Explain why you can't smother your 1 and 2 year old

[Anonymous]

Here's a rational argument-if you believe that abortion is wrong, don't have one. Do not attempt to impose your beliefs on others in this country. Nuff said?

Hardly. I imagine you believe murder and rape are wrong, but you don't have any problem "imposing that belief on others" by supporting laws that prohibit and punish those acts. Our laws impose our moral beliefs on other people all the time. That's what penal laws are for. So this is a silly argument.

The fact that bacteria is also "life" is likewise a silly argument. It's not HUMAN life, and never will be. Please, can't anyone who claims to be pro-choice explain why a 1 year old is a human life and a fetus still in utero, as a scientific matter, is not? Just answer that question. If it is unanswerable, and we purport to value human life, why is it moral to destroy anything that could potentially already be a human life? Why not err on the side of caution? Certainly there are competing interests, but shouldn't life always trump every other interest?

Those who are pro-choice cringe at the comparison, but should realize how eerily similar their arguments are to the arguments that used to support slavery. It was okay to enslave Africans because they weren't perceived as "fully human." They didn't legally or morally count as whole "persons." That, of course, was simply a rationalization to justify the way the slaves were treated. Ditto for how we view the fetus today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
Those who are pro-choice cringe at the comparison, but should realize how eerily similar their arguments are to the arguments that used to support slavery. It was okay to enslave Africans because they weren't perceived as "fully human." They didn't legally or morally count as whole "persons." That, of course, was simply a rationalization to justify the way the slaves were treated. Ditto for how we view the fetus today.

I too feel that slavery was the great shame of our history. And I don't see how you fail to see that one can just as easily argue that it is sinful to enslave a woman to a fetus. The analogy that fits is the one that agrees with one's preconceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, can't anyone who claims to be pro-choice explain why a 1 year old is a human life and a fetus still in utero, as a scientific matter, is not? Just answer that question.

Because a fetus in utero (before viability) is not capable of living outside of the womb. It is not, to me, therefor a human "life". It has the potential to develop into one, but it is completely dependent upon the gestating mother and HER resources.

It is something more than an animal, but not a human life.

If it is unanswerable, and we purport to value human life, why is it moral to destroy anything that could potentially already be a human life? Why not err on the side of caution? Certainly there are competing interests, but shouldn't life always trump every other interest?

It's not unanswerable, it's just that people have different answers. Thereofre, since there is no unanimous agreement, why not let the woman who is gestating the embry and fetus, the woman whose resources are being taxed to bring that potential life to term, be the one to decide whether it is moral to end the pregnancy if that is her choice?

Human life should trump other interests, but the potential life of an embryo or fetus (before viability) does NOT trump other interests.

Those who are pro-choice cringe at the comparison, but should realize how eerily similar their arguments are to the arguments that used to support slavery. It was okay to enslave Africans because they weren't perceived as "fully human." They didn't legally or morally count as whole "persons." That, of course, was simply a rationalization to justify the way the slaves were treated. Ditto for how we view the fetus today

African slaves were capable of living life outside of the womb, so they do count as fully human, even if Americans (and others) did see that at the time. They were wrong.

But the comparison between Africans enslaved, and embryos 2 weeks post-conception, is a silly one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, can't anyone who claims to be pro-choice explain why a 1 year old is a human life and a fetus still in utero, as a scientific matter, is not? Just answer that question.

Because a fetus in utero (before viability) is not capable of living outside of the womb. It is not, to me, therefor a human "life". It has the potential to develop into one, but it is completely dependent upon the gestating mother and HER resources.

In the same way, an acorn is not an oak tree; and a watermelon seed is not a watermelon plant.

A society may, for some reason, decide that it is against the law to chop down oak teees in its national forests. But that law would apply to living, existing oak trees, and possibly saplings, but not to acorns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, can't anyone who claims to be pro-choice explain why a 1 year old is a human life and a fetus still in utero, as a scientific matter, is not? Just answer that question.

Because a fetus in utero (before viability) is not capable of living outside of the womb. It is not, to me, therefor a human "life". It has the potential to develop into one, but it is completely dependent upon the gestating mother and HER resources.

In the same way, an acorn is not an oak tree; and a watermelon seed is not a watermelon plant.

A society may, for some reason, decide that it is against the law to chop down oak teees in its national forests. But that law would apply to living, existing oak trees, and possibly saplings, but not to acorns.

Oh for crying out loud, not the acorn person again. An embryo or fetus is not the same thing as an acorn. Please go back to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Because a fetus in utero (before viability) is not capable of living outside of the womb. It is not, to me, therefor a human "life".

A newborn can't survive on its own. So should its mother be able to kill it if she doesn't feel like caring for it? I don't think so.

Please try again.

[Anonymous]

For those who are pro-life:

If you were facing almost certain death or disability while pregnant, and the only way to preserve your health would be abortion, would you abort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Because a fetus in utero (before viability) is not capable of living outside of the womb. It is not, to me, therefor a human "life".

A newborn can't survive on its own. So should its mother be able to kill it if she doesn't feel like caring for it? I don't think so.

Please try again.

I'm sorry, let me spell it out for you.

A newborn baby can survive outside the womb, if someone feeds it and takes care of it.

But even if a 6 week post conception embryo is "born" and has the best, most loving care, it canNOT survive outside the womb.

Neither can a 12 week old fetus. No matter how much you feed it and take are of it, it cannot survive independent of a woman's uterus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Because a fetus in utero (before viability) is not capable of living outside of the womb. It is not, to me, therefor a human "life".

A newborn can't survive on its own. So should its mother be able to kill it if she doesn't feel like caring for it? I don't think so.

Please try again.

I'm sorry, let me spell it out for you.

A newborn baby can survive outside the womb, if someone feeds it and takes care of it.

But even if a 6 week post conception embryo is "born" and has the best, most loving care, it canNOT survive outside the womb.

Neither can a 12 week old fetus. No matter how much you feed it and take are of it, it cannot survive independent of a woman's uterus.

Just different points in development. Still a human life.

What is it like to be so....cold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who are pro-life: If you were facing almost certain death or disability while pregnant, and the only way to preserve your health would be abortion, would you abort?

Not everyone who is "pro-life" would argue against abortion in *all* cases, including the one you mention above. If forced to choose a label for myself, I would have to say I am more pro-life than pro-choice, but because I do believe abortion needs to be available to women in some circumstances, I don't actively campaign to have it made illegal. That doesn't mean that abortion in many circumstances doesn't turn my stomach. I am guessing that most women, regardless of which camp they would place themselves in, do not view abortion as a cut and dry, black and white thing.

I honestly cannot say what I would choose when it comes to disability, that could cover a large spectrum, but I probably would choose to abort if I was facing *certain death*, because I already have a child I would not want to leave motherless if I could help it. And I don't think that I would be emotionally unscathed after having that abortion, despite the extreme circumstance that prompted it. What a horrible situation to contemplate for any woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, let me spell it out for you.

A newborn baby can survive outside the womb, if someone feeds it and takes care of it.

But even if a 6 week post conception embryo is "born" and has the best, most loving care, it canNOT survive outside the womb.

Neither can a 12 week old fetus. No matter how much you feed it and take are of it, it cannot survive independent of a woman's uterus.

Just different points in development. Still a human life.

What is it like to be so....cold?

Well, as usually, that's where any argument ends. You say life begins at the moment of conception, I say it begins at the moment of viability. I think you asked someone to explain their rationale -- and I did so.

And there we have it.

[Anonymous]

No matter how you look at it.
The mother is the one who gets the blame.
She gets blamed for having children when she cannot afford it. Tax payer money is going to useless things like the war, not the children. Men get to run away from responsibility. We as a society are far more judgemental than what we are willing to accept. Only the very brave and stupid will have a baby at the wrong time. And when they do we judge them.
That is how it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are pro-life: If you were facing almost certain death or disability while pregnant, and the only way to preserve your health would be abortion, would you abort?

Not everyone who is "pro-life" would argue against abortion in *all* cases, including the one you mention above. If forced to choose a label for myself, I would have to say I am more pro-life than pro-choice, but because I do believe abortion needs to be available to women in some circumstances, I don't actively campaign to have it made illegal. That doesn't mean that abortion in many circumstances doesn't turn my stomach. I am guessing that most women, regardless of which camp they would place themselves in, do not view abortion as a cut and dry, black and white thing.

I honestly cannot say what I would choose when it comes to disability, that could cover a large spectrum, but I probably would choose to abort if I was facing *certain death*, because I already have a child I would not want to leave motherless if I could help it. And I don't think that I would be emotionally unscathed after having that abortion, despite the extreme circumstance that prompted it. What a horrible situation to contemplate for any woman.

21:22 here. Thank you for a thoughtful answer. I guess my belief is that almost everyone is pro-choice if faced with this. When I contemplate a severe disability, I think of something like persistent vegetative state from a blood clot or stroke, etc. I'm also the one who posted a few pages back about having several acquaintances who almost died and one who did die. It seems unheard of these days in the U.S., but it does still happen. One friend had a molar pregnancy that went far longer than most do (most end in pretty quick miscarriage). Hers didn't. Her kidneys shut down and her heart was failing at 20 weeks pregnant. She survived, but also had to be monitored for metastasis for a year before she could try to get pregnant again. Molar pregnancies can act like cancer, with placental cells spreading throughout the body, even to the mother's brain or bones.

I think facing abortion is horrific for most women. But I think it needs to be legal. Women deserve to live too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, if you want to make a rational argument that "life begins at conception" you should do so. (Just to be clear, you haven't.)

And neither have any of those in the "pro-choice" camp made any rationale arguments that life doesn't begin at conception.

Get off you high horse. You don't sound very rational, so you are in no position to tell others how to be.

I am not the person you are responding to -- in fact I'm the one who claims neither side has a rational basis for it's fundamental assumptions. However, I would submit that no proof of when "life" begins is needed to argue for the rights of a pregnant woman. Whether you agree with that argument is your choice, but don't expect us to abandon it to play word games with you about "life". Bacteria are alive too; do you oppose penicillin?

I hope I don't sound like I'm on a high horse. I am trying very hard to make it clear that I respect your right to your opinions, even when I think they ignore the line between your faith and other women's rights.

PP here (the one you were responding to). I agree with you here. The whole idea of "When does 'life' begin?" indicates fallacious thinking. What the anti-abortion poster is arguing that "ensoulment" begins at conception, they should say so, because that's what they're arguing. A sperm cell is alive, just as a cheek cell is alive. There's nothing about its merging with a human egg that makes it "double-alive", or what have you. But ensoulment is a fantasy-term from the world of irrational faith, so it needs to be dressed up in the robes of Science.

Just more evidence that anti-abortion PP hasn't given this any thought whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, can't anyone who claims to be pro-choice explain why a 1 year old is a human life and a fetus still in utero, as a scientific matter, is not? Just answer that question.

Because a fetus in utero (before viability) is not capable of living outside of the womb. It is not, to me, therefor a human "life". It has the potential to develop into one, but it is completely dependent upon the gestating mother and HER resources.

In the same way, an acorn is not an oak tree; and a watermelon seed is not a watermelon plant.

A society may, for some reason, decide that it is against the law to chop down oak teees in its national forests. But that law would apply to living, existing oak trees, and possibly saplings, but not to acorns.

Oh for crying out loud, not the acorn person again. An embryo or fetus is not the same thing as an acorn. Please go back to high school.

Nor is a blastocyst an embryo, fetus, or child. You're being intentionally obtuse.