Why I Am Pro-Life

[CleanShavenJesus]

Aborting a fetus is terminating a human life. That's not up for discussion. It's the current scientific claim.

It's a current scientific claim. And it's not the most widely agreed upon claim either.

[Captain Colostomy]

This thread is kinda making me wanna get knocked up just so I can post the aborted foetus to Fr0d0. Is that weird?

Not if you send it in it's manger with the rest of the Nativity scene!



hock:

[Slave]

Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Personhood is a matter of philosophical consideration and has no basis in scientific fact. A human ebryo is a human life. It isn't beetle. It isn't a monkey. We can't get past the 'life begins at conception' argument like a previous poster asked, because we have one camp claiming that an embryo is not a human life, and another camp claiming it is.

The dividing line between pro-life and pro-choice is that of sentience/personhood. You can't stake a scientific claim in this, because as I said, it is a philosophical question.

Unless anyone here is able to prove to me that an embryo is not human and not alive, your arguments fall on deaf ears. I don't care about personal conjecture. I care about facts.

---

Unlike slave, I'm quite happy with the law as it stands, with abortion legal before an age of sentience.

This wasn't in direct reference to abortion being legal or illegal, but the lawful ramifications of declaring abortion as the unlawful termination of human life and what that would mean for women who had miscarriages. This is a huge fault in my rationale.

I would like for abortions to be kept legal for women who need them, as I do consider this an exemption. If a woman's life is in direct danger from pregnancy, then her rights trump that of her growing baby. Doctors often make the decision to save one life and end another (the word for this particular event escapes me right now but I'll remember it later) - this would be no different.

[Rahul]

Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Personhood is a matter of philosophical consideration and has no basis in scientific fact. A human ebryo is a human life. It isn't beetle. It isn't a monkey. We can't get past the 'life begins at conception' argument like a previous poster asked, because we have one camp claiming that an embryo is not a human life, and another camp claiming it is.

The dividing line between pro-life and pro-choice is that of sentience/personhood. You can't stake a scientific claim in this, because as I said, it is a philosophical question.

Unless anyone here is able to prove to me that an embryo is not human and not alive, your arguments fall on deaf ears. I don't care about personal conjecture. I care about facts.

A freshly severed human finger is a human "life". It isn't beetle. It isn't a monkey. Living human cells going about their normal processes. And it all contains human DNA.

Unless anyone here is able to prove to me that a freshly severed human finger is not human and not alive, your arguments fall on deaf ears.

I really wish you'd fire those ears up. Because my argument is sound.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Scientists also define a tomato as a fruit. That doesn't mean a tomato smoothie will taste great.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Personhood is a matter of philosophical consideration and has no basis in scientific fact. A human ebryo is a human life. It isn't beetle. It isn't a monkey. We can't get past the 'life begins at conception' argument like a previous poster asked, because we have one camp claiming that an embryo is not a human life, and another camp claiming it is.

The dividing line between pro-life and pro-choice is that of sentience/personhood. You can't stake a scientific claim in this, because as I said, it is a philosophical question.

Unless anyone here is able to prove to me that an embryo is not human and not alive, your arguments fall on deaf ears. I don't care about personal conjecture. I care about facts.
.

The sections I bolded contradict each other.

[Slave]

@Rahul: I already addressed your argument in a previous post, but you either missed it or don't care to discuss it with me further. I will dig up my post if you like, or you can look for it yourself, just ask.

@Jesus: How does it contradict exactly? The first sentence says I am not interested in arguments of personhood because it is a philosophical question. The second sentence you bolded says the same thing, worded differently. Can you explain how they are different?

---

I'll just copy and paste the part where I addressed your finger analogy Rahul, to save confusion, as I did not quote you directly:

An embryo displays all signs of life. As for reproduction, while an embryo cannot reproduce, it has the genetic coding enabling it to reproduce. It is simply a matter of growth phases. Not all living plants are in a stage whereby they are able to reproduce, but they are still alive, just as an embryo is. It is a human life because it is a human embryo. This is just common sense. The embryo is a single entity, separate from the mother, complete with a full genetic code and human DNA. Therefore it is a human life.

The fingernail argument is lame and fails to take into account genetic determinism. A baby has a heart, lungs, fingernails, eyelashes and a circulatory system. The blastocyst you had none of these things, and yet the blastocyst you is exactly that collection of cells that gave rise to all those specialized parts of the baby that eventually got born. Fingernails do not an embryo make.

[fr0d0]

Aborting a fetus is terminating a human life. That's not up for discussion. It's the current scientific claim.

It's a current scientific claim. And it's not the most widely agreed upon claim either.

I'm afraid it is.

We've provided sources. Your claim is unsubstantiated. If I'm wrong, that's great. But I wish everyone nothing of would actually back up their claim. We've waited this whole thread and nothing yet. Please put up or shut up.

---

Brain = person.
No brain = not a person.

Can we please put the "well, technically it's a human life" argument to rest?

What does the first paragraph have to do with the 2nd?

Who is interested in what constitutes a person that is arguing with you?

A zygote + is a human life
A person is a human life at a later stage of development

---

Genetically my severed finger is a Homo sapiens.

But it's not a person. It's just biological material with Homo sapiens DNA.

person person person person person person

How many times are you going to knock down your own argument before you start addressing the point?

[rexbeccarox]

What sources? What science? I still haven't seen any, and you've failed to address the many people who have asked you, so here I am again: What sources? What science?

[fr0d0]

Natural abortions occur for very good reason in a lot of cases. None of these concern me because no human decided to abort them.

And there is quite a bit of investment in IVF etc.

Fuck yeah they are. For GOOD REASONS.

Manually done abortions are done for good reasons too. For damn good reasons.

It's not flippant for a woman to elect abortion. It's not casual. It's done for very good fucking reasons. A woman would never do it otherwise.

I'm looking around here for the person that you're arguing with.

Surely you've seen me state in this thread my support for your side of this argument? Yet you seem to be aiming this answer at me?