Life At Conception

[babe]

I agree, but surely no greater risk than that involved in an abortion.



my position is that the fetus has no right to continue existing by use of the woman's body, but if the fetus can survive without such use, the woman doesn't have a right to actively terminate a potentially independent being.

We can all have our own ideas and definitions about questions like this, and some of us may even have some thoughtful basis for them. It strikes me that you are much like the air and authority of God or a fascist--or any other brand of tyrant-- when you categorically take it upon yourself to say what rights a fetus or a woman has. You, like our Federal government, actually have no constitutional jurisdiction for making the law that defines human rights. Even the Supreme Court, under the view of the writers of the Constitution having only authority derived from their document we have called our Constitution, actually has no jurisdiction to settle this matter.

Powers not expressly granted by the Constitution to the Federal government were meant to be retained by the States, or the people. . .. at least until the Civil War, that was the understanding of the States and the people. I understand that some folks call it progress to use force to impose ideas on people nowadays, and the hankering to have the Federal government step into every muddle and "fix things" is pretty much the plague of our time in my opinion.

The legislation I referenced in the OP is one of tho e things, but I also consider Roe v. Wade one of those things. I don't see a clear way for us to resolve this and preserve individual freedom for all those individuals who are most absolutely involved. . . the child and mother being the ones most directly interested. I don't have an answer that I think is going to work, either. At a minimum, the Life at Conception legislation is a needed restraint on the power-grabbing Supreme Court.

Given that Americans will not find a satisfactory solution, I think one better compromise is to let States keep their powers that were not conferred on the Federal Government by the original intent of the States which formed this Union. Yes, people will cross state borders to get the medical service they want. That's not a hunk of glory either, it's still "rights" to the mother in derogation possibly to rights to the father, and a factual death to the fetus. I just hate our whole fascist Federal development so much I think any steps we can take to limit that monster are necessary victories against absolute tyranny.

OB, you and I have totally different views on a lot of things, and they come from our fundamentally different concepts of human liberty. You look to science and the musings within human skulls as the best information available. Some may say man has created the concept of God, but even without that concept or belief, we still take on the airs of a God of our own making when we believe in evidence, science, or government. I may not be in a position, or have convincing facts to compel others to see things my way, but I think a little human the size of a grain of rice is the ultimate symbol of the value of human life. Place whatever value you want on that, and you end up placing the same value on humans in every stage of their existence.

The fact that our state-controlled schools have devalued us to the extent that we have no rights whatsoever except what the government deigns to let us have is the central fact of our political existence today. I say we have consigned ourselves to being mere "human resources" in the hands of fascists. by which I mean cartelists who have the significant power in our government. And that is what we need to correct.

If you and oe were actually geniuses, you would look at the Tenth Amendment and insist on making the Supreme Court respect it as the fundamental limit on their power. And then you would grab on to that phrase about all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government being reserved "to the States, or the People", and you'd start screaming about the People having the right to decide this issue for themselves, individually.

I might still want to stand up for the life of every unborn child, but I'd be a preacher, not a legislator.

But probably, a lot of conservative, Bible-believing and God-fearing and human-loving folks would want to make this crusade for the unborn the next Civil War, and I think they do have the morally superior cause. We're not very great people when we can't be responsible for our actions with one another and don't care for our own offspring. Hot words maybe to folks whose moral center is contemporary state indoctrination rather than the Bible, but the whole reason people have cultivated the Biblical line of morals across a few thousand years is that it produces humans worth caring about. yep. kids.

maybe kids who will care for their parents in old age, and try to treat other people kindly or serve them even, with some kind of very high idea about the worth of human life.

 

[Siro]

That's a lovely thought salad, but there was no real connection between the response and the question. Yes, the woman finds herself attached to an embryo/fetus she has never met.



You don't want to the give the fetus the *same* rights as anyone else, you want to give the fetus rights that no other human possess, and you justify that through an act of the woman where no wrong is performed, using the word "consequences" to hide the moral opprobrium you are attaching to it.



Unless you have some sort of medical license, I don't think there is any law that requires you to flip over a person, even if you think they are drowning in their vomit. Morally required/expected is a different issue.

You've responded to none of what I said. The fact she never "met" the fetus is completely and utterly irrelevant. The violinist scenario is a caricature where the person is a helpless victim being controlled by outside forces. It's not even an effective attempt at emotional manipulation. Getting pregnant is precisely like being kidnapped and forced to serve someone against my will! Is that really the best justification you can come up for killing a human being?

As for consequences, I was using the word to mean what it actually means. I know that the pro-choice religion likes to rob words of their meaning (like calling a fetus a parasite), but I use the word to describe cause and effect. Sex might not be wrong, but it has consequences. You accept those consequences when you make the choice to have sex.

And my example of the drunk person is supposed to be an analogy, which is a concept you clearly understand given your defense of the violinist parable. The point is, killing someone because keeping them alive is an inconvenience is NOT a morally acceptable stance. If liberals want to pretend it is, they might as well be consistent. No more complaints about death penalty, animal welfare, environmental issues, or anything that supposedly reflect a compassionate world-view where all living things deserve a chance to live and prosper.

 

[One Brow]

You've responded to none of what I said. The fact she never "met" the fetus is completely and utterly irrelevant. The violinist scenario is a caricature where the person is a helpless victim being controlled by outside forces. It's not even an effective attempt at emotional manipulation. Getting pregnant is precisely like being kidnapped and forced to serve someone against my will! Is that really the best justification you can come up for killing a human being?

As for consequences, I was using the word to mean what it actually means. I know that the pro-choice religion likes to rob words of their meaning (like calling a fetus a parasite), but I use the word to describe cause and effect. Sex might not be wrong, but it has consequences. You accept those consequences when you make the choice to have sex.

And my example of the drunk person is supposed to be an analogy, which is a concept you clearly understand given your defense of the violinist parable. The point is, killing someone because keeping them alive is an inconvenience is NOT a morally acceptable stance. If liberals want to pretend it is, they might as well be consistent. No more complaints about death penalty, animal welfare, environmental issues, or anything that supposedly reflect a compassionate world-view where all living things deserve a chance to live and prosper.

Last I heard, women can not choose when to ovulate, whether fertilization will occur, or whether implantation is allowed. Those are all forces beyond a woman's control. For many women, getting pregnant and being forced to carry child is, indeed, very much like being forced to serve against their will, by their own testimony. Who are you to say the comparison is inapt?

Then, using the word the way you claim you are using it, undertaking the responsibility of getting an abortion is accepting and dealing with the consequence of having an unintended pregnancy.

In a situation where rights conflict, it is not morally permissible to use a faultless action of one party as a justification for deciding that their rights can be abridged.

 

[GVC]

to the extent that we have no rights whatsoever except what the government deigns to let us have is the central fact of our political existence today.

That's the central fact of all people's political existence everywhere and always.

 

[moevillini]

...Sex might not be wrong, but it has consequences. You accept those consequences when you make the choice to have sex...

Sex MIGHT not be wrong? Well then the only absolutely OK method of family planning is to abstain from intercourse - unless at least one of you has been sterilized.

 

[Siro]

Sex MIGHT not be wrong? Well then the only absolutely OK method of family planning is to abstain from intercourse - unless at least one of you has been sterilized.

How does the first sentence relate to the second?

 

[One Brow]

The fact that our state-controlled schools have devalued us to the extent that we have no rights whatsoever except what the government deigns to let us have is the central fact of our political existence today.

Technically, it's the rights recognized by our culture, even when he official government policy wishes otherwise. If the culture as a whole values freedom of religion, then religious persecutions are rare even when the government wishes otherwise.

 

[Siro]

Last I heard, women can not choose when to ovulate, whether fertilization will occur, or whether implantation is allowed. Those are all forces beyond a woman's control. For many women, getting pregnant and being forced to carry child is, indeed, very much like being forced to serve against their will, by their own testimony. Who are you to say the comparison is inapt?

Then, using the word the way you claim you are using it, undertaking the responsibility of getting an abortion is accepting and dealing with the consequence of having an unintended pregnancy.

In a situation where rights conflict, it is not morally permissible to use a faultless action of one party as a justification for deciding that their rights can be abridged.

You're not evaluating the argument objectively. If this is just about you being right, then by all means, have the last word. But if we're to have a meaningful debate, we must remain intellectually honest.

A woman also did not choose their blood pressure, or the color of their skin. What is your point? The pregnancy is an outcome of a decision they made. No amount of equivocation changes that fact. You act like a woman wakes up one morning, and jumps in terror as she finds out someone stuck a baby into her body while she slept.

All you're saying is that since the pregnancy is an inconvenience, it is within one's right to terminate it. That does not apply to any other analogous situation in real life. If that is the case, then killing anyone is acceptable, as long as I can come up with some "right" that his existence conflicts with.

And it is PERFECTLY acceptable to use one's faultless action to abridge their rights. If I get sick and fall behind on my financial commitments, I should expect to pay the late fees. If my foot accidently slips off the break pedal and I hit the car in front of me, I should expect to pay for the other person's damages. Similarly, if my choice to have sex results in its natural outcome, I should expect to carry it out.

I have yet to hear a single convincing justification of why one's inconvenience justifies killing another.

 

[moevillini]

Sex MIGHT not be wrong? Well then the only absolutely OK method of family planning is to abstain from intercourse - unless at least one of you has been sterilized.

How does the first sentence relate to the second?

I guess it doesn't really relate, I'm just wondering exactly what you mean by "sex might not be wrong" - - do you mean that you haven't decided whether it's wrong or not? or that its wrong under some circumstances but not wrong under others? I'm trying to understand what you meant by that statement.


As to the second part of my post, I'm curious what your thoughts are on family planning. Particularly in light of what's quoted below.

A woman also did not choose their blood pressure, or the color of their skin. What is your point? The pregnancy is an outcome of a decision they made. No amount of equivocation changes that fact. You act like a woman wakes up one morning, and jumps in terror as she finds out someone stuck a baby into her body while she slept.

All you're saying is that since the pregnancy is an inconvenience, it is within one's right to terminate it. That does not apply to any other analogous situation in real life. If that is the case, then killing anyone is acceptable, as long as I can come up with some "right" that his existence conflicts with.

And it is PERFECTLY acceptable to use one's faultless action to abridge their rights. If I get sick and fall behind on my financial commitments, I should expect to pay the late fees. If my foot accidently slips off the break pedal and I hit the car in front of me, I should expect to pay for the other person's damages. Similarly, if my choice to have sex results in its natural outcome, I should expect to carry it out.

I have yet to hear a single convincing justification of why one's inconvenience justifies killing another.

And you won't. I'm pretty sure that NOTHING would justify it in your mind. But your mind is not my mind, and my mind might see things a little differently. Who's right? I don't know, so I will base my decisions on my own personal values. Simple as that.

 

[babe]

That's the central fact of all people's political existence everywhere and always.

I can see where this is true in Canada, but in the United States we once tried to do things differently. . . . .jus' sayin'.

 

[Siro]

I guess it doesn't really relate, I'm just wondering exactly what you mean by "sex might not be wrong" - - do you mean that you haven't decided whether it's wrong or not? or that its wrong under some circumstances but not wrong under others? I'm trying to understand what you meant by that statement.


As to the second part of my post, I'm curious what your thoughts are on family planning. Particularly in light of what's quoted below.




And you won't. I'm pretty sure that NOTHING would justify it in your mind. But your mind is not my mind, and my mind might see things a little differently. Who's right? I don't know, so I will base my decisions on my own personal values. Simple as that.

I did not mean anything at all by including "might" in that sentence. It was just a stylistic choice. I don't think there's anything wrong with consensual sex.

As for values, I don't think it's relative. I think morality must be an objective system based in reality and on the principles of logic and causality. If we both agree on certain first principles, such as "aversion to harm", as OB and myself seem to, then there must be an answer to the question of which value is better at achieving a specific objective.

In other words, I think that the concepts of right and wrong are very real. I'm an atheist and I view morality as a man-made system inspired by social instincts, desire to survive, desire to live well, and other aspects of human existence. I thus think that it is our responsibility as moral beings to reach some sort of agreement on why something is, or isn't, moral.

 

[GVC]

I can see where this is true in Canada, but in the United States we once tried to do things differently. . . . .jus' sayin'.

********. It was the government then that guaranteed rights too. Or do you actually think that everyone has enforceable rights in the absence of some sort of government? Or worse, are you claiming that the average person living in America had more rights in 1776 than today?

I don't really want to get sucked into this cluster****. Just found your post filled with historical revisionism and other self serving ******** amusing.