Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

First question. Is the newborn child really innocent?

Everybody's innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of his or her peers.

Nonsense, There is a presumption of innocence in criminal cases. The determination of guilt is made by a jury.

Yes, I worded my statement a bit awkwardly. I should have used the word "found" rather than "proven."

[Forty Two]

First question. Is the newborn child really innocent?

No, but they are surreally innocent.

[Forty Two]

First question. Is the newborn child really innocent?

Surely, once you have a newborn child, it's a little late for abortion?

That depends where you draw the line. The opening of the vagina seems rather arbitrary.

[Forty Two]

It's a fetus an hour before birth. It is not a citizen yet so it has no rights.

I think every international tourist would argue that your citizenship requirement for having any rights is incorrect.

[Forty Two]

"Unborn babies" eh? Might as well say unborn pensioners.

We both know that pensioners would object, those with no voice have no say.

You have missed the fact that Brian Peacock pointed out an oxymoron. A foetus is no more a baby than a pensioner.

Sure, but labels do not govern biology, and one might legitimately suggest baby-status of a "fetus" that is 35 weeks along.

I mean, I am pro choice, don't get me wrong. But, I like a compromise stance, which is that it should be unrestricted up through around 20 weeks, but after that there should be a good reason for it. By about 28 weeks, it can be born by natural delivery or c-section and survive.

To say that it is a "fetus" until it squeezes out of the vagina, or is removed from a C-Section incision, reduces the biological issue to semantics.

[Forty Two]

What in the fuck are you babbling on about now?

rEv! Welcome back dude, missed ya!

You're replying to a month old post. rEv was suspended a week later and has not returned since then.

What was he suspended for?

[Seth]

"Unborn babies" eh? Might as well say unborn pensioners.

We both know that pensioners would object, those with no voice have no say.

You have missed the fact that Brian Peacock pointed out an oxymoron. A foetus is no more a baby than a pensioner.

Sure, but labels do not govern biology, and one might legitimately suggest baby-status of a "fetus" that is 35 weeks along.

I mean, I am pro choice, don't get me wrong. But, I like a compromise stance, which is that it should be unrestricted up through around 20 weeks, but after that there should be a good reason for it. By about 28 weeks, it can be born by natural delivery or c-section and survive.

To say that it is a "fetus" until it squeezes out of the vagina, or is removed from a C-Section incision, reduces the biological issue to semantics.

It's much worse than just semantics, it's a complete denial of all the scientific evidence that exists on fetal development and human biology. It's an entirely POLITICAL stance that has everything to do with radical feminism and a feminist insistence on being exempt from the natural consequences of biology.

There is absolutely no scientific debate whatsoever on the simple biological fact that a new, unique, distinguishable human being comes into existence at the moment that the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the central spindle in a new and unique genetic pattern. This is the single defining moment that distinguishes between an ovum and sperm or fertilized egg, which are all genetically identical to the respective donors, and a new human being that is both alive and genetically distinct from every other human being.

That is in fact the ONLY precisely identifiable point in time in the genesis and development of the new human being where there is any fundamental identifiable change in the basic nature of the organism. Everything after that point is nothing more than a matter of biological maturation and development of the already-existing programmed course of growth. There is no time after that moment when the basic biological nature of the organism changes from one thing to another, as in from a sperm and egg or fertilized egg to a dog, or a rabbit, or an elephant or a human being. It is a human being as of that moment and it remains a human being thereafter, right up until it dies.

Trying to define a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus as non-human is pure political and ideological idiocy of the highest order. The terms zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are not descriptors for different genus' or species of organism, they are scientific descriptors of stages of development of the organism, nothing more.

The issue here is, as has been obscurely pointed out, one of "rights," not one of biology. As a matter of "rights" the issue is, according to liberal dogma, a matter of societal consensus and decision making that depends on its moral and ethical strength by claiming justification based on the will of the majority expressed democratically. Therefore, there is nothing impeding a democratically expressed order to ban abortion entirely and/or grant rights to the new human being at the moment it comes into being, at the aforesaid moment in time...according to liberal/socialist doctrine.

This is, of course, based on the liberal/socialist principle that rights are not inherent or God-given, but rather are dispensed by the government at the pleasure of the collective.

So, the ethical collectivist can only admit that abortion is nothing more than a privilege granted by the collective as expressed by democratic decision making, and that this privilege may be revoked completely or in part at the whim and caprice of the collective through the democratic process, because of course, "rights" may be granted and taken away using that process.

On the other hand, if one believes that certain rights are inherent, such as the right of all human beings to life, then the ethical individual cannot support abortion at any stage of development because the organism inside the mother is indisputably a living human being which has a right to live.

The problem is that liberal/socialist/feminists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to maintain that a woman's "right to choose" is absolute and unalienable while simultaneously denying that the fetus's right to life is just as absolute and inalienable.

Thus we have competing rights, the right to choose versus the right to life. How do we balance the exercise of these competing rights, which is a fundamental function of government?

Rationally, we must look at the impact of abridging each right upon the individual asserting the right and decide which of the rights involved is more important and resides higher on the hierarchy of rights and thus must prevail over the other.

The answer is obvious: The imposition on the right to choose of the mother is that she must carry the child to term and deliver it, which is a temporary and normally harmless imposition on her liberty, and is one (in most cases) that she burdens herself with by consenting to having sex. At the end of gestation and delivery, she is free to abandon and disclaim responsibility for the child according to law and her liberty to choose is thereby restored completely.

The imposition on the right to life of the child is absolute, permanent and deadly. The child dies without being permitted to even express an opinion on it's desire to survive because it is unable to so communicate. However, we may assume that because the fetus lives, it inherently has an evolutionary drive or desire to continue to live, which should be enough to bar the interference with its right to continued life at least until it is capable of expressing itself on the matter. We do not, after all, kill persons who are asleep, unconscious or even comatose merely because they are currently unable to express themselves or state a claim of right to continued survival.

The only rational balance that is produced by this adjudication of rights is that the mother is obligated, by her own actions, to gestate and deliver the child alive, if possible, in order that the superior right of the child to live is protected. While this means a temporary imposition on her rights, it is obvious that the gravity of reversing this obligation disallows it as a matter of fundamental fairness, equality and due process of law.

Therefore, the rational, logical course of action is to make all abortion except those medically necessary to prevent the mother from dying completely illegal and to impose upon women the obvious and natural responsibility of operating their sexual reproduction organs in a responsible manner during which they accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions in engaging in voluntary sexual activity.

In other words ladies, if you don't want to get knocked-up and have to deliver the baby, keep your knickers on and your knees together, or use birth control.

[Brian Peacock]

Where does your obvious regard for the rights of the unborn stand when, in the broadest sense, a prospective mother decides that either she or society do not have the resources to adequately care for a child through to adulthood? Would you agree that sometimes it may be better to have never been born than, say, be born into inevitable grinding poverty, neglect, or some other harm?

[mistermack]

On the other hand, if one believes that certain rights are inherent, such as the right of all human beings to life, then the ethical individual cannot support abortion at any stage of development because the organism inside the mother is indisputably a living human being which has a right to live.

What do you mean, indisputably? Because you say so? Is that your logic? My logic says that if people dispute it, it's disputable. And billions of people DO dispute it. Me included.

It's living, but it's not a human, it's a fetus.
The clue is in the name.

[Tero]

And what gives the state the right to control this baby or fetus inside the mom? It's not a citizen until it has a birth certificate. Inside, it is under the woman's jurisdiction. Her survival goes first. She might have 5 other mouths to feed.

[Seth]

Where does your obvious regard for the rights of the unborn stand when, in the broadest sense, a prospective mother decides that either she or society do not have the resources to adequately care for a child through to adulthood? Would you agree that sometimes it may be better to have never been born than, say, be born into inevitable grinding poverty, neglect, or some other harm?

That's a philosophical and moral question not a question of science. Before we discuss philosophical and moral issues I'd like to settle the science and come to an agreement about the nature of the organism we are discussing. Otherwise I know where the discussion goes and it inevitably dissolves into bickering about whether or not a fetus is a "human being" or not.

If we can agree, even arguendo, on the premise that the organism created by the alignment of the maternal and paternal chromosomes along the spindle apparatus that forms the "zygote", or what is universally recognized as the first cell of a new and unique human being, is in fact a human being, then it might be productive to discuss the moral and ethical implications of terminating that human life at one time or another.

[Seth]

On the other hand, if one believes that certain rights are inherent, such as the right of all human beings to life, then the ethical individual cannot support abortion at any stage of development because the organism inside the mother is indisputably a living human being which has a right to live.

What do you mean, indisputably? Because you say so? Is that your logic? My logic says that if people dispute it, it's disputable. And billions of people DO dispute it. Me included.

It's living, but it's not a human, it's a fetus.
The clue is in the name.

The "name" you refer to is not a name, it's an entirely arbitrary scientific descriptor of the stage of development of a living organism (in this case a human being), nothing more. It's not a species of "goat" which turns into a species of "dove" which turns into a species of "snake" which suddenly and miraculously becomes the species "human being" when, and only when it's completely ejected from the vaginal canal. It's a human being from the instant the zygote is formed until it dies. It is comprised of human DNA and has achieved the state of "being" in that it exists as a unique new living organism of the species homo sapiens sapiens. It can be nothing else but a human being.

It's indisputable because it has been proven beyond any doubt by scientific investigation that the organism that is created by the alignment of the maternal and paternal chromosomes of two human beings within a fertilized human egg is entirely comprised of human DNA and it is in fact a new, living, presently single-celled organism beginning development into a fully-developed human being.

That you refuse to accept this basic scientific fact shows how little you value both reason and science and how deep you are in your delusional religious belief that a living human fetus is not a living human being.

[Seth]

And what gives the state the right to control this baby or fetus inside the mom? It's not a citizen until it has a birth certificate. Inside, it is under the woman's jurisdiction. Her survival goes first. She might have 5 other mouths to feed.

The state has the same authority to control the baby as it does to control the mother or anyone else, according to socialist doctrine. Whether or when the fetus becomes a "citizen" is, of course, an entirely political matter subject (according to socialist doctrine) to the control and consent of the collective in the interests of the collective. That's the nature of "democracy" according to all of the socialist arguments ever made here. In socialist theory all "rights" are granted by the state and therefore are creatures of the state and subject to apportionment and revocation by the state according to the democratically expressed will of the collective.

Do you dispute this?

No? I didn't think so.

Therefore, if the state decides that it is in the interests of the collective to forbid abortion, and the collective authorizes the state to enforce that decision, then the wishes or desires of the mother are irrelevant. The state may have many reasons for asserting control of the woman's reproductive system including, at it's most basic level, the need of the collective to maintain it's population and workforce, which may require it to assert authority over the reproductive choices and activities of the individual members of the collective in the interests of the survival and prosperity of the collective.

This condition occurs because socialist theory discounts the existence of pre-existing, natural, unalienable rights that accrue to any individual of the collective that may be asserted and enforced against the democratic will of the majority because all rights and privileges emanate from the democratic will of the majority.

[mistermack]

It's indisputable because it has been proven beyond any doubt by scientific investigation that the organism that is created by the alignment of the maternal and paternal chromosomes of two human beings within a fertilized human egg is entirely comprised of human DNA and it is in fact a new, living, presently single-celled organism beginning development into a fully-developed human being.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word indisputable. Would you like to give us YOUR definition?

As far as I'm concerned, a fetus is a POTENTIAL human being.
A fertilised human egg is not a human being to most people. Even you called it a single celled organism. You need to make your mind up. Is it a human being, or a single celled organism?

When a baby dies shortly after it's born, people say it only lived X hours.
They don't say it lived 9 months and X hours.

[Tero]

And what gives the state the right to control this baby or fetus inside the mom? It's not a citizen until it has a birth certificate. Inside, it is under the woman's jurisdiction. Her survival goes first. She might have 5 other mouths to feed.

The state has the same authority to control the baby as it does to control the mother or anyone else, according to socialist doctrine. Whether or when the fetus becomes a "citizen" is, of course, an entirely political matter subject (according to socialist doctrine) to the control and consent of the collective in the interests of the collective. That's the nature of "democracy" according to all of the socialist arguments ever made here. In socialist theory all "rights" are granted by the state and therefore are creatures of the state and subject to apportionment and revocation by the state according to the democratically expressed will of the collective.

Do you dispute this?

No? I didn't think so.

Therefore, if the state decides that it is in the interests of the collective to forbid abortion, and the collective authorizes the state to enforce that decision, then the wishes or desires of the mother are irrelevant. The state may have many reasons for asserting control of the woman's reproductive system including, at it's most basic level, the need of the collective to maintain it's population and workforce, which may require it to assert authority over the reproductive choices and activities of the individual members of the collective in the interests of the survival and prosperity of the collective.

This condition occurs because socialist theory discounts the existence of pre-existing, natural, unalienable rights that accrue to any individual of the collective that may be asserted and enforced against the democratic will of the majority because all rights and privileges emanate from the democratic will of the majority.

We have a constitution. Nowhere in the constitution are fetuses, let alone black people mentioned. Fetuses and slaves had no rights. You need an amendment to give fetuses at 20 weeks, or whatever point, the rights of citizenship.