A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

What if.. we could extract the embryo (or zygote, a day or two afer conception, when it has attached itself to the wall of the uterus) from its unwilling Mother...and then insert it into an artificial womb? Then there would be no need for any abortion. It's technologically imaginable, if not yet feasible.

Heinous. Irrational fantasy. Irrelevantly digressive.

Typical pro-abortionist -- always thinking of new reasons to put women under the knife!

What a monstrosity of an idea, that only a man would think up.

And only a pro-abortionist would think of ripping a newly conceived person from that person's natural habitat.

People who have sex know that a perhaps unintended consequence of having sex is getting pregnant, no matter how much one attempts not to become pregnant.

If a woman is unwilling to carry her offspring to birth, then it is better that she not take the risk of becoming "unwilling", because then if she commits murderous abortion instead, she will not only be murdering someone, but her own offspring, and she will thereby be scarred for life.

Better is to continue to push pharmaceutical companies to finish developing the new state-of-the art conception prevention pharmacology that lops off the tails of sperm so they can't penetrate an egg and that hardens the shell of released eggs to prevent penetration -- complete safe, locallly acting, reversible and 100% effective conception prevention pharmaceuticals, near to market, that are a potential reality now.

The main reason these pharmaceuticals have not been brought to market is because the pro-abortionists and religious anti-abortionists, strange bedfellows that they may be, are stumping together against development of these products, threatening boycott of all those companies products if those companies bring this new and better conception prevention pharmacology to market ...

... Because the pro-abortionists fear supporting true conception prevention pharmaceuticals will highlight the reason for those products, to protect the right to life of the newly conceived, and also that such products will render abortion an anachronism, thus making it easier to repeal Roe v Wade ...

... And because the religious anti-abortionists fear that these new 100% effective-delivery-method products will easily facilitate sexual pomiscuity among teens and young adults that the previous threat of occasional pregnancy used to limit.

Those of us who are true pro-life support these products, because these products will put an end to murderous abortion.

That is the right way to go.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

A zygote has no nervous system. But that is a poisonous statement with some on this board.

Inexact. Irrelevant.

The truth of the matter is that the fact that a zygote has no nervous system is an irrelevant statement with some on this board.

And it is irrelevant because the presense of a nervous system does not define personhood or human being status.

Science defines personhood, human being status, as that status which exists at the moment of conception.

That's all the classification that is needed.

Any attempts to add additional unjustified classification ... is pure sophistry designed to irrationalize murderous abortion.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

That begs the question. Just what is common sense? Should laws be founded strictly on ideology even though it causes hardships for a large segment of the population?

Erroneous argument. Reversed unintentionally.

The truth of the matter is that the pro-abortionist moral relativist utilitarian ideology is the basis for the Roe v Wade erroneous interpretation which has created deadly hardship for millions and millions of newly conceived people -- no other hardship even begins to compare with that.

Indeed, this is egregiously wrong.

Roe v Wade should rightly be struck down immediately.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

According to you, an adult female human being has less rights to her own body than a zygote that does not yet have a nervous system and cannot form a single thought.

Erroneous. Misinterpretation. Purposeful misconstruence.

The truth of the matter is that a zygote (a person, a unique individual human being) has the same three general classes of rights as that person's mother: the right to life, the right to security of person, and the right to freedom of action, in that order of hierarchical application.

Thus the right to life is paramount and foundational, and cannot be overriden by another's appeal to freedom of action.

So the mother cannot commit murderous abortion on appeal to convenience or anything else short of in self-defense of a real threat on her own life at the hands of her pre-natal offspring.

That's according to the realities of rights I've linked you to many times.

You really need to read that so that you'll stop making embarrassingly false statements like the one I've quoted here.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

Sam I think that is what this whole debate is essentially about - the absolute determination of individuals or groups of individuals to control the implications of sex and sexual activity without right or recourse back to the individual concerned.

False.

This thread is about the right to life of newly conceived people, as the title and substantive content of the opening post make undeniably clear.

That utilitarian moral relativists may feel "controlled" in their sexual activity is just their way of saying they don't want to hear about the reality of murderous abortion.

That people will have to change their relationship behaviors to stop murdering people via abortion is merely an incidental ... and I, for one, argue for bringing to market the new state-of-the-art pharmaceuticals that are 100% effective in preventing conception, so that ultimately people won't have to restrain their sexual activity forever.

This debate is, however, very much like that debate that existed back in Galileo's time, when those who supported science clearly presented that the Earth revolved around the Sun, but the vast majority of old guard religious couldn't accept what this new discovery meant, and so they denied the reality of it vehemently, even to the point of doing harm to the messengers.

Today, those of us who recognize what science has made undeniably clear -- that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception -- have embraced all that that means and are ready to progress boldly into the future in support of the newly conceived's right to life ...

... Whereas the old guard pro-abortionists are taking on the role of the religious in their ideology-based denial of the obvious reality validated by science, and they do so vehmently, even to the point of denigrating the messengers who rightly educate them on the reality of murderous abortion.

 

[Chip]

Yes, Scotsman, and in which case, as in most cases where humans have differing opinions, it behooves us to try to find some sort of reasoned middle ground between individual rights and the rights of the state, preferably without doing too much bodily harm to each other.

Irrelevant. Sophistry.

If the topic was the murder of post-natals you wouldn't be so quick to look for "middle ground" to make it more difficult for the state to prevent and prosecute such murders that do "too much bodily harm".

But, because it is inconvenient for you to accept the decades-old scientific reality that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, you thereby attempt to sophistrically approve of murderous abortion.



Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

And your logo is totally right, we are all a little bit full of bull.

Implied ad hominem.

Here you deliberately implicitly attack those of us who recognize the existence and right to life of newly conceived people as being "full of bull" in an erroneous guilt by association inference.

Just because you're a sophister, does not make your debate adversaries sophisters.

Your irrational illogic and veiled ad hominem attack is recognized and rejected.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[palerider]

According to you, an adult female human being has less rights to her own body than a zygote that does not yet have a nervous system and cannot form a single thought.

So here we go. At last you have dropped all pretense of rational argument and have jumped headlong into emotionalism.

When a clash of rights exists between individuals, the rights of one must always give way to the more fundamental right of the other. That is simply how our legal system works whether you like it or not. I don't know how many times I have posted the words from the roe decision itself that acknowledge this fact of our system, but I will post them again so that you can see that your argument carries no weight at all.

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. "

No less than the supreme court itself has answered your question. Yes, the child's right to live takes precedence over any right that a woman may invoke except the right to self defense should her life be in imminent danger. The lack of cases noted in the second highlight no longer exists. There is a large, and growing body of case law that does answer the question of the personhood of the unborn. The simple fact is that both science and the law have caught up with roe and the handwriting that Justice Blackmun saw on the wall when he wrote the majority decision way back when has come to pass.

This is a simple matter of science and the law. Even if science weren't settled on the issue, the law is. There is undeniable and irrefutable case law today that holds that the unborn are persons within not only the law, but the meaning of the 14th amendment. There are people in prison today who are there having been found guilty separately and specifically of both murder and manslaughter in the death of an unborn child. In th is country, you can't even be charged, much less tried, convicted, and sentenced for any sort of homicide unless you have, in fact, killed a person.

 

[palerider]

Sam I think that is what this whole debate is essentially about - the absolute determination of individuals or groups of individuals to control the implications of sex and sexual activity without right or recourse back to the individual concerned.

Then you are ignoring the argument put forward entirely. This is about an entire class of human beings being denied their most basic human rights. An entire class who may be killed without legal review and without legal consequence for any, or no reason.

Do feel free to point to any part of the argument that suggests anything other than an argument to protect the most basic rights of an entire class of human beings. The claim that this is about controlling the sexual activity of adults is no more than your own strawman. But do feel free to bring forward any argument that indicates that you are right.

 

[palerider]

Yes, Scotsman, and in which case, as in most cases where humans have differing opinions, it behooves us to try to find some sort of reasoned middle ground between individual rights and the rights of the state, preferably without doing too much bodily harm to each other.

And your logo is totally right, we are all a little bit full of bull.

40 million dead and counting. Clearly there is no middle ground. Would you have suggested that the death camps of stalin, lenin, hitler, pol pot, or mao remain open and fully operational while some "middle ground" were sought between those who were killing and those who were being killed?

And there is "bull" present, but you need to look to those who are unable to support their argument if you want to find it. Hint: check the mirror.

 

[The Scotsman]

Then you are ignoring the argument put forward entirely. This is about an entire class of human beings being denied their most basic human rights. An entire class who may be killed without legal review and without legal consequence for any, or no reason.

Hi mate - as tricky as these issues are I don't see it in exactly those black and white terms. I guess I'm thinking of it in terms of definition and in terms of cirumstances rather than religious, political or social idealogical dogma. For example you mentioned "human rights" which is a recent concept and seems to be a moveable feast - today's human rights may not be the same as tomorrow. Likewise religious or social positions change etc etc.. However, the will of the individual is exactly that; private and personal. Circumstances dictate the decisions (in the context of this discussion) an individual makes and people ain't perfect and make mistakes. So you may say "Why make an unborn child pay for those mistakes!" Well thats a hard enough choice for the woman but it is her body and she should at least have control over that.

Chip quite rightly mentioned contraception and I would absolutely agree with his point that contraception is preferable to abortion - no argument! But again sometimes it doesn't work out like that - life is hard and sometimes difficult choices have to be made. I personally feel that the only one that can make such a deeply defining decision is the woman herself.

Do feel free to point to any part of the argument that suggests anything other than an argument to protect the most basic rights of an entire class of human beings.

....yes well.... I think that the arguments put forward so far are admirable and indeed quite agree with the current laws as they stand. I think those have been proposed and argued by people far more eloquent than I.

The claim that this is about controlling the sexual activity of adults is no more than your own strawman.

.... Frankly Sir, its as good a reason as using religious dogma or human rights etc. etc. to buttress a personal oppion for those in favour of the right to life.

 

[palerider]

Hi mate - as tricky as these issues are I don't see it in exactly those black and white terms. I guess I'm thinking of it in terms of definition and in terms of cirumstances rather than religious, political or social idealogical dogma.

How many other "classes" throughout history have been systematically denied their most basic rights and murdered using the same sophistry? Do feel free to name another "circumstance" in which one human may kill another for any or no reason without judicial review or legal consequence. Surely, there must be more than one circumstance where one individual may kill another for reasons as trivial as "circumstance". If not, then it is you who is making an argument that arises from dogma. Dogma being defined as A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum. If you can offer up some credible evidence to support your argument, perhaps you can prove that it doesn't arise from dogma.

For example you mentioned "human rights" which is a recent concept and seems to be a moveable feast - today's human rights may not be the same as tomorrow.

Human rights are not new. Human rights are as old as humanity. Respecting and protecting human rights may be a concept that is only a few hundred years old, but rights and the protection of rights are two different things.

Likewise religious or social positions change etc etc.. However, the will of the individual is exactly that; private and personal.

The will of one individual stops being personal and private the moment that will encroaches on the rights of another. That line of thinkinking is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question and simply assumes that the will of the mother does not encroach on another human being.

Circumstances dictate the decisions (in the context of this discussion) an individual makes and people ain't perfect and make mistakes. So you may say "Why make an unborn child pay for those mistakes!" Well thats a hard enough choice for the woman but it is her body and she should at least have control over that.

I am still waiting for you to name another such "circumstance" in which one individual may kill another with no judicial review and no legal consequence for any, or no reason.

Chip quite rightly mentioned contraception and I would absolutely agree with his point that contraception is preferable to abortion - no argument! But again sometimes it doesn't work out like that - life is hard and sometimes difficult choices have to be made. I personally feel that the only one that can make such a deeply defining decision is the woman herself.

Well of course not killing an innocent individual is preferable to killing an innocent individual. BUT!! That is where your argument breaks down in both principle and practice. The only valid reason for one individual to kill another is self defense.

....yes well.... I think that the arguments put forward so far are admirable and indeed quite agree with the current laws as they stand. I think those have been proposed and argued by people far more eloquent than I.

...yes well... Is that code for saying that you can indeed find no argument that suggests anything other than an argument to protect human rights, but will dogmatically hold to your original accusation anyway?

Except, of course, for the fact that no laws currently stand. A court case currently stands and a court case that was decided on a flawed and obviously incorrect assumption. A court case in which the justices admitted that they were making a decision in a state of uncertainty that violated both their ethical and judicial responsibilities to never decide a case in a state of uncertainty when great harm could result.

Do you believe that "eloquence" equates to right? If you can't rationally defend a position, no amount of eloquence will make the decision a good one.

.... Frankly Sir, its as good a reason as using religious dogma or human rights etc. etc. to buttress a personal oppion for those in favour of the right to life.

No actual argument huh? Not to worry, a great many have come before you who also, in the end, had no actual argument in defense of that position. The fact of human rights is not a personal opinion. It is enshrined in our founding documents and the constitution. Your position is clearly one of opinion and opinion that is entirely unsupportable.

I suppose I can vaguely understand holding a position that you can't rationally support. What I don't understand is the mindset that would suggest that it is reasonable to voice it in public. Surely, you have to know that you will be challenged, and you have to kow that your answer will not be rational. Why even voice it if you know that you are going to end up looking somewhat foolish for so adamantly arguing a position that you can't rationally defend?

 

[samsara15]

Rational is apparently whatever you or Chip define it to be, it appears. Whatever anyone else finds rational will be rejected by you unless it conforms with what you think. Shall we discuss the meaning of the word 'is'?

 

[Dr.Who]

No. I agree with the current abortion rulings. I was more interested in the abstract ideological arguments that killing an unborn at any stage was murder. I wanted to establish a clear point that wasn't muddied by how many cells it takes to consider it murder. I was being very conservatively ideological.

And you did well as far as that when. Unfortunately knocking out one of many counterarguments does not really help us to make a determination.

Sadly we just do not know exactly when one becomes a person. Anyone who steadfastly insists that we do is in error. Which is of course why I would err on the side of caution and choose not too kill many living humans that just may be persons (and in just a few days do lack none of the characteristics that other persons don't also lack) rather than to err on the side of an unproven theory that they are not. I certainly would not kill them those few more days later when they actually have all the characteristics that others have with the somewhat unimportant exception of breathing gaseous oxygen rather than oxygen in solution.

Erring on the side of caution is part of our system of jurisprudence that makes our country great.

 

[Dr.Who]

According to you, an adult female human being has less rights to her own body than a zygote that does not yet have a nervous system and cannot form a single thought.

An adult human female, who almost certainly put herself in that situation by her own choices, and whos right to privacy is in jeopardy just until she gives birth should be given less consideration than the right to life of any living human being. Her less important right would be restricted temporarily in favor of the babies more important right to life which would be completely eliminated permanently.

We can of course be compassionate toward her and help her as much as possible. We do not need to enable her to kill her baby any more than we enable her to kill her neighbor when his rights conflict with hers.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sam I think that is what this whole debate is essentially about - the absolute determination of individuals or groups of individuals to control the implications of sex and sexual activity without right or recourse back to the individual concerned.

Translation:

If women who get pregnant are not allowed to kill babies then sex won't be as free and easy.

Which is of course false since we have the ability to prevent pregnancies very easily and the only reason some people do not take the due caution they should is because they have an escape clause. Take away abortion and people will still be sexually free they just won't forget to take their pills.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, Scotsman, and in which case, as in most cases where humans have differing opinions, it behooves us to try to find some sort of reasoned middle ground between individual rights and the rights of the state, preferably without doing too much bodily harm to each other.

And your logo is totally right, we are all a little bit full of bull.

Which right of the state are you talking about? The right of the state to stop people from killing one another? Unless you plan to stop the state from outlawing any killing of other humans then this does not hold water. As long as the state protects the rights of some to their life then it should protect the rights of all to their rights.