So, ATS, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

This entire debate is a waste of time as long as we dont have the facts on when a soul enters a body. Heck, most people dont even agree on whether a soul exists or not. Thats the state of ignorance humanity is in.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I agree with the basic gist of your statement, however I don't think the belief in a soul necessary to the question. I believe determining when sentient consciousness manifests is the same basic question, but without the religious implications. The same problem remains, however; when is this? This question may be forever unanswerable or may some day be as clear as seeing a brain tumor with an MRI.

Pro choice of course. I actually believe the age limit should be raised past pre birth all the way to 18 years old. Now that would be pro choice!!!

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Is the black African human? Can we at least agree that they are partially human? How about legislating it? Compromise? Let's allow them to "count" as two-thirds of a human. Can the master kill his slave? Why not, the slave is property!

The notion that personhood was denied to blacks is a pro-life lie that people who do not know history might believe. The Supreme Court in Dred Scott never stated that Blacks were not persons, but rather that they were not citizens of the United States, and thus could not sue in federal courts. It wasn't that they read it and denied the rights of citizenship based upon the Constitution, but rather that they ignored the Constitution entirely.

Matter of fact, the entire civil rights era owes the Constitution for its ability to be asserted in the first place -- it was through and within the letter of the Constitution that all civil rights arguments were based and found undeniable. That there were and are violations of civil rights and constitutional law doesn't mean that the Constitution was or is wrong, it merely means that such violations stood until challenged. Once challenged, the violations are found to be entirely unsupportable according to the Constitution. ;-D

Thurgood Marshall was clear on the idea that the strongest way to achieve a change in our legal system was to work from within constitutional outlines -- it's all there, and when directly referred to, it is a most fair document. It's just that sometimes people don't challenge violations right away.

So, no, nothing in the original Constitution ever said that blacks weren't people, pro-lifers keep forgetting this though.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
If he has been accorded even partly human status, then lethal force must be used in restraint. Plantation master: It has been said that slaves are learning to read. What say you as to the meaning of this? Nonsense! "Some" slaves may have learned rudimentary "reading", but this does not prove in any way that they are fully human, much less the equal of the White Man! God forbid!

To me, especially when it comes to trotting out the various "legal" issues, it may not be quite the same issue, true, but it sort of rhymes I think?

Slaves wanted to separate themselves from entities which directly made use of their bodies, and they wanted to stop this infringement on their liberty.

The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment made this legally possible.

Unwillingly pregnant women want to separate themselves from entities which directly make use of their bodies, and stop this infringement on their liberty and bodily integrity. Roe vs. Wade and its progeny made this legally possible.

Ask yourself - did a slaveowner want to become separated from his property?

Originally posted by joechip
I believe determining when sentient consciousness manifests is the same basic question, but without the religious implications. The same problem remains, however; when is this?

This only matters on a religious/philosophical level. Even those already born don't have the "right to life" at the expense of someone else so a challenge to the law with that argument would be moot.

Even so, elective abortion is often restricted after viability. Roe allowed states to limit post-viable abortions and most states have. Fetal viability, is a medical determination not a moral or philospohical one - which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination. Ensoulment or "sentient consciousness" isn't a good starting point since it's too vague.

Even so, remember when Christianity used to determine stages based on ensoulment. Rosemary Ruether points out, "Thomas Aquinas might well have had to place the point of human ensoulment in the last trimester if he had been acquainted with modern embryology."

Uncanny, they had it right the first time. Then they fumbled the ball around 150 years ago.

Even those already born don't have the "right to life" at the expense of someone else so a challenge to the law with that argument would be moot.

This statement is clearly untrue. Those already born certainly have a "right to life" at the expense of someone else, namely their parents. If you fail to feed your baby and it dies, that's negligent homicide and you go to jail. The food, shelter, general upkeep are certainly "at the expense of someone else." The definition of personhood has nothing to do with the ability to fend for oneself. Absurd.

reply to post by igor_ats

Ensoulment or "sentient consciousness" isn't a good starting point since it's too vague.

Conscionusness is not vague or metaphysical term. Its concrete phychological and physiological property which can be determined by EEG scans.

Even those already born don't have the "right to life" at the expense of someone else so a challenge to the law with that argument would be moot.

How so? They clearly have. You have to care of your children otherwise you go to jail, and I agree with it. You are dependent on your parents or others till you get your own living and job, so this cannot be the distinction between right to live and no right to live, otherwise we could kill even teenagers.

Originally posted by joechip

Even those already born don't have the "right to life" at the expense of someone else so a challenge to the law with that argument would be moot.

This statement is clearly untrue. Those already born certainly have a "right to life" at the expense of someone else, namely their parents. If you fail to feed your baby and it dies, that's negligent homicide and you go to jail. The food, shelter, general upkeep are certainly "at the expense of someone else." The definition of personhood has nothing to do with the ability to fend for oneself. Absurd.

At the "expense of someone else" is not what you think it is.

When it comes to bodily resources and who has the right to take what they want, what the right to privacy is about and what Roe was based on, isn't child support, feeding a baby etc.

I already explained it before.

When someone is pregnant it is her body that is the life support for the unwanted z/e/f. Similarly:

"
Except no one has the right to life at the expense of someone else. Because no living, already born human being has the right to demand so much as a drop of blood from another human being. Even when they are liable for their predicament.

Say you negligently started a fire and you were the only bone marrow match for a person who is dying as a result from it, it would be a very upright and good of you to donate to him/her, but the state cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure to which you have not consented. You may be thrown in jail or pay with your wallet, you don't pay for it with your own bodily resources. The same notion applies to pregnant women.
"

If the government was to force blood "donor" programmes to save lives I bet most pro-lifers would be silently protesting against it hoping everyone else makes enough noise to stop it. Absurd yes?

Originally posted by Maslo
How so? They clearly have. You have to care of your children otherwise you go to jail. . .

Explained above.

You may argue all parents have a duty of care to children born or unborn, however, a woman can relinquish his/her parenting responsibilities through adoption or simply give it to the care someone will look after it.

The only choice a woman has to terminate her pregnancy is to have an abortion. The situation is quite different because the expense of someone is bodily resources - right to privacy.

If I smoke 10 packs a day, should I expect my father to be forced to donate one of his lungs to me one day? How many fellow pro-lifers here agree with that being part of "parental responsibility". I bet none.

Originally posted by Maslo
Conscionusness is not vague or metaphysical term. Its concrete phychological and physiological property which can be determined by EEG scans.

Consciousness has a different difnition depending on what category. What category are you using? "Oh this machine here gets us some brain wave results. . ."

At what point is a zygote embryo or fetus Conscious? Pro-lifers emphasize -- with great exaggeration -- that the central nervous system begins working at 20 days, the heart at 24 days, and brainwaves at 43 days. What they don't tell you is that these are simply the first cells to maneuver themselves into place, and it will take months to construct these organs. Measurements taken by pro-lifers early in the development cycle that the brain is sufficient correlate similar results by those also given by a watermelon.

Normally it takes until the 5th month of pregnancy before all the organs (except the brain and central nervous system) are completed, and by this time most abortions have already been performed. The brain and central nervous system are the fetus' most complex and longest running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy. Interestingly, it is not until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth.

These are quotations from a website about premature babies:

My little guy turned 2 today. He weighted 1 lb 13 ozs at birth and the last time he was weighted (about 3 months ago) he weighted 28 lbs.

My son weighed 1 lb 6 ozs at birth. He is now 13 months old and weighs 16 lbs 9 ozs!

My micro preemie was 2lbs 3.75oz 27wks...now at 4months corrected she is 10lbs 4.4oz

Isaiah was 1 lb 10 oz and is now 3 lb 14 oz it took seven weeks for him to get to 3 lbs.

My daughter was a 24 weeker weighing 1lb 2oz, she is now 15 months old and weighs 18 pounds.

My beautiful baby girl was born 12/13/09 at 27wks weighing 1lb 9oz. She is now 7wks old (35wks corrected) and weighs 3lb 8oz. She will start feeding from bottle in next couple days, so I expect she may lose a couple ounces, just from the work of feeding.

My daughter was 1lb 4oz and 28wks born 2-17-06 and is only 24lbs 36 inches.

My baby boy was born Nov 17 2005 at 1lb 15 oz. He is now 4 years old and 27lbs.

My son Jackson was born on November 13, 2009 at 28 weeks and weighed 2lbs 13 ounces he is now 4 months old and weighs 13 pounds!

My son was born at 24 weeks weighing 1 lb 5.4 oz 12 1/4 inches long on March 20 2009. On his last appt a couple days before his 1st bday he was 17 lbs even and 28 1/4 inches long.

My twin girls were born at 24 weeks weighing 13 oz and 1 pound 1 oz and they are a month old now at 1 pound 2 oz and 1 pound 9 oz.

My twins were born at 27 weeks...baby A was 2 pounds 3 ounces and Baby B was 1 pound 14 ounces. They are 3 and A weighs around 35 pounds and B weighs around 28 pounds.

reply to post by igor_ats

static.guim.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...

are you some kind of specialist in fetal development, as evidenced by these dictates?
or a gynecologist?

""Normally it takes until the 5th month of pregnancy before all the organs (except the brain and central nervous system) are completed, and by this time most abortions have already been performed. The brain and central nervous system are the fetus' most complex and longest running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy. Interestingly, it is not until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth.""

reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer


Abortion Is MURDER . A Statement based on Moral and Ethical grounds ..................Discuss.........

reply to post by igor_ats

The notion that personhood was denied to blacks is a pro-life lie that people who do not know history might believe.

Thank you counselor. Yet another black hat for me. "Pro-life lie". Hmmm.

Probably this is a point of view thing. You are clearly someone who looks at matters from a legal perspective, almost exclusively when it pertains to this issue, if your many posts are any indication. Are you perhaps a bit too prone to seeing an enemy sometimes?

I was not aware that the slavery issue was yet another pro-life trick. Perhaps I can get a pass on this one, being agnostic, I seldom read religious tracts, and I suppose that's where something so silly would have to be found.

Of course, I would say that you missed my point. Understandable, since it wasn't phrased legalistically.

Why the idea of connecting slavery to abortion hit me had more to do with the way this debate was sounding to me. It seemed reminiscent of old arguments about slavery.

Frankly, your bold statement about black personhood sounds a bit ignorant, but I'm sure you have a law book handy to defend it. Of course, if you pry your face from that tree, you might find there is a forest.

This is a bigger issue than the mere present legalities. It is in fact philosophical, perhaps some will think it's religious, if I was to judge based on talk of things like "ensoulment". It must be ethical, since it is a matter treated of in our courts.

But back to my point, the one you missed. Whether you want to use some legal term (no doubt "personhood" qualifies, else you would have chosen another), the fact is, there was a whole lot of debate in the decades that led up to the Civil War, and it had rather little to do with whether slaves were "citizens". That's absurd. Yes, the Abolitionists had gone that far in their thinking, but that was still a rather radical idea, as Dred Scott helped to clarify. If there was one thing people agreed upon by the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, very few thought they should be "citizens". Lincoln is famously quoted as emphatically being not just against equality, not merely for "apartheid", but he could have been called a full-blown "deportationist". Why? Because most were still trying to figure out how human blacks were!

The essential element of that old debate, I contend, is not terribly unlike the present one regarding abortion. In other words, WHAT exactly are we dealing with here. Read the many posts, put aside your law books, and bias, and see that this may in fact STILL be the crux of the matter.

BACK THEN:

An Excerpt from: Richard H. Colfax's Evidence Against the Views of the Abolitionists, Consisting of Physical and Moral Proofs, of the Natural Inferiority of the Negroes (New York: James T. M. Bleakley Publishers, 1833):
The lengthy arguments concerning the intellect of the negroe drawn from history, and the numerous explanations of his mental inferiority, which have at various times been given, (without supposing him of a distinct species,) are rendered totally useless, if it can be shown, that the portion of his brain, which presides over the animal functions, exceeds, to any great extent, that from which the mental endowments arise. Furthermore, although we are not believers in physiognomy, (as a science,) yet we cannot avoid making a remark upon the negro's face, which may not be entirely overlooked--although we may thereby risk the commission of a tautology.

His lips are thick, his zygomatic muscles, large and full* (*"These muscles are always in action during laughter and the extreme enlargement of them indicates a low mind." Lavater)--his jaws large and projecting,--his chin retreating,--his forehead low, flat and slanting, and (as a consequence of this latter character,) his eyeballs are very prominent,--apparently larger than those of white men;--all of these peculiarities at the same time contributing to reduce his facial angle almost to a level with that of the brute--Can any such man become great or elevated?--the history of the Africans will give a decisive answer. Even the ancients were fully aware of this kind of mutual coincidence, between the facial angle, and the powers of the mind: consequently, in their statues of heroes and philosophers, they usually extended the angle to 90 degrees,--making that of the Gods to be 100: beyond which, it cannot be enlarged without deformity. Modern anatomists have fixed the average facial angle of the European at 80--negro 70,--ourang outang 58--all brutes below 70, the average angle of quadrupeds being about 20. ******
 
If then it is consistent with science, to believe that the mind will be great in proportion to the size and figure of the brain: it is equally reasonable to suppose, that the acknowledged meanness of the negroe's intellect, only coincides with the shape of his head; or in other words, that his want of capability to receife a complicated education renders it improper and impotitic, that he should be allowed the privileges of citizenship in an enlightened country! It is in vain for the Amalgamationists to tell us that the negroes have had no opportunity to improve, or have had less opportunities than European nations; the public are well aware that three or four thousand years could not have passed away, without throwing advantages in the way of the Africans; yet in all this time, with every advantage that liberty, and their proximity to refined nations could bestow, they have never evenattempted to raise themselves above their present equivocal station, in the great zoological chain. (pp. 24-25)

By the time Oregon was ready for statehood, we might find something a bit more advanced concerning thoughts of the nature of the Negro, as published in the Oregonian:

...Let any gentleman read the history of a physician that has dissected a N-word and see what you will find: their very brain is tinctured with black.

Well, maybe my point is a bit more clear now. A pro-life trick? OK, I guess. However, I might suggest you occasionally pick up a history book. The law books may be wonderful, but you may miss the essence of what is at issue, if you continue to focus on a tree, rather than the forest.

JR

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer

 

Abortion Is MURDER . A Statement based on Moral and Ethical grounds ..................Discuss.........

Ppl are free to interpet abortion as murder, but it is important to note that murder is a legal term with a legal definition.

So one cannot say abortion is murder as a factual statement.

Abortion has never been murder under US law, not even prior to Roe v Wade. Even in the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned, it won't be then either.

There has never been a single state that classified it as a homicide at any time in the history of the US. "Murder" is a legal term, with a specific definition, and the ones pro-life offer isn't it.

When a soldier kills "something that is human" in line with the rules of engagement, it isn't; when a police officer kills "something that is human" in the line of duty, it isn't; when someone kills "something that is human" in self-defense, it isn't. For that matter, women expel ova every month when they menstruate, and ova are "something that is human" as well, and that isn't murder either.

A human being can be defined many ways... the only relevant one to the abortion issue however, is the legal one. The human status of the fetus has been addressed in Roe - that is it's human status wasn't relevant since even persons born do not have the "right to life" at the expense of somene else.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by igor_ats

 

The notion that personhood was denied to blacks is a pro-life lie that people who do not know history might believe.

This is a bigger issue than the mere present legalities. . .

Whether you want to use some legal term (no doubt "personhood" qualifies, else you would have chosen another), the fact is, there was a whole lot of debate in the decades that led up to the Civil War, and it had rather little to do with whether slaves were "citizens". That's absurd. Yes, the Abolitionists had gone that far in their thinking, but that was still a rather radical idea, as Dred Scott helped to clarify. If there was one thing people agreed upon by the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, very few thought they should be "citizens". Lincoln is famously quoted as emphatically being not just against equality, not merely for "apartheid", but he could have been called a full-blown "deportationist". Why? Because most were still trying to figure out how human blacks were!

I would posit that the legal issue is the bigger issue of the debate. If the aim is to criminilize abortion we need a legal reason to do so.

At one time, the majority felt that black people were not human, or were less human than the rest of the human species. This presupposition was found to be lacking in sufficient power to prevent the corrective effect of the constitutional rights accorded each individual in this nation. . . it is to the Constitution we turn - not majority morality or popular opinion.

Slavery is very much a legal issue as much as abortion is a legal issue. What replaced the law on slavery? The law. In place of an executive order.

A (say) Catholic may wish to outlaw abortion because they consider it immoral and that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are people under the law. . . but they also would consider speaking the name of their lord in vain and worshipping any other before him as immoral too, and those actions are specifically protected rights of every US citizen, and cannot be made illegal.

As I said before:

"
Slaves wanted to separate themselves from entities which directly made use of their bodies, and they wanted to stop this infringement on their liberty.

The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment made this legally possible.

Unwillingly pregnant women want to separate themselves from entities which directly make use of their bodies, and stop this infringement on their liberty and bodily integrity. Roe vs. Wade and its progeny made this legally possible.

Ask yourself - did a slaveowner want to become separated from his property?
"

Also pro-lifers correlating slaves (already born) with brainless organisms such as zygotes, embryos and fetuses isn't really a nice comparison (imo). Anti-abortionists' moral objection to abortion relies on the belief that the z/e/f is a person - hence their comparison to slavery. This position has consistently failed to win support and undermine the legal provision of abortion. So it seems that opponents to abortion have turned to other means to further their cause. One such example is attempting to claim alleged mental illness into a legal strategy to undermine the provision of abortion.

Originally posted by slugger9787
static.guim.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...

are you some kind of specialist in fetal development, as evidenced by these dictates?
or a gynecologist?

Gynecologist?. . . Nope just someone who's seen this debate before.

Arguing that sometimes premature babies may survive with expensive round the clock care, often crippling long term costs is not really a good argument for a law against abortion, or to lower the limit at least.

Advances in medical technology increasing the chances of a premature baby survivng outside the womb for women who want children. These chances are still very low, and most abortion are not third trimester. Your own link describes this issue.

reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer


Pro choice because there are enough idiots in the world now, another thing there are too many idiot parents neglecting, abusing, and killing their babies. Actually I think they should give every single mother to be a phsychological test- fail and either the baby is aborted or becomes a ward of the state, however there are too many of those too. But I definately think some people should just be allowed to abort. And some people should be locked up for being sleazy and sleeping around. Irresponsible parents= messed up future adult!

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to

 

Pro choice because there are enough idiots in the world now,

An idiot still has a right to life.

another thing there are too many idiot parents neglecting, abusing, and killing their babies.

so that means kill the babies because the parents are idiots.
maybe we should let all the sons and daughters out of prisns and replace them with their parents?

Actually I think they should give every single mother to be a phsychological test- fail and either the baby is aborted or becomes a ward of the state, however there are too many of those too.

again kill baby because mom is idiot?
how many chilldren do you have?

But I definately think some people should just be allowed to abort. And some people should be locked up for being sleazy and sleeping around. Irresponsible parents= messed up future adult!

how about instead follow the absolute objective moral laws that have been on earth for seven thousand years.

you know the ten commandments
thou shalt not comit adultry, shalt not kill, etc.
by the way, i am not at all surprised this kind of dialogue coming from a destroyer.

As far as I'm concerned I am Pro Non Of My Business!!

For those that may have an opinion on either side is your business, but I do not claim to know the situation, or reasoning of anyone's else's decision, whether to have a child or not.

We cannot push our own ideas against anyone, and this is basically for those that are for either side.

Those who make either decision will sooner or later have to deal with the consequences of their choices.

Once we realize that this is no longer a "it takes a village to raise a child" world, and that goes for either situation, that their choices are one THEY have to live with, then maybe this can be left to those who have to make the choice, and make sure that our choices have less of a complicated basis in our own lives.


Peace, NRE.