The next Obama

[longeyes]

Ok, so let's define "is." Is the unborn child alive or dead? Or a vampire, perhaps?

How do you think life is defined, and can you cite sources?

Life is rather like the U.S. Constitution.  Living, breathing, subject to abortion at any time.

[seeker_two]

The definition of 'alive' is not a 'scientific fact', it is a method of definition, of describing facts.

And what would be the definition of "scientific fact"?

And of couse, a fetus does not have brain waves at conception, or a brain.

And that has to do with the definition of "human life" how?

[longeyes]

"The definition of 'alive' is not a 'scientific fact', it is a method of definition, of describing facts."

Is that The Grand Inquisitor speaking?  Damned if it don't sound like him...

[Ron]

C'mon micro, your argument is not only weak, it is factually WRONG.

Here is what the encyclopedia has to say about the subject, for your edification.

The zygote is a  fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.

The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism.

The zygote is endowed with genes from two parents, and thus it is diploid (carrying two sets of chromosomes). The joining of haploid gametes to produce a diploid zygote is a common feature in the sexual reproduction of all organisms except bacteria.

organism
 
or·gan·ism
 
 [awr-guh-niz-uhm]
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.

Now, on to the next Obama...

[Strings]

I have to agree with birdman. That is the optimal path.

[Balog]

I have to agree with birdman. That is the optimal path.

I disagree. If fetus = human then there is no justifiable reason to kill him/her, aside from legitimate self defense ala ectopic pregnancy. If fetus != human then there's really no issue with terminating it, so the Democratic National Convention is totally justified in giving abortion a standing ovation.

I truly don't understand the logic there. Either it's not a human, in which case why is it a terrible thing we need to limit as much as possible, or it is a human in which case "The mother will suffer serious emotional pain" is not a reason to kill it. Unless "severe emotional pain" is a legitimate cause for use of force in self defense now.

So which is it? Is the fetus a human, and you're ok with murdering him/her if it means the mother won't need to deal with emotional trauma? Or is it not human, and you're opposed to abortion as birth control just because you like telling women what they can do with their own bodies?

[MicroBalrog]

C'mon micro, your argument is not only weak, it is factually WRONG.

Here is what the encyclopedia has to say about the subject, for your edification.

I don't think any of this refutes my argument at all.

[MicroBalrog]

Unless "severe emotional pain" is a legitimate cause for use of force in self defense now.

Are you arguing you can only use force in self-defense in a situation where you are threatened with death?

This is clearly not true.

[Ron]

I don't think any of this refutes my argument at all.

When the facts don't fit your predisposition, start redefining words and manipulating language, 

[Balog]

Afaik most use of force laws cover stopping threats to your life or the life of another, or stopping certain violent felonies in progress. None cover taking the life of another because to not do so would result in emotional trauma. None (again afaik) allow for the use of force against a helpless opponent.

What other situations should be covered under your proposal that emotional trauma is a legitimate justification for use of lethal force, and that use of force vs a helpless ie unconscious or bound enemy is justified? I'm so curious to see where this goes.

[Tallpine]

Obama is causing me emotional trauma 

[birdman]

I disagree. If fetus = human then there is no justifiable reason to kill him/her, aside from legitimate self defense ala ectopic pregnancy. If fetus != human then there's really no issue with terminating it, so the Democratic National Convention is totally justified in giving abortion a standing ovation.

I truly don't understand the logic there. Either it's not a human, in which case why is it a terrible thing we need to limit as much as possible, or it is a human in which case "The mother will suffer serious emotional pain" is not a reason to kill it. Unless "severe emotional pain" is a legitimate cause for use of force in self defense now.

So which is it? Is the fetus a human, and you're ok with murdering him/her if it means the mother won't need to deal with emotional trauma? Or is it not human, and you're opposed to abortion as birth control just because you like telling women what they can do with their own bodies?

By the specifics of that logic, a miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter, or if said miscarriage could be attributed to actions (everything from drug use to inadequate nutrition) then criminal endangerment. 

Just sayin, you can't have it both ways. 

[De Selby]

Deciding great moral questions via the dictionary is so much fail it hurts my head.

Sorry folks, cracking the dictionary is not going to (nor should it) convince anyone on abortion.  It's like referencing the bible to prove things to someone who isn't Christian - unless you already agree on the moral authority of the text, it's beyond silly to use it to settle a moral debate.

[Ron]

Deciding great moral questions via the dictionary is so much fail it hurts my head.

Sorry folks, cracking the dictionary is not going to (nor should it) convince anyone on abortion.  It's like referencing the bible to prove things to someone who isn't Christian - unless you already agree on the moral authority of the text, it's beyond silly to use it to settle a moral debate.

There is no deciding of moral questions via dictionary going on.

In order to have a conversation that makes any sense there has to be agreement on the definition of terms. I defined what I meant when I said life. I used the most common understanding according to modern science. The fetus is a distinct organism that by definition is "alive", in fact it is human life.  

What value you place on that life is the moral question. You are correct, dictionary and encyclopedia entries will have limited use in answering that question.

Sophistry and post modern nihilism are a much shakier foundation to base a decision on regarding this as opposed to defining terms clearly and applying the traditional (Judeo/Christian) view of a human right to life as inalienable.    

[De Selby]

Ron, you're using the term as a loaded one to force a decision on "the value of life" that obviously the other side doesn't agree has to be made.  Your definition does not acknowledge gradations theirs does, and that's why it won't and can't convince anyone.

FYI, I get tired of this meme that Judeo-Christian tradition is that life is inalienable - that is clearly not the case, as death was sanctioned as punishment for offences from the beginning.

On abortion, it's only relatively recent that Judeo-Christian religions have stopped sanctioning it.  So there's not much in the way of tradition there to pose as an alternative to the unworkable (and more importantly, unshared) definitions you're using.

[makattak]

If "pro-choice" people were honest, they would admit they don't know exactly when life begins.

I also know that in my Hunter Education classes, we are taught to positively identify a target before taking a shot (preferably before even aiming at it.) Unless you can positively verify that the target is not a human and is the game animal you are hunting, you don't take the shot. Even if you are "pretty sure" it's a deer, you don't take a shot on "pretty sure."

That's considered safe, ethical hunting.

It's a shame we don't have the same type of ethics about killing babies.

[Ron]

De Selby

If the newly fertilized egg is considered a distinct organism from the mother which is what modern science says is true, then there are no "graduations" of life. It "is" and it posses life. "It" is a developing human being.

The graduations are in the value of that life as determined by society. The value seems to go down the earlier in development the unborn child is found.

Own your position, don't try and escape the logical conclusions of your position through sophistry and word games.

  

[Ron]

When I wrote inalienable right to life I had the Declaration of Independence in my mind.

I guess I could have said inalienable right to life discovered in the Judeo/Christian tradition influenced by Greco/Roman history and thought.

That is a little clunky though.

Many in the ancient world believed the child wasn't human (had a soul) until it breathed the breath of life outside the womb. Many today would like to deny the science and go back to that archaic line of thought. We have the benefit of technology and our technology allows us to realize just how human the unborn child really is.

Our technology cannot tell us the worth of that unborn child. Some who have made a religion of science and technology often want to deconstruct man down to nothing more than a bio/chem machine. If that is all we are then the lack of value placed on the unborn may be logical, though no less barbaric.

Some of us believe that humans have a unique standing in the universe. We've been made in the image of our Creator, given rights and responsibilities. This was the worldview of those who framed our constitution and wrote the DOI.

[De Selby]

Sorry Ron, but you're stuck in the same method there.  You're confusing your conclusory moral claims to frame the debate in a way that other people don't.  "Modern science" does not get to determine when, for the purposes of a moral prohibition, an abortion is the same as a homicide.  You are mistaking your own choice of dictionary definitions for a moral truth again.   Demanding that everyone else buy your moral characterisation of embryo development only creates an "own it!" scenario in your own mind.

This is part of why the abortion debate is so intractable.  It's hard for some people to see why the dictionary (or the bible) don't clearly settle the question, when it's never occurred to most abortion rights supporters that any sane person would rely on either book to evaluate it.

[Ron]

You are correct, it is an intractable debate.

I have nothing more to say on this (I think  )

There is no point in trying to unpack the load of gibberish and straw men in your post.

[Perd Hapley]

  Demanding that everyone else buy your moral characterisation of embryo development only creates an "own it!" scenario in your own mind. is what laws do.

More correcter.

[De Selby]

More correcter.

That is true - which is why people debate laws and have a rough process of obtaining consent before they're passed.

[Strings]

Given what I know of post traumatic psychology, then yes: I place more weight on the well-being of the woman than I do the unborn child

Ideally, some form of "plan B" would be available immediately for victims of rape, and they would go to the hospital and police right away. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case

And again, I'm not saying "you got pregnant from a rape, you go for an abortion". I'm saying the woman (the victim in this) should have the choice. Might she make the wrong choice? Certainly: that is always a possibility. But she is the one most likely to make the correct decision for herself.

[Perd Hapley]

That is true - which is why people debate laws and have a rough process of obtaining consent before they're passed.

And Ron was debating. So quit griping about it.

[De Selby]

And Ron was debating. So quit griping about it.

Where's the gripe?  I explained in logical terms why his claims weren't really arguments, and couldn't be expected to convince anyone.