|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 20, 2019 5:49:59 GMT
I read a reply from one guy and he made a really good point. Of course, scientists are divided on whether a child in the womb is a human. I mean it's not a fish or a pig but alive and growing/aging in the womb as we all are outside the womb so I agree with the smart scientists who know this. Yes, even old people age because their hair changes color, they lose teeth, etc which is aging and aging is a change in growth as babies in the womb age because look different each month. But here's what the smart reply was...
"Consider this: scientists are looking everywhere outside the planet for absolutely anything that may even hint at life. Microbes. Bacteria and even dead evidence of life. And yet...a conceived fetus is considered to be but a few cells not worthy of being called life...how is that? Face it folks, we as humanity are in great need of help."
Your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Feb 20, 2019 5:57:47 GMT
Is this thread related to anti-abortion? And if the answer is yes, then do you think every pregnancy should lead to childbirth regardless of situations?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Feb 20, 2019 6:00:18 GMT
Yea, I’ve thought about this too. They’re so willing to accept the possibility of life on other planets in the form of micro bacteria, yet the same people will turn around and say a baby in the womb is not considered a life because blah blah blah it’s a double standard
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Feb 20, 2019 6:07:27 GMT
Is this thread related to anti-abortion? And if the answer is yes, then do you think every pregnancy should lead to childbirth regardless of situations? I think that there are only two situations where abortion is okay. 1. If the baby upon being born will die a horrible death anyways. IE a baby born with defective lungs or something and is not viable and will suffocate or die in some horrific way. 2. If the mother absolutely will die giving birth to the baby in which case it should be the choice of the mother. Remember, the mother may have responsibilities to take care of other children as well and she is a living human too. Rape and incest are NOT reasons to abort a baby as regardless of the circumstances of that babies' birth it is still an innocent life and it deserves life as much as any other human being.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 20, 2019 6:15:39 GMT
Is this thread related to anti-abortion? And if the answer is yes, then do you think every pregnancy should lead to childbirth regardless of situations? Every pregnancy should lead to childbirth. That baby deserves to live and expects the parents to love it and take care of it....not take his or her last breath. If a parent or child is sick then it's God's call what happens to them next. He creates them in the womb and decides how long each person lives. We have no say in this because we are not a god over another person's life. Otherwise we must accept people killing us whenever they so wish without us interfering one bit.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jun 18, 2019 21:54:53 GMT
Yea, I’ve thought about this too. They’re so willing to accept the possibility of life on other planets in the form of micro bacteria, yet the same people will turn around and say a baby in the womb is not considered a life because blah blah blah it’s a double standard There are at least two different senses of the word life here. No biologist contends that a fetus is not living tissue, i.e. life. Rather, the issue is of whether it deserves person-hood and the accordant rights that come with that, i.e. whether or not it is "a life" in the sense of "a human life" rather than just "some life."
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 18, 2019 23:35:09 GMT
Yea, I’ve thought about this too. They’re so willing to accept the possibility of life on other planets in the form of micro bacteria, yet the same people will turn around and say a baby in the womb is not considered a life because blah blah blah it’s a double standard There are at least two different senses of the word life here. No biologist contends that a fetus is not living tissue, i.e. life. Rather, the issue is of whether it deserves person-hood and the accordant rights that come with that, i.e. whether or not it is "a life" in the sense of "a human life" rather than just "some life." Okay then I would argue that a fetus is a human life. I think it would be foolish to believe otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jun 18, 2019 23:54:00 GMT
There are at least two different senses of the word life here. No biologist contends that a fetus is not living tissue, i.e. life. Rather, the issue is of whether it deserves person-hood and the accordant rights that come with that, i.e. whether or not it is "a life" in the sense of "a human life" rather than just "some life." Okay then I would argue that a fetus is a human life. I think it would be foolish to believe otherwise. In terms of being life, and having the genetic code of a human, it seems essentially by definition to argue that it is a human life. I think the controversial question is to argue of whether it has a right to be ascribed person-hood, and, if so, whether that right to be ascribed person-hood exceeds the right of its mother. Generally speaking, it is not very controversial to answer affirmatively for those fetuses nearing birth. I also claim it is reasonable to ascribe person-hood immediately, as whether or not this is the case has little bearing on the later question (whether or not you ascribe person-hood immediately, the question of when that right exceeds the right of the mother remains unchanged). Hence, we can further reduce to the central question of when that right of the fetus overpowers the right of the mother. Of course some claim it does instantly, others require that it takes a certain amount of time for that right to build in strength until it does. I don't really think the purpose of this thread is to get into an abortion debate, or perhaps it is. However, I would just contend that the answer to the original question is that there is a tendency to be lazy in language and just say "fetus != life" when the real view is more nuanced. I think it would be much better if these linguistic idioms were dropped, as they seem to invite trivial counter-attacks under uncharitable interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 19, 2019 3:52:29 GMT
Okay then I would argue that a fetus is a human life. I think it would be foolish to believe otherwise. In terms of being life, and having the genetic code of a human, it seems essentially by definition to argue that it is a human life. I think the controversial question is to argue of whether it has a right to be ascribed person-hood, and, if so, whether that right to be ascribed person-hood exceeds the right of its mother. Generally speaking, it is not very controversial to answer affirmatively for those fetuses nearing birth. I also claim it is reasonable to ascribe person-hood immediately, as whether or not this is the case has little bearing on the later question (whether or not you ascribe person-hood immediately, the question of when that right exceeds the right of the mother remains unchanged). Hence, we can further reduce to the central question of when that right of the fetus overpowers the right of the mother. Of course some claim it does instantly, others require that it takes a certain amount of time for that right to build in strength until it does. I don't really think the purpose of this thread is to get into an abortion debate, or perhaps it is. However, I would just contend that the answer to the original question is that there is a tendency to be lazy in language and just say "fetus != life" when the real view is more nuanced. I think it would be much better if these linguistic idioms were dropped, as they seem to invite trivial counter-attacks under uncharitable interpretations. What do you mean? A fetus has cells and DNA...which is everything we have. With it's human DNA it is already a male or female. There really is no difference between us and a fetus except we're in older stages of life. Butterflies go through many forms before becoming a butterfly but a caterpillar and a chrysilis is living and a baby butterfly.
|
|
|
Post by cynicsanonymous on Jun 19, 2019 4:31:12 GMT
Nobody is saying fetuses are not alive, we are just saying that they are not human beings and at early stages, they can be disposable. Besides god performs abortions all the time, you call em natural abortions.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jun 19, 2019 15:09:30 GMT
In terms of being life, and having the genetic code of a human, it seems essentially by definition to argue that it is a human life. I think the controversial question is to argue of whether it has a right to be ascribed person-hood, and, if so, whether that right to be ascribed person-hood exceeds the right of its mother. Generally speaking, it is not very controversial to answer affirmatively for those fetuses nearing birth. I also claim it is reasonable to ascribe person-hood immediately, as whether or not this is the case has little bearing on the later question (whether or not you ascribe person-hood immediately, the question of when that right exceeds the right of the mother remains unchanged). Hence, we can further reduce to the central question of when that right of the fetus overpowers the right of the mother. Of course some claim it does instantly, others require that it takes a certain amount of time for that right to build in strength until it does. I don't really think the purpose of this thread is to get into an abortion debate, or perhaps it is. However, I would just contend that the answer to the original question is that there is a tendency to be lazy in language and just say "fetus != life" when the real view is more nuanced. I think it would be much better if these linguistic idioms were dropped, as they seem to invite trivial counter-attacks under uncharitable interpretations. What do you mean? A fetus has cells and DNA...which is everything we have. With it's human DNA it is already a male or female. There really is no difference between us and a fetus except we're in older stages of life. Butterflies go through many forms before becoming a butterfly but a caterpillar and a chrysilis is living and a baby butterfly. Agreed. However this still leaves open the question of whether the right of this being to develop unhindered and be born exceeds the the right of the mother to its termination. All I am saying is that this question is the point of contention. When people are making statements like cynic sanonymous just did (not sure how to quote multiple people with this system), they are essentially debating the point at which this right of the fetus takes over. The position of an early stage fetus as "disposable" holds that the right of the fetus to life does not take priority until a certain amount of time has passed. The extreme anti-abortion position holds that it immediately takes priority. Perhaps someone may argue that the fetus never has a right to life, as implied by cynicsanonymous stating that "[fetuses] are not human beings", but I would contend that this is an unnecessarily strong position to take, and that it defies a moral intuition. Suppose that an artificial womb is available to raise a fetus in, and that once born said child will have the opportunity to live in a utopia. Given this circumstance, it would be morally reprehensible to fail to place a fetus in this artificial womb if it was discovered laying on the floor say. Why? Well I contend that it has an intrinsic right to life, and with no potential for suffering of any sort as a consequence of it being raised (let us assume it develops into a normal person in this utopia), it would be wrong to violate this right. However, we do not live in a utopia where every child is guaranteed a quality of life, nor in a scientifically advanced society which can raise a fetus to maturation without burdening another individual in doing so. As such, affirming the right of the fetus to life may be in conflict with affirming other rights of other people, and hence the subtly enters in. It is perfectly possible to argue for the permissibility of abortions while granting that fetuses have an intrinsic right to life and status as a living human being, by arguing the priority of that right in the broader context. I would contend that this framework violates fewer moral intuitions, and facilitates discussion by providing a framework which is acceptable to both parties. Summarising, my position is that fetuses have an intrinsic right to life, and that this is compatible with both abortion and anti-abortion positions. Rejecting this right violates moral intuitions, and shuts down conversation between both encampments, so it is more useful to grant it. After doing so, we see that the fundamental controversial question is of the priority of that right over other rights. I deliberately am avoiding taking a position on this myself, as I am striving to debate the approach we should take to these discussions rather than engage in that discussion myself, for I think setting up such groundwork properly is important to our ability to productively engage in a debate that has the possibility of arriving at consensus.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 19, 2019 21:59:36 GMT
Yea, I’ve thought about this too. They’re so willing to accept the possibility of life on other planets in the form of micro bacteria, yet the same people will turn around and say a baby in the womb is not considered a life because blah blah blah it’s a double standard Made-Up Issue Needed to Establish a Theocracy If all human fetuses died, could anyone say that human life existed on Earth?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 19, 2019 22:02:59 GMT
Yea, I’ve thought about this too. They’re so willing to accept the possibility of life on other planets in the form of micro bacteria, yet the same people will turn around and say a baby in the womb is not considered a life because blah blah blah it’s a double standard Made-Up Issue Needed to Establish a Theocracy If all human fetuses died, could anyone say that human life existed on Earth? It existed for a short time. Beginning stages of existence is still existence.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 19, 2019 22:06:27 GMT
Is this thread related to anti-abortion? And if the answer is yes, then do you think every pregnancy should lead to childbirth regardless of situations? I think that there are only two situations where abortion is okay. 1. If the baby upon being born will die a horrible death anyways. IE a baby born with defective lungs or something and is not viable and will suffocate or die in some horrific way. 2. If the mother absolutely will die giving birth to the baby in which case it should be the choice of the mother. Remember, the mother may have responsibilities to take care of other children as well and she is a living human too. Rape and incest are NOT reasons to abort a baby as regardless of the circumstances of that babies' birth it is still an innocent life and it deserves life as much as any other human being. The Pulpit Is for BulliesYou're not being consistent, which can be expected from a pushy mob that dishonestly tries to sell an unfinished product. If, as preached, the fetus is a "baby," then killing that baby through abortion is a far worse crime than letting the "mother" die, which is only negligent manslaughter. If you pretend you don't understand the difference, you only believe in your Pro-Life cult because it gives you a pathetic illusion of being connected to a Higher Power.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jun 20, 2019 2:53:15 GMT
I think that there are only two situations where abortion is okay. 1. If the baby upon being born will die a horrible death anyways. IE a baby born with defective lungs or something and is not viable and will suffocate or die in some horrific way. 2. If the mother absolutely will die giving birth to the baby in which case it should be the choice of the mother. Remember, the mother may have responsibilities to take care of other children as well and she is a living human too. Rape and incest are NOT reasons to abort a baby as regardless of the circumstances of that babies' birth it is still an innocent life and it deserves life as much as any other human being. The Pulpit Is for BulliesYou're not being consistent, which can be expected from a pushy mob that dishonestly tries to sell an unfinished product. If, as preached, the fetus is a "baby," then killing that baby through abortion is a far worse crime than letting the "mother" die, which is only negligent manslaughter. If you pretend you don't understand the difference, you only believe in your Pro-Life cult because it gives you a pathetic illusion of being connected to a Higher Power. You've reduced a moral question to one of legal definitions. I don't care about the severity of crimes as defined by the law; I care about the children that must go without their mother who may be their only caretaker who dies giving birth to their sibling. If they have no other family willing to take care of them then all of the children are going through the hell that is the foster care system and will not be raised by their mother and could end up in a horrible situation. Its a tough call to decide of whom is of more importance to the world between the mother and baby when one of them is going to die. It varies by situation and I think that the choice in such a case should be made by the one whom it will effect who can make it and her family whether she has to live with the decision or else sacrifice her own life. To give absolute moral significance to the difference between legalistic terms as you did is extremely autistic and simplifies a very nuanced situation. As to being connected to a higher power, I very much am. My pro life views do not show me that I have a connection to God, God himself shows me that I have a connection to God. He actually speaks to his children. The pro life views I hold are just what any sane person who cares about human life should believe whether they believe in God or not.
|
|