- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I really would like to understand the pro-choice POV as it relates to life
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:30 pm to L.A.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:30 pm to L.A.
quote:
how do you conclude that a fetus with a heartbeat is not a human life
I answered your question. I conclude that it has potential to be human life but that it is still part of the Mother. When it is BORN, and becomes separate from the mother, is when it becomes a human life.
.
Birth – the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
3
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:31 pm to King
quote:
I am MAGA as frick. Abortion is a no win for the right. Your modern day republican is a 90's era democrat. See Trump. He is anti-abortion but open to it for rapes and saving women lives. Most thinking folks fall along those lines. Its bad but necessary in situations. Forcing the choice/life line on something so grey area is a bad thing.
True, because most normal, rational people realize that there is not one specific ‘correct’ solution for every person and every case
PLOT TWIST:
There is no right answer
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:31 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:
Does this also apply to war, capital punishment and self defense as well?
There is a difference between killing a person and homicide and murder. Do you really not know that?
This post was edited on 6/24/19 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:39 pm to Nguyener
quote:
I believe that as soon as the egg and sperm join together and create and entirely new and unique being with new genetic human coding it is a human.
This ^^^^ is the belief that typically destroys any conversation or argument that I may have with a pro abortion advocate when discussing the beginning of life topic. I’ll make the concise statement that life begins at conception and allow them to hem haw for many minutes trying to rationalize when it’s life. After I destroy all of their beliefs they’ll finally admit it’s a life when a woman decides it’s a life. It’s really that simple. So the next time you find yourself in this discussion you can save a lot it time by telling your pro abortion friends it’s life at conception and give them their answer, it’s life when a woman wants the child, it always works for me.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:39 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:Yes. Why does location determine personhood? The child is a separate, genetically-unique human being and distinct from its mother.
because it is still in the womb in the body of the mother and hasn't been born yet.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:45 pm to L.A.
Liberals never let logic, science, common sense or morality stand in the way of their perverted policies.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:46 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:Bolded for emphasis. Why is physical separation what determines life? The mother and child are both already genetically separate.
Birth – the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:50 pm to Mr. Hangover
quote:I disagree. God's moral law is the only objective standard for right and wrong that we can abide by without devolving to absolute arbitrariness. Want to talk about not having a right answer? You depart from God's moral law and there is literally no "right" answer to anything, because every "moral" action becomes entirely subjective; they become nothing more than individual preferences.
True, because most normal, rational people realize that there is not one specific ‘correct’ solution for every person and every case
PLOT TWIST:
There is no right answer
We can take God's moral law and apply principles to our lives. In the case of abortion, we have two primary principles at play: all humans are made in the image of God, and do not murder. Even children in the womb have value to God and therefore have intrinsic value, and we have no right to take a life that isn't trying to take ours (self defense).
When you base the right to kill a child on personal preference, you open the door wide to all sorts of deviant behavior and you become logically inconstant, or as the Bible calls it, "foolish".
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:52 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:Once again, you're answering questions I'm not asking, and making assertions no one is arguing against.
Birth – the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
Yes, the start of life AS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING begins at birth. That doesn't mean that's when the baby's life started. Birth is when life as a separate human being begins.
Scientifically speaking, I do not believe anyone can argue against the assertion that LIFE begins at conception.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 6:14 pm to FooManChoo
FWIW I don’t agree with abortion, I just try to look at it from everyone’s perspective, that’s all
Posted on 6/24/19 at 8:33 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
Neither one of us subscribe to that antiquated way of thinking. We also don't believe in an ancient book of fairytails that tells us sex is bad unless married mmkay
As enlightened as that may be, old fashioned ideas, traditions. and practices may be simply venerable, well worth adopting and not antiquated at all.
Nothing in the Book insofar as I'm aware condemns sex as bad. Only sinful, inappropriate, and/or unwise in certain situations and circumstances.
Also, I don't believe the Bible is technically a good example of the genres of fairy tales, myths, or legends.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:48 pm to L.A.
quote:It is a living and genetically-distinct member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, and it is my opinion that this fact should not matter one iota for purposes of the early-term abortion debate.
My question: how is a fetus with a heartbeat not a human being?
The whole heartbeat argument is a big, smelly red herring. Humans are just one of the millions of species on this planet that have a heartbeat. With impunity, we kill all the other organisms with heartbeats. There is nothing special about a heartbeat, even if the organism with that heartbeat is genetically a member of our species.
Some trait OTHER than “heartbeat” distinguishes us from every other organism on the planet.
I have formed the belief that this distinguishing trait is sapience ... something that no other species shares and something that an early-term fetus has not yet developed. Others think that the distinguishing trait is a “soul,” which magically pops into the fertilized egg of just one single species among the millions of species on this rock, apparently swimming up the vagina alongside spermatozoa. Still others eschew the metaphysics and assert the circular argument that humans are special because they are humans. Hard to contest with the “logic” of a circular argument, other than to realize that it is entirely circular. This latter argument is “intelligent design” to the first argument’s “creationism” ... a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the two arguments are indistinguishable at their core.
No answer is inherently right or wrong, because philosophical questions do not really lend themselves to that sort of binary analysis.
I think my analysis of the distinguishing factor makes more sense, because it would protect ANY sapient organism that we might encounter ... be it a race of extraterrestrials wandering into orbit (Alien Nation) or a porpoise that swims up to a dock in Key West and starts speaking English to the fishermen.
I say it would be wrong to kill and eat both E.T. and Flipper’s evolved cousin. The competing analyses would allow you to kill either of them with impunity and dine with gusto and a clear conscience ... simply because neither of them is “human.”
If the proper distinguishing characteristic is “sapience,” there is nothing immoral about ending the life of an organism (even with that heartbeat) which does not display the trait of sapience... especially if the continued existence of that organism infringes upon the rights of another organism which DOES display sapience.
This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 12:05 am
Posted on 6/25/19 at 12:00 am to L.A.
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/29/19 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 6/25/19 at 1:01 am to Sanfordhog
quote:I googled it. Respectfully, it has nothing to do with my question.
Trisomy 18. Google it. Talk to maternal fetal specialist. Depends on markers.
'
This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 1:02 am
Posted on 6/25/19 at 1:03 am to L.A.
A heart beat that can’t live beyond 20 weeks isn’t viable outside the mother.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 1:04 am to AggieHank86
quote:I chose heartbeat as a way to frame my question. In other words, when the fetus has a heartbeat it is clearly alive, in the same way that a cow fetus with a heartbeat is clearly alive. What I'm wondering is how pro choice people look at an unborn baby on an ultrasound, for example, and conclude that it is not a human being?
The whole heartbeat argument is a big, smelly red herring. Humans are just one of the millions of species on this planet that have a heartbeat
Posted on 6/25/19 at 1:06 am to Sanfordhog
quote:Again, we're talking about two different things. This fetus you're talking about, the one with the genetic deficiency, is it a human being? That's what I'm asking.
A heart beat that can’t live beyond 20 weeks isn’t viable outside the mother.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 1:12 am to L.A.
Your definition of a “human being” and mine are different and I’ll never get you to understand my view so we’ll leave it that. Hopefully thread is over.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 1:18 am to Sanfordhog
quote:
Your definition of a “human being” and mine are different
How about this: Is the fetus with the genetic deficiency an unborn human?
This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 1:20 am
Posted on 6/25/19 at 6:31 am to L.A.
quote:Ultimately it becomes a spiritual and personal issue. The Catholic Church (the same one with a Pope refusing to critcize rabidly proabortion politicians) holds that life actually begins before conception. Serves as basis for its antimasturbation doctrine.
human?
Folks on both sides of the equation often work more from emotional/duplicitous argument than from understanding. That is okay from a personal belief standpoint, but not so much in application of broad public law. So what should the law be?
As a libertarian, I heavily lean away from government intrusion, and toward individual rights. Government's role is ensuring assumed rights of one don't overrun rights of another.
E.g., A mother needs a heart transplant. Her first-born is a perfect match. No one (hopefully) would argue she should be able totake that child's heart to save her own life.
So the question is when the baby's right to live supersedes any maternal right.
Put in those terms, the mother has the right to end her parental relationship and give up her baby through delivery and adoption. If she decides to do so during pregnancy and enters labor early, so be it. She may claim termination of the pregnancy as her right. She has no right to directly kill the baby though. The baby's life is not her right. It is the baby's. Before viability, the baby simply does not have capacity to exercize its right, even if the right is conveyed.
The point at which reasonable disagreement ends, and wildeyed zealotry begins, is fetal viability -- the point at which a fetus could survive if delivered. That is the point "termination of pregnancy" actually transitions to infanticide.
This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 6:36 am
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News