Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Legion]

And the point, Legion, is that that "undeniable" ability of the entity, as you put it, to survive on its own, i.e. outside the mother's womb, increases with our level of technology.

As i pointed out this is also irrelevant. With the development of technology many lives have been saved who wouldn't have been without. Should we consider all of these invididuals who require technology to survive invalid, inviable life? oF course not

There will come a point in time when we can have reproduction inside a test tube womb, in which the current arguments will fall away and eventually abortion rights will be pushed further and further back until they no longer exist. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to have abortions, but in the here and now, that is not the case because it hasn't been clearly defined. And until it's clearly defined, i.e. when "human life" begins, the right of the woman supercedes the right of the unborn.

Is this is as an irrational and irresponsible conclusion which rest on a non-absolute (there is no garuantee technology will ever reach that point).

What you are arguing is that the flexibility of technology to keep these individuals alive outside of the womb is the deciding point which defines when the behavior of abortion is legal or illegal. Natoma, i am sorry, but by pure reason alone I can not stomach your argument. The individual is either alive or not, human or not. The level of technology we have to keep it alive outside of the womb ought not define when killing it should be considered murder.

 

[Legion]

Is it murder if I jack off? Is it murder if a woman takes a morning after pill? I mean, c'mon now.

now you are just being asinine.


How could you ever equate ejaculation with murder? Explain how I or anyone else could come to this conclusion.

 

[Natoma]

And the point, Legion, is that that "undeniable" ability of the entity, as you put it, to survive on its own, i.e. outside the mother's womb, increases with our level of technology.

As i pointed out this is also irrelevant. With the development of technology many lives have been saved who wouldn't have been without. Should we consider all of these invididuals who require technology to survive invalid, inviable life? oF course not

Those people were also already defined as human beings.

There will come a point in time when we can have reproduction inside a test tube womb, in which the current arguments will fall away and eventually abortion rights will be pushed further and further back until they no longer exist. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to have abortions, but in the here and now, that is not the case because it hasn't been clearly defined. And until it's clearly defined, i.e. when "human life" begins, the right of the woman supercedes the right of the unborn.

Is this is as an irrational and irresponsible conclusion which rest on a non-absolute (there is no garuantee technology will ever reach that point).

What you are arguing is that the flexibility of technology to keep these individuals alive outside of the womb is the deciding point which defines when the behavior of abortion is legal or illegal. Natoma, i am sorry, but by pure reason alone I can not stomach your argument. The individual is either alive or not, human or not. The level of technology we have to keep it alive outside of the womb ought not define when killing it should be considered murder.

It isn't my argument alone. This is something that has been argued by late-term abortion foes as well, given the situation in light of Roe vs Wade.

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life- saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.

Sound familiar to anything I've been saying? The judges who ruled in Roe vs Wade may personally have had something against Abortion and disagreed with it vehemently. But given the current circumstances, the rights of the woman do supercede the rights of the unborn. Note the use of the word "compelling point" wrt stages in a woman's pregnancy.

 

[Natoma]

Is it murder if I jack off? Is it murder if a woman takes a morning after pill? I mean, c'mon now.

now you are just being asinine.


How could you ever equate ejaculation with murder? Explain how I or anyone else could come to this conclusion.

Your killing millions of sperm that had the potential to create life and grow into a viable human being. Look I know this is a semantical argument, but I'm trying to show why the line of debate is flawed. Where do you begin is my question. How far back do you go. Whether you or Joe think that's irrelevant, that is precisely the question that is being raised.

Many people see absolutely no issue with taking a morning after pill. But they certainly have an issue with a 9th month abortion. What about killing a baby 5 minutes after it's born? The point is that the line that is blurred between "humanity" and "entity" has no clear delimiter. In the case of abortion rights, until we can get that clear delimiter, then the right is given to the human being rather than the entity/human being.

That is all I'm saying.

 

[Vince]

Hmm.. Maybe it is.

I take back everything nice I've said about your arguments

PS. I'm not going to get into another argument now after the other thread, but Biologists generally are in agreement that "life" is defined by an organisms that is capable of self-replication and completion of one Carnot cycle.

An embryo is most decidely life any any means, a sperm and egg aren't. Stuart Kauffman, who I greatly admire, has been talking about life/autonomous agents and fundimantal chemical dynamics underlying simple biology for some time. Maybe you should check him out.

Or, alternative, I debated PaulS in a thead on What is Life around here before which is basically what I'd say to you.

 

[Natoma]

Joe and Legion have been talking about potential Vince. Potential to become a "human being" or however we choose to define it. Is "life" automatically a "human being" or is viability outside the womb a "human being?" Currently, our legal system tilts toward the latter, not the former. That's where my remark stems from.

 

[Vince]

Joe and Legion have been talking about potential Vince. Potential to become a "human being" or however we choose to define it. That's where my remark stems from.

I know, my comment is geared directly towards that. Once you have "life" as I stated (an autonomous agent/self-replicator) it's off to the proverbial races. The actual composition is intrinsic in it's information it holds in it's linear DNA.

So, like, a Sperm and Egg (as per this example) are just information holding constructs. They can't self-replicate or carry out a thermodynamic cycle (basic Carnot cycle) in themselves, but together they can and it's based on their information which is held in their DNA - which is the same information (exception being random mutation) that you'll have in your cells for the reat of your "Human" life.

Again, Natoma, asmuch as I love you, I can't debate this now. But, as I told PaulS, the concept of Abortion is one of the biggest pseudo-scientific frauds ever committed in our history. There are many amazing works on this, I recommend you read some.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But Joe, why is it that anti-abortion activists have long said that they don't want abortions to occur in the 3rd trimester, if they must occur at all?

Hell if I know. And it's irrelevant to you understanding my point.

Are you saying that you personally have a different viewpoint than what has been proffered by anti-abortionists?

From where I sit, "Anti-Abortionists" is way to broad a label. People have different reasons and different views on if and at what point abortion should be allowed.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Here's my pointed question, Natoma:

SIMPLE YES OR NO ONLY PLEASE:

1) If we consider a "being" to be a "living, human-being", it should be afforded the rights / protection of the government.

I repeat: SIMPLE YES OR NO. I will then ask another question....

We've gone over this point multiple times already Joe.

Damnit, Natoma....JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION..

This is just the FIRST in a SERIES of questions I will ask. It's pointless to continue unless you simply provide an answer. HUMOR ME.

And you say I don't get the point.

It's obvious.

 

[Natoma]

Damnit, Natoma....JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION..

This is just the FIRST in a SERIES of questions I will ask. It's pointless to continue unless you simply provide an answer. HUMOR ME.

This is exactly why I said earlier that you snip out the answers your own question, and then accuse me of not answering your question.

I'm saying until the question of what "human" is, is answered, that yes, the rights do in fact default to the woman. If the question is answered to the contrary that a being is in fact human at a particular point, then the right of life should supercede the right of choice. But the point is that we are not at that point yet. It hasn't been answered. I am not prepared to try and define what rights a woman can and can not have when the amorphous rights of a "being" have not yet been defined, and that is what is in contention at this point, i.e. the rights of a palpable human being vs a not so palpable being that could be or not be classified as "human." Under the current circumstance, the womans right does supercede the amorphous rights of a "being."

That's why we can't ever have discussions. I answer a question, you snip it out or gloss over expecting a particular answer, and then say I never answered your question. Then you get an attitude and start bolding and capping as if that'll somehow make the answers to your question more apparent. :?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sigh. (Forget bold, I'll try big and red.)

Here's my pointed question, Natoma:

SIMPLE YES OR NO ONLY PLEASE:

1) If we consider a "being" to be a "living, human-being", it should be afforded the rights / protection of the government.

I repeat: SIMPLE YES OR NO. I will then ask another question....

 

[Natoma]

What part of this exactly didn't you understand?

If the question is answered to the contrary that a being is in fact human at a particular point, then the right of life should supercede the right of choice.

I've found out a long time ago that fleshing out a position before Joe DeFuria get his semantical hands on it is far more useful to a discussion. I've fully fleshed out how I believe on this matter, and answered your question in the process.

What is "right of life" Joe? Protections and rights afforded by the government. That much is obvious is it not? Or am I completely missing the argument of the "Right to Life" movement, aka Pro-Life?

Oh and btw, yelling won't solve anything Joe. Didn't they teach you that in school? :?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

For the love of God, Natoma.

YES or NO.

 

[Ilfirin]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite (even though I'm not Natoma).

1) If we consider a "being" to be a "living, human-being", it should be afforded the rights / protection of the government.

Yes.

As for what constitutes a living, human-being, I would say that any human that absolutely requires another human to be alive for them to continue living, should not yet (legally) be considered an independent, living being.

That is, there is a stage in pregnancy beyond which the mother could die, and the child still live (though it would have to be delivered via surgery).

After this point I'd consider an abortion to be murder.

 

[Natoma]

As I said before Joe, I've found that simple yes/no answers are not good when talking to you, because then you take that simple answer and twist it around to mean something completely different. I'd rather give the full answer before any of that happens. If you can't figure it out from that, well you certainly won't be able to figure it out step by step.

So in sum,

I'm saying until the question of what "human" is, is answered, that yes, the rights do in fact default to the woman. If the question is answered to the contrary that a being is in fact human at a particular point, then the right of life should supercede the right of choice. But the point is that we are not at that point yet. It hasn't been answered. I am not prepared to try and define what rights a woman can and can not have when the amorphous rights of a "being" have not yet been defined, and that is what is in contention at this point, i.e. the rights of a palpable human being vs a not so palpable being that could be or not be classified as "human." Under the current circumstance, the womans right does supercede the amorphous rights of a "being."

You asked me "If we consider a "being" to be a "living, human-being", it should be afforded the rights / protection of the government. " and part of my response was "If the question is answered to the contrary that a being is in fact human at a particular point, then the right of life should supercede the right of choice." Good god is right. Do you want me to change that statement to "Yes. If the question is answered to the contrary that a being is in fact human at a particular point, then the right of life should supercede the right of choice."

It's so apparent. Either get to the point or cease this silliness. I've answered your question from the beginning. There's no need to continue this "Gimme a yes or no" tack when I've already done so quite clearly.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said before Joe, I've found that simple yes/no answers are not good when talking to you, because then you take that simple answer and twist it around to mean something completely different.

You know Natoma......"fuck you."

How could I twist around YES OR NO. What on Earth is your problem? I've told you several times that this is not the ONLY question I'm going to ask you. I need your CLEAR AND CONCISE answer to a few, core questions before I can get to my ultimate point. It's for oyur benefit, and everyone else'e benefit who cares to understand my position. You've tried to turn this into a "how do you define life" thread, which is completely NOT the point.

Of course you're not really interested in being concise and to the point, because you can't just type YES OR NO, let it play it out, and THEN respond however the hell you want.

So, I'll continue with Ilfirin, who at least has the courtesy of TRYING to see it through.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite (even though I'm not Natoma).

1) If we consider a "being" to be a "living, human-being", it should be afforded the rights / protection of the government.

Yes.

Thank you. As for the rest...you're getting ahead of yourself. So I'll put it off until later, if we feel we even need to discuss it.

Question 2 and 3: (Again...yes or no).

2) If we lived in a fantasy world, where everyone, and I mean everyone, was in 100% agreement that "life" (the living, human being as described in Q1) began at conception, there would be little to no question that there should be laws strictly limiting if not possibly outlawing abortion completely.

3) If we lived in a fantasy world, where everyone, and I mean everyone, was in 100% agreement that "life" (the living, human being as described in Q1) began only immediately after birth, there would be little to no question that there should NOT be laws limiting abortion. That the woman (or parents) should be completely free to decide the fate of the "non-life" throughout pregnancy.

 

[Natoma]

You know Natoma......"fuck you."

Tsk tsk. Such a potty mouth. Can't you think of the children?

But seriously, I'm dealing with the current situation and how it exists today. If you want to deal with that reality (right or wrong), then you'll deal with:

I'm saying until the question of what "human" is, is answered, that yes, the rights do in fact default to the woman. If the question is answered to the contrary that a being is in fact human at a particular point, then the right of life should supercede the right of choice. But the point is that we are not at that point yet. It hasn't been answered. I am not prepared to try and define what rights a woman can and can not have when the amorphous rights of a "being" have not yet been defined, and that is what is in contention at this point, i.e. the rights of a palpable human being vs a not so palpable being that could be or not be classified as "human." Under the current circumstance, the womans right does supercede the amorphous rights of a "being."

You asked a direct question, and I gave a direct answer, qualified with how it fits into the current situation. Until you decide to deal with that, I'll leave you to have your fun with Ilfrin, if Ilfrin actually even cares.

 

[Ilfirin]

2) No. (Lots of people will still get pregnant and not want their baby or want to go through labor and hence will still want an abortion, even if they consider it murder)
3) No. (People will still feel bad for the little kid, even if they don't believe he is technically alive yet)

[edit]For 2, that's a strict 'no' for outlawing. 'yes' for just limiting.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You're getting ahead of yourself again.

2) No. (Lots of people will still get pregnant and not want their baby or want to go through labor and hence will still want an abortion, even if they consider it murder)

Odd. You're telling me that if everyone agreed that a fetus was no different than an infant (in terms of rights/life status), we shouldn't have laws to protect it?

EDIT: Maybe you misinterpreted my question? My question wasn't whether or not some expectant parents might still want abortion even if they knew it was murder. My question is whether there should be laws against abortion, assuming everyone agrees that it's murder. (end edit.)

3) No. (People will still feel bad for the little kid, even if they don't believe he is technically alive yet)

Again, I find this response odd. This is a fantasy world where people DON'T feel bad for a kid, because they don't believe he's is a kid. EVERYONE thinks it's a "tumor", "outgrowth", something "owned" by the mother with no material rights.