One question pro-abortionists refuse to answer

Page 1 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

zendell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

25 Mar 2008, 6:32 pm

Some babies are aborted at 24 weeks. Some babies are born prematurely at 24 weeks.

What is the difference between killing a 24 week old fetus (or whatever it's called) inside the womb versus killing a person outside the womb the day they are born prematurely at 24 weeks?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Mar 2008, 6:36 pm

A legal distinction.

Burden on the mother's body.

Or even, why distinguish?



Teoka
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 122
Location: Northern VA

25 Mar 2008, 6:37 pm

In addition, if life begins at birth, does that mean it's okay to kill a 35-week-old fetus?


_________________
| C | O | S | P | L | A | Y |
My Anti-Drug

Aspie score: 159 out of 200


zendell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

25 Mar 2008, 6:50 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
A legal distinction.

Burden on the mother's body.

Or even, why distinguish?


I don't understand your answer. Are you saying killing a 24 week old inside the body is ok because it burdens the mother's body?

You ask, why distinguish? I don't. However, pro-abortionists argue it's not a human life yet at 24 weeks so it's not murder. They need to answer why it would be any different outside the womb.

Let me put it another way. Why should a woman who kills her baby born prematurely at 24 weeks be charged with murder and end up in prison for life while another woman can legally kill her baby inside the womb at the exact same 24 weeks after conception?



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

25 Mar 2008, 6:57 pm

It's a completely arbitrary difference.

Why do pro-lifers seem to think that the killing of a zygote or a blastocyst is equivalent to murder?

There is no right or wrong on this issue, but to not acknowledge that it is a gray one seems very ignorant indeed.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


wisteria
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 83

25 Mar 2008, 6:58 pm

Motivation... many babies are terminated that late in pregnancy due to poor prenatal diagnosis.



zendell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

25 Mar 2008, 7:00 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
It's a completely arbitrary difference.


Do you think it should be legal to kill someone 24 weeks after conception? Since it's an arbitrary difference, it shouldn't matter whether it's done in the womb through abortion or after birth.

Phagocyte wrote:
Why do pro-lifers seem to think that the killing of a zygote or a blastocyst is equivalent to murder?

There is no right or wrong on this issue, but to not acknowledge that it is a gray one seems very ignorant indeed.


I don't know what zygotes or blastocysts are so I can't say.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Mar 2008, 7:07 pm

zendell wrote:
I don't understand your answer. Are you saying killing a 24 week old inside the body is ok because it burdens the mother's body?
I put that forward as a possible answer. It also could be ok because of the fact that we can make an arbitrary legal distinction between pre-natal and post-natal abortion, sort of like the arbitrary distinction between 50 mph and 51 mph taken by cops, arbitrary setting points aren't necessarily wrong, and abortionists would argue that conception itself is an arbitrary point as neither the egg nor the sperm separately have any value, so why should they become valuable the second they meet?
Quote:
You ask, why distinguish? I don't. However, pro-abortionists argue it's not a human life yet at 24 weeks so it's not murder. They need to answer why it would be any different outside the womb.

Why? Some abortionists don't make the moral distinction.
Quote:
Let me put it another way. Why should a woman who kills her baby born prematurely at 24 weeks be charged with murder and end up in prison for life while another woman can legally kill her baby inside the womb at the exact same 24 weeks after conception?

We made a law against one and not the other. What makes 50 mph a sacred number? How about property lines? Heck, if you look closely, most distinctions we make are completely arbitrary.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

25 Mar 2008, 7:08 pm

zendell wrote:
Do you think it should be legal to kill someone 24 weeks after conception? Since it's an arbitrary difference, it shouldn't matter whether it's done in the womb through abortion or after birth.


No, I don't believe one should, unless it endangers the mother's life or something of the sort. I'm not completely "pro-choice" and neither am I completely "pro-choice." I'm willing to acknowledge that it's a gray issue.

Phagocyte wrote:
I don't know what zygotes or blastocysts are so I can't say.


A zygote is the union of the ovum and the sperm, and the blastocyst is a human embryo 50 to 150 cells large. I found the blastocyst relevant because that is the stage of the "baby" when it is harvested for stem cells.

I was noting the absolutist stance that many people who subscribe to pro-life doctrine seem to embrace; that sentient life begins at conception. Yes, biological life has already begun (actually, before conception, since the sperm and the egg are alive), but one could hardly take seriously that concept that the moment the egg meets the sperm the destruction of such is equivalent to "murder."


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Mar 2008, 7:10 pm

zendell wrote:
Do you think it should be legal to kill someone 24 weeks after conception? Since it's an arbitrary difference, it shouldn't matter whether it's done in the womb through abortion or after birth.

Just because a distinction is arbitrary in and of itself, does not mean it is unimportant. Some legal distinctions are made in order to create definite guidelines for things to function. Like state borders. Those can be completely arbitrary but are of powerful importance for our legal system.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

25 Mar 2008, 8:04 pm

24 weeks is not even an issue, as far as I am concerned. Abortions at that stage are so rare, it's not even worth squabbling over except on behalf of victims of extreme misfortune. Otherwise, if it takes a woman that long to realize she was pregnant, I have to wonder how many times she has unwittingly given birth in public toilets. On that note, it's a frightening thought that the pro-lifers think it's so important for such women to be mothers. The reason that pro-lifers love to focus on the final weeks of pregnancy is that they have found it to be invaluable as a premise on which to sell the remainder of their rubbish. What most pro-lifers will not tell you is that the pro-choice movement's highest concern is protecting womens' right to abort during the earliest weeks of pregnancy. They don't tell you this because, typically of conservatives, they don't mind bending the truth if it helps them get their way.

There is something that I say about those who participate in philosophical debates: win or lose, you're still out of touch with reality. It's a little spin on that crass "Special Olympics" joke. Frankly, I think that the original joke is just a way for ignorant, small-minded people to get a chuckle at the expense of the less fortunate. Now, unfortunately, many of those whom we deem "less fortunate" are a product of their own mistakes. For example, the reason my room-mate's life is in the gutter is that he got into trouble with the law a few years ago. Because of his record and several assorted problems, he's having to work with temp agencies just to give his unborn child, who presently looks a great deal like a little fish, a fair shot at life.

Unfortunately, there are people in this world who think that this man's past wrongs must mean that he doesn't warrant a third chance to make something of his life. They would put him down, and the person who ultimately suffered would be a child who hasn't even seen the face of its mother yet. Some people, unfortunately, do not know the difference between justice and recrimination. In my eyes, though, he is redeemed by the mere fact of his change of heart, and, for his eagerness to live a just life, I can see him as a just man.

Having some knowledge of living things is helpful, when we're discussing abortion. It is true that a blastula is not just a bunch of cells. In fact, a blastula is actually a hollow sphere of cells. Nothing is required to direct this growth. It is something that animal cells do by nature. Before there was such a thing as gastrulation or germ layers, the benefit of this strategy was that it allowed our ancestors to create a cavity unto which diverse uses could be put, such as storing nutrients that are not readily consumable or keeping harmful microbes from vulnerable parts of the cell. Of course, nature is more imaginative than Man, so the list of uses to which this may have been put is virtually endless. Obviously, it was a reasonably successful strategy for early animal cells, given that we're here. What gastrulation allowed them to do, though, was take in nutrients from their environment. It's relatively easy to envision. Gastrulation allowed early animal cells to aemebically surround their prey, cutting off any possible route of escape. Even a developing blastosphere would have been consumed. In today's animals, however, this proceeds into a seperation into germ layers, and each germ layer has its own specialized set of functions. In a way, the germ layers can be regarded almost as seperate species that live in a sort of symbiosis with one another, you see? It works similarly to segmentation in annelids: each segment has its own genetic identity and is capable of producing its own specialized functions. For our overall survival, each of our germ layers--our ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm--must all work in concert. That's what makes any kind of system work. That's what makes a team work. Although each individual member of a team is special and unique, they each assert themselves toward a unified purpose. We can learn a lot by examining life.

Have you ever seen a well-marshalled police force bring a mob under control? The police don't need one police officer for every member of the mob. The police are well-coordinated, and they work cojointly toward a united purpose. This is why the police win vs. a mob every single time. By the same token, a teenaged girl wins vs. a freshly gastrulated blastula every single time. Whether its conception were due to an act of rape or her own ill-thought decisions, there is no possible justification for trashing this young woman's education, family life, or career in the name of an entity that is still trying to sort out what goes inside of its blastocoel besides its own ass. I would like to think that my sister's ambitions and dreams are worth more than an organism that has one orifice on its entire body, whether it was her fault, her boyfriend's fault, the manufacturer's fault or the beverage's fault!

The pro-lifers have been very skillful in manipulating this issue, but remember: on the day of reckoning, the serpent's food will be dust. Their dirty politics will catch up to them. In the meantime, let's try to get the focus on what this issue is really all about, so perhaps one more person's hopes and dreams can be spared.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

29 Mar 2008, 7:29 am

"Pro-abortionists"? :lol: I don't mean to offend you, but that word cracks me up. I've never seen it before.

Now, for the question: The short answer is that I don't care. Seriously.

The long answer? I'm not sure. I think that I don't have one, at least not at this point.
It may be simply because I DON'T CARE. About the fetus, that is. Maybe I do care more about the grown person. If only by a tiny bit.


Edit: Thanks for the article, Griff. 'Twas a good read.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


BesideYouInTime
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 153

29 Mar 2008, 5:54 pm

Pro-abortion is a pejorative term that doesn't accurately describe the position. I favor safe and legal abortions but that doesn't mean I think they're so great every woman should have one.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Mar 2008, 7:36 pm

A few thoughts:

The issue of the embryo's/fetus's dependency on the mother, and the burden that places on her, is useless in this debate. Young children are dependent on their parents, but parents are not permitted to kill their five-year-old children.

Many people are pro-choice only for the early stages of pregnancy, and would thus oppose an abortion at 24 weeks while permitting one in the first trimester. That's the official policy in many US states, and also a position supported by the Presbyterian Church USA. So the argument about why "pro-abortionists" as you call them could support an abortion at 24 months but not the murder of a premature child born at that time fails, since a great deal of them do not.

Who's opinion should have the most weight in this matter? Most laws are written and decided by men. The issue obviously directly affects women more than it does men. On gay rights I have no opinion because those laws do not affect me; I am straight, so I don't consider that I have the right to an opinion one way or the other. Should it be the same for abortion, since I am male? Or is there something larger at stake here in the rights of the fetus?

On that note, does an unborn child have legal rights, and if so what does one do to protect them? A woman drinking or smoking during pregnancy harms the fetus, should this be illegal? If you are pro-life, you would have to support making those actions illegal because they harm the unborn child. But then where do those laws stop? Would the diets and activities of pregnant women be strictly regulated?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

29 Mar 2008, 8:09 pm

Theocracy vs. Liberty

It's a continuation of the same war that my ancestry has fought since long before the time of Pepys.

It's a different battleground, but it's the same conflict.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

29 Mar 2008, 8:21 pm

Orwell wrote:
On that note, does an unborn child have legal rights, and if so what does one do to protect them? A woman drinking or smoking during pregnancy harms the fetus, should this be illegal? If you are pro-life, you would have to support making those actions illegal because they harm the unborn child. But then where do those laws stop? Would the diets and activities of pregnant women be strictly regulated?


Very good point. I'm curious to see the pro-life rebuttal to this.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!