is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i i believe that a child is a seperate being at conception, and is undoubtedly a seperate life by 22 days when its own heartbeat begins.

i think every life should be treated as equal under the law, including the life of the unborn child.

interesting. every life. you know, there are fish out there with more consciousness and intelligence than a 22 day old foetus (so shouldnt everyone should be vegan?)

Fish have great memories and they feel pain and yet we leave them out to suffocate, cut their gills and let them bleed to death without a thought. They surely have a much more developed brain (if a foetus indeed has a brain at 22 days). Surely if every life should be treated as equal under the law then killing fully developed adult fish, (sometimes fish that don't reach maturity until the age of 25) is a much worse thing than "killing" something 22 days old that isnt fully formed?

Oh here's some reading from New Scientist and the Royal Society in case you doubt me:
http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/ani...wscientist.pdf
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1697
..and the fish that reaches maturity at 25 is the Patagonian Toothfish, which is sold in the USA as a Chilean Seabass and has now been overfished almost to extinction.

No, i'm not a vegan I don't agree with abortion after a certain number of weeks because that would be killing a baby that is capable of living outside of its mothers womb. Viability I believe, so anything after 22-24 weeks is out of the question. Until that point, the mother has the choice of what to do with her body although if she is going to choose abortion, then the earlier the better for her health. And I think the majority of abortions at 22 weeks are for extreme medical reasons where the welfare of the mother is in danger, and not someone who hasnt realised she's pregnant and doesnt want the baby. Most of those pregnancies are terminated within a few weeks, and I don't see why a woman should be forced by law to carry a baby to term and then bring an unwanted baby into the world. Surely the world is already suffering from overpopulation.

[bryantm3]

stimpee, why are you talking about fish? that's like if we were having a discussion about the death penalty and you said "well if we're going to ban the death penalty, we should stop eating animals". i don't mean to be insulting, but that's really from left field. a fish isn't a person. a grown cow has more intelligence than a newborn child, but does that mean it's okay to kill a newborn child?

Surely the world is already suffering from overpopulation.

So, in the name of overpopulation, certain members of the population should be eliminated for the common good.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

In retrospect, it was a contradiction that I perceived, and not one she explicitly said herself. To be fair, "wrong. so very very wrong," in response to my statement lead me to believe the pro-choice portion of my statement was in fact the opposite of reality. I don't think anyone here would disagree with the statement that pro-lifers view the fetus as its own entity. Coincidentally, I can't conceive of a middle ground between a fetus being an extension female form or a unique being, so the "wrong. so very wrong" statement lead me to believe I picked the wrong orientation with respect to pro-choicers' views. I'm still trying to get things straight upstairs... Sorry for the miscommunication I guess.

where you went wrong was assuming there are only two possible viewpoints: yours and the polar opposite. an arrogant assumption on your part that yours gets to be one of the two.

for many of us neither point you illustrated matches our view. but since you weren't interested in being constructive and simply asking for my view and instead forced a rather pejoratively worded perspective on me as though i originated it, i don't feel any particular need to clarify myself.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

So I guess I'll have to throw out the question, "When does a fetus become a person?" "Is aborting a baby not the most un-motherish thing, biologically, that a mother can do?"

1) i wish you'd asked that earlier when i had any interest in discussing it with you.

2) what does that have to do with anything? that's the weirdest question i've ever come across in an abortion debate.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

II'm really not THAT arrogant. I'll admit that I've been more eager than others to get to the meat of what there is to discuss.

pardon me, but all i did was get to the meat of it. the actual flesh, the real meat. all you've done is float around in happyland, postulating philosophical questions as though they have any merit in reality.

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by stimpee

Fish have great memories and they feel pain and yet we leave them out to suffocate, cut their gills and let them bleed to death without a thought. They surely have a much more developed brain (if a foetus indeed has a brain at 22 days).

Don't you have to kill what you want to eat? Besides, the priority of laws is not to violate human rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" hasn't got much sway in aquariums. In fact, killing a fish is part of one person's pursuit of happiness that does not violate other people's rights, then it is totally legal. Law sets the standard of interpersonal relationships, mediated by government, because people willfully enter in the social contract of government. Government, and coincidentally the rule of law, aren't universal maxims. At this stage in history, humans can't even avoid killing each other... Good luck getting people to aim their biological need to eat. Noble, but impractical for today's world. Can be keep the abortion debate framed within humans and the laws we apply to ourselves?

Originally Posted by cacophony

pardon me, but all i did was get to the meat of it. the actual flesh, the real meat. all you've done is float around in happyland, postulating philosophical questions as though they have any merit in reality.

If we followed your line of discussion there would be thousands of special cases we would have to entertain. That's just not practical. That's why lawmakers turn to reasoning.... Nuances are important after you've laid out the groundwork. I don't like to build my house with the furniture first, basically.

Speaking of that reasoning. When it comes to our little misunderstanding... if the fetus is not a unique individual, and its not an extension of the female form... what could it be? Nothing. That is why the polar opposites interpretation was sound. Oh, well. I made a mistake. WE GET IT: You're madz0rz! If you're too busy being sore to discuss what we're talking about now, don't respond. You're not a victim... go do something productive.

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

stimpee, why are you talking about fish? that's like if we were having a discussion about the death penalty and you said "well if we're going to ban the death penalty, we should stop eating animals". i don't mean to be insulting, but that's really from left field. a fish isn't a person. a grown cow has more intelligence than a newborn child, but does that mean it's okay to kill a newborn child?

So, in the name of overpopulation, certain members of the population should be eliminated for the common good.

youre the one talking about "i think every life should be treated as equal under the law, including the life of the unborn child." and a fish isnt a person, and neither is a 1hr old pregnancy. neither is a 22 day old heartbeat. So I guess it comes down to viability again. You're right, i got distracted. Let me try to clarify.

There will always be abortions. Making it illegal will just mean more women die in the process. Nobody wants to have an abortion. Nobody wakes up in the morning, thinking 'I hope I get pregnant so I can have an abortion.' This is why contraception exists. I don't know of any person who thinks abortion is an easy solution. Why would anyone want to go through the pain, humiliation, and emotional stress of having an abortion if they could prevent it? Contraception isnt 100%.

The bible says that abortion is wrong. What gives the church the right to dictate to government its "moral" values? What happened to separaton of church and state? God shouldn't have any say in the matter because not everybody believes in his existence.

What is supposed to happen to all these unwanted babies that women are being forced to carry to term? adoption? anyone who uses this argument should be willing to adopt the baby themselves.

Until a foetus can survive outside the mother's body, it is not a human being and should not enjoy the same rights as the mother does. Until that point, if you ask, who has the right to live, the woman or the foetus? It should be the woman, every time.

Abortion is a not a quick and easy way out. Women don't just show up in a clinic, hand over their credit cards (in countries where its not free) and get an abortion. There are doctor visits and councelling to go through. Making the choice is hard enough by itself. Going through it must be difficult and painful physically and mentally.

I wish pro-lifers would put their energy and convictions into bettering education and the availability of contraception. Prevent the problem instead of rabidly opposing one of its solutions. Nobody is trying to make them do something they don't want to do. They should extend that courtesy to others who don't share their beliefs.

I'm spent with this thread. If you want to carry on imposing your religious values on people I dont want to hear about it.

over and out.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

... go do something productive.

She DID, twice at one time!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" hasn't got much sway in aquariums.

Great line.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

If we followed your line of discussion there would be thousands of special cases we would have to entertain. That's just not practical. That's why lawmakers turn to reasoning.... Nuances are important after you've laid out the groundwork. I don't like to build my house with the furniture first, basically.

I think that's kind of the point. In the case of abortion, there are so many variables, so many unique cases, so many significant possibilities to consider that it seems counter-productive to me to even try boiling it down to simple, blanket legislation. Any law put on the books, even about late-term abortions and such, really requires a laundry list of caveats and exceptions written into it in order to be at all constructive. And not to keep pointing this back to Cacophony, but I think her first-hand examples along with her hypothetical situation illustrated that point very clearly.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Speaking of that reasoning. When it comes to our little misunderstanding... if the fetus is not a unique individual, and its not an extension of the female form... what could it be? Nothing. That is why the polar opposites interpretation was sound.

Not necessarily. I mean, this question strikes right at the heart of what really drives the abortion debate, which is at what point does an individual life begin? Personally, I don't consider an early cluster of developing cells to be an individual life yet. There's no functional structure as far as the concept of a body is concerned, no brain to provide a consciousness, no chemical reactions to induce emotion....it's a cluster of cells that is relatively quickly forming into what will one day be a tiny person. I don't say that to detract from the incredible nature of the cluster of cells, I'm just referring to the issue of what constitutes an individual life and where I personally stand on it.

Of course when that cell cluster actually becomes a living, conscious, emotional individual is a question that I don't think anyone has been able to answer, so I have no idea when that cut-off mark would be. But even after that point has come and gone, there are still many, many situations that people may find themselves in where they have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, and it's simply not my place to make that choice for them. It seems to me that this is where you and I really part ways. Overall, when you consider everyone's unique health situations, everyone's individual financial situations, everyone's unique social situations (abusive homes, dangerous environments, etc), everyone's religious beliefs, everyone's ages....all the major factors that would play into this kind of a difficult decision....then I just cannot bring myself to feel any kind of confidence about telling them "sorry, but your situation isn't exempt from the law that restricts you from having an abortion. You'll just have to accept that you're going to live the rest of your life in financial ruin/bring a baby into an abusive situation/give birth to a rape baby/die/etc."

[myrrh]

Originally Posted by Sean

Of course when that cell cluster actually becomes a living, conscious, emotional individual is a question that I don't think anyone has been able to answer[/I]

Well... according to Islaam, this happens at 120 days, as this is when the soul is put into the baby. Prior to this point, it is not an actual 'being' (for lack of better words) and rather just the collection of cells being forming into the human. And thus prior to this point, abortion is legal for due reason - like rape, incest, fetal deformity etc.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

....it's a cluster of cells that is relatively quickly forming into what will one day be a tiny person. I don't say that to detract from the incredible nature of the cluster of cells, I'm just referring to the issue of what constitutes an individual life

This is ripe for a thread of its own.

I suppose life is probably too generic a word, too broad, and we need to break it down more than that. Perhaps it's better asking the question, what exactly are we taking away?

In my view, it's more a potential than it is a self-conscious being with a view of itself continuing into the future. The capacity of the foetus to suffer is nothing like the capacity of the mother to suffer.

For that reason - for me - the mother and the mother alone gets the choice. Every time.

If she wishes to take whatever risks to go through the pregnancy, that's up to her and her alone.

I'm sure we've had a similar discussion to this on here in the past.

Stimpee: I actually kind of appreciated the point you were trying to make re. the fish. If we take sanctity out of the equation, awareness of self and awareness of suffering are very good barometers for what some of us view as morally right or wrong. (I fully recognize that means I'm probably living unethically if not hypocritically in some ways, but I accept that is an inconsistency on my part between my own ideals/ethics and how close I choose to stick to them).

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Speaking of that reasoning. When it comes to our little misunderstanding... if the fetus is not a unique individual, and its not an extension of the female form... what could it be? Nothing. That is why the polar opposites interpretation was sound. Oh, well. I made a mistake. WE GET IT: You're madz0rz! If you're too busy being sore to discuss what we're talking about now, don't respond. You're not a victim... go do something productive.

well you've done much in this conversation to convince me that pro-lifers aren't just dicks.