Pro-lifers, explain your perspective for me please

[lightgigantic]

Was there a reason that you said "you are working with an arbitrary notion of consciousness ..." rather than "we ..."?

because the claim is coming from a very specific person (namely VI)

If so, I'm just curious as to where your non-arbitrary notion comes from and why your particular notion should be considered as valid for those that don't hold the same views / values as you from which your claim of validity arises.
:shrug:

an example of a non-arbitrary category would be one that holds across a broad spectrum of examples. For instance if I provide a definition of a non-person and it so happens that a mentally retarded person falls in the same category, I am relying on an arbitrary term ... or along the same agenda, if I provide a term that is necessarily vague when a more accurate one exists, I am doing the same thing (like for instance calling an abortion "tissue removal")

 

[lightgigantic]

I am not trying to make it more palatable. I am well aware it involves pumping out a potential human from a woman's body.

I just don't think a potential human is more important than a real and existing one.


.

then once again we come back to your use of the word "potential", which even legal courts are capable of recognizing.

For instance a person who potentially loses income isn't treated in any less of a real fashion. Of course you try to circumvent the issue by saying that they are not a person in the first place, but that merely begs the question.

(BTW what's your opinion of that woman who survived being an aborted fetus... can't think of her name at the moment)

 

[visceral_instinct]

then once again we come back to your use of the word "potential", which even legal courts are capable of recognizing.

For instance a person who potentially loses income isn't treated in any less of a real fashion. Of course you try to circumvent the issue by saying that they are not a person in the first place, but that merely begs the question.

(BTW what's your opinion of that woman who survived being an aborted fetus... can't think of her name at the moment)

So according to you, aborting a fetus is just as much a blow to a 'person' as, for example, carelessly knocking a young woman off her motorbike and causing lasting injury?

Why?

My opinion on her? I'm not sure. I don't really have one.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Is there something wrong with asking their opinions?



Luckily, Virginia SB962 failed before the General Assembly. That law would have required that mothers—or an agent acting appropriately on her behalf—report the fetal death within twenty-four hours, including the identity of the mother and location of the remains, which must be preserved until removal, destruction, or disposal is expressly authorized by appropriate authorities.

Indeed, such a law would have women calling authorities every time they have an unexpected bloody discharge.



Do you believe life begins at conception?
____________________

Notes:

Richmond Sunlight. "Fetal deaths; when occurs without medical attendance, mother, etc., must report within 24 hours. (SB962)". (n.d.) RichmondSunlight.com. March 31, 2010. http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2009/sb962/

Yike. I would rather be beaten to death, than live under such a law.

 

[Sarkus]

an example of a non-arbitrary category would be one that holds across a broad spectrum of examples.

You do realise that what you may consider to be arbitrary another might not, and vice-versa?

Do you consider there to be a difference between life and consciousness?
Do you consider that someone could be alive but not conscious?

...or along the same agenda, if I provide a term that is necessarily vague when a more accurate one exists, I am doing the same thing (like for instance calling an abortion "tissue removal")

And so an abortion is not the removal of tissue? You can provide support to the idea that there is more being removed? Using non-arbitrary notions?

 

[lightgigantic]

So according to you, aborting a fetus is just as much a blow to a 'person' as, for example, carelessly knocking a young woman off her motorbike and causing lasting injury?

Why?

worse actually, since abortion tends to be quite more premeditated and (more often than not) results in fatality

My opinion on her? I'm not sure. I don't really have one.

FYI, due to being aborted, she had a host of medical problems (cerebral palsy for one) ... just wonder whether you think she is due any damages IYHO

 

[lightgigantic]

You do realise that what you may consider to be arbitrary another might not, and vice-versa?

sure, but the act of applying it to a broad number of examples greatly minimizes it .... to say the least if I am running with a working definition of consciousness to make abortion more palatable and it works out that mentally retarded or comatose persons also fit the same description, that would tend to suggest greater issues of arbitrary judgment at work

Do you consider there to be a difference between life and consciousness?
Do you consider that someone could be alive but not conscious?

Do you understand how the term consciousness can be viewed as synonymous with life?

And so an abortion is not the removal of tissue? You can provide support to the idea that there is more being removed? Using non-arbitrary notions?

Sure
cancer surgery is also tissue removal, however unlike a fetus, a cancer growth never has the potential to take the form of life. Otherwise one could just as easily term cutting off someone's head as tissue removal (after all, what else is someone's head made of?)

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I'm not against choice. I just don't agree with abortion myself.

I think once you conceive you should realise that there is another person involved in your decisions.

Yeah an prolly even befor conceivin lots of people coud be beter educated about the potential consiquences.!!!

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Doesn't mean I think all choices are equally valid.

I dont know of anybody whos gole is to have an aborton... an like you... im mor conerned that women have the choise than the paticular choise they make.!!!

I be damed... it apears that we agree on this issue.!!!

 

[Sarkus]

sure, but the act of applying it to a broad number of examples greatly minimizes it .... to say the least if I am running with a working definition of consciousness to make abortion more palatable and it works out that mentally retarded or comatose persons also fit the same description, that would tend to suggest greater issues of arbitrary judgment at work

I would say you are in fact using an arbitrary notion of consciousness to make it as broad as possible to suit your own ends, based on your religious beliefs.

Do you understand how the term consciousness can be viewed as synonymous with life?

I can understand that people do indeed view them as synonymous, but I do not understand the thought processes behind such a view.

So I'll ask again, in case you forgot that I had asked:
Do you consider there to be a difference between life and consciousness?
Do you consider that someone could be alive but not conscious?

And I'll add another:
Do you consider that something can be conscious without being alive?

And please - no further avoidance.

Sure
cancer surgery is also tissue removal, however unlike a fetus, a cancer growth never has the potential to take the form of life. Otherwise one could just as easily term cutting off someone's head as tissue removal (after all, what else is someone's head made of?)

Your issue then is one of the type of tissue being removed rather than it actually being tissue removal?

So when is the "potential to take the form of life" to be considered actual "life"?

You are working with an arbitrary notion of life and consciousness, LG - which many others just simply do not share.

 

[visceral_instinct]

worse actually, since abortion tends to be quite more premeditated and (more often than not) results in fatality


FYI, due to being aborted, she had a host of medical problems (cerebral palsy for one) ... just wonder whether you think she is due any damages IYHO

Worse??

The fetus doesn't have take an aeon off work because of physical injuries. The fetus doesn't have to undergo surgery, or spend a month or so waiting to heal with its limbs in plaster. The fetus doesn't have to get metal rods put it its bones. The fetus doesn't have to struggle to not have a panic attack next time it rides off to the supermarket.

Well, someone should have just flushed her down the loo shouldn't they?

 

[lightgigantic]

I would say you are in fact using an arbitrary notion of consciousness to make it as broad as possible to suit your own ends, based on your religious beliefs.

my beliefs have nothing to do with it.
I was working with VI's explanation.

You might as well say that I am calling upon my beliefs to say decapitation is an artificially broadened term for tissue removal.
:shrug:

I can understand that people do indeed view them as synonymous, but I do not understand the thought processes behind such a view.

so is that a yes or a no?

So I'll ask again, in case you forgot that I had asked:
Do you consider there to be a difference between life and consciousness?
Do you consider that someone could be alive but not conscious?

If you can't understand the perspective that life is synonymous with consciousness, you would probably be better off asking that question.

And I'll add another:
Do you consider that something can be conscious without being alive?

And please - no further avoidance.

If life is taken as synonymous with life, what would you think?
(and please, no continued stubbornness in driving home loaded questions)

Your issue then is one of the type of tissue being removed rather than it actually being tissue removal?

well certainly, particularly if there are more accurate definitions for the process that entail consequences that aren't really approached with the term "tissue removal"

So when is the "potential to take the form of life" to be considered actual "life"?

when it displays the qualities of it of course.
For instance a living zygote has the potential to manifest symptoms that a cancer growth or even a dead zygote could never (provided of course that it isn't artificially interfered with)

You are working with an arbitrary notion of life and consciousness, LG - which many others just simply do not share.

If you are comfortable with scrapping the term "decapitation" in favor of "tissue removal", you would have an argument that relies on terms capable of being applied across a broad spectrum of scenarios.

 

[lightgigantic]

Worse??

The fetus doesn't have take an aeon off work because of physical injuries. The fetus doesn't have to undergo surgery, or spend a month or so waiting to heal with its limbs in plaster. The fetus doesn't have to get metal rods put it its bones. The fetus doesn't have to struggle to not have a panic attack next time it rides off to the supermarket.

if the person riding the motorcycle got squashed completely they also wouldn't have those problems

Well, someone should have just flushed her down the loo shouldn't they?

is that a yes or a no?

 

[quadraphonics]

Isn't that why its called conception?

Nothing in the definition of the word "conception" says anything about life as such. So, no.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think once you conceive you should realise that there is another person involved in your decisions.

You mean, the father?

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

Do you mean to imply that other pro-choice people are pro-abortion?

That anyone is pro-abortion, as such?

 

[visceral_instinct]

if the person riding the motorcycle got squashed completely they also wouldn't have those problems


is that a yes or a no?

A fetus was never conscious in the first place. The person on the motorbike had a LIFE and had it MESSED UP.

It's a no.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Do you mean to imply that other pro-choice people are pro-abortion? That anyone is pro-abortion, as such?

* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR

Hmm. I was just sharing with the other Moderators my wife's rather strongly expressed premise that women should not give a flying [fig] what men think about abortion until one of us [rascals] gets pregnant. In fact I recommended developing a permission list that would permit only female members to post on these threads. I noted that I only post when there is an objective issue such as law, biology or language, so I can be careful to avoid expressing an opinion.

So here we are with an issue of language.

The prefix pro- has several closely related meanings in English, which result in a certain ambiguity in some cases. When abortion was first decriminalized in the USA in 1973, the "pro-abortion" position was understood to mean "supportive" of the right to have an abortion, and was never interpreted--by either supporters or opponents--as favoring "mandatory" (whatever that could even mean) abortions under any circumstances. The faction who did not support the right to abortion quite logically called their position "anti-abortion."

Eventually the pro-abortion faction changed their title to "pro-choice." There were many reasons for this. One was to take the word "abortion" out of newspaper headlines so the issue could get more coverage. Another was to prevent the other side from capitalizing on the rhetoric to make it seem that they really were advocating mandatory abortions. This may sound ridiculous, but remember that after the intellectual heyday of the 1960s and early 1970s, the average American became much more poorly educated--one might say "doltish"--and therefore much more easily influenced by sloganeers.

Possibly another was to force their opponents to come up with a new title, or else be the faction whose name could not be printed in a family newspaper. What were they going to call themselves? Anti-choice? How could anyone argue against someone who says he is pro-choice?

Of course the sloganeers on the right were no less clever than the sloganeers on the left, so they came up with the name "pro-life." How can anyone argue against someone who says he is pro-life?

These labels have gotten rather old and I wouldn't be surprised if the sloganeers on each side are feverishly trying to come up with a new one which will be even harder to campaign against.

But the fact remains that the people in the pro-abortion or pro-choice camp support allowing women the right to have abortions, and the people in the anti-abortion or pro-life camp oppose allowing them that right.

In practice, the positions are not so clear-cut, except at the extreme ends of the movements. Most people who call themselves pro-abortion or pro-choice and vote accordingly are squeamish about late-term abortion of a fetus which, if the circumstance were a miscarriage, might be able to survive with today's heroic obstetric procedures. And most people who call themselves anti-abortion or pro-life would allow a woman (or her husband if she's unconscious and has never stated a preference) to choose to have a fetus aborted if continuation of the pregnancy is guaranteed to kill her; many allow it in case of incest or dreadful birth defects; some allow it in case of rape.

"Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" are slogans. They have the same meaning, and nuance abounds. The same is true of "pro-life" and "anti-abortion."

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Isn't that why its called conception?

No.

Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, explained:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs.​

I would say that conception, be it a "'process' over time" or single immediate event, is the beginning of a process that leads to life. But that's just my view.

My point is that if "life begins at conception", and thus "abortion is murder", then miscarriages will be investigated as any allegedly accidental death would be. And if that death can be traced to negligence, then mothers would—logically, it seems—face prosecution. What, though, are the limits of that negligence? Therein lies an ugly question: What obligations does a mother have when pregnant?

If the fetus dies in a car accident, is the mother culpable? I mean, if it's not a necessary journey. Really, I mean, does her "right" to go have nice dinner on the town with her husband trump the safety of the fetus? If the miscarriage occurs because she trips over the edge of the plastic floormat by her desk at work, is she culpable? After all, shouldn't the baby be the highest priority? If she falls down the stairs, is she culpable because she wasn't utilizing the best available footwear? Would you put a woman who just lost a pregnancy in the hotbox and grill her about everything she ate, and every activity she undertook during her pregnancy? If she can't answer every one of those questions, what then?

This is an implication of life beginning at conception. I consider it rather important.
____________________

Notes:

Blackmun, J. Harry. "Opinion of the Court". Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court of the United States. January 22, 1973. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. April 1, 2010. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

 

[visceral_instinct]

I did indeed notice these issues.

When I say pro-choice, I mean literally pro-choice - supportive of a woman's right to make a free informed choice whether that is aborting a fetus or keeping it.

I find the term pro-life asinine. I am pro-life. I like being alive. It doesn't mean I'm anti-abortion, I'm just very literal.

 

[visceral_instinct]

...My point is that if "life begins at conception", and thus "abortion is murder", then miscarriages will be investigated as any allegedly accidental death would be. And if that death can be traced to negligence, then mothers would—logically, it seems—face prosecution. What, though, are the limits of that negligence? Therein lies an ugly question: What obligations does a mother have when pregnant?

If the fetus dies in a car accident, is the mother culpable? I mean, if it's not a necessary journey. Really, I mean, does her "right" to go have nice dinner on the town with her husband trump the safety of the fetus? If the miscarriage occurs because she trips over the edge of the plastic floormat by her desk at work, is she culpable? After all, shouldn't the baby be the highest priority? If she falls down the stairs, is she culpable because she wasn't utilizing the best available footwear? Would you put a woman who just lost a pregnancy in the hotbox and grill her about everything she ate, and every activity she undertook during her pregnancy? If she can't answer every one of those questions, what then?

This is an implication of life beginning at conception. I consider it rather important.

Indeed and that is very scary.

You could go further and put an obligation on woman to know if they MIGHT be pregnant (what if you don't menstruate regularly?) so they could take the best possible care of their zygote/embryo/fetus/delete according to point of development. The idea of all women as 'pre-pregnant', regardless of whether they intend to have a child, did indeed rear its head...where's that article...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/all_women_are_pre-pregnant/

http://shadesong.livejournal.com/2871261.html

This woman was actually denied proper seizure medication because in the hypothetical event that she might get pregnant. This is from 2006 though. I don't know how much the situation changed since then. I severely hope it did. I cannot even imagine having your health fucked up because you might get pregnant someday and the idea is that a potential fetus who might not even come to exist, matters more than you do. That makes my blood vaporize, let alone boil.