The irrationality of Liberals

Originally posted by SevenBeans
I didn't ask if it was legal, I asked if it was justifiable.

Well, then the answer is No. It's not justifiable. It's a stupid question. A conjoined twin does not live INSIDE the body of another. It's a very special situation in which two people share one physical body and since they were born as people, no one has the right to take their lives.

This is not about when I think life begins or when I think it's justifiable for a person to take a life. I can't be more clear in saying that it's not my decision to make for a woman.

You seem to think that since a certain number of people think abortion is "wrong" that they have the right to make that decision for everyone. And that is my basic disagreement. It's that woman's choice. A woman's right. NOT mine and NOT yours. I cannot justify having an abortion because I have never been in the position to want one. But IF I were in that position, NO ONE has the right to tell me what to do about it. Something growing in MY body, whether it be a tumor, a benign growth, or a potential human being is MY business and NOT yours.

That's my position. If you are against abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!

Originally posted by maybereal11
Again...you are playing fast and loose with the term "life". Each human body contains thousands of various life forms in the manner of virus's, bacteria etc. A single sperm can be defined as life...Monty Python? Catholic Church? every sperm is sacred?

No I'm not. A brand new human life begins at conception, there's no other way to say it.

It's quite obtuse to be seemingly mystified that anyone could possibly perceive much difference between a brand new human life, and a sperm.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Right. A fetus contains genetic information seperate and new from the woman's genes. Agreed.

So do tumors, bacteria, viruses etc. So that by itself doesn't not constitute or define a living human life in my opinion.

It's a brand new (yes?), human (yes?), life (yes?)... it's a brand new human life.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I am contesting that by examing tons of data and statistics on spontaneous abortions/misscarriages that we can reasonably determine that "human life" occurs around the begining of the second tri-mester.

That's some of the most bassackward logic that I've ever seen. "Because many don't survive to the second trimester they aren't new human lives (even though they're new, human, and life)." Brillant.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Nature loves life...and the stats show "nature" treating a first trimester fetus vastly differently than a second trimester fetus.

What!? "Nature" kills 90 percent of sea turtles before they're two months old, therefore I conclude that until they're two months old they aren't really turtle life!"

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Well, then the answer is No. It's not justifiable. It's a stupid question. A conjoined twin does not live INSIDE the body of another. It's a very special situation in which two people share one physical body and since they were born as people, no one has the right to take their lives.

So it's perfectly justifiable to kill one of the twins a second before birth, but a second after it isn't?

Hurry up and kill it before it comes out and I'm a murderer!

Such views and laws are irrational (see thread title).

Saying "I want it to be her choice!" doesn't make it any more rational.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Something growing in MY body, whether it be a tumor, a benign growth, or a potential human being is MY business and NOT yours.

As Father's we're expected to have a deep emotional concern for our offspring (both born and unborn) and most of us do. Then we're told it's none of our business if someone wants to kill those offspring, no matter how stupid the reason is for killing them.

I wonder how many Women have thought about what it's like to have someone kill your unborn child...

Not many judging by the attitudes I see.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's my position. If you are against abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!

More like, "If you are against abortion, DON'T HAVE SEX (because a woman might abort)."

Originally posted by SevenBeans
No I'm not. A brand new human life begins at conception, there's no other way to say it.

It's quite obtuse to be seemingly mystified that anyone could possibly perceive much difference between a brand new human life, and a sperm.

No, it's a clump of cells, it doesn't feel, it cannot be upset, annoyed, feel pain, have ideas, it does not have a body or properly formed central nervous system. What mystifies me is why you would consider such a thing as having a life to lose. Even those with religious beliefs argue about when life begins, some say conception, others say when the fetus develops a circulatory system etc etc ad nauseum

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

No, it's a clump of cells, it doesn't feel, it cannot be upset, annoyed, feel pain, have ideas, it does not have a body or properly formed central nervous system. What mystifies me is why you would consider such a thing as having a life to lose. Even those with religious beliefs argue about when life begins, some say conception, others say when the fetus develops a circulatory system etc etc ad nauseum

Science says that a brand new human life begins at conception.

The only thing up for debate is when and how much protection that life deserves.

Saying that it isn't a human life is just plain ignorant.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Science says that a brand new human life begins at conception.

The only thing up for debate is when and how much protection that life deserves.

Saying that it isn't a human life is just plain ignorant.

The ignorance is yours.

I was arguing from a philosophical position, if you read my earlier responses i say clearly that biologically the fetus is alive, just as a skin cell is alive but on a philosophical level is where the debate should be had. Scientific understanding can enter here to define when the fetus becomes aware and therefore human.

You call it a life but philosophically a life is a rather fluid concept. Some philosophies argue that when the sperm and egg meet this is then a human life, other would argue that a life requires knowing what is going on around you, feeling.

Simple saying "oh sperm meets egg and therefore its a life" is completely and utterly ignorant because it ignores any and all philosophical arguments .Indeed if you are saying something is wrong then you are making a decision and that goes beyond simple biology.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

I was arguing from a philosophical position, if you read my earlier responses i say clearly that biologically the fetus is alive, just as a skin cell is alive but on a philosophical level is where the debate should be had. Scientific understanding can enter here to define when the fetus becomes aware and therefore human.

I have a degree in philosophy.

A brand new human life begins at conception, that is a scientific fact. I'll refer you once again to the first 10 pages of any biology book.

Now... having established that, you can talk about when and what protections that new human life deserves.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
I have a degree in philosophy.

A brand new human life begins at conception, that is a scientific fact. I'll refer you once again to the first 10 pages of any biology book.

Now... having established that, you can talk about when and what protections that new human life deserves.

A life is a human concept which comes around because we are self aware and can put value on our existence. The cells in the fetus are alive but it is not a life and science can't call it a life as that would be philosophy rather than empirical fact. A skin cell is alive, by your logic that means it has a life which is of course nonsense.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

A life is a human concept which comes around because we are self aware and can put value on our existence. The cells in the fetus are alive but it is not a life and science can't call it a life as that would be philosophy rather than empirical fact.

Well, science does and you are wrong.

It's an emperical fact that a brand new human life begins at conception.

Philosophy than examines what ethical consideration that life should be extended, at various stages of development.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Why should we protect human life without consciousness or sentience? We do not protect people after brain death, even if the rest of the body would be able to live on life support till natural death. Death of human person in medicine is defined by status of nervous system, so why should the beginning be defined differently?

We protect human bodies because of their nervous system, that is important because it IS a person, everything else is just "supporting structure". Thats the basis of transhumanist philosophy.

How does human embryo differ from other multicellular unsentient colonies? Two things - It has human genetic code (protecting it just for that would be speciecism, and we will have to protect all other human cells too, like blood cells) and it has a POTENTIAL to develop into conscious being, qualitativelly different from multicellular colonies. But if it has a potential to be one in the future, by definition it is not now. And should we protect systems that are able to become conscoius in the future, but are not at the moment? We will have to protect all human gametes and supercomputers then, otherwise we will not be consistent.

reply to post by Misoir


If abortion is murder, wouldn't any miscarriage be considered manslaughter?

If you define life as starting at conception, then someone has to be held accountable for ending that life.

Originally posted by Maslo
It has human genetic code (protecting it just for that would be speciecism, and we will have to protect all other human cells too, like blood cells)

There is nothing wrong with speciesism. Treating all species the same would be profoundly unethical.

Originally posted by Maslo
and it has a POTENTIAL to develop into conscious being, qualitativelly different from multicellular colonies. But if it has a potential to be one in the future, by definition it is not now.

Even if something itself has no potential to ever become a concious being, that doesn't mean its destruction is justifiable. Would you cut down a tree just for the hell of it? Ruin a great painting?

Personally I think a baby is far more beautiful than any tree or painting, you could make a very good argument that it should be given ethical consideration on aesthetic value alone.

You also have a Father, Grandparents... who probably have a deep emotional interest in the well-being of the offspring (both born and unborn). This kind of concern also deserves a great deal of ethical consideration.

In any case, treating things differently based on differing levels of potential makes perfect sense and we do it all the time.

Originally posted by Cougian

If abortion is murder, wouldn't any miscarriage be considered manslaughter?

If you define life as starting at conception, then someone has to be held accountable for ending that life.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms that obviously only apply to "the born."

However, I do think that it's somewhat disgraceful that a pregnant woman can kill or severely damage the health of an unborn child through negligence, in the form of drugs, drinking, smoking etc. and face little or no legal consequence.

I know, I know... "It's MY BODY and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!"

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by maybereal11
Again...you are playing fast and loose with the term "life". Each human body contains thousands of various life forms in the manner of virus's, bacteria etc. A single sperm can be defined as life...Monty Python? Catholic Church? every sperm is sacred?

No I'm not. A brand new human life begins at conception, there's no other way to say it.

It's quite obtuse to be seemingly mystified that anyone could possibly perceive much difference between a brand new human life, and a sperm.

Well orthodox catholics percieve little difference, thus banning contraception. Again you have used the term "brand new human life" and it is this premise that I contend is not accurate.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by maybereal11
Right. A fetus contains genetic information seperate and new from the woman's genes. Agreed.

So do tumors, bacteria, viruses etc. So that by itself doesn't not constitute or define a living human life in my opinion.

It's a brand new (yes?), human (yes?), life (yes?)... it's a brand new human life.

An adult appendix meets your qualifications for human life and is infinitately more evolved than an embryo.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by maybereal11
I am contesting that by examing tons of data and statistics on spontaneous abortions/misscarriages that we can reasonably determine that "human life" occurs around the begining of the second tri-mester.

That's some of the most bassackward logic that I've ever seen. "Because many don't survive to the second trimester they aren't new human lives (even though they're new, human, and life)." Brillant.

Because in the first trimester vs. the 2nd trimester...that biological matter is treated dramatically different by an authority infinitatly more informed than either of our scientific or religious dogma's...nature/creation/god whatever...yes.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by maybereal11
Nature loves life...and the stats show "nature" treating a first trimester fetus vastly differently than a second trimester fetus.

What!? "Nature" kills 90 percent of sea turtles before they're two months old, therefore I conclude that until they're two months old they aren't really turtle life!"

edit on 1-11-2010 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

And thus a single Sea Turtle mother will lay between 50 and 200 eggs at a time. Nature has accounted for the disparity...Humans are obviously a different creature.

Nature does not kill Sea turtles as much as they provide for other animals in the eco-system that depend on the Sea turtles to survive...Predators. Again this is not the case with Spontaneous abortions/Misscarriages.

Failed analogy for these two points and many others I could make in comparring the life cycle of a sea turtle to a human.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Such views and laws are irrational (see thread title).

Saying "I want it to be her choice!" doesn't make it any more rational.

Rationality is a judgment call. If you think my views are irrational, that's OK. I think yours are, too, so I guess we're even.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
I wonder how many Women have thought about what it's like to have someone kill your unborn child...

I don't know how many women have. And I think it would be a tragic thing for a man to deal with, having no control over the situation. But I can tell you that I was pregnant once and it was ectopic, so had to be taken immediately. So, I think I know what it's like to think about the death of my unborn child. I know what it's like to experience it with no chance of another child. So, regardless how many women think about it, I have.

More like, "If you are against abortion, DON'T HAVE SEX (because a woman might abort)."

Yes, absolutely! That's the last opportunity you have to exert your choice under the current law, so do it. Or make SURE she doesn't get pregnant.

Most of you are willing to tell the woman, "You made the choice and had sex so you have to deal with the consequences and have the baby." But you aren't willing to take the responsibility when YOU have the choice (before sex) OR deal with the consequences after you plant your seed in another person's body.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
However, I do think that it's somewhat disgraceful that a pregnant woman can kill or severely damage the health of an unborn child through negligence, in the form of drugs, drinking, smoking etc. and face little or no legal consequence.

You would have the government legally punish a pregnant woman for how she decided to handle her pregnancy? That explains a LOT. Would you also have a government-mandated schedule of prenatal Dr. visits, including regular ultrasounds, a prenatal vitamin regiment and regular testing to make sure she didn't consume a drop of alcohol? Would you have pre-birth testing done to insure she did absolutely nothing to harm the life within her? Would you then make sure this woman never smoked around her child, always drove the speed limit and fed him only healthy, government-approved snacks and meals?

It seems like you think a pregnant woman becomes public property by virtue of her ability to become pregnant! It's no wonder we'll never see eye to eye on this.

But that's OK, too. I understand a lot better where you're coming from.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

More like, "If you are against abortion, DON'T HAVE SEX (because a woman might abort)."

Yes, absolutely! That's the last opportunity you have to exert your choice under the current law, so do it. Or make SURE she doesn't get pregnant.

Under natures law as well, "why" is reasonable question to ponder.

reply to post by maybereal11


Are you asking *why* he should make sure she doesn't get pregnant? If so, the reason is that he was talking about being a father of an unborn child and not having any power over whether or not the woman aborted. To avoid a pregnancy would prevent him ever being in that position.

Today I learned that the Tea Party wants to eliminate intellectualism. Just like they did in China durring the cultural revolution and in Cambodia under the Camire Rouge. They want to go after the professors first, use poll taxes and tests for voters, and shut down public schooling. This seems very unamerican. So yeah, I'm a proud liberal.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

That explains a LOT. Would you also have a government-mandated schedule of prenatal Dr. visits, including regular ultrasounds, a prenatal vitamin regiment and regular testing to make sure she didn't consume a drop of alcohol?

That would be actually very good idea, at least in principle, cost would probably prohibit it.. Others are a bit too much far-fetched

Woman should either abort her baby at will, or, if she want to bring it to this world, society should ensure she does not damage its health. That would be breaching his human rights, you cannot damage another persons health, does not matter if its during pregnancy, e.g. from the past.