if the child was born and BOTH mother and child were killed, the child after its birth, it was a double murder.
if the mother only was killed and the thing (baby) was not born yet, it was a simple / single murder. if it's not born yet, it's not a person, it's just a part of the mother.
As far as the Supreme Court ruling (which is the one I know the best, and that still isn't perfect), the idea is that the protection of the Consitution refers to citizens, and they've interpreted that as meaning someone who is already born. Whether it's moral or not seems to be besides the point.
if the child was born and BOTH mother and child were killed, the child after its birth, it was a double murder.
if the mother only was killed and the thing (baby) was not born yet, it was a simple / single murder. if it's not born yet, it's not a person, it's just a part of the mother.
The baby is never part of the mother. An unborn child has his own nervous system, blood supply, etc. Mother and child do not even share blood but nutrients, oxygen, etc. cross the boundary from one blood supply to the other. The baby is "enveloped" in his mother's body, not part of it. He depends on his mother for his existence, but that doesn't change much after birth either, especially if the woman is nursing. A nursing child not only depends on his mother for nutrition but also piggybacks on her immune system and takes emotional cues from her.
The baby is "enveloped" in his mother's body, not part of it. He depends on his mother for his existence, but that doesn't change much after birth either, especially if the woman is nursing.
This is flatly untrue. Virtually all babies can survive without their mothers after they are born. Virtually none of them can survive without the mother as a feteus.
The baby is never part of the mother. An unborn child has his own nervous system, blood supply, etc. Mother and child do not even share blood but nutrients, oxygen, etc. cross the boundary from one blood supply to the other. The baby is "enveloped" in his mother's body, not part of it. He depends on his mother for his existence, but that doesn't change much after birth either, especially if the woman is nursing. A nursing child not only depends on his mother for nutrition but also piggybacks on her immune system and takes emotional cues from her.
if it is an individual, it lives indipendently and does not take nutrients etc from mother, and is not dependent on mother in any sense etc... i don't consider the fetuses as persons or individuals before they are born. it has its own nervous systems, blood supplies etc, but it takes all its energy from its mum (like some intestinal worms ... it takes from the host without harming it to dead and without being of any use for the host. sorry i don't remember the right word for this type or animals, plants etc).
I only mean the whole abortion debate in general. Scientifically speaking there is no denying that a abortion is murder. It's only a question on who controls a woman's body---rule of law or a gender's prerogative---it's a powerplay.
Which goes to the fundamental dishonesty of so much the abortion debate. If the ONLY consideration is a woman's control over her body then, of course, the pro-choice position would be the correct one. But it's not the only consideration, or at least it shouldn't be. Any serious discussion of abortion REQUIRES one to place in the balance the human life you are allowing to be destroyed.
This is flatly untrue. Virtually all babies can survive without their mothers after they are born. Virtually none of them can survive without the mother as a feteus.
And exactly how many children do you have? The newborn child cannot feed himself, change himself, heck he can't even find his own hands. "Survival" is more than breathing. A newborn learns how to suckle after birth. Some learn faster than others. One child was nursing five minutes after she was born. Another took about 10 hours.
Have you heard of "Failure to thrive?" An otherwise healthy child who does not get the emotional nourishment he needs will die.
If the only difference between an "infant" and a "fetus" is the child's placement relative to the womb, then your second part doesn't hold water--especially when you consider the survival rate of premature babies.
if it is an individual, it lives indipendently and does not take nutrients etc from mother, and is not dependent on mother in any sense etc... i don't consider the fetuses as persons or individuals before they are born. it has its own nervous systems, blood supplies etc, but it takes all its energy from its mum (like some intestinal worms ... it takes from the host without harming it to dead and without being of any use for the host. sorry i don't remember the right word for this type or animals, plants etc).
Then a newborn isn't a human being either especially if the woman is nursing. ". . . not dependent on mother in any sense . . . "well than none of us are human beings until about 20!
what i've struggled with is the idea that a few weeks time, and/or physical location would be the determining factors in whether or not someone should be considered a person.
what i've struggled with is the idea that a few weeks time, and/or physical location would be the determining factors in whether or not someone should be considered a person.
I think that is an error in the whole arguement. Honest and truly, I don't think you can draw a line based on physical development. From the moment of conception, the "collection of cells" is alive--it meets every criteria for "life." Believe me, if a sponge or an ameboe is alive, so is an embryo. And the DNA makes it human. It isn't a fish or a monkey or anything else; it is human DNA. And when you start demanding more criteria to defend that human life, then you endanger more than the unborn--the mentally retarded, those with birth defects or crippling diseases, etc.
The Romans (and they were not the only ones) used to place unwanted babies outside the city walls to die in the elements (so much for babies not needing their mothers). A parent (particularly the father) had the right of life or death over a child. And I think that is the moral crux of the issue. Regardless of the development of the embryo/fetus, the relationship is one of mother to child, a relationship that does not depend on cell count, physical ability, dependency, or even age. I am fully grown, but my mother is still my mother.
Thus, does a parent have the right to termininate the life of a child? Does the state have the "right" to give that "right" to a parent? The state may not take innocent life (theoretically), but may kill (execute) only those found guilt of certain crimes and under due process. But it may give a mother permission to do what it may not, which is take an innocent life?
I have been working on fleshing out this arguement for a while and would welcome honest criticism. (Flaming will be soundly ignored.)
I have always bought the "mother's choice" argument from the pro-choice side (though I am pro-choice I don't consider myself a part of the movement in any way, shape or form), but it seems like they are even abandoning that.
I can see no moral consistency in calling yourself pro-choice and saying the baby that was killed (and that's what it was) was a "thing" or an "it". What moral cowardice. What foolish idiocy.
The mother had no choice here, the only thing that legally absolves the murder of an unborn child is the mother's choice. That's it.
But so many people just trash their moral compass when they've chosen a side and it's more about winning than following what you actually think it's right.
That thing was named Conor.
We like to remove the personal aspect from the child because that makes it easier to rationalize the position. Are there any fellow pro-choicers out there who recognize that Peterson killed a human being?
We like to remove the personal aspect from the child because that makes it easier to rationalize the position. Are there any fellow pro-choicers out there who recognize that Peterson killed a human being?
i doubt it. most people don't weigh one person's right to end a pregnancy over a human life. hence the "it/thing" references. most people i know who believe that it's a human child are prolife.
although you have a unique perspective. i'd love to hear how/why you think that the choice in this case outweighs the life.
what i've struggled with is the idea that a few weeks time, and/or physical location would be the determining factors in whether or not someone should be considered a person.
Yes, I agree with you and alcimedes and zaphod (or whatever the hell his name is) that of course it's a human life and it's silly to try to find some specific point in time where it has a certain status. But that whole question is only looking at it from one side - the other side is that you're infringing on the rights of the mother if you outlaw abortion. The simple fact is that you have two conflicting, fundamental rights.
Adults have the right to life, but do you have the right to force someone else to give you a kidney transplant so that you will live? That's analogous to making abortion illegal, IMO. You're forcing someone to go through childbirth.
I agree that it's a flaw in the pro-choice side if they say "it's not a human life" or it has no status at all.
But IMO the flaw in the pro-lifer's argument is that they don't see that being pro-life by definition means that they want to infringe on the rights of the mom. And I think we can all agree that childbirth and pregnancy are pretty fundamental rights.
i doubt it. most people don't weigh one person's right to end a pregnancy over a human life. hence the "it/thing" references. most people i know who believe that it's a human child are prolife.
Nonsense. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't understand the importance of pre-natal development. Saying "it's a human life" is a straw man argument of the pro-life side - of course pro-choice people know it's a human life. They just don't believe that's determinative when you're also dealing with fundamental rights of the mom. I have the right to life, but I can't force you, another adult, to give me that life.
i'd love to hear how/why you think that the choice in this case outweighs the life.
In my mind the legal status of the child is decided by the mother. I am against all late-term (read: 3rd trimester) abortions outright, to me that's untenable morally and logically.
It is obviously ok for us to take human life. We go to war. We execute criminals. We allow people without the means for proper medicine to suffer and die (albeit out of sight). It's regrettable but it happens.
The choice is the mother's. If she wants to abort then that's legal because it's her choice. No one else can choose for her, not Scott Peterson, now NOW.
--
BRussell:
Quote:
Nonsense. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't understand the importance of pre-natal development. Saying "it's a human life" is a straw man argument of the pro-life side - of course pro-choice people know it's a human life. They just don't believe that's determinative when you're also dealing with fundamental rights of the mom. I have the right to life, but I can't force you, another adult, to give me that life.
So if the pro-choice movement acknowledges that the baby is a human life (they don't), why say things like "it" and "thing"?
Why can't my fellow baby-killers be honest about their support of infanticide?
On the fetus---we have some indisputable scientific facts, two of which make it human individual at any stage of it's development:
It has unique DNA
It controls its own development
It has a completely separate blood supply---the two blood supplies DO NOT mix. Which means it is not in any way part of the mother's body---it is a parasitic organism.
If you want to argue viability, a seconds-old fetus can still be in two-chamber heart mode---and is not viable. Read carefully---it can be out of the mother and it's heart has not sealed up into a four-chamber heart---the only thing at play is the amount of the mother's tissue that surrounds it---which is the worst kind of contrived semantics.
The simple fact is that you have two conflicting, fundamental rights.
yes. to me the right for a child to live outweighs the right of a woman to not have to go through a pregnancy. 9 months of inconvienience (best case) to up to 18 years still doesn't outweigh another's entire life. it boils down to "because i don't want you, i will murder you". to me that is always wrong. (along those lines, why does this mother's right end at birth? why not extend it a few years. shit, maybe she has a kid and after a few months realizes it's a mistake. why not let her kill the kid then?)
Quote:
Adults have the right to life, but do you have the right to force someone else to give you a kidney transplant so that you will live? That's analogous to making abortion illegal, IMO. You're forcing someone to go through childbirth.
the problem with any example like that is that in this case the mother (and some father) have actively persued having a child, whether intentional or not. it is their responsibility.
it would be closer to the fact, although still wrong if you were driving your car and hit a kid. you were in the wrong while doing so. the kid will die w/o a kidney. your kidney is the only match. either you give the kidney and the child lives, or you don't and they die, but then you get charged with murder since it's your actions that led directly to the child needing your support to survive.
for groverat: what's the difference between third trimester and a week before the third trimester? is that what people should use as the measurement for whether or not you're a human being? i don't like the idea of breaking it off at some arbitary date. one day you're a fetus, next day BAM! you're a human? doesn't make sense to me.
yes. to me the right for a child to live outweighs the right of a woman to not have to go through a pregnancy. 9 months of inconvienience (best case) to up to 18 years still doesn't outweigh another's entire life. it boils down to "because i don't want you, i will murder you".
Calling pregnancy and childbirth an "inconvenience" is, for your side, like calling a baby a "thing."
what's the difference between third trimester and a week before the third trimester? is that what people should use as the measurement for whether or not you're a human being? i don't like the idea of breaking it off at some arbitary date. one day you're a fetus, next day BAM! you're a human? doesn't make sense to me.
By the third trimester there's no question that the baby is viable.
It's a human being from conception, in my opinion. It certainly isn't a freaking wombat, it's a human being at a certain stage of development. The life isn't unorganized or random, it's all in the DNA, it's just a matter of how long it is allowed to develop. It's always a human, but by the 3rd trimester it's going to feel the pain of the abortion, and that's just too much even for my cold-blooded and heartless self.
One thing I really really like is required education before you get an abortion. Of the few women I met who had abortions they all didn't know much about the physiology of it beforehand and very much regret doing it. I've never met someone who was glad they had an abortion.
But again, the pro-choice movement is so full of zealots even EDUCATION is seen as threatening.
Comments
if the mother only was killed and the thing (baby) was not born yet, it was a simple / single murder. if it's not born yet, it's not a person, it's just a part of the mother.
Originally posted by Mulattabianca
if the child was born and BOTH mother and child were killed, the child after its birth, it was a double murder.
if the mother only was killed and the thing (baby) was not born yet, it was a simple / single murder. if it's not born yet, it's not a person, it's just a part of the mother.
The baby is never part of the mother. An unborn child has his own nervous system, blood supply, etc. Mother and child do not even share blood but nutrients, oxygen, etc. cross the boundary from one blood supply to the other. The baby is "enveloped" in his mother's body, not part of it. He depends on his mother for his existence, but that doesn't change much after birth either, especially if the woman is nursing. A nursing child not only depends on his mother for nutrition but also piggybacks on her immune system and takes emotional cues from her.
Originally posted by Fangorn
The baby is "enveloped" in his mother's body, not part of it. He depends on his mother for his existence, but that doesn't change much after birth either, especially if the woman is nursing.
This is flatly untrue. Virtually all babies can survive without their mothers after they are born. Virtually none of them can survive without the mother as a feteus.
Originally posted by Fangorn
The baby is never part of the mother. An unborn child has his own nervous system, blood supply, etc. Mother and child do not even share blood but nutrients, oxygen, etc. cross the boundary from one blood supply to the other. The baby is "enveloped" in his mother's body, not part of it. He depends on his mother for his existence, but that doesn't change much after birth either, especially if the woman is nursing. A nursing child not only depends on his mother for nutrition but also piggybacks on her immune system and takes emotional cues from her.
if it is an individual, it lives indipendently and does not take nutrients etc from mother, and is not dependent on mother in any sense etc... i don't consider the fetuses as persons or individuals before they are born. it has its own nervous systems, blood supplies etc, but it takes all its energy from its mum (like some intestinal worms ... it takes from the host without harming it to dead and without being of any use for the host. sorry i don't remember the right word for this type or animals, plants etc).
Originally posted by ena
I only mean the whole abortion debate in general. Scientifically speaking there is no denying that a abortion is murder. It's only a question on who controls a woman's body---rule of law or a gender's prerogative---it's a powerplay.
Which goes to the fundamental dishonesty of so much the abortion debate. If the ONLY consideration is a woman's control over her body then, of course, the pro-choice position would be the correct one. But it's not the only consideration, or at least it shouldn't be. Any serious discussion of abortion REQUIRES one to place in the balance the human life you are allowing to be destroyed.
Originally posted by bunge
This is flatly untrue. Virtually all babies can survive without their mothers after they are born. Virtually none of them can survive without the mother as a feteus.
And exactly how many children do you have? The newborn child cannot feed himself, change himself, heck he can't even find his own hands. "Survival" is more than breathing. A newborn learns how to suckle after birth. Some learn faster than others. One child was nursing five minutes after she was born. Another took about 10 hours.
Have you heard of "Failure to thrive?" An otherwise healthy child who does not get the emotional nourishment he needs will die.
If the only difference between an "infant" and a "fetus" is the child's placement relative to the womb, then your second part doesn't hold water--especially when you consider the survival rate of premature babies.
Excuse me, my baby is crying.
Originally posted by Mulattabianca
if it is an individual, it lives indipendently and does not take nutrients etc from mother, and is not dependent on mother in any sense etc... i don't consider the fetuses as persons or individuals before they are born. it has its own nervous systems, blood supplies etc, but it takes all its energy from its mum (like some intestinal worms ... it takes from the host without harming it to dead and without being of any use for the host. sorry i don't remember the right word for this type or animals, plants etc).
Then a newborn isn't a human being either especially if the woman is nursing. ". . . not dependent on mother in any sense . . . "well than none of us are human beings until about 20!
Originally posted by alcimedes
what i've struggled with is the idea that a few weeks time, and/or physical location would be the determining factors in whether or not someone should be considered a person.
I think that is an error in the whole arguement. Honest and truly, I don't think you can draw a line based on physical development. From the moment of conception, the "collection of cells" is alive--it meets every criteria for "life." Believe me, if a sponge or an ameboe is alive, so is an embryo. And the DNA makes it human. It isn't a fish or a monkey or anything else; it is human DNA. And when you start demanding more criteria to defend that human life, then you endanger more than the unborn--the mentally retarded, those with birth defects or crippling diseases, etc.
The Romans (and they were not the only ones) used to place unwanted babies outside the city walls to die in the elements (so much for babies not needing their mothers). A parent (particularly the father) had the right of life or death over a child. And I think that is the moral crux of the issue. Regardless of the development of the embryo/fetus, the relationship is one of mother to child, a relationship that does not depend on cell count, physical ability, dependency, or even age. I am fully grown, but my mother is still my mother.
Thus, does a parent have the right to termininate the life of a child? Does the state have the "right" to give that "right" to a parent? The state may not take innocent life (theoretically), but may kill (execute) only those found guilt of certain crimes and under due process. But it may give a mother permission to do what it may not, which is take an innocent life?
I have been working on fleshing out this arguement for a while and would welcome honest criticism. (Flaming will be soundly ignored.)
I can see no moral consistency in calling yourself pro-choice and saying the baby that was killed (and that's what it was) was a "thing" or an "it". What moral cowardice. What foolish idiocy.
The mother had no choice here, the only thing that legally absolves the murder of an unborn child is the mother's choice. That's it.
But so many people just trash their moral compass when they've chosen a side and it's more about winning than following what you actually think it's right.
That thing was named Conor.
We like to remove the personal aspect from the child because that makes it easier to rationalize the position. Are there any fellow pro-choicers out there who recognize that Peterson killed a human being?
We like to remove the personal aspect from the child because that makes it easier to rationalize the position. Are there any fellow pro-choicers out there who recognize that Peterson killed a human being?
i doubt it. most people don't weigh one person's right to end a pregnancy over a human life. hence the "it/thing" references. most people i know who believe that it's a human child are prolife.
although you have a unique perspective. i'd love to hear how/why you think that the choice in this case outweighs the life.
Originally posted by alcimedes
what i've struggled with is the idea that a few weeks time, and/or physical location would be the determining factors in whether or not someone should be considered a person.
Yes, I agree with you and alcimedes and zaphod (or whatever the hell his name is) that of course it's a human life and it's silly to try to find some specific point in time where it has a certain status. But that whole question is only looking at it from one side - the other side is that you're infringing on the rights of the mother if you outlaw abortion. The simple fact is that you have two conflicting, fundamental rights.
Adults have the right to life, but do you have the right to force someone else to give you a kidney transplant so that you will live? That's analogous to making abortion illegal, IMO. You're forcing someone to go through childbirth.
I agree that it's a flaw in the pro-choice side if they say "it's not a human life" or it has no status at all.
But IMO the flaw in the pro-lifer's argument is that they don't see that being pro-life by definition means that they want to infringe on the rights of the mom. And I think we can all agree that childbirth and pregnancy are pretty fundamental rights.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i doubt it. most people don't weigh one person's right to end a pregnancy over a human life. hence the "it/thing" references. most people i know who believe that it's a human child are prolife.
Nonsense. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't understand the importance of pre-natal development. Saying "it's a human life" is a straw man argument of the pro-life side - of course pro-choice people know it's a human life. They just don't believe that's determinative when you're also dealing with fundamental rights of the mom. I have the right to life, but I can't force you, another adult, to give me that life.
i'd love to hear how/why you think that the choice in this case outweighs the life.
In my mind the legal status of the child is decided by the mother. I am against all late-term (read: 3rd trimester) abortions outright, to me that's untenable morally and logically.
It is obviously ok for us to take human life. We go to war. We execute criminals. We allow people without the means for proper medicine to suffer and die (albeit out of sight). It's regrettable but it happens.
The choice is the mother's. If she wants to abort then that's legal because it's her choice. No one else can choose for her, not Scott Peterson, now NOW.
--
BRussell:
Nonsense. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't understand the importance of pre-natal development. Saying "it's a human life" is a straw man argument of the pro-life side - of course pro-choice people know it's a human life. They just don't believe that's determinative when you're also dealing with fundamental rights of the mom. I have the right to life, but I can't force you, another adult, to give me that life.
So if the pro-choice movement acknowledges that the baby is a human life (they don't), why say things like "it" and "thing"?
Why can't my fellow baby-killers be honest about their support of infanticide?
It has unique DNA
It controls its own development
It has a completely separate blood supply---the two blood supplies DO NOT mix. Which means it is not in any way part of the mother's body---it is a parasitic organism.
If you want to argue viability, a seconds-old fetus can still be in two-chamber heart mode---and is not viable. Read carefully---it can be out of the mother and it's heart has not sealed up into a four-chamber heart---the only thing at play is the amount of the mother's tissue that surrounds it---which is the worst kind of contrived semantics.
The simple fact is that you have two conflicting, fundamental rights.
yes. to me the right for a child to live outweighs the right of a woman to not have to go through a pregnancy. 9 months of inconvienience (best case) to up to 18 years still doesn't outweigh another's entire life. it boils down to "because i don't want you, i will murder you". to me that is always wrong. (along those lines, why does this mother's right end at birth? why not extend it a few years. shit, maybe she has a kid and after a few months realizes it's a mistake. why not let her kill the kid then?)
Adults have the right to life, but do you have the right to force someone else to give you a kidney transplant so that you will live? That's analogous to making abortion illegal, IMO. You're forcing someone to go through childbirth.
the problem with any example like that is that in this case the mother (and some father) have actively persued having a child, whether intentional or not. it is their responsibility.
it would be closer to the fact, although still wrong if you were driving your car and hit a kid. you were in the wrong while doing so. the kid will die w/o a kidney. your kidney is the only match. either you give the kidney and the child lives, or you don't and they die, but then you get charged with murder since it's your actions that led directly to the child needing your support to survive.
for groverat: what's the difference between third trimester and a week before the third trimester? is that what people should use as the measurement for whether or not you're a human being? i don't like the idea of breaking it off at some arbitary date. one day you're a fetus, next day BAM! you're a human? doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by alcimedes
yes. to me the right for a child to live outweighs the right of a woman to not have to go through a pregnancy. 9 months of inconvienience (best case) to up to 18 years still doesn't outweigh another's entire life. it boils down to "because i don't want you, i will murder you".
Calling pregnancy and childbirth an "inconvenience" is, for your side, like calling a baby a "thing."
what's the difference between third trimester and a week before the third trimester? is that what people should use as the measurement for whether or not you're a human being? i don't like the idea of breaking it off at some arbitary date. one day you're a fetus, next day BAM! you're a human? doesn't make sense to me.
By the third trimester there's no question that the baby is viable.
It's a human being from conception, in my opinion. It certainly isn't a freaking wombat, it's a human being at a certain stage of development. The life isn't unorganized or random, it's all in the DNA, it's just a matter of how long it is allowed to develop. It's always a human, but by the 3rd trimester it's going to feel the pain of the abortion, and that's just too much even for my cold-blooded and heartless self.
One thing I really really like is required education before you get an abortion. Of the few women I met who had abortions they all didn't know much about the physiology of it beforehand and very much regret doing it. I've never met someone who was glad they had an abortion.
But again, the pro-choice movement is so full of zealots even EDUCATION is seen as threatening.
Calling pregnancy and childbirth an "inconvenience" is, for your side, like calling a baby a "thing."
sorry, pick what you want, i'll replace it. it wont' change my argument.