(March 1, 2017 at 11:16 am)Aegon Wrote: I gotta say, this argument is going nowhere and it hurts to watch.

Although I'm confident in most of my beliefs, the topic of abortion is something I've gone back and forth on. I'm pro-choice, but I was pro-life not too long ago and sometimes I find myself agreeing with the pro-life crowd more often than not. But this is mostly because I think the pro-choice movement sort of hides behind the "fetus is not a human, not autonomous" argument when the pro-life crowd obviously has a fundamental disagreement with that classification. Am I wrong to say that the scientific community hasn't even reached a consensus on when life begins? I've read plenty of convincing literature arguing that human life begins at conception. The problem I have is... even if the fetus is a human being, are they legally a "person"? Women obviously are persons legally, and for that reason have their bodily autonomy (among other things) protected under the laws of civil society. Fetuses do not. So, regardless of whether the fetus is human or not, they do not have personhood. This was the argument in Roe v Wade, no? It makes sense to me. It's why I'm still pro-choice.  

We could debate whether or not a fetus should be a person, but I find the debate about whether they are human to be irrelevant. Both the woman and the fetus can be human and the woman's bodily autonomy can still take precedent over the fetus's.

There's also the "Right to live". Doesn't matter fetus or not it does have the right to live and the right to die. Aborting it would be taking away its god given right to live. Just doesn't sit well with me. But I understand if a woman is under danger of her own life or other situations like rape. But to trivialize it to the point of getting an abortion because of a "whoopsie" is just inhumane. Regulating abortions would be nice, outright denying abortions does seem a bit extreme.

(March 1, 2017 at 11:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Indeed, we do value some lives more than others. But this is not a matter of weighing one life versus anther. This discussion is about valuing one life which has already been started against another which, until birth, remain potential.

But if life begins at conception, it is not a potential life, it already is a human life, with the potential to grow and develop its capacities.

(March 1, 2017 at 11:34 am)pool the matey Wrote:

(March 1, 2017 at 11:16 am)Aegon Wrote: I gotta say, this argument is going nowhere and it hurts to watch.

Although I'm confident in most of my beliefs, the topic of abortion is something I've gone back and forth on. I'm pro-choice, but I was pro-life not too long ago and sometimes I find myself agreeing with the pro-life crowd more often than not. But this is mostly because I think the pro-choice movement sort of hides behind the "fetus is not a human, not autonomous" argument when the pro-life crowd obviously has a fundamental disagreement with that classification. Am I wrong to say that the scientific community hasn't even reached a consensus on when life begins? I've read plenty of convincing literature arguing that human life begins at conception. The problem I have is... even if the fetus is a human being, are they legally a "person"? Women obviously are persons legally, and for that reason have their bodily autonomy (among other things) protected under the laws of civil society. Fetuses do not. So, regardless of whether the fetus is human or not, they do not have personhood. This was the argument in Roe v Wade, no? It makes sense to me. It's why I'm still pro-choice.  

We could debate whether or not a fetus should be a person, but I find the debate about whether they are human to be irrelevant. Both the woman and the fetus can be human and the woman's bodily autonomy can still take precedent over the fetus's.

There's also the "Right to live". Doesn't matter fetus or not it does have the right to live and the right to die. Aborting it would be taking away its god given right to live. Just doesn't sit well with me. But I understand if a woman is under danger of her own life or other situations like rape. But to trivialize it to the point of getting an abortion because of a "whoopsie" is just inhumane. Regulating abortions would be nice, outright denying abortions does seem a bit extreme.

Nobody has a God-given right to live. We are, however, protected under the laws of civil society and government and given our right to live by the government. In the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all citizens and persons. But every definition of "person" in the Constitution applies only to those who have already been born.

Although I obviously understand the desire to allow abortions in those situations you mentioned, I can't help but point out that it is logically inconsistent. By allowing abortion in any scenario, you say that the fetus no longer has the right to life or that the mother's life matters more than the fetus's. Which is essentially the pro-choice argument. Is it the fault of the fetus that it is a product of rape? By allowing the mother to abort the fetus in that scenario, you are giving the mother's bodily autonomy precedence over the fetus's. But from the fetus's POV, dying is dying regardless of the reason. Does it really matter to the fetus why it is being aborted?

I'm not a pro-choice or pro-life or whatever. I just want them to do the most humane thing in any scenario. I don't think it's fair for a woman that was raped to carry and give birth to the child of her rapist. I don't think it's fair to ignore the life of a woman for a potential life either. Different scenarios warrant different decisions, to bind myself to pro-choice or pro-life would be to use the same decision no matter the circumstances, which is quite dull imo.

It doesn't help people are extremists either. On the one side the hard core extremists don't give a fuck about the mother and will make her go through a pregnancy which will kill her(yeah, fuck modern medicine) or don't give a fuck if a woman was just raped and is now pregnant with the child of her violator

and

on the other hand we have the other extreme group that doesn't give a fuck about the baby(yeah, yeah, fetus; potato potatoe) and will let a mother do whatever the fuck she wants with it. Made a whoopsie? Don't worry sweetie just kill the damn baby, nobody will question you wink wink.

Yeah, no. There should be a happy medium. Obviously outright banning any and all abortions would be extremely inhumane towards a woman. Outright allowing any and all kinds of abortions would be inhumane towards a baby. So strict regulations should be implemented. Yeah people, that's the middle ground, not the extreme ground. The only people that will think it is extreme will be other extremists because they will have gone too far to the extreme side even the middle ground will sound crazy.

Basically sums up my whole position on the abortion talk.

(March 1, 2017 at 10:19 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The autonomy of a newborn is obviously different than that of a fetus. The first is practical, the latter is potential.

By your definition, neither is autonomous. Try again.

Pool the matey posted:

God given right to live?




Is it fucking heresy day at Atheist Forums for the Christers ?

Pool is a theist?

Huh, never knew that.

OK, effed up there.

(March 1, 2017 at 12:13 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(March 1, 2017 at 10:19 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The autonomy of a newborn is obviously different than that of a fetus. The first is practical, the latter is potential.

By your definition, neither is autonomous. Try again.

You realize the autonomy we're talking about is bodily, right?

---

(March 1, 2017 at 11:53 am)Aegon Wrote:

(March 1, 2017 at 11:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Indeed, we do value some lives more than others. But this is not a matter of weighing one life versus anther. This discussion is about valuing one life which has already been started against another which, until birth, remain potential.

But if life begins at conception, it is not a potential life, it already is a human life, with the potential to grow and develop its capacities.

If life begins at conception.

What is the zygote experiencing that makes its experience of life equal to that of the woman carrying it?

---

(March 1, 2017 at 11:34 am)pool the matey Wrote: Aborting it would be taking away its god given right to live.

(March 1, 2017 at 11:34 am)pool the matey Wrote: Regulating abortions would be nice, outright denying abortions does seem a bit extreme.

No one here is arguing for unregulated abortions.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001488.htm

Jeebus is the most prolific abortion doctor by Christian standards.

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

(March 1, 2017 at 4:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 1, 2017 at 12:13 pm)alpha male Wrote: By your definition, neither is autonomous. Try again.

You realize the autonomy we're talking about is bodily, right?

I realize that you previously listed certain abilities which are requirements for autonomy:

Quote:Exactly how is the fetus autonomous? Mentally, can it make its own medical decisions? Physically, can it go where it wants, eat as it wishes, and so on?

No, it can do none of these things.

A newborn cannot make its own medical decisions, or go where it wants, or eat as it wishes.

So, again, neither a baby nor a fetus is autonomous. You need to start treating them the same, or find a different line of reasoning from autonomy.