Wrong. Choice is a freedom we have when life is not involved. For example, I can choose to take a trade with a bad risk/reward ratio because all that is on the line is money. But when we are talking about human life, I think we need to err on the side of caution. Again, I just don't understand the real motive here by some.
Abortion
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Wrong. Choice is a freedom we have when life is not involved. For example, I can choose to take a trade with a bad risk/reward ratio because all that is on the line is money. But when we are talking about human life, I think we need to err on the side of caution. Again, I just don't understand the real motive here by some.
if genetic codes do not distinquish species, individuality, and that something living is not part of something else----- i have a serious misconception of science.
surfer
If the government has a duty to protect what you call the unborn individual, why is it not illegal for pregnant women to engage in behavior that is potentially destructive to the fetus?
Why are poor pregnant women not supported by the government in a manner that ensures the maximum health of the fetus?
Why does the government then not take full responsibility for the fetus once it hatches and becomes a child?
Why are poor pregnant women not supported by the government in a manner that ensures the maximum health of the fetus?
Why does the government then not take full responsibility for the fetus once it hatches and becomes a child?
Actually the government does. Ever heard of SSI benefits? ART, come on man, you are slipping here. The government does exactly what you say it does not.
Mav:
>I understand your logic and the logic of many on
>the left, but if you admittedly don't know, which
>you said so much, why not err on the side of
>caution? Can you answer this for me? Thanks.
I will answer your entire question in a moment, but for the record let's establish a couple things...
Point A: Fetus = Human
Point B: Protected human live begins at conception.
As to point "A", you have never heard me say that I "don't know" let alone say it "so much" as you assert. I *know* that (for me) a fetus *does* become a human at some point.
As to point "B", you have never heard me say that I "don't know" let alone say it "so much" as you assert. I *know* that (for me) it does *not* begin at conception.
I will follow both up in next post.
JB
>I understand your logic and the logic of many on
>the left, but if you admittedly don't know, which
>you said so much, why not err on the side of
>caution? Can you answer this for me? Thanks.
I will answer your entire question in a moment, but for the record let's establish a couple things...
Point A: Fetus = Human
Point B: Protected human live begins at conception.
As to point "A", you have never heard me say that I "don't know" let alone say it "so much" as you assert. I *know* that (for me) a fetus *does* become a human at some point.
As to point "B", you have never heard me say that I "don't know" let alone say it "so much" as you assert. I *know* that (for me) it does *not* begin at conception.
I will follow both up in next post.
JB
You are wrong about this, my sister is actually on it so I can speak from experience.
Two pieces of DNA from two human beings are in a laboratory.
Do those two pieces of DNA in the lab have individuality?
Nope.
Once a human being is dead, DNA is still there. Does a dead human being have individuality?
Nope. When the life is gone, individuality is gone.
DNA and individuality are separate and distinct. DNA itself does not hold the status of individuality in the same way we refer to an individual human being.
Your argument pre-supposes that DNA is human life, which it is
not. It is simply a molecular structure in which human life exists....not human life itself.
Upon death, the DNA remains, the individual does not.
Do those two pieces of DNA in the lab have individuality?
Nope.
Once a human being is dead, DNA is still there. Does a dead human being have individuality?
Nope. When the life is gone, individuality is gone.
DNA and individuality are separate and distinct. DNA itself does not hold the status of individuality in the same way we refer to an individual human being.
Your argument pre-supposes that DNA is human life, which it is
not. It is simply a molecular structure in which human life exists....not human life itself.
Upon death, the DNA remains, the individual does not.
Quote from marketsurfer:
if genetic codes do not distinquish species, individuality, and that something living is not part of something else----- i have a serious misconception of science.
surfer
Mav:
>Turok let me ask you something. Let's say we don't
>know if the fetus is a living being yet OK. Let's say
>we can't agree on when life begins OK, meaning that
>both sides don't really know for sure.
WHAT...Mav and JB having a civil exchange? ... cataclysmic event...cats and dogs living together. Soon RS and Max will be dating.
>Why not just err on the side of caution. Why not just say,
>well, even if there is only a one in a million chance that the
>fetus is a human being, why take the chance. See I just
>don't get that. You are basically saying the odds are 50/50,
>So I say screw it, kill the fetus.
First, I don't consider the odds 50/50. I don't consider there is a one in a million chance that protectable human life begins at conception. I HAVE concluded for myself that there comes a point when a fetus IS a human but FOR ME that point is not conception, period -- no 50/50, no 1/1,000,000. With that conclusion I must support a woman's right to choose *to a point*.
You're telling me (I believe) that if 10 human female eggs are fertilized and frozen (have friends who've been there done that) and 8 years later they are tossed, that 10 murders have just taken place the moment they thaw and become unviable? That position may be fine for you, but for me I CAN'T DEFEND IT cause it doesn't make any sense to me.
But now you are getting down to the core of it for me. I *do* err on the side of caution considering my position. Let me explain...
If I were in the position that I was judge and jury over a woman's right to choose, I would ensure the right to choose for the first trimester and then that choice would be gone. Do I think protected human life begins promptly at the start of the second trimester? -- no, but for me it starts before the third so I AM going to err on the side of caution and cut it off at the first.
Thankfully I will never be in that position because perhaps the right to choose extends beyond this point and I could be considered repressive...but that's still where I draw the line.
JB
PS. Just so you know, separate viability is at the core of my beliefs regarding when the fetus becomes a protected human.
>Turok let me ask you something. Let's say we don't
>know if the fetus is a living being yet OK. Let's say
>we can't agree on when life begins OK, meaning that
>both sides don't really know for sure.
WHAT...Mav and JB having a civil exchange? ... cataclysmic event...cats and dogs living together. Soon RS and Max will be dating.
>Why not just err on the side of caution. Why not just say,
>well, even if there is only a one in a million chance that the
>fetus is a human being, why take the chance. See I just
>don't get that. You are basically saying the odds are 50/50,
>So I say screw it, kill the fetus.
First, I don't consider the odds 50/50. I don't consider there is a one in a million chance that protectable human life begins at conception. I HAVE concluded for myself that there comes a point when a fetus IS a human but FOR ME that point is not conception, period -- no 50/50, no 1/1,000,000. With that conclusion I must support a woman's right to choose *to a point*.
You're telling me (I believe) that if 10 human female eggs are fertilized and frozen (have friends who've been there done that) and 8 years later they are tossed, that 10 murders have just taken place the moment they thaw and become unviable? That position may be fine for you, but for me I CAN'T DEFEND IT cause it doesn't make any sense to me.
But now you are getting down to the core of it for me. I *do* err on the side of caution considering my position. Let me explain...
If I were in the position that I was judge and jury over a woman's right to choose, I would ensure the right to choose for the first trimester and then that choice would be gone. Do I think protected human life begins promptly at the start of the second trimester? -- no, but for me it starts before the third so I AM going to err on the side of caution and cut it off at the first.
Thankfully I will never be in that position because perhaps the right to choose extends beyond this point and I could be considered repressive...but that's still where I draw the line.
JB
PS. Just so you know, separate viability is at the core of my beliefs regarding when the fetus becomes a protected human.