- 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 6/25/19 at 7:33 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 6/25/19 at 7:33 am to NC_Tigah
quote:We don’t use this standard outside the womb so why should this be the standard inside the womb?
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.
1
Posted on 6/25/19 at 7:55 am to FooManChoo
quote:Don't we?
We don’t use this standard outside the womb
Generally I think we do.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 10:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:We inject other standards like free will, intent, and human dignity in additional to simple "viability" outside the womb.
Don't we?
Generally I think we do.
If all we cared about was viability, or the ability to live unassisted, we could easily justify killing off people on life support. The NICU is filled with children who need medical assistance to continue to live. You could say those places are full of non-viable humans with no right to life if viability is all that mattered.
You can even argue an extension of viability from medical care to any care needed at all. Mentally disabled individuals who need a caregiver are not really functionally viable since they need so much help, so they can be killed off. Assisted living homes can be cleared out because the occupants can't continue to survive on their own. Children, who can't really do anything on their own, can be killed if the parents wish it since they are not really viable.
In the end, "viability" is just another arbitrary distinction that can be applied to different degrees outside the womb. So we don't use simple viability outside the womb. We have other standards and attributes that we use and judge to determine rights.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 10:33 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I should have listened to those who warned me up front that I wouldn't get a straight answer to my question.
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.
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.
I'm not asking about viability
I'm not questioning whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion.
I'm not asking anything related to spirituality, or the soul.
I don't GAF what the Catholic Church has to say on the subject.
I just want to know what pro-choice people think/believe they are aborting.
Is the fetus inside a woman a human life in your view?
To me as a pro-life person the answer is obvious. It's human. It's alive. Ergo the fetus is a human life.
What is your answer to that one, narrow, specific question?
This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 10:39 am
Posted on 6/25/19 at 10:49 am to L.A.
quote:Yes
Is the fetus inside a woman a human life in your view?
Posted on 6/25/19 at 10:50 am to NC_Tigah
Thank you.
Just trying to understand the other side's POV
Just trying to understand the other side's POV
Posted on 6/25/19 at 10:51 am to L.A.
quote:
I just want to know what pro-choice people think/believe they are aborting
If someone thinks it's a human life, they'd consider it murder. Those who are pro choice clearly don't believe it's a human life if they're ok with abortion.
NC_Tigah is digging down toward the question pro choice people wrestle with, you know, when does a fetus become a human life from their perspective. There's no straight simple answer if you're wrestling with where the line is.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 10:57 am to Duke
quote:
NC_Tigah is digging down toward the question pro choice people wrestle with, you know, when does a fetus become a human life from their perspective.
Are you saying there's a moment when the fetus becomes human? As in, one moment it's not human, the next moment it is?
This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 11:03 am
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:07 am to L.A.
Honesty = Everyone recognizes that a fertilized egg (zygote) is human.
Reality = Abortion typical involves less than ideal circumstances, and the mental gymnastics of parsing when exactly an embryo/fetus is or isn’t human helps some people cope with their uncomfortable decision to abort.
I’d have more respect(?) for people who acknowledge the reality: I am pregnant with human life and don’t want to/shouldn’t be in this situation; therefore, I choose to abort.
Reality = Abortion typical involves less than ideal circumstances, and the mental gymnastics of parsing when exactly an embryo/fetus is or isn’t human helps some people cope with their uncomfortable decision to abort.
I’d have more respect(?) for people who acknowledge the reality: I am pregnant with human life and don’t want to/shouldn’t be in this situation; therefore, I choose to abort.
This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 11:16 am
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:09 am to L.A.
quote:
My question: how is a fetus with a heartbeat not a human being?
You can technically be determined brain dead with a heartbeat. I'm not sure why heartbeat is the metric you want to use.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:11 am to Duke
quote:Kind of.
NC_Tigah is digging down toward the question pro choice
I'm not pro-choice. But to the extent we need a constitutional approach to a conflicted and emotional issue, delineation of pregnancy vs fetus is one approach. I.e., the fetus is a separate life. It is acknowledged as such in the law. We have precedents of murderers convicted of double homicide in cases involving a pregnant victim.
Therefore, even the most radical prochoice argument should ONLY hold sway for terminating of a pregnancy, not terminating (aka killing) the baby. A mother does not have the right to kill, even given an unfettered right to choose.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:16 am to Powerman
quote:Already asked and answered. I'm using heartbeat as a framework for my question, ie the fetus is clearly alive and not dead in the womb.
I'm not sure why heartbeat is the metric you want to use.
Is that living human fetus a human life? That's my question.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:19 am to L.A.
quote:Not really, but that borders on a spiritual question IMO. Physiologically the delineation is more clear at the embryo-to-fetus transition.
Are you saying there's a moment when the fetus becomes human?
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:22 am to L.A.
quote:Heartbeat occurs before the fetal stage.
I'm using heartbeat as a framework for my question, ie the fetus is clearly alive and not dead in the womb.
Is that living human fetus a human life?
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:22 am to L.A.
I'm not religious, I have no use for it. I am more or less pro life, though. I don't think that abortion (or anything else) should be regulated for religious reasons. I think there should be a scientific definition used to when life begins and then move from there. Saying that life starts at conception because jesus and the soul is a poopoo reason and you will lose that fight. Does life end when a heart beat stops? Does life begin with the heartbeat? Yeah it ain't that simple but that's my thought on it.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:26 am to celltech1981
quote:
Saying that life starts at conception because jesus and the soul is a poopoo reason and you will lose that fight.
I give up.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Even better for the purposes of my question.
Heartbeat occurs before the fetal stage.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:30 am to celltech1981
quote:is 100% accurate from a scientific standpoint . . . assuming you really do want a scientific take rather than "because jesus and the soul" or "poopoo reason"
Saying that life starts at conception
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:38 am to NC_Tigah
I'm fine with that. I don't want to live in a theocracy.
Posted on 6/25/19 at 11:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Heartbeat occurs before the fetal stage
Which is why it might not be the best metric to use
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News