What does being "pro life" mean to you?

[harlan]

As far as rights go, I'm partial to XIV. The part where it says something about no law shall be enacted that abridges a citizens rights...deprives them of liberty.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

The attack on abortion, to my understanding is two pronged: 1. The frontal attack is based on establishing 'rights' for a fetus and then abridging a woman's rights to liberty. 2. The rear action is the deprivation of all social services, including health care and education.

Keep them stupid, poor and pregnant. Sounds like the good old days.

Not.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A woman's body containing an inseminated egg can't be compared to two people standing next to each other at a bus stop.

Certainly it can be compared - I just compared it. Human life is human life. The only difference is that one has drawn breath and the other has not - yet.

So the comparison is completely valid. The question remains unanswered.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I wholeheartedly agree that 3d trimester abortions are equivalent to a killing.

Intentional abortion of any human fetus is equivalent to killing. Killing is a precise and clinical term. If I step on an ant, I have killed it. The question is whether or not such killing is a) legally acceptable and b) morally acceptable. I don't attempt to answer either question here - but killing a human is killing a human.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Their right to kill a bystander? Not if it affects me too, Bill. I mean, am I going to be deafened by the sound of the gunshot or get splattered with blood? And who's going to clean up the mess. I don't want my tax dollars wasted on that!

Read my question again. I said nothing about rights. I played Devil's Advocate and suggested that if a person is "OK" with a woman getting an abortion on the grounds that it is none of their business, then they should be "OK" with one stranger killing another in front of them - it is likewise a killing and likewise none of their business. I simply extended a commonly-used statement about abortion ("I don't care for it, but it is not my body or my business") and applied the same logic to another type of killing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How do you feel about masturbation? What I mean is, and I'm genuine in hoping to hear your point of view, what makes the fetus, which for weeks resembles a glob of cells and then a fishy little thing, what makes that much different than your sperm?

Neither a human egg nor a human sperm will become a human being without contact with each other. Once an egg has been fertilized by a sperm, it is a new human life, which will either become a human child or it will die. It will not become anything other than human.

That is the difference. Flour and eggs make cake, but they aren't cake by themselves.

As to my thoughts on masturbation, I'm in favor of it.

 

[harlan]

What is the difference between a human life and an animal life? I mean, at the fertilized egg stage, there can't be much of a difference?

 

[elder999]

if a person is "OK" with a woman getting an abortion on the grounds that it is none of their business, then they should be "OK" with one stranger killing another in front of them - it is likewise a killing and likewise none of their business.

They are both "killings," but they are not both, necessarily, murder.

"Murder" is not simply the intentional killing of human life, but the intentional killing of an innocent person-thus excluding self-defense and warfare, as well as, perhaps, euthanasia.

Abortion is the intentional termination of pregnancy-the intentional killing of a fetus.

This brings us to the ontological question whereby the enire issue hangs: is a fetus a person?

"Personhood," of course, is a consequence of the brain. The brain doesn't fully develop in a fetus until after the first trimester, therefore, at least as far as the first trimester in this regard, the fetus is not a person, and abortion is not "murder."

 

[terryl965]

Treat everybody the way you would want to be treated, if given the choice. This covers womb to tomb.

I would have to agree with you seasoned

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What is the difference between a human life and an animal life? I mean, at the fertilized egg stage, there can't be much of a difference?

One is human life and the other is animal life. To me that is the fundamental difference.

 

[JDenver]

I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---

breath = life

In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air. It's an interesting idea.

 

[elder999]

I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---

breath = life

In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air. It's an interesting idea.

It's completely parallels Biblical and Talmudic teachings.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

They are both "killings," but they are not both, necessarily, murder.

I agree. I chose the term 'killing' advisedly.

"Murder" is not simply the intentional killing of human life, but the intentional killing of an innocent person-thus excluding self-defense and warfare, as well as, perhaps, euthanasia.

Basic agreement.

Abortion is the intentional termination of pregnancy-the intentional killing of a fetus.

Yes. Although I will note your use of the term fetus. While accurate, it would also be accurate to say 'human' in front of 'fetus'. The former does not convey humanity - animals have fetuses too.

This brings us to the ontological question whereby the enire issue hangs: is a fetus a person?

I agree that this is the important question.

"Personhood," of course, is a consequence of the brain. The brain doesn't fully develop in a fetus until after the first trimester, therefore, at least as far as the first trimester in this regard, the fetus is not a person, and abortion is not "murder."

I did not say abortion was murder. I said it was the killing of a human being.

As to when 'personhood' applies, I disagree. Some human beings do not have (due to unfortunate circumstances, such as prenatal conditions and accidents later in life) a brain capable of rational thought, decision making, higher functions, or even consciousness. Such people are not deprived of personhood by law or moral in our society - killing them would indeed be analogous to murder under any example where it would be murder to kill you or me.

By the same token, we continue to discover that some animals are capable of and indeed make use of mental processes which were formerly thought to be reserved to humanity - tools, planning, and the like. If personhood is a function of mental capability, we'd have to grant personhood to some animals as well as human, depending on where we draw the bar - and that bar keeps moving back, apparently.

Therefore, personhood is not strictly a function of brain function or trimester.

My religion teaches that personhood is bestowed by a Creator, not a process. I'm willing to go with that. A human fetus is a person. Ending that life is killing a person. Murder? I'm not ready to make that statement.

 

[harlan]

So, the basic, fundamental reason against killing a human fetus comes down to religious views?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---

breath = life

In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air. It's an interesting idea.

A fetus breathes as well. Breathing is the process of exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide by a biological mechanism. The difference is that a fetus uses the placenta to perform this function until it is born.

Lungs are incidental - fish use gills, they 'breathe'. A human fetus breathes too.

 

[elder999]

A fetus breathes as well. Breathing is the process of exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide by a biological mechanism. The difference is that a fetus uses the placenta to perform this function until it is born.

Lungs are incidental - fish use gills, they 'breathe'. A human fetus breathes too.

The words used for "breath," and "human" in Hebrew are related-both imply breathing air. The same could be said for Biblical (koine) Greek....I don't know abobut the Chinese.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So, the basic, fundamental reason against killing a human fetus comes down to religious views?

For some. For others, it is a moral sense that may or may not conform to any particular religion.

 

[MBuzzy]

I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---

breath = life

In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air. It's an interesting idea.

I'm not sure that I would take "birth morality" advice from a culture who systematically abandons and kills female children based solely on their gender. And that is AFTER birth.

Government's fault or not...I would rather them abort the child still in utero than birth the child and take it to a mountain in the country and leave it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The words used for "breath," and "human" in Hebrew are related-both imply breathing air. The same could be said for Biblical (koine) Greek....I don't know abobut the Chinese.

The US Navy has performed successful experiments on divers using oxygenated liquids that they 'breathe' using their lungs, but it is not air. Are they then dead?

 

[seasoned]

I know that when I was in the womb I wanted to be treated with respect and dignity.

I will assume you were because here you are on the greatest web site around giving your 2 cents.

 

[Marginal]

Devil's advocate here. If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence. I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?

In self defense situations, sure.