Prolife???
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2016, 08:49 AM
Prolife???
Now as an atheist I am ok with contraception and birth control and abortion...... But Im confused about the issue of Personhood and wether or not a fetus....zygote is a person or not. But now I am more than prochoice....I am Pro-woman.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Prolife???
This has come up. It's irrelevant, for the purposes of abortion rights, whether or not a fetus is considered a person.

The reason for this is simple: there is no right to have one's life sustained by invading the bodily privacy or health/safety of another person without their express permission. Period. That person's bodily integrity always overrides any needs/desires you may have. This is the basis for every

If you cause me to lose my kidneys (say, you convince me to drink antifreeze), and you are the only suitable match in the world to donate one of your kidneys to save me, then I still have no right to take that kidney from you to sustain my life at risk of your own, unless you give permission. [ETA: That's the fundamental "right to bodily integrity", which falls under privacy and the First Amendment.]

And these are the rights of a full-grown, adult person with every right fully recognized. It changes nothing in the equation.

So why are we asking if a fetus has person status?

Legally, the answer so far is that they do not, except if conferred upon them by the will of the mother (as in certain states with laws that allow prosecution of someone who causes the death of a baby that the mother wished to keep). But it's irrelevant in the case of abortion rights, except as an emotional plea against pro-Choice people: "Oh, how awful you are! Hooooooooowwww can you say the baaaaaaaby is not a peeeerrrrrsssoooon?"

The question is moot.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-10-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: Prolife???
This is not some kind of testable hypothesis, it's a matter of semantics. A fetus is defined by whatever word we choose to define it.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yakherder's post
06-10-2016, 09:32 AM
RE: Prolife???
(06-10-2016 09:14 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  This has come up. It's irrelevant, for the purposes of abortion rights, whether or not a fetus is considered a person.

The reason for this is simple: there is no right to have one's life sustained by invading the bodily privacy or health/safety of another person without their express permission. Period. That person's bodily integrity always overrides any needs/desires you may have. This is the basis for every

If you cause me to lose my kidneys (say, you convince me to drink antifreeze), and you are the only suitable match in the world to donate one of your kidneys to save me, then I still have no right to take that kidney from you to sustain my life at risk of your own, unless you give permission. [ETA: That's the fundamental "right to bodily integrity", which falls under privacy and the First Amendment.]

And these are the rights of a full-grown, adult person with every right fully recognized. It changes nothing in the equation.

So why are we asking if a fetus has person status?

Legally, the answer so far is that they do not, except if conferred upon them by the will of the mother (as in certain states with laws that allow prosecution of someone who causes the death of a baby that the mother wished to keep). But it's irrelevant in the case of abortion rights, except as an emotional plea against pro-Choice people: "Oh, how awful you are! Hooooooooowwww can you say the baaaaaaaby is not a peeeerrrrrsssoooon?"

The question is moot.

I find that to be a shaky argument as it's really a stretch of logic. There is no "invasion" by the fetus.

The argument that a bunch of cells is not a person is far more logical and defensible. And it is 'persons' that have legal rights.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Prolife???
(06-10-2016 09:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  I find that to be a shaky argument as it's really a stretch of logic. There is no "invasion" by the fetus.

The argument that a bunch of cells is not a person is far more logical and defensible. And it is 'persons' that have legal rights.

In order to sustain the life of the fetus, it requires the use by one entity (the fetus/baby) of the bodily resources of another (the mother), and risk to the life of the mother in order to sustain the life of the fetus/baby. The mother has to go through either natural childbirth or C-section in order to allow that child to come to term, which can be very dangerous in the case of certain complications of pregnancy, but is still dangerous under even the best of circumstances. The risks to her health from abortion are significantly lower than the risks of the other two, by more than a factor of ten. Only she gets to make that decision about her own body, and thus it is irrelevant whether or not the fetus gets the full rights of a person.

It is therefore an invasion of her bodily integrity (by the state via legislation) to force her to bring it to term. It must be voluntary. The "invasion of privacy" and "bodily integrity" phrasing is not mine, but comes from the Supreme Court's rulings on the subject.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 10:56 AM by Commonsensei.)
RE: Prolife???
Pro-lifers tend to care very little for what happens after the baby enters the world.

A unwanted child could have the possibility or being abused or neglected. Put into a messed up adoption system. Live a life with a disability that will ether put a great deal of stress or pressure on the parent.

Even if a medical facility would no longer provide an avenue for this prosegger doesn't mean other methods wouldn't be carried out. Back alley abortions, coat hangers, extreme trauma such as falling on a rock intentional still are actions women have taken in the passed to prevent the pregnancy.

As far as person hood gose. What are quilifications that make a person a person. At any age?

Many people may remeber Terri Schiavo.

[Image: terri-schiavo.jpg]

in 1990 she had a cardiac arrest and suffered tramadic brain trauma. Two months later she became a vegetable. She lost awareness and the ability to care for herself. In 1998 a legal battle started. Her husband wanted her to be taken off life support. Her parents wanted her to stay on it. She became officially dead in 2005 after her feeding tube was removed.

[Image: Schiavo_catscan.jpg]

What kind of "life" did this woman have? Not able to communicate, unable to care for her self, loose of any sort of awareness of the world. I even remeber doctors talking on the news saying that she was basically a sack of meat. Yes the heart still pumped blood not anything left of the woman was one Terri was long gone.

So this bring us to a fetus. Maybe it's self aware. Who's to tell? But it has nothing in terms of experience, personality, or compacity for self care. Could it have eventually, yes, maybe. But at the time it's, for lack of a better word, a parasite.

And the only half of that equation (the mother and the baby) that has those factors is the mother. So who gets more say in determining the out come of the two's fate?

If that child would cost the mothers life, is that a risk the host is willing to take? Or would it be more preferable that someone else made that call?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
06-10-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: Prolife???
(06-10-2016 09:38 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 09:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  I find that to be a shaky argument as it's really a stretch of logic. There is no "invasion" by the fetus.

The argument that a bunch of cells is not a person is far more logical and defensible. And it is 'persons' that have legal rights.

In order to sustain the life of the fetus, it requires the use by one entity (the fetus/baby) of the bodily resources of another (the mother), and risk to the life of the mother in order to sustain the life of the fetus/baby. The mother has to go through either natural childbirth or C-section in order to allow that child to come to term, which can be very dangerous in the case of certain complications of pregnancy, but is still dangerous under even the best of circumstances. The risks to her health from abortion are significantly lower than the risks of the other two, by more than a factor of ten. Only she gets to make that decision about her own body, and thus it is irrelevant whether or not the fetus gets the full rights of a person.

It is therefore an invasion of her bodily integrity (by the state via legislation) to force her to bring it to term. It must be voluntary. The "invasion of privacy" and "bodily integrity" phrasing is not mine, but comes from the Supreme Court's rulings on the subject.

I understand the argument, I simply find it weak - not invalid. It only has strength when the pregnancy was forced.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 10:12 AM
RE: Prolife???
"Pro-life" people are frequently of the opinion that by killing an abortion doctor - they're saving a "babies" life and thus are doing "God's Will"....

How the fuck is that any different than an whackadoodle driving an airplane into a building - because it's "Allah's Will" that they kill the "infidels"???????


Answer....

They've got the "real" God on speed dial.......
...

Blink

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
06-10-2016, 10:37 AM
RE: Prolife???
I think it's a personal decision. I think it can be very hard coming out from religious brainwashing and attempting to think for yourself after you have been conditioned to behave or think in a certain way for so long. For me personally, I would not have an abortion unless it was medically advisable in terms of my health/life etc. That said, I am a strong supporter of any woman who decides to end a pregnancy. I support the right to choose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like jennybee's post
06-10-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: Prolife???
(06-10-2016 08:49 AM)jason197754 Wrote:  Now as an atheist I am ok with contraception and birth control and abortion......


It isn't really directed at you but one being okay with things you mentioned means shit as such are beyond your control. As long as you not force others to conform to your views you could be against it for all I care.

I'm pro right to use above mentioned. Not cause I'm atheist, but cause it is not my place to forbid such.


Quote: But Im confused about the issue of Personhood and wether or not a fetus....zygote is a person or not.


They aren't. Potential person at most and when one consider the number of spontaneous abortions potential isn't that high.

Quote: But now I am more than prochoice....I am Pro-woman.....

It's always good when another person grow to realize that others body isn't theirs to command.

Sorry if that sound harsh or condescending but I despise pro life people and their arrogant presumptions about right to control others; not being a dick and not forcing one morals onto others shouldn't be something than one feels need to communicate. Sadly in practice things look differently.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: