) It would be wrong except in cases (as outline by Maggie above) in which removal of the child would be an unwanted but necessary consequence of actions needed to save the life of the mother.

Deliberately causing the death of an innocent human being is always wrong, and it is wrong to take actions which will result in its death unless necessary to save other human life.

 

(What you're implying there is akin to saying it would be okay to toss a kid overboard naked into the middle of the Arctic Ocean, because his death would be from cold, drowning, etc., rather than from the actual tossing.)

 

II)  If my organs were the only means of saving that person's life, then it would be right to force me to donate to save that person's life, unless the donation would necessarily result in my death (it's wrong to kill to save another).

That is still a rather poor analogy for pregnancy and abortion however, as pregnancy does not normally involve any unnatural and violent loss of organs - a woman's body is made for bearing children.

 

That said, the huge majority of abortions are not necessary to save the mother's life, and there are not any laws proposed to ban procedures to directly save the life of the mother.

 

4-I don't think it's a cop out to admit I have a fallible moral judgement.  I don't get to project my preferences onto an imaginary friend who makes the rules.  An abortion is a collision of interests.  Our social interests in maintaining an appreciation for human life and the fetus' presumed (at the time of the abortion a fetus has no interests) future interests in living collide with a woman's interest and preferences regarding her body.  I don't see anything immoral at all about ending a pregnancy where the egg has just been fertilized and there is absolutely no justification for prioritizing the (assumed) interests of a newly fertilized egg over those of a developed woman except religious dogma.  On the other hand, elective late-term abortions are much more morally complicated.  You have a fetus with the capacity to maintain some primitive preferences versus a woman who has preferences regarding her body.  I wouldn't have a problem with laws restricting the right to elective late-term abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother.  

 

 

What you're saying is that whether a human being has the right to live should be determined by various extraneous (and extremely vague and subjective) factors ("social interests," "preferences" etc.)  And call me a primitive idiot, but I don't believe the right to life of an innocent person should be based on any factors beyond he or she being alive and human.  

The basic human right to life shouldn't be based on the highly subjective and changeable value judgments of other persons.

Once we determine the right to life to be determined by anything other than humanity, we've gone down a dark and slippery slope.

 

5-Abortions are not surgeries.  

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jul/05/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-abortions-are-nations-second-most-/

 

 

 

Silly quibbling.  Call it a "medical procedure," or whatever - you've still given no compelling reason why it should be so exempt from common medical regulations.  Abortion is in fact often dangerous for the woman, as well as deadly for the baby.

 

6-I'm sure you have statistics supporting your claim that Grosnell's clinic was hardly unique.  I'd love to see them

 

Here's some stories from a quick google search.  I've read of other cases just as bad, long before the Gosnell case.  Not sure if anyone keeps statistics on this though (doubt pro-abortion folks would keep tabs), but I think it's pretty clear this was not a completely unique case - even if more shocking than most.  Not surprising, in an industry subject to extremely little regulation

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/29/gosnells-abortion-atrocities-no-aberration-column/2122235/

 

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/17/gosnell-not-as-unique-as-we-thought-abortion-houston/

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15415-gosnell-house-of-horrors-just-one-of-many-abortion-slaughterhouses

 

http://www.onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2013/05/15/new-video-proves-gosnell-not-a-%E2%80%98one-of-a-kind-anomaly%E2%80%99#.Ud8nE0FpCHM

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/28/gosnell-is-not-alone-counselor-tells-undercover-mom-what-happens-when-babies-move-after-late-term-abortions/

 

However, killing a child remains evil, whether the locale is filthy or antiseptic.

 

7-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adyghe_people

 

 

Interesting, but again completely irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

 

8-I didn't say that race had anything to do with this.  The point was that regulations can be constitutional or unconstitutional depending on intent.  Since you seemed to miss this point earlier with your inapt example I was trying to illuminate this point for you.  I would have done it actually using the constitutional right of abortion but since you deny abortion is a right I thought I'd use another example that wouldn't give you a segway to avoid the point and start rambling on about activist judges.

 

 

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be shocked (though I would be saddened) if activist federal courts struck this down, based on that completely bogus and nonsensical abortion of a SCOTUS ruling known as Roe v. Wade.  

Fact remains, there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing an unlimited right to cheap easy abortions (or abortions at all, for that matter.) - All rambling on about "reproductive rights," "emanations of the penumbra" and other fantastical mythic entities to the contrary.

 

Constitutionally speaking, this matter belongs entirely to the state of Texas, and is outside the enumerated powers of the federal government.

[Socrates]

 And unlike Socrates I think you'll probably have an interesting answer to them that actually engages the questions:

 

Didn't figure you'd have an interest in reason or common sense.

[Socrates]

There have been a few interesting pieces in academic medical journals recently asking what the difference is between a fetus and a newborn.  Hasan's "potential"  comment made me think of them.  One article in particular argues that there is no effective difference, as both are dependent upon the mother, both are incapable of much movement, and both are blank slates when it comes to their potential as a person.  The article goes on to ask, why not allow post-birth abortions?  After all, the authors argue, there's not really a difference; just because you're born doesn't mean you're really human yet, because the mental development isn't there.  A horrifying article IMO.

 

Dr. Peter Singer is the most famous (or, rather, infamous) promoter of this point of view.  He argues that, as there is no significant difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn infant, it is perfectly moral to kill a baby until about two years after birth.  (He admits, that the age for the law to grant a right-to-life is ultimately arbitrary.)

 

Singer's thought is based upon the premise that there is nothing inherently special or sacred about human life itself, but that the right to life should be based on other factors.

 

Singer is a very twisted man, but much more logically consistent and coherent than most advocates of abortion.