South Dakota Banned Abortion - Page 3

If you believe that life begins at conceptionat that point when an egg is fertilizedthen you must therefore be opposed to the ways that fertility clinics produce loads and loads of fertilized eggs knowing that they will be discarded or lost. Artificial insemination and in vitro are both proscribed by the Church for this reason.

If you believe that life begins at conception, do you oppose these two methods of fertility treatment as well as abortion?

Chris, is a fertilized egg in a petri dish a life or not?

When IVF is used to CREATE a WANTED life that might otherwise be impossible to CREATE, more than one egg is fertilized, because the likelihood of fertilization, and of the subsequent attachment to the uterus is very, very small. For this reason, IVF results in hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs in petri dishes being discarded.

So knowing that, I'm assuming you're against IVF, right? Since to you a fertilized egg is a life, right?

It's not that difficult a concept, so I'm dismayed by your confusion smiley. Is our education system and our acceptance of self-imposed ignorance really that bad that you still don't understand?

This reminds me of the concept of logical contradictions causing computers to crash, etc. My favorite example of this is the "Robot Santa" episode of Futurama where Fry believes that a contradiction of logic would cause Robot Santa's brain to explode. Of course, we all know what happened. Santa faked a malfunction then laughed at Fry's stupidity. Why? Because Santa didn't have to adhere to logic. Just as Anti-abortion rights zealots who support IVF don't have to adhere to logic.

In fact there are no logical contradictions. If one appears to exist, then one of the premises that conflict must be false.

Either life begins at conception or it's doesn't.

If it does, then it's no more acceptable for a zygote to be discarded in an IVF lab than it is for one to be flushed out with RU486 or aborted in early pregnancy.

If it's okay to discard the unused zygotes in a fertility lab, or to use them in such a way that the majority will die as a result, then by logical deduction, it's okay to abort a zygote from the womb.

Taking this one step further, an egg cell has the potential to become a child, so are the million and millions of sperm men create everyday. Are those life?

Are only diploid totipotent cells life? Or are we to consider the haploid germ cells life? What do we do about masturbation, or gasp the monthly flow?

There are cells in your body that are totipotent, by taking antibiotics or analgesics, or drinking you are killing those cells. If it is totipotent cells (those that can become a full fledged human) that are the important biological material, we should outlaw consumption of all but the blandest foods and all drugs...

Where do you draw the line?

What about a mother's right to abort her 2 year old? Should the Supreme Court grant this right? Yes? if so why? No? if not why?

What about a mother's right to abort her 6 month old? Should the Supreme Court grant this right? Yes? if so why? No? if not why?

What if an unwanted pregnancy is carried to term and the son or daughter is born and yet remains all the same "unwanted" do parents have the state granted right to "abort" kill / murder / put down the born child?

I mean after all Northgate you yourself said:

"It is my experience (through my sister-in-law's social services career) that a majority of unwanted children thrown into the social services programs do not become productive, responsible adults."

I can't believe you think that way quite frankly.....

What about the father's right to NOT support a born child re: financial budren? Can a father opt out of having to be "responsible" ?


CNN Law story pertaining to this

Fellowship

Stop before being a smart-ass...I was unclear by the wording of mid's question. He cleared it up in his next post.

I am not familiar with the details of the process, but by this description of it, I would think so, yes.

Abortion is a process that takes place before the child is born, Dale.

Ignorance is no reason for lack of moral clarity.

It would seem so, yes.


Sure.


Yep.


Correct.

Really? Had no idea of that....

I wish progressives were not so back woods on this issue.

Fellowship

Then Chris, you don't support reproductively challenged couples to pursue means to have their own genetic children?

OK then. Anyone have any statistics on the number of fertilized eggs being killed in IVF and AI procedures on a daily basis? With state funding? And state blessing?

Anyone have a comparison of that to the number of abortions on a daily basis?

And good on you, Chris, for being consistent in this. I can respect that. So can Thomas Hardy:

"[The dog] had done his work so thoroughly that he was considered too good a workman to live, and was, in fact, taken and tragically shot at twelve o'clock that same day -- another instance of the untoward fate which so often attends dogs and other philosophers who follow out a train of reasoning to its logical conclusion, and attempt perfectly consistent conduct in a world made up so largely of compromise."

Why not give me your thoughts on the post I posted.

how about having a child killed when it is unwanted?

Sound cool to you?

If not why not?

Please explain why that idea is of some concern to you.

Fellowship

I wish that Christian devotees would just admit that life doesn't begin until the connection between mother and infant is severed.

Before that, the fetus has no viable way of surviving without the mother and is simply an extension of her body, conceptually and medically. After that ANY member of society can care for the child, but this does not occur before a child is born.

Read my above post... I was waiting for your response.

To be honest, we have social structures that can care for an infant, we don't have social structures that can care for a fetus. Hence, the break is when the break occurs with the mother and not before.

You've said enough

I see where your head is.

Fellowship

I don't have to sacrifice my ideals for every special occurrence out there. If a women is raped, its fine for her to have an abortion, as much as it is fine for a women who had a few too many drinks and forgot to insist that her boyfriend wear a condom, as much as it is fine for a woman who's life is at risk from carrying a fetus to term, as much as it is fine for a woman whose financial or social situation precludes her from giving her child a proper life, as much as it is fine for a woman whose drug use habits haven't been quelched by the time she gets pregnant, as much as it is fine for a woman who makes the choice for reasons we all feel are completely self-serving.

The thing is, that they should have the choice.

Abortion is not a contraceptive.

You want to stop abortions, teach about birth control; look at who is getting abortions. It isn't the rich New Yorkers, those who will be able to fly to europe or go to canada if they ever find themselves in those situations if abortion is outlawed, who are having the vast majority of abortions... It is people who don't have the means or knowledge to obtain contraceptives who are getting the abortions... the young women in the poor urban and rural areas of the US.

As BRussell pointed out, I don't think there is a single rational person who doesn't want abortions to decrease... We all have this concept that there are people having abortions out there because they can and not because their backs are pressed to wall. But what if most or all of the people who have abortions do have their backs against the wall and ARE using them as a last resort? Making them illegal won't decrease their numbers.

While I disagree with your opinion I respect your right to it fully.

I just wish you would not refer to me via terms which degrade me due to my faith.

I mean when we get down to it we are all just for the most part good people trying to do what is right.

I used the term progressive yet not in a bad light in my posts.

You use certain language to paint me in a bad light because you disagree with me.

In the mean time you defend poorly your stance while casting your light on christians that all christians are against birth control.

I am not for one. So why not leave me a little room outside of putting me in a box.

Fellows

You will have to work with me you all.

Please consider that I am a Christian yet I am not against condem distribution when students request them. I am not against sex education. You know Jerry Springer said it best on one of his radio shows on air america, he said that not having sex and waiting until marriage is the ultimate best option to prevent unwanted pregnant situations just as Peace is the ultimate wish between nation and nation. But we still have the military in case 1st most optimal wish fails to win over. His point is that kids while we wish they would abstain from sex until later in life is wishful but if it fails to be this way let us please help these young people at least have birth control.

I understand and agree with his point.

Also please work with me because I consider myself a progressive yet I find nothing progressive about defending abortion outside of cases that threaten the life of the mother.


As a Christian and a progressive I hold some views that are not mainstream in each respective grouping.

I would hope that this is accaptable.

I think the way I do and all I ask is for a minimum level of respect as I respect you all.

No matter our differences over matters.

Fellows

I apologize Fellowship...

I have edited my post.

No harm done my friend.

Thank you

Fellows

Fellows, do you think that if not for your religious influence, you would find a moral objection to the abortion of a first trimester embryo? Why?

In other words, if you hadn't been told by your church (or any church, or your parents, teachers, president or whatever) that life begins at conception, is that what you would believe as a scientist?

How can we balance out the rights of potential life (or undeveloped life) with the rights of a developed human being when those rights find themselves at odds? Are the rights of one more valuable than the rights of the other? Which one? Why?

If you support IVF then why, if you believe that life begins at conception?

If you do not support IVF, then do you not think you are restricting the right to a fertility challenged couple to
have a family? Can that be balanced out with the rights of that unborn embryo? Which is more important? Why?

What exceptions do you believe should be made for abortion? Rape? Incest? Health of the mother? None?

My point is that even if you do believe that an unborn embryo has rights, all rights must be weighed and compared when those rights clash. In my opinion, the right of the woman is always more important than the right of an unborn embryo. It doesn't matter whether I think that embryo is a life or not. I think the woman's rights are far more important. You disagree.

The knee-jerk reaction is to say that all life has absolute protection against being ended. That can only be true if nothing but life not being ended is an absolute right. This would mean that in circumstnaces where a life is even 1% at risk, then it would be preferable to, for instance torture somebody. Or enslave somebody. Or kill an adult to save a petri dish (as you're balancing one life against many).

In such cases, not only can you make comparisons in the value of a life, you must, if you want to solve this sort of problem.

Now ask yourself... a woman has been raped and has become pregnant. How valuable is her right to not carry the product of that trauma for nine months, then bear the pain of the birth? Less valuable than the right of that embryo?

A woman's true boyfriend believes in the withdrawal method. Without the support of her boyfriend, she would be homeless, so she feels forced to accept his preference to not use a condom, or she will have to live on the street. She also knows that he would dump her if she got pregnant. An accidental pregnancy occurs. How much right does she have to choose to not carry that child to term, thus preserving her livelihood?

You can keep asking questions like this. And when you do, you're assigning an arbitrary value to the life of that embryo.

Personally, I think an unwanted embryo falls very low on the rights scale. In any case, it's not my opinion on the matter that's important, it's the woman's. And if she thinks her embryo is less important than her bank account, then she has the right to think so, and make the appropriate decision. If she thinks the embryo is more important than her own life, she has the right to die in labour, if that's what she wants to do. The point is, it's neither for me, or you to judge.

That's the basic concept of free choice.

Well put, and I agree with you. You can't just stop with an analysis of the unborn. You also have to consider that if you outlaw abortion, you're forcing pregnant women to give birth against their will. There must be a moral dimension to that as well.

Now get off the computer and go out and get that spiderman costume on!

Not at all. Folks in power who are so gung-ho on their "pro life" stance and pass laws supposedly to protect an organism that cannot survive outside its mother, will even lie to the population to justify a "shock and awe" attack which kills tens of thousands of blameless strangers overseas, or execute people by lethal injection or electrocution. This is about moral consistency, and considering that the majority of those who (for example) authorized the Iraq attack and support the death penalty are "pro-life" Christians, their stand on life and death is peculiar, to say the least.

And proves that a claim that they believe all life to have an absolute right not to be ended would be impossible to support.

Now if they extend that even further, as they do to justify the death penalty, that all innocent life has that absolute right, then how do they justify collateral damage? Answer: they can't.

That's where they make themselves look like hypocrites.

(I'm not talking about you, Fellows. I'm pretty sure you oppose the death penalty as well as the war.)

tonton,

-posted by tonton-
"A woman's true boyfriend believes in the withdrawal method. Without the support of her boyfriend, she would be homeless, so she feels forced to accept his preference to not use a condom, or she will have to live on the street. She also knows that he would dump her if she got pregnant. An accidental pregnancy occurs. How much right does she have to choose to not carry that child to term, thus preserving her livelihood?"

tonton if you can answer the following questions which I believe really need answers badly then I can one by one respond to each and every one of your questions and I will be happy to freely. I truly believe the questions I ask here need answers and as of yet nobody here has answered them. Can you?

(when I say "abort" in the following two questions I mean have her child put to sleep / killed.)

What about a mother's right to abort her 2 year old? Should the Supreme Court grant this right? Yes? if so why? No? if not why?

What about a mother's right to abort her 6 month old? Should the Supreme Court grant this right? Yes? if so why? No? if not why?

What if an unwanted pregnancy is carried to term and the son or daughter is born and yet remains all the same "unwanted" do parents have the state granted right to "abort" kill / murder / put down the born child?

-The following intended originally as reply to Northgate-
I mean after all Northgate you yourself said:

"It is my experience (through my sister-in-law's social services career) that a majority of unwanted children thrown into the social services programs do not become productive, responsible adults."

I can't believe you think that way quite frankly.....

What about the father's right to NOT support a born child re: financial budren? Can a father opt out of having to be "responsible" ?


CNN Law story pertaining to this

Fellowship

If the child is suffering in agaonizing pain from a terminal illness, or is in a permanent vegitative state with complete brain death and no chance of recovery, then absolutely! Otherwise, of course not. This is a living, breathing being, with connected synapses and a completely operational nervous system. The right of this child that no one, not the majority nor any minority doesn't belive is a child, is more important than any reason the woman might have to kill that child.


Same as above. This is a living baby with connected synapses, a fully developed nervous system, etc.



Same as above. This is a living baby with connected synapses, a nervous system, etc.


Actually, the unwanted fetus shouldn't have been carried past the first trimester. But if it is carried past the first trimester, it should go into adoption at birth. Then it will never enter the social services programs because all healthy newborns can find adoptive parents. Unfortunately, many mothers without the means to raise a child change their mind during pregnancy or after birth, and they try to raise the child they may not have originally wanted. Sometimes they fail. And that's when Social Services takes over. Shouldn't have happened. If she wanted to abort during the first trimester, she should have. Social opposition to the intelligent choice may have caused her to make the wrong decision. The situation would be even worse if first trimester abortion were made illegal.


They often do, even after the child is born! Why? Because the mother by nature is the default parent, and by psychology is also the most attached. But if a woman gets pregnant, it is her choice whether to have the child or not. The guy should have used a condom. If the condom broke he should honor the wishes of the woman. If she put holes in the condom then there's something screwed up about the whole situation, but sorry, guy, you're going to be held responsible.


Thanks, Fellows!

But no one is talking about those things here. This is derailment.

"They"

"They"

"They"



Let's talk in specifics. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore, just as someone earlier claimed that "no one is pro abortion"...I think it would be fair to say that no one really WANTS to go to war...but sometimes (albeit incorrectly) see it as a necessary step to defend a greater number of lives. But again...we are derailing here. Saying that abortion == dealth penalty == collateral damage in war is a weak and disingenous argument. Yes they are all human deaths. They they are all man-induced. But there are notable differences (and these differences are worth understanding and exploring). But I truly suspect a new thread ought to be created for that discussion.

Very interesting. A different set of rules for men and women.

This is where I start getting upset with people crying about generalizations.


We can't have a political party for every single individual in this country. So given the setup we have, it's perfectly acceptable to say Republicans and/or Conservatives are anti-abortion/pro-life and pro-capital punishment. It is what the PARTY stands for.

They are generalizing their own base, so why is it then unfair for outsiders to point to the very same hypocritical generalizations they ascribe to themselves and say "Hey, wtf?"

Oh...we're talking about a certain organizational entity. I thought we were talking about general views on the subject of abortion. Fine. Point out inconsistencies all you want. However...know this...doing so is really just a variant of the ad hominem fallacy.

I think you mean hasty generalization.

Actually, no...I meant ad hominem tu quoque.

It seems that the "all people who are 'pro-life' are also 'pro-death penalty'" thing better fits the pattern of the hasty generalization fallacy. Wouldn't you agree?

Ad hominem tu quoque (inconsistency variety) would be "YOU believe in the death penalty but you are anti abortion, therefore you can be dismissed."

What's going on here is not "to the man"; it's a generalization about a group based on a potentially non-representative sample.

Edit: To which I should add, I don't particularly care much about what fallacy is where. It's a distraction, usually.

I think it is a mix of both.

It begins with the generalization, which is used as as springboard to the place where the (assumption of) inconsistency is used to discredit the person's argument by discrediting the person. It is a clever "1-2 punch"...but still fallacious.


I disagree. While this is not a formal debate society here. These fallacies are distractions, but for a different reason than I think you mean. The use of them distracts from having a (reasonably) productive "debate" on the central issue.

EDIT:

P.S. Perhaps we should have a debate on debate. New thread.

See? That's why I say it's a distraction; you wind up arguing about whether or not someone has used a fallacy.

To which I should add: anyone here who likes folk/roots/singer-songwriter music should rush immediately and buy the soundtrack to Elizabethtown.

Oh My GOD.

Is it even possible to get further from the issue that where this has ended?