Originally Posted by Ele
Somebody explain to me (because a lot of you seem to be making this judgment) why they think the 'rights' of a foetus/embryo to live outweighs the rights of a woman to do whatever the hell she wants to her body?
Okay, well, foetus and embryo are both words used to dehumanize. Of course, you may argue that their initial purpose is to describe the various developmental stages of the human, but it's occurred to me that the pro-choice side will use these words commonly, up until birth. In order to make the human life sounds anything but a human life, these words continue to navigate the abortion discussion, and understandably, if the pro-choice side wants to maintain that particular boundary between policy and morality.
The objective standpoint in this debate is that life begins at conception. Every scientific textbook will tell you this. You will only find arbitrary definitions as to when human life begins on the other side; some say life begins at 10 weeks, some say 24, some say not until birth, some say when he/she/it can feel pain, some say when self-awareness kicks in, etc. These aren't substantial and are lacking in objectivity. Of course, people won't hesitate to justify violence when it suits them.
The right to choose cannot overwrite the right to life, and that is my stance. If you claim otherwise, then you are openly admitting that human life has no value, that we should throw away anything we know about human development, that you are embracing a society where we live without moral consequence and do whatever the fuck we like as long as we bloody well like it. That, to me, does not sound like an improvement.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Okay, well, foetus and embryo are both words used to dehumanize. Of course, you may argue that their initial purpose is to describe the various developmental stages of the human, but it's occurred to me that the pro-choice side will use these words commonly, up until birth. In order to make the human life sounds anything but a human life, these words continue to navigate the abortion discussion, and understandably, if the pro-choice side wants to maintain that particular boundary between policy and morality.
That's some conspiratorial outlook right there. I don't think I have to respond to that. I'm going to continue to call a foetus a foetus and an embryo an embryo. You know, because that's what they're friggin called.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
The objective standpoint in this debate is that life begins at conception. Every scientific textbook will tell you this. You will only find arbitrary definitions as to when human life begins on the other side; some say life begins at 10 weeks, some say 24, some say not until birth, some say when he/she/it can feel pain, some say when self-awareness kicks in, etc. These aren't substantial and are lacking in objectivity. Of course, people won't hesitate to justify violence when it suits them.
That's not an objective fact at all. 'When does life begin' is one of the central questions in abortion that's debated - There is no scientific consensus on this (did you know sperm is also alive). Just because Ben Shapiro tells you that it's an objective fact doesn't make it an objective fact.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
If you claim otherwise, then you are openly admitting that human life has no value, that we should throw away anything we know about human development, that you are embracing a society where we live without moral consequence and do whatever the fuck we like as long as we bloody well like it. That, to me, does not sound like an improvement.
Yeah, nah. It's not saying human life has no value. It's recognising that the life and rights of a woman are more important than the perceived rights of some unborn child. It's valuing current human life over potential human life. You're completely hysterical if you think that this equates with 'life has no value'.
Last edited by Ele; Nov 29, 2016 at 05:29 AM.
Originally Posted by Ele
That's not an objective fact at all. 'When does life begin' is one of the central questions in abortion that's debated - There is no scientific consensus on this (did you know sperm is also alive). Just because Ben Shapiro tells you that it's an objective fact doesn't make it an objective fact.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to convince me that human life starts elsewhere, then you're gonna have to pull your sources together because that is an extraordinary claim. Most pro-abortionists actually admit that human life does start at conception, though will subsequently argue that rights come from personhood (this vague term with fascist undertones that somehow argues that our developmental process determines our level of value).
If the argument was subjective, then it would be influenced by personal feelings and opinions, but this is not the case. There is a rational position to take on all of this, which goes as far as saying that when the sperm fertilises the egg, human life starts. It's the only sustainable view. And I'm sorry, yes, sperm is living, but sperm is not the inheritance of the human; it has no value by itself.
If you wish to debate when human life starts, which is the fundamental argument in all of this, then make your case. If it's just a blob of jelly, then you can do whatever you want with it. If it's a human you can't kill it.
Originally Posted by Ele
Yeah, nah. It's not saying human life has no value. It's recognising that the life and rights of a woman are more important than the perceived rights of some unborn child. It's valuing current human life over potential human life. You're completely hysterical if you think that this equates with 'life has no value'.
No, potential has nothing to do with it. The 'foetus' in the womb is a physically, objectively existing thing. It is vital that we don't set values on each other, no matter what our developmental stage, shape or size. Of course, we all know what regime exterminated human beings based on their genetics.
Forumite
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Of course, we all know what regime exterminated human beings based on their genetics.
gotta love that inevitable nazi regime reference. you look very clever using arguments like that
The "where does life begin" question is a tricky one, but that's not necessarily the only line of reasoning either. you can look at the economic and societal benefits as well, you don't need to just reason based on abstract human rights and whether unborn people deserve them
although my 2 cents on that topic are that life basically begins at conception. a sperm is just that - a sperm. It has no individual capability to become a person. Same thing with an egg. They will continue to be sperm and eggs barring human interference. That's not the case with embryos/fetuses. Barring unfortunate accidents of nature, they are on the inevitable path to being people. any interruptions in that process are depriving that lifeform of its normally inevitable personhood, and honestly there is no moral highground for pro-choicers on this part of the question
that of course isn't to say that there aren't good arguments to be made from other perspectives like the ones i mentioned earlier, but pro-choicers need to put the conception schpeal behind them, because it's not a battle they can win.
for the record, i'm pro choice
Originally Posted by Pouffy
gotta love that inevitable nazi regime reference. you look very clever using arguments like that
Gotta love how you didn't argue against it, but just felt it was better to rather undermine it. I get it, Nazism and Hitler are compared with everything nowadays, but I think you'll find it's a valid comparison, despite your own personal stance on the issue.
Look, if the pro-choicers do not battle the subject of conception, then they have already lost. You can argue when rights are given, since human rights are arbitrary anyway, but you cannot argue when human life starts. A pro-choicer must accept that they are knowingly arguing for the destruction of a human life in the name of choice. This subsequently shows that they believe the womb to be the almighty veto over what deserves to live, which is of course nonsense, since you have babies being born at times where they can be aborted. The only difference between a baby and a 'foetus' is that one is outside the womb and one is not. To conceivably claim that this transition is so crucial, to the extent of which the right to life is suddenly given once he/she has been born, is so demonstrably cruel and petty that it raises the question, "Has the majority of the pro-choice side ever witnessed an abortion before?". I ask you to look one up and watch it, and you'll see quite plainly that what is being killed is a living human being.
