• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

Junebug said:
Think hard. I bet you can come up with something. Maybe start with "has the potential, in the mine run of cases, to grow into a born child" or something like that.

I'm sure I won't be the first person to tell you this, but you utterly lack even the remotest semblance of common sense sometimes.
Click to expand...

This is unfortunately true, though it has been a long time since I've been blackout.
 
In attempting to offer a defining characteristic for personhood "consciousness" seems a lot more persuasive than "has the potential, in the mine run of cases, to grow into a born child."

Maybe that's my lack of common sense though.
 
I agree, use a cutoff period as a proxy for the various consciousness, viability, personhood, etc. arguments you mention and go from there.
 
TownieDeac said:
an arbitrary "week" cutoff, say around week 20-24, makes the most sense to me

far more so than trying to define consciousness, viability, personhood, pain, organ development, etc.

and by nature, i would rather it be arbitrary than try to morally tie it to viability or personhood, precisely because you get nonsense arguments for "potential to become" regardless of where the line is drawn
Click to expand...

Agreed. As I said earlier, the question of personhood isn't really that relevant in the abortion debate.
 
Sure, I was just saying I agree with finding a somewhat arbitrary date which can also act as a proxy for other considerations. I'm sure Townie's "arbitrary" cutoff is based in some of these considerations and not truly arbitrary in every sense of the world. I am putting words into his mouth though so I could be wrong and he just pulled that number out of thin air.
 
Junebug said:
You obviously don't own a cat.
Click to expand...

I do not, nor will I ever own a cat. Worthless creatures.

My dogs did kill a chipmunk yesterday though. Then dropped it at my feet. So not so sure they did it for fun instead of offering me a Gift de Chipmunk.
 
Junebug said:
Think hard. I bet you can come up with something. Maybe start with "has the potential, in the mine run of cases, to grow into a born child" or something like that.

I'm sure I won't be the first person to tell you this, but you utterly lack even the remotest semblance of common sense sometimes.
Click to expand...

I posted a personal story about a decision my wife and I made a few pages back. If you believe that "having the potential to grow into a born child" is the dividing line, then we need to end this conversation.
 
RChildress107 said:
Would love for Sailor to weigh in
Click to expand...

Be careful what you ask for; here goes

in chronological order, the various somewhat scientifically and objectively defensible possibilities for the beginning of human life:

1. Moment of conception - usually within 48 hours of ovulation

2. First cell division - within 48 hours of conception - the DNA of a unique human being has been formed

3. Attachment of zygote/embryo to the wall of the uterus - usually approximately 9 days after ovulation, but maybe anywhere from 6-12 days after ovulation; or, put another way, usually approximately 7 days after conception

4. First heartbeat - about 3-4 weeks after conception

5. Beginning of brain function - 40-43 days after conception

6. Viability - about 23 weeks after conception, iirc

Sorry 107, consciousness, being too slippery a concept, did not make the list

Interesting sidelight, St. Thomas Aquinas believed that human life began 40 days after conception because that was when the soul entered the body. The agreement with the beginning of brain function is probably just a coincidence because the number 40 was supposed during the Middle Ages to have great religious significance. But still pretty interesting, St. Thomas was very bright and intellectually innovative.

Obviously, all of these could have some objective criteria to support them as the beginning of human life. The beginning of brain function, at around 40 days, seems reasonable and interesting. In science we have brain death when brain functions cease, so why not have the beginning of human existence coincide with the beginning of brain function?

Open to other suggestions, backed up by reasonable supporting arguments of course. Or you can agree with one of these and explain why it is better than the others.
 
Lol well of course, but legislatures know that and don't come out and say that something is "arbitrary" since they know that rational basis = they win.

Again, the test should be discriminatory effect not discriminatory intent plus discriminatory intent - just like it is in most other first-world countries (most of Europe, Canada, etc.)
 
sailordeac said:
Be careful what you ask for; here goes

in chronological order, the various somewhat scientifically and objectively defensible possibilities for the beginning of human life:

1. Moment of conception - usually within 48 hours of ovulation

2. First cell division - within 48 hours of conception - the DNA of a unique human being has been formed

3. Attachment of zygote/embryo to the wall of the uterus - usually approximately 9 days after ovulation, but maybe anywhere from 6-12 days after ovulation; or, put another way, usually approximately 7 days after conception

4. First heartbeat - about 3-4 weeks after conception

5. Beginning of brain function - 40-43 days after conception

6. Viability - about 23 weeks after conception, iirc

Sorry 107, consciousness, being too slippery a concept, did not make the list

Interesting sidelight, St. Thomas Aquinas believed that human life began 40 days after conception because that was when the soul entered the body. The agreement with the beginning of brain function is probably just a coincidence because the number 40 was supposed during the Middle Ages to have great religious significance. But still pretty interesting, St. Thomas was very bright and intellectually innovative.

Obviously, all of these could have some objective criteria to support them as the beginning of human life. The beginning of brain function, at around 40 days, seems reasonable and interesting. In science we have brain death when brain functions cease, so why not have the beginning of human existence coincide with the beginning of brain function?

Open to other suggestions, backed up by reasonable supporting arguments of course. Or you can agree with one of these and explain why it is better than the others.
Click to expand...

What characteristics at each of those stages make the fetus a person?
 
sailordeac said:
Obviously, all of these could have some objective criteria to support them as the beginning of human life. The beginning of brain function, at around 40 days, seems reasonable and interesting. In science we have brain death when brain functions cease, so why not have the beginning of human existence coincide with the beginning of brain function?
Click to expand...

Not to turn this into an end of life discussion, but do you agree that a person ceases to be a person upon brain death?
 
sailordeac said:
since financial considerations and advantages play a role in much of the abortion process, both the decisions leading to it and the actual process itself, believing that somehow the trafficking in fetal body parts would be entirely immune from such considerations is simply unwarranted
Click to expand...
Baseless paranoia. The biases and motivations of Pro-life pregnancy centers are front and center to the point of being dishonest and unscrupulous, but I don't suppose you believe they're unethical?
 
Last edited:
TownieDeac said:
hmm i wonder where the word "arbiter" comes from

also isn't arbitrariness the basis for asylum adjudication?
Click to expand...

I have no idea about asylum adjudication, but by definition if something is arbitrary then it doesn't pass even the most basic rational basis test. IIRC that was a portion of Kennedy's reasoning in Romer v. Evans (at least with regard to the "animus" portions).
 
sailordeac said:
Be careful what you ask for; here goes

in chronological order, the various somewhat scientifically and objectively defensible possibilities for the beginning of human life:

1. Moment of conception - usually within 48 hours of ovulation

2. First cell division - within 48 hours of conception - the DNA of a unique human being has been formed

3. Attachment of zygote/embryo to the wall of the uterus - usually approximately 9 days after ovulation, but maybe anywhere from 6-12 days after ovulation; or, put another way, usually approximately 7 days after conception

4. First heartbeat - about 3-4 weeks after conception

5. Beginning of brain function - 40-43 days after conception

6. Viability - about 23 weeks after conception, iirc

Sorry 107, consciousness, being too slippery a concept, did not make the list

Interesting sidelight, St. Thomas Aquinas believed that human life began 40 days after conception because that was when the soul entered the body. The agreement with the beginning of brain function is probably just a coincidence because the number 40 was supposed during the Middle Ages to have great religious significance. But still pretty interesting, St. Thomas was very bright and intellectually innovative.

Obviously, all of these could have some objective criteria to support them as the beginning of human life. The beginning of brain function, at around 40 days, seems reasonable and interesting. In science we have brain death when brain functions cease, so why not have the beginning of human existence coincide with the beginning of brain function?

Open to other suggestions, backed up by reasonable supporting arguments of course. Or you can agree with one of these and explain why it is better than the others.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have no idea when life begins, but I know that at some point it does.

I've sat with numerous families and grieved the loss of the life of an unborn child. Unborn babies who did not reach full development and birth are not an abstract concept to me. I know what it’s like to see a mom and dad cry over their lifeless child who just hours ago, was growing and developing in her mother’s womb.
This “issue” isn’t an “issue” at all for me, but is about real babies I have held. As a result, I am pro-life. I will always be pro-life.

But, I do not trust most right wing pro life groups. I think they’re dishonest. I think the makers of the video in question were being dishonest in how they sold their narrative. That video wasn’t ever really about “selling organs”—that was just a headline they used to get people to hear how heartless Nucatola sounded as she described her methods.

I think many pro life groups’s tactics, memes, and political strategies are terrible—often dehumanizing and mean spirited. Furthermore, I believe if they were half as concerned with life after birth as they are with life before birth, we might actually reduce the number of abortions that happen in this country, which I think all of us can agree would be a very good thing. It’s very easy to be ultra pro life when that life is unborn. All it requires is a strong point of view and a sign. Being pro life after birth is much harder and actually requires more skill than the ability to be obnoxious.
 
The greatest accomplishment of the pro-abortion-rights movement was to attach the label pro-choice to it and make it stick. As if the woman was choosing what dress to wear or which movie to watch. They successfully made the focus the woman and her body - and her right to control that body. I am no zealot but I cringe everytime I hear the word pro-choice. Where is the acknowledgement that the fetus is not her body, it just happens to be IN her body?

And I don't fully understand why this question always becomes a religious issue. As far as I know, all people believe killing small defenseless children is wrong, religious or not (unless they are occupying land you want - but that is a question of the morality of war which is a totally different question and should not be brought into this discussion or no one will ever get anywhere), so at what point prior to birth should the fetus be considered equivalent to a small, defenseless child? Isn't that really the only question?
 
Last edited:
I don't know your life, but I doubt you've held a 23 week old fetus.
 
scooter84 said:
The greatest accomplishment of the pro-abortion-rights movement was to attach the label pro-choice to it and make it stick. As if the woman was choosing what dress to wear or which movie to watch. They successfully made the focus the woman and her body - and her right to control that body. I am no zealot but I cringe everytime I hear the word pro-choice. Where is the acknowledgement that the fetus is not her body, it just happens to be IN her body?

And I don't fully understand why this question always becomes a religious issue. As far as I know, all people believe killing small defenseless children is wrong, religious or not (unless they are occupying land you want - but that is a question of the morality of war which is a totally different question and should not be brought into this discussion or no one will ever get anywhere), so at what point prior to birth should the fetus be considered equivalent to a small, defenseless child? Isn't that really the only question?
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
TownieDeac said:
lol it just so happens to be in her body, like it could just as easily be in a can of tuna or up a tree
Click to expand...

Except if it were in a can of tuna or up a tree we wouldn't need to worry about aborting it.

Think about how different this issue would be if, after mating, the sexually-created fetus grew outside the body - like a sexual form of budding? I think it would be a lot harder to abort a fetus if you could watch it growing and look it in the face as you killed it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top