RE: Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?
October 19, 2011 at 8:44 am
(This post was last modified: October 19, 2011 at 9:34 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Bold assertions without evidence? Frodo, we had this little court case called Roe v Wade on this side of the pond, that was the end result. Human embryos, fetus, etc are not protected by any of the laws concerning murder because they are not given the status of personhood (whereas the mother does enjoy that status and associated rights). What other evidence is required? Not a person, not murder, what's left?
Late Edit: Look, you keep attempting to inject charged language where it obviously does not belong, which is exactly how the "pro-life" movement rolls, and don't even try to tell me that this movement isn't a religious one. If you can use the terms abortion and murder interchangeably, then why not apple cake and murder? You seem to have an axe to grind with regards to personhood, but what could you possibly be basing that on? You keep claiming that you have a scientific consensus to back you up...this is common bullshit. What terms biologists use to describe or classify any organisms life cycle is completely meaningless within the context of our laws. Those designations were not coined to give weight to your argument, nor did they give any weight to the argument when it was presented by much slicker individuals in court. Personhood was decided based upon the fetus viability outside the womb. Which is exactly 0. The federal governments responsibility to pursue the interests of the mother (who has been granted personhood, and is a citizen) take precedence here largely based on that criteria. The languages of our founding documents and bill of rights etc have also been considered and it has been decided that this langauge does not imply or command that human embryos be granted personhood, rights, or protections of the same.
Now, there is no consensus of the exact moment that life begins (in the context of a specifically human life obviously). None. That's why I know that you don't have any consensus to cling to, because I don't either, not from science. It would be impossible to discuss these things without a language to convey ideas, specifically time frames, and so some scientists will speak about the "beginning" of life, largely influenced by their own specialty and in the context of whatever discipline they're engaged in. "But some scientist said life begins at conception!" Did he say it in court, after putting forward a peer reviewed paper directly responding to the question of abortion and morality? The only point at which your argument and science converge is in the language, which is always the wedge that you see in these conversations. Don't argue that it's immoral to murder a person when what you really want to argue is that a fetus is a person. Unless you can establish this then you have no argument. As I've explained above, that's been tried, but you're welcome to give it a go if you feel more competent than those originally involved. Or maybe you have some data that was unavailable to them?
"If a fetus is a person" doesn't work either, because there is no conjecture at this point, that issue has been decided.
Late Edit: Look, you keep attempting to inject charged language where it obviously does not belong, which is exactly how the "pro-life" movement rolls, and don't even try to tell me that this movement isn't a religious one. If you can use the terms abortion and murder interchangeably, then why not apple cake and murder? You seem to have an axe to grind with regards to personhood, but what could you possibly be basing that on? You keep claiming that you have a scientific consensus to back you up...this is common bullshit. What terms biologists use to describe or classify any organisms life cycle is completely meaningless within the context of our laws. Those designations were not coined to give weight to your argument, nor did they give any weight to the argument when it was presented by much slicker individuals in court. Personhood was decided based upon the fetus viability outside the womb. Which is exactly 0. The federal governments responsibility to pursue the interests of the mother (who has been granted personhood, and is a citizen) take precedence here largely based on that criteria. The languages of our founding documents and bill of rights etc have also been considered and it has been decided that this langauge does not imply or command that human embryos be granted personhood, rights, or protections of the same.
Now, there is no consensus of the exact moment that life begins (in the context of a specifically human life obviously). None. That's why I know that you don't have any consensus to cling to, because I don't either, not from science. It would be impossible to discuss these things without a language to convey ideas, specifically time frames, and so some scientists will speak about the "beginning" of life, largely influenced by their own specialty and in the context of whatever discipline they're engaged in. "But some scientist said life begins at conception!" Did he say it in court, after putting forward a peer reviewed paper directly responding to the question of abortion and morality? The only point at which your argument and science converge is in the language, which is always the wedge that you see in these conversations. Don't argue that it's immoral to murder a person when what you really want to argue is that a fetus is a person. Unless you can establish this then you have no argument. As I've explained above, that's been tried, but you're welcome to give it a go if you feel more competent than those originally involved. Or maybe you have some data that was unavailable to them?
"If a fetus is a person" doesn't work either, because there is no conjecture at this point, that issue has been decided.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
