# A question for the pro lifers



## atlashunter (Sep 29, 2011)

There is a thread over on the spiritual forum with a video of Ray Comfort making an analogy between abortion and Nazi's engaged in the holocaust, the specific case he cites being burying Jews alive with a bulldozer.

So assuming that logic holds water here is a simple question.

What should happen to women who have an abortion? 

Should they receive the same treatment that one should receive for burying people alive?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> There is a thread over on the spiritual forum with a video of Ray Comfort making an analogy between abortion and Nazi's engaged in the holocaust, the specific case he cites being burying Jews alive with a bulldozer.
> 
> So assuming that logic holds water here is a simple question.
> 
> ...



I didn't watch the video (I never do) but, no, they should not be treated like Nazi butchers.  There are two victims in every abortion, the baby and the mother.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 29, 2011)

God will judge them, and or forgive them.

Logic does not hold water in regards to this discussion.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> So assuming that logic holds water here is a simple question.



It doesn't.  And I think you know that.



atlashunter said:


> Should they receive the same treatment that one should receive for burying people alive?



I do not agree with capital punishment to start with.  

I think those who commit abortion take a human life.  Once society agrees on that premise, then society can determine the, or lack of, consequences.

Because I am pretty certain where the question is leading......I always wonder at the emotional arguments made in an effort to uphold abortion.  But, two people must agree on where human life begins before hypothetical situations can be logically discussed.  Otherwise, neither side will seem logical to the other.  Same as in arguments over faith.......


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> There are two victims in every abortion, the baby and the mother.



I don't watch the videos either.  But, I do not think the mother is always a victim. An abortion of convenience is not something I would claim the mother is victimized by.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 29, 2011)

All good responses and good points. The other thread seemed to have some people very impressed with Ray's line of reasoning. I just wanted to see where it ultimately led to. If I thought an abortion was morally equivalent to using a bulldozer to bury Jews alive it would be a logical conclusion for me to expect comparable punishments.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If I thought an abortion was morally equivalent to using a bulldozer to bury Jews alive it would be a logical conclusion for me to expect comparable punishments.



I went to a Christian college, and had to read and write on literature which compared abortion to slavery.  Folks just come up with some weird stuff to make a point.  They should drop the morality aspect and define when human life and rights begin.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I went to a Christian college, and had to read and write on literature which compared abortion to slavery.  Folks just come up with some weird stuff to make a point.  They should drop the morality aspect and define when human life and rights begin.



You and Centerpin Fan should watch the vid and see how Ray Comfort uses his "techniques" to lead the people to the answers he wants.  The people interviewed seemed hand picked for the just the right amount of intelligence Ray needed to carry on with his routine. I love to see the video of people interviewed that did not make the final cut.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 30, 2011)

I haven't watched the video(and I don't even know who Ray Comfort is), but it sounds like me and ol' Ray have about the same viewpoint on abortion.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't understand how anyone could not watch the video and form any sort of opinion. 
I now get a better understanding of how "oral tradition" works. Get a piece of the story from someone else and form an opinion or belief from it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 30, 2011)

It might just be the accent, but he reminds me a lot of the Australian Jesus.


----------



## Havana Dude (Sep 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> There is a thread over on the spiritual forum with a video of Ray Comfort making an analogy between abortion and Nazi's engaged in the holocaust, the specific case he cites being burying Jews alive with a bulldozer.
> 
> So assuming that logic holds water here is a simple question.
> 
> ...




I didn't watch the video either. So I may be speaking out of turn here, but as long as abortion is legal, there should be no consequences at all. My stance , whether it be pro life or pro choice is quite inconsequential.


----------



## Madman (Sep 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If I thought an abortion was morally equivalent to using a bulldozer to bury Jews alive it would be a logical conclusion for me to expect comparable punishments.



Society has been brainwashed into believing a pre-fourth trimester baby is not a baby, just a mass of tissue, however, since the invention of the sonogram it is quite evident that is not true.  Let’s leave the mothers out of the discussion; they are going to have enough to deal with on their own “post abortion”.
They have been duped, do we prosecute those who have been scammed by a flim-flam artist or just the flim-flam man?

That is why Planned Parenthood and other pro abortion groups are trying to get sonograms outlawed in true parenting centers.  

Sorry that was off topic.  Anyone who has ever witnessed or seen the tapes of an abortion would agree it is as bad or worse than burying someone with a bulldozer. Some of you may think there is nothing more gentle than sucking the limbs off a baby as it tries to get away from the suction tube or maybe delivering the head and forcing scissors into the base of the brain to kill it, but I don't

The point was “ABORTION IS THE KILLING OF A HUMAN” why is it ok in this situation and not in others.  Ya'll all claim to be good moral people, Why can you kill a 4 month old baby and not a 20 month old baby?

I am sure the salvation story at the end is what some have a problem with but Ray always offers that for the benefit of whomever he is talking too.

Remember, all it takes is a little faith, and that will grow into life eternal.
Glad you got to hear it again.


----------



## Madman (Sep 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I don't understand how anyone could not watch the video and form any sort of opinion.
> I now get a better understanding of how "oral tradition" works. Get a piece of the story from someone else and form an opinion or belief from it.



What piece of the story did you hear?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 30, 2011)

I did watch the video....all of it...even though I wanted to turn if off several times.

The question in the OP is "what should happen to women who have an abortion"?

My answer?  Nothing.  It's legal.  As has already been posted...God will ultimately judge.

Now, let me turn this around a bit.  Suppose the U.S. govt somehow has a change of heart and all of a sudden an unborn child is declared to be a living human being from the moment of conception (from a legal standpoint).

A woman has an abortion and so, from a legal standpoint going forward, she is considered to have committed murder.

"What should happen to a women who have an abortion?"


You're only recoiling at the moral equivalent comparison because of two things.  #1, it's legal so you're trying to bait pro-lifers into saying she should be executed...not so.  Rule of law is rule of law.  #2, you don't equate an unborn "fetus" with a life, so the comparison holds no water for you.  

To the pro-lifer who believes a child is a child and a living person from the moment of conception, it is murder.  From a legal standpoint, pre-meditated murder is pre-meditated murder.  

If Roe V Wade was overturned and abortion made illegal because a child is considered a human from conception, then yes.....she should be put on trial for 1st deg murder and the death penalty considered.  

I figured that last part would make you guys happy....have fun!


For those of you who are commenting and haven't taken the time to watch it.  I hope the mods see fit to leave this up since it's part of the video that seems to have survived.  But, if it's too much, I understand.  Take it down if you have to.

You guys tell me.  Take a look at this "fetus" at 24 weeks.  What should we do with someone who would do this? 





Not a person......right?​
I gotta be honest.  I'm going to stay out of this thread.  I'm pounding on my keyboard as I type each letter I'm so angry.  God forgive my anger.  Change our hearts.  Forgive our genocide.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 30, 2011)

What kills me is politicians who claim to be "personally opposed" to abortion, but then vote as if it's no more serious than getting a tooth pulled.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2011)

Madman said:


> What piece of the story did you hear?



I watched the whole vid.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 30, 2011)

Madman said:


> The point was “ABORTION IS THE KILLING OF A HUMAN” why is it ok in this situation and not in others.  Ya'll all claim to be good moral people, Why can you kill a 4 month old baby and not a 20 month old baby?



I am pro life.. I think a woman and a man should be responsible enough to only let it happen when it should.. 

Rape - man irresponsible (generally)

Not taking BC to rope a man in - woman irresponsible

When it might be ok - supernatural conception - she didn't have ANY choice


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I haven't watched the video(and I don't even know who Ray Comfort is), but it sounds like me and ol' Ray have about the same viewpoint on abortion.



I watched the whole video...... yep, me and ol' Ray have the same viewpoint on abortion.


----------



## Madman (Sep 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I now get a better understanding of how "oral tradition" works. Get a piece of the story from someone else and form an opinion or belief from it.



So if you watched the whole thing then you believe that the story about Jews being buried alive and shot and burned by the Nazis under the orders of Adolf Hitler was "oral tradition"?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2011)

Madman said:


> So if you watched the whole thing then you believe that the story about Jews being buried alive and shot and burned by the Nazis under the orders of Adolf Hitler was "oral tradition"?



Madman, I was commenting on the guys who comment on the video without watching it....they take someones word for it(oral tradition) instead of witnessing the source(video) for themselves. I was not talking about anything specific that was in the video.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 30, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I did watch the video....all of it...even though I wanted to turn if off several times.
> 
> The question in the OP is "what should happen to women who have an abortion"?
> 
> ...



Thank you HF for the stark reminder of what abortion is. Your anger is justified.

No video or opinion can change the truth of this plague the law allows our society to propogate.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 30, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> My answer?  Nothing.  It's legal.  As has already been posted...God will ultimately judge.



What is legal amounts to nothing more than what is considered permissable by a government. Hitler's government considered it permissable to send millions of Jews off to be slaughtered. So are you telling us as a matter of principle that nothing should have been done to those who engaged in that slaughter because it was legal at the time and "God will ultimately judge"?




Huntinfool said:


> Now, let me turn this around a bit.  Suppose the U.S. govt somehow has a change of heart and all of a sudden an unborn child is declared to be a living human being from the moment of conception (from a legal standpoint).
> 
> A woman has an abortion and so, from a legal standpoint going forward, she is considered to have committed murder.
> 
> "What should happen to a women who have an abortion?"



That is my question for you.




Huntinfool said:


> You're only recoiling at the moral equivalent comparison because of two things.  #1, it's legal so you're trying to bait pro-lifers into saying she should be executed...not so.  Rule of law is rule of law.



No HF if you go back and look at my question you'll see that I explicitly asked the question from a moral standpoint. I'm the one making the distinction here between law and morality and I'm not asking what should happen according to current law I am asking what should happen according to those who consider it morally equivalent to bulldozing Jews.




Huntinfool said:


> #2, you don't equate an unborn "fetus" with a life, so the comparison holds no water for you.
> 
> To the pro-lifer who believes a child is a child and a living person from the moment of conception, it is murder.



Well you're right that the comparison holds no water. A single cell is a life. But a zygote it not a child or a living person nor would I consider killing fertilized eggs morally equivalent to killing a five year old child.

To you it is. Fine. I realize we have a difference of opinion here and we aren't likely to change each others mind. I just want to know what folks like you would do about it if you had your way.

If the answer is "nothing, God will handle it" then it must be asked if you hold the same view for everyone engaged in morally equivalent behavior, "genocide" as you put it. If your answer isn't the same then how can we take serious the assertion that these two acts are morally equivalent?




Huntinfool said:


> If Roe V Wade was overturned and abortion made illegal because a child is considered a human from conception, then yes.....she should be put on trial for 1st deg murder and the death penalty considered.
> 
> I figured that last part would make you guys happy....have fun!



Thank you. And should that hold true all the way back to the point of conception?

What if a woman has a miscarriage that she may have contributed to? Would that be manslaughter?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I don't understand how anyone could not watch the video and form any sort of opinion.
> I now get a better understanding of how "oral tradition" works. Get a piece of the story from someone else and form an opinion or belief from it.



My opinion was in reference to the question from Atlas, as to what should be done to those who have an abortion, not the video.  

I have heard many arguments for and against abortion, as I related one ridiculous comparison to slavery.  I don't care to hear this man's.  The reason is that I think it is counter productive to make such comparisons if the ultimate goal is to end abortion.  Regardless of the legitimacy of the assertion, it would be written off as ridiculous.

Which is why I say abortion should be debated from a human rights angle, when to assign those rights, not a religious angle, because it is a universal human rights issue, regardless of your belief system.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> My opinion was in reference to the question from Atlas, as to what should be done to those who have an abortion, not the video.
> 
> I have heard many arguments for and against abortion, as I related one ridiculous comparison to slavery.  I don't care to hear this man's.  The reason is that I think it is counter productive to make such comparisons if the ultimate goal is to end abortion.  Regardless of the legitimacy of the assertion, it would be written off as ridiculous.
> 
> Which is why I say abortion should be debated from a human rights angle, when to assign those rights, not a religious angle, because it is a universal human rights issue, regardless of your belief system.



I gotcha. The vid was not totally about abortion though. Ray's highly edited deductive reasoning practices on nit-wits in the video has some of the religious in awe of his talents. I am not so impressed.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2011)

The overwhelming majority of abortions are used as birth control, not for rape or the mother's health.

A baby has a heart beat at about 4 weeks of age in a closed circulation system with a separate blood type from the mother.


----------



## germag (Sep 30, 2011)

Abortion is nothing less than the murder of a child.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 1, 2011)

Atlas, I did not watch the video, but I appreciate the way you have presented this. Morality vs legality challenges "us" to hold our beliefs regardless of what the law states.

There are a very few things our government is supposed to do, protecting its citizens is one of the most important endeavors it should pursue.

By allowing abortion (as a form of birth control) to be legal, it has failed miserably at this.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 1, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Atlas, I did not watch the video, but I appreciate the way you have presented this. Morality vs legality challenges "us" to hold our beliefs regardless of what the law states.
> 
> There are a very few things our government is supposed to do, protecting its citizens is one of the most important endeavors it should pursue.
> 
> By allowing abortion (as a form of birth control) to be legal, it has failed miserably at this.



I don't know that I fully agree with the last statement. It's a gray area for me. But yours is a position I can respect. We are in agreement in principle. The only point of disagreement is when that legal protection should begin.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 1, 2011)

Thinking about that video raises another question for me. Ray asked people about Hitler and asked if they would have killed him before the holocaust if they had the opportunity knowing what they know now. Many said yes. I'd sure like to know Ray's answer to that question and why he asked it to begin with. Would Ray consider it morally justified to kill Hitler knowing that he would kill so many innocent people? If so and if he equates abortions with the holocaust then wouldn't the same logic that applies to Hitler and his executioners apply to abortion doctors?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 1, 2011)

It wouldn't have made it into his movie but I would love to have been one of his interviewees.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It wouldn't have made it into his movie but I would love to have been one of his interviewees.



Bingo Brother!
Ray never seems to interview anyone capable of some in depth thinking, at least if he does it never makes the final cut.


----------



## huntmore (Oct 1, 2011)

Burying people alive and abortion takes life from someone, so they are the same. Didn't watch the video.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 1, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Logic does not hold water in regards to this discussion.



This seems to be a common trait among arguments like yours.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Bingo Brother!
> Ray never seems to interview anyone capable of some in depth thinking, at least if he does it never makes the final cut.



bullethead - when is it justifiable to kill a baby in the womb?

Give that some "in depth thought" before you answer.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 1, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> This seems to be a common trait among arguments like yours.



Not an arguement 6.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 1, 2011)

Skip to the 7:48 mark and watch Ray get a dose of his own medicine. "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it."


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> bullethead - when is it justifiable to kill a baby in the womb?
> 
> Give that some "in depth thought" before you answer.



WHERE did I ever say that it was Ted? I am not commenting on the abortion issue, I am commenting on Ray's "techniques" and his interviewees in his videos.

His deductive reasoning works well with idiots. "Have Ya Eva Stolen Eneythin? Then Yer A Thief... Think abat-it Mate"
He sounds better fitted to be selling car wax to insomniacs on late night TV.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2011)

Part 3 of the vid with Bruce has Ray saying "sects, there are no sects,if you believe in Jesus we are ALL Christians", then he distances himself from being Catholic because the Catholics killed in the name of Jesus........
Ray is a real class act.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Skip to the 7:48 mark and watch Ray get a dose of his own medicine. "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it."



So you think Ray sounds like an idiot, but I gotta tell you, Bruce is the idiot. The self serving philosophies of convienance that everything is OK, there is no God, I can do what ever I want is arrogant and typical.

Good luck Atlas.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> WHERE did I ever say that it was Ted? I am not commenting on the abortion issue, I am commenting on Ray's "techniques" and his interviewees in his videos.
> 
> His deductive reasoning works well with idiots. "Have Ya Eva Stolen Eneythin? Then Yer A Thief... Think abat-it Mate"
> He sounds better fitted to be selling car wax to insomniacs on late night TV.



Ray's techniques are awesome. He is right on the frontline fighting for what he believes in. Have you ever stolen anything? Then you are a theif. This is your precious logic mate. The truth can be painful.

If his deductive reasoning is idiot proof, then it is genius proof also. Deal with the truth bro.

Good luck.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Part 3 of the vid with Bruce has Ray saying "sects, there are no sects,if you believe in Jesus we are ALL Christians", then he distances himself from being Catholic because the Catholics killed in the name of Jesus........
> Ray is a real class act.



Side stepping, mincing words, meaningless conclusions. Typical.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Side stepping, mincing words, meaningless conclusions. Typical.



Yes typical, yet Ray still has his followers. How can he say there are no sects because we're all Christians if you believe in Jesus, then when asked how many people were killed in Jesus name, he blames it all on the Catholics and distances himself from that sect.
You said it right about 'Ol Ray, Ted.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Ray's techniques are awesome. He is right on the frontline fighting for what he believes in. Have you ever stolen anything? Then you are a theif. This is your precious logic mate. The truth can be painful.
> 
> If his deductive reasoning is idiot proof, then it is genius proof also. Deal with the truth bro.
> 
> Good luck.



Oh pleeeeze Ted, if your an Atheist and you lie, steal, blaspheme and are an adulterer(because you look at a woman in a lustful way) then it is a moral issue that you do not believe in God. 
What is the excuse for all the believers that do the EXACT same things?
Ray admits to being a liar and I think he is telling one every time he opens his mouth.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> So you think Ray sounds like an idiot, but I gotta tell you, Bruce is the idiot. The self serving philosophies of convienance that everything is OK, there is no God, I can do what ever I want is arrogant and typical.
> 
> Good luck Atlas.



Sorry but I missed the part where Bruce said "everything is OK and I can do whatever I want because there is no God". Where does he say or suggest that?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Ray's techniques are awesome. He is right on the frontline fighting for what he believes in. Have you ever stolen anything? Then you are a theif. This is your precious logic mate. The truth can be painful.
> 
> If his deductive reasoning is idiot proof, then it is genius proof also. Deal with the truth bro.
> 
> Good luck.



You gotta be joking. Please tell me you don't really think his infantile techniques are awesome. "Ever told a lie? Then that makes you a liar and liars deserve to burn forever!"

Well gosh Ray you know I've also told the truth so I guess by the same rationale that makes me a truth teller. Never mind that he sidesteps the fact that there is no reason to believe his god is any more real than any other god and never mind the immorality of torturing someone forever because they told a lie and never mind the absurdity of the very notion that people live forever. Yeah Ted, maybe in Christian circles Ray is a genius. To the rest of us he's just a buffoon.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

To get back on topic let's take a stab at Bruce's question. There is a petri dish in one room with 10,000 fertilized eggs. In the room next door is a 5 year old child. You have to make a decision to save one and let the other die. Which would you choose?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 2, 2011)

> Well you're right that the comparison holds no water. A single cell is a life. But a zygote it not a child or a living person nor would I consider killing fertilized eggs morally equivalent to killing a five year old child.



The question you have to answer, if you hold that position, is "when does it become a life"?  

Obviously, you agree that, at some point, it becomes a life....or do you hold to "it's not alive until it's out of the womb and breathing oxygen on it's own"?

My suspicion is that you think you have an adequate answer to the question.  But I'm still interested in hearing it.  If it is not a life...then when is the big moment?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> To get back on topic let's take a stab at Bruce's question. There is a petri dish in one room with 10,000 fertilized eggs. In the room next door is a 5 year old child. You have to make a decision to save one and let the other die. Which would you choose?



I save the 5 year old.  

Without a womb to develop in, those fertilized eggs will not survive.

...and before you try to argue "well if they can't survive, then they aren't alive"....the five year old could not survive without her mom either.

I just asked it.  But I'll ask again...when do those fertilized eggs become human?  Atlas...when are they worthy of saving to you?

At what point do you consider those 10,000 fertilized eggs worth saving?  Go back and look at the picture I posted.  Answer honestly.  That baby is just over half-way through gestation.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> The question you have to answer, if you hold that position, is "when does it become a life"?
> 
> Obviously, you agree that, at some point, it becomes a life....or do you hold to "it's not alive until it's out of the womb and breathing oxygen on it's own"?
> 
> My suspicion is that you think you have an adequate answer to the question.  But I'm still interested in hearing it.  If it is not a life...then when is the big moment?



Did you miss the part where I said "A single cell is a life."? A living child is another matter. And apparently you don't see fertilized eggs as children either.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I save the 5 year old.
> 
> Without a womb to develop in, those fertilized eggs will not survive.
> 
> ...



Ah now we are getting somewhere. They could survive if they were implanted into a woman or if we had the technology available to provide them an artificial womb. Does their right to life include a right to either of those?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

This is from The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard and pretty much sums it up for me.



> First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent’s, or rather the mother’s, property right in the fetus? In the first place, we must note that the conservative Catholic position has generally been dismissed too brusquely. This position holds that the fetus is a living person, and hence that abortion is an act of murder and must therefore be outlawed as in the case of any murder. The usual reply is simply to demarcate birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights, including the right not to be murdered; before birth, the counter-argument runs, the child cannot be considered a living person. But the Catholic reply that the fetus is alive and is an imminently potential person then comes disquietingly close to the general view that a newborn baby cannot be aggressed against because it is a potential adult. While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership.
> 
> The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.
> 
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> To get back on topic let's take a stab at Bruce's question. There is a petri dish in one room with 10,000 fertilized eggs. In the room next door is a 5 year old child. You have to make a decision to save one and let the other die. Which would you choose?



We all went through this before:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=632859&page=2

Back then I answered a very similar question in #69.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

Yeah JB that was a good thread too. Rothbard approaches the issue from an entirely different angle.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> This is from The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard and pretty much sums it up for me.



Atlas, I hope you understand that that only makes sense if you read it from a pro-choice bias.  Your first clue is that paragraph 2 determines for the reader what "proper groundwork for analysis" is.  This frames it in a way which will lead to the writer's conclusion.  Unfortunately, from there all we get is one person's opinion and philosophy.

A parasitic human invader?  Really?  We can do better than that.

There are two bodies involved.  You give one dominion over the other, to the point of termination.  I give each dominion over their own.  One person's right to their own body does not include their right to kill another, parasitic invader or not, IMHO.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah JB that was a good thread too. Rothbard approaches the issue from an entirely different angle.



I agree with Rothbard that every person has absolute dominion over their own body.  I just don't agree that a human fetus qualifies as her own body.....if that makes sense.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 2, 2011)

Let's consider Rothbard's paragraph 6:

I agree with the premise of this paragraph.  One person has no claim to the property or time of another.  However, let's twist the scenario a bit using the same logic.......

You are sitting by a busy street on a hot summer day.  You are drinking a red slushie, which really hits the spot, when, right beside you a cigarette butt catches a baby on fire.  Do you have the right to not pour the red slushie on the baby?  You will be most inconvenienced by the loss of that slushie, but the baby gets to live.

Just one hypothetical of many which challenge the libertarian (I am one) perspective on things.  I believe the libertarians miss the boat on abortion because they give one person the right to convenience, self-dominion, etc. over another person's right to life.  It is a tough call, but I believe the appropriate one is on the side of the helpless.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Atlas, I hope you understand that that only makes sense if you read it from a pro-choice bias.  Your first clue is that paragraph 2 determines for the reader what "proper groundwork for analysis" is.  This frames it in a way which will lead to the writer's conclusion.  Unfortunately, from there all we get is one person's opinion and philosophy.
> 
> A parasitic human invader?  Really?  We can do better than that.
> 
> There are two bodies involved.  You give one dominion over the other, to the point of termination.  I give each dominion over their own.  One person's right to their own body does not include their right to kill another, parasitic invader or not, IMHO.



No but it does give them the right to expel that body from their own. As soon as you concede the mother has complete dominion over her own body the debate is over.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Let's consider Rothbard's paragraph 6:
> 
> I agree with the premise of this paragraph.  One person has no claim to the property or time of another.  However, let's twist the scenario a bit using the same logic.......
> 
> ...



Not much of a challenge JB. Rothbard himself offered a similar analogy.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I agree with Rothbard that every person has absolute dominion over their own body.  I just don't agree that a human fetus qualifies as her own body.....if that makes sense.



That was never suggested.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not much of a challenge JB. Rothbard himself offered a similar analogy.



My first sentece referenced his analogy.  But the question remains, does your right to drink the slushie trump the child's right to live?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No but it does give them the right to expel that body from their own. As soon as you concede the mother has complete dominion over her own body the debate is over.



I will concede to the point that dominion allows her to kill another person.  Rights are limited to the effect they have on others.  We do not have the right to harm people in our own self interest.  

If I have a bad kidney, I cannot kill my neighbor to take theirs.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> To get back on topic let's take a stab at Bruce's question. There is a petri dish in one room with 10,000 fertilized eggs. In the room next door is a 5 year old child. You have to make a decision to save one and let the other die. Which would you choose?



There is the problem. I don't have to make that decision. I wouldn't murder the 5 year old or the 10,000 fertilized eggs.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 3, 2011)

I don't think anyone will ever look at the photo in comment #15 and not know it had been a living human being when it was aborted!

And whether you like the man's tactics, or his use of Hitler; the man was able to cause almost every person to reevaluate their attitude towards abortion.
Sometimes it takes rediculous comparisons to get people to take their defense mechanisms down long enough to be honest with themselves and their attitudes.

Some, fortunately, are able to do that while others prefer to lambast the person willing to do the teaching.

I refer you back to #15.

I say the possible results of his effort are worth the redicule he's receiving.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Did you miss the part where I said "A single cell is a life."? A living child is another matter. And apparently you don't see fertilized eggs as children either.



No...I see them as children.  But they cannot survive outside of the womb at that point.  It does not change what they are just because they are dependent on their mom at that point.

So, "survivability" is your measure?  Tricky, that survivability measure.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 3, 2011)

> Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.



Atlas...I gotta say.  I lost a lot of respect for you when you posted this.  That's not meant as an attack.  It's just the honest truth.  It's sickening, heartless and completely a-moral that you or anybody else would call a fetus a "parasitic invader".  

For it to be considered an invader, it would have had to "get in there" outside of the will of the mother.  In 99.99999% of all cases, that is not what happened.  You don't open the castle gate, call the enemy in sit them down at your banquet table and THEN object that they threw up on your new carpet and burned your stable down.  

That baby is in there for one reason.  Somebody lowered the drawbridge and knew that soldiers from the neighboring kingdom might get in along with the locals.  It is not an invader in any sense.  Mom invited baby to come and take residence by lowering the drawbridge and not putting a net over the moat.  



By this line of logic...it's ok for me to kick my 2 year old son out of my house and set him by the curb to survive on his own or be picked up just because I decide I've refused consent to him living in my home?  I've changed my mind and the little parasitic invader has to go.  I'm tired of paying for his diapers, food and clothing.  He keeps me up at night and gets me up early in the morning....the little parasite has to go.  It's my house.  He has no right to be there!!!!


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 3, 2011)

> There are two bodies involved. You give one dominion over the other, to the point of termination. I give each dominion over their own. One person's right to their own body does not include their right to kill another, parasitic invader or not, IMHO.






> No but it does give them the right to expel that body from their own. As soon as you concede the mother has complete dominion over her own body the debate is over.




No, it's not over.

If each has right over their own body, then the baby gets the same treatment.  The mother has no right to physically harm the child in the effort to "expel" it from her own.  The child is there because she (in one way or another) allowed it to be there.  If she changes her mind, she is not allowed to violate his right to his body anymore than he has to hers.

Let her do it.  Let her try to expel without violating the same right she is claiming.  

Absolultely, it will die once it's out an on its own.  But that's the baby's problem at that point.  By this logic, you cannot and should not be allowed to harm it.  Each has a right to its own body.  You have to afford the baby the same right the mother is claiming if you use this argument.

"Let nature take its course" should be the theme of the day.  But the baby must be expelled without harm.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 3, 2011)

> I refer you back to #15.




Ronnie, have you noticed that not a single one has commented on that picture?  They refuse to look at it and even comment on what they believe "that" is in the picture at 24 weeks.

It's too real.  It's much easier to live in the self-righteous land of theory than to face reality.

Let's just "expel the parasitic invader"...that's what "that" was.  Just a parasite that was removed from the one it was sucking life from.

So much for staying out of the thread, right?


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 3, 2011)

I hope the person who referred to abortion as "expelling the parasitic invader" was simply flexing chest muscles and didn't fully mean what they said.  I hope.

I don't even think a rabid dog would feel comfortable looking at the picture of the "parasitic invader".  No wonder there's no comments concerning it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 3, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ronnie, have you noticed that not a single one has commented on that picture?  They refuse to look at it and even comment on what they believe "that" is in the picture at 24 weeks.
> 
> It's too real.  It's much easier to live in the self-righteous land of theory than to face reality.



That's why the left always frames the debate in terms of "choice".  They don't want to talk about pictures like that.




Huntinfool said:


> Let's just "expel the parasitic invader"...that's what "that" was.  Just a parasite that was removed from the one it was sucking life from.



Interesting.  I always thought the pro-abortion people considered a baby in the womb to be like the monster in _Alien_, but I never expected to see them put that belief in writing.

I had to Google the author of that mess.  He was an economist who should have stuck to supply and demand.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 3, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> No, it's not over.
> 
> If each has right over their own body, then the baby gets the same treatment.  The mother has no right to physically harm the child in the effort to "expel" it from her own.  The child is there because she (in one way or another) allowed it to be there.  If she changes her mind, she is not allowed to violate his right to his body anymore than he has to hers.
> 
> ...



GREAT point.


----------



## Inthegarge (Oct 3, 2011)

Funny, I was at a conference this week where I heard it over and over from scientist that all the DNA needed for us to develop as a person and live our entire life is contained in that one cell.....


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> My first sentece referenced his analogy.  But the question remains, does your right to drink the slushie trump the child's right to live?



Sorry JB. That's a nice emotional appeal but as has already been pointed out for rights to not be contradictory one's right of self ownership cannot infringe on the same right of another. One's right of ownership over their life does not include a right to use someone else's life or their property against their will, even if it means their survival. It would be awful nice of me to use the slushie to save the baby but it would be incorrect to say the baby had a right to my slushie. I don't know how you were able to read what I quoted and still miss that point.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I will concede to the point that dominion allows her to kill another person.  Rights are limited to the effect they have on others.  We do not have the right to harm people in our own self interest.
> 
> If I have a bad kidney, I cannot kill my neighbor to take theirs.



You're making Rothbard's point without realizing it. You don't have a right to the use of another persons body without their consent, even if it means you'll die.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> No...I see them as children.  But they cannot survive outside of the womb at that point.  It does not change what they are just because they are dependent on their mom at that point.
> 
> So, "survivability" is your measure?  Tricky, that survivability measure.



You think a zygote is a child? Ok!




Huntinfool said:


> No, it's not over.
> 
> If each has right over their own body, then the baby gets the same treatment.  The mother has no right to physically harm the child in the effort to "expel" it from her own.  The child is there because she (in one way or another) allowed it to be there.  If she changes her mind, she is not allowed to violate his right to his body anymore than he has to hers.
> 
> ...



This also was already addressed.



> Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.



If someone is trespassing on your person or property are you telling me you have a right to remove them but only if it can be done in a way that will not cause them harm? Yeah I'm sure you would be real concerned about that if you were being raped or burglarized. It's your right to use whatever means are necessary to expel the trespasser. The most you can say here is that no more damage should be done than is necessary to complete the expulsion. I'm fine with that. But it may not be said that the right of expulsion ceases to be if it cannot be accomplished without doing harm to the trespasser.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 3, 2011)

I think it's cute the way atlashunter avoids responding to the tough comments.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2011)

Ok Atlas, I have been trying to stick to Rothbard's thoughts on this, here is where I am stuck, and I do not see how you get around it:

How does one's dominion grant permission to elliminate another's.  My original point of on Rothbard was that it only makes sense if you are pro-choice.  This is why.  For one to "expel" the other, somebody's rights has to win.  Logic leads me to believe that the greatest loss is the one to protect against, so the woman loses 9 months to pregnancy or the child loses everything.  No contest, right?

Of course, if it is not a human life there is no human rights, and Rothbard is correct.  So we are back to defining when life begins.  But, under Rothbard's premise, a child could be aborted at any time pre-birth and still be justified in the name of protecting the mother's dominion.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I think it's cute the way atlashunter avoids responding to the tough comments.



I'm more swayed by rationality than appeals to emotion. But I know that isn't everyone's cup of tea Ronnie.

Why don't you guys post a corpse of someone who died needing a transplant and then explain how the sad picture would justify violating someone elses body in order to keep that person alive. It will get just as much mileage.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sorry JB. That's a nice emotional appeal but as has already been pointed out for rights to not be contradictory one's right of self ownership cannot infringe on the same right of another.



The emotional appeal was on purpose, hey, you started this with Hitler......

There are not two contradictory rights.  One is a right to continue living, the other is a right to not be pregnant.  Which serves the greater good if left unviolated?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok Atlas, I have been trying to stick to Rothbard's thoughts on this, here is where I am stuck, and I do not see how you get around it:
> 
> How does one's dominion grant permission to elliminate another's.  My original point of on Rothbard was that it only makes sense if you are pro-choice.  This is why.  For one to "expel" the other, somebody's rights has to win.  Logic leads me to believe that the greatest loss is the one to protect against, so the woman loses 9 months to pregnancy or the child loses everything.  No contest, right?



When you say "somebody's rights has to win" what right of the aborted are you referring to that would be in competition with the mother's right? I don't know how Rothbard could have made it any more clear. The mother has an absolute right of ownership over her body. It's hard to find realistic analogies but I doubt you would say that rape would be justified even if it was a matter of life and death for the rapist. The rape victim didn't lose their life but the rapist would have. Would that negate the victim's rights? You're not really talking about rights here as much as trying to do a cost benefit analysis. It's like saying that because a rich man can better afford being stolen from, his right to his property is less than someone who will starve to death if they are stolen from.




JB0704 said:


> Of course, if it is not a human life there is no human rights, and Rothbard is correct.  So we are back to defining when life begins.  But, under Rothbard's premise, a child could be aborted at any time pre-birth and still be justified in the name of protecting the mother's dominion.



Again, for the sake of argument he conceded the point that it is a life with the same rights as the born. What born person has a right to use someone else's body against their will for survival?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The emotional appeal was on purpose, hey, you started this with Hitler......



Actually it was Ray that brought Hitler into the picture. I'm still trying to figure out if Ray thinks of doctors who perform abortions as morally equivalent to Hitler. He alluded to it but didn't have the sack to say it on the video.




JB0704 said:


> There are not two contradictory rights.  One is a right to continue living, the other is a right to not be pregnant.  Which serves the greater good if left unviolated?



That part in red is where you are going off the tracks. There is no such animal as a right to live at someone elses expense without their consent.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> When you say "somebody's rights has to win" what right of the aborted are you referring to that would be in competition with the mother's right?



....those that are inalienable.



atlashunter said:


> The mother has an absolute right of ownership over her body.



I agree.  She should be allowed to prostitute herself for drug money, and I should have no say in how she treats her body.



atlashunter said:


> What born person has a right to use someone else's body against their will for survival?



Every kid who was not aborted.  Parents have a legal responsibility to their children.  If we throw them away on the way home from the hospital, or fail to feed them, we are murderers.  Sustaining a child requires physical actions from the parents.  Without these actions, the parents are guilty of crimes.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Actually it was Ray that brought Hitler into the picture. I'm still trying to figure out if Ray thinks of doctors who perform abortions as morally equivalent to Hitler. He alluded to it but didn't have the sack to say it on the video.



I'm not on Ray's team either.  Some folks get that stuff, it just doesn't  do much for me.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....those that are inalienable.



No such thing as an inalienable right to infringe on somebody else. To say there is destroys the very foundation of individual rights. 




JB0704 said:


> Every kid who was not aborted.  Parents have a legal responsibility to their children.  If we throw them away on the way home from the hospital, or fail to feed them, we are murderers.  Sustaining a child requires physical actions from the parents.  Without these actions, the parents are guilty of crimes.



I think a pro lifer of all people will agree that what the law says and what our natural rights are do not always coincide. Once someone is born and a separate physical entity they have the right to not be agressed against. But they still do not have a right to claim any other person's life or property or a portion thereof. Rothbard addresses this as well in the same chapter. True rights cannot be in conflict with one another. I doubt many here will claim a right to healthcare for that very reason, even if the healthcare is being paid for by those who can afford to pay and benefiting those who are "less fortunate". Reducing rights to a matter of who loses the least really destroys the concept and is very dangerous.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....those that are inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What if she throws herself down a flight of stairs to cause a spontaneous abortion or takes a pill to do the same?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You think a zygote is a child? Ok!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does that change if you invited the trespasser over?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> There is no such animal as a right to live at someone elses expense without their consent.



You're exactly right.  That's why I'm going home tonight and kicking my 2 year old out to the curb.  He has no right to live at my expense without my consent.  

I shouldn't be arrested for that....right Atlas?

How 'bout those 50% of Americans who live at my expense every single day without my consent?  What about them Atlas?  They don't pay a dime into the system....yet I pay for them to have a home, food, gas, heat, playstations, etc...every single day...without my consent.

How 'bout those folks?  Is it just the "non-life" zygote that doesn't have a right to living at my expense or is it the welfare brood mare as well?  What about my 2 year old?

The bottom line is that you can't make a disctinction.  There are millions of people who live at the expense of others, whether physically or financially.  Either way the life is being sucked out by the "parasite".

You are trying to make a point that cannot be made....unless you don't consider the baby a life.  If it's not alive, then you can say the non-life form doesn't get the same rights as my 2 year old or the welfare mom because one is a human and the other isn't.  It's the same with the "expel the parasite".  You afford the mom rights that the child is not given ONLY because you don't consider it a life.  There is no logical or rational argument that doesn't start with that position. 

You cannot start with both being human and alive and end up with legal or ethical abortion because, ultimately, you have to afford one rights that the other doesn't get.  It's a vain attempt to try to argue logically and "concede" that both are alive and have the same rights.  It just doesn't work.  You have to start with "the baby isn't a human".  Then you can get there because they don't get the same rights at that point.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Again, for the sake of argument he conceded the point that it is a life with the same rights as the born. What born person has a right to use someone else's body against their will for survival?



My opinion would be when the mother opened the draw bridge, as HF so eloquently put it, and invited the baby to join her, she loses the right to murder it.

It the same as your trespasser analogy. I can't invite someone over to my house, then say "trespasser!" and murder them.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> Does that change if you invited the trespasser over?



That's exactly the point I was trying to make with my horrible "drawbridge" analogy.

The "invader" or "tresspasser" is not there of his/her own volition.  He did not somehow force his way onto the property.

He was invited in 99.9999% of all pregnancies, or at least the screen door was intentionally left open knowing that the flies might get in.  The zygote/baby/child/non-life (whatever you want to call it) did not forcably set up a squatters camp inside the woman.

She allowed his entrance and abortion it is akin to inviting your next door neighbor over for dinner and then, once the table is set and everyone is ready to dig in, you pull out a .45 and shoot him in the head because you decided to revoke the invite.

No, if you decide your neighbor is not welcome at that point....you are required to escort him out of the house peacefully and without violating his right to life.  If you shoot him with that .45, the cops are not going to be pleased.  THAT...is the difference.

WOOPS!  String....looks like were posting the same thing at the same time.  Sorry brotha.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What if she throws herself down a flight of stairs to cause a spontaneous abortion or takes a pill to do the same?



You have asked the same question before in some other thread, and I will give you the same answer, she is still intentionally causing harm on another person, so there is no difference.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 4, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> That's exactly the point I was trying to make with my horrible "drawbridge" analogy...and it's one that Atlas doesn't seem to want to address.
> 
> The "invader" or "tresspasser" is not there of his/her own volition.  He did not somehow force his way onto the property.
> 
> ...



Its all good!


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> What born person has a right to use someone else's body against their will for survival?



If I donate a kidney to a total stranger and then 10 years later, my other one begins to fail...do I have the right to go get MY kidney back?  Do they get to keep my body part against my will and contrary to my survival?

But you'll say....well you voluntarily gave that kidney to the stranger.  And I'll say, well the mom voluntarily slept with a man and didn't use protection.  She voluntarily allowed that baby to form inside her (again 99% of the time).  I have no more right to ask for my kidney back than she does to remove the baby once the "offer" has been extended and accepted.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I think a pro lifer of all people will agree that what the law says and what our natural rights are do not always coincide.



Yep.....



atlashunter said:


> Once someone is born and a separate physical entity they have the right to not be agressed against.



What about a parent refusing to use their body to feed another person?  That is not aggression, that is neglect.




atlashunter said:


> But they still do not have a right to claim any other person's life or property or a portion thereof.



And here is where we will differ, because I think a child has a right to their parents' efforts to sustain them. Otherwise, a parent commits no harm when neglecting a child.  Again, this is why when those rights begin is so critical to the debate.  A woman's body is no more liberated post birth, it just takes on different characteristics.  If we say a child has no claim to their parents' efforts to sustain them, then there is no such thing as neglect. 




atlashunter said:


> I doubt many here will claim a right to healthcare for that very reason, even if the healthcare is being paid for by those who can afford to pay and benefiting those who are "less fortunate". Reducing rights to a matter of who loses the least really destroys the concept and is very dangerous.



Good example, but I still see it differently.  There is a difference between a parent caring for a child, or give it away for adoption (my wife and I are beginning the adoption process, and it is daunting), and making a claim to your neighbors possessions. Which is to say there is a difference between outright killing a person, and not paying for health insurance.  Again, an abortion is an intentional act to deprive life from another human being.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Does that change if you invited the trespasser over?



Consent may be withdrawn just as it may be given.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Consent may be withdrawn just as it may be given.



See posts #88 and #89


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You're exactly right.  That's why I'm going home tonight and kicking my 2 year old out to the curb.  He has no right to live at my expense without my consent.
> 
> I shouldn't be arrested for that....right Atlas?
> 
> ...



I guess it's a good thing I'm not making any distinctions then. Let me say it again. No one has a RIGHT to your body or the product thereof. Not the welfare queens and not your 2 year old child. You may feel a moral obligation to your child and I would certainly agree that it would be immoral to neglect your child but they do not have a right to your life or property.




Huntinfool said:


> You are trying to make a point that cannot be made....unless you don't consider the baby a life.  If it's not alive, then you can say the non-life form doesn't get the same rights as my 2 year old or the welfare mom because one is a human and the other isn't.  It's the same with the "expel the parasite".  You afford the mom rights that the child is not given ONLY because you don't consider it a life.  There is no logical or rational argument that doesn't start with that position.



Are you being intentionally dense? You're taking my position to be things that I never said. I never said it's not alive. Every living cell in our body is alive. That doesn't mean every cell is a human being. A zygote is not yet a child. It's living and it is human in the same sense that a blood cell is human but it is not A HUMAN in and of itself. It only has the potential to become a human and that process is gradual so there is no sharp cut off point that we can make the distinction. Any cut off you make in prenatal development is arbitrary. But if you want to make the claim that a fertilized egg= a new born baby with all the same rights you're going to have to actually make that case and so far you haven't done it.

And again, Rothbard willingly concedes the point you're trying to make. Even then, no one has a right to the use of someone else's body without their consent so your point is moot.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> My opinion would be when the mother opened the draw bridge, as HF so eloquently put it, and invited the baby to join her, she loses the right to murder it.
> 
> It the same as your trespasser analogy. I can't invite someone over to my house, then say "trespasser!" and murder them.







Huntinfool said:


> That's exactly the point I was trying to make with my horrible "drawbridge" analogy.
> 
> The "invader" or "tresspasser" is not there of his/her own volition.  He did not somehow force his way onto the property.
> 
> ...



You guys need to improve your reading comprehension.



> It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> It's living and it is human in the same sense that a blood cell is human but it is not A HUMAN in and of itself.



Would you please re-read this and understand how ridiculous this is?

It is human, but not A human?  Are you equating a zygote/fetus with a booger?  Yes, I suppose a "boogy" (as my kids call it) is indeed human...but not A human.




> It only has the potential to become a human and that process is gradual so there is no sharp cut off point that we can make the distinction. Any cut off you make in prenatal development is arbitrary.



If it is not "a" human at conception and only has the potential for life, then I assume you would ascribe it the rights of "a" human at some point in it's development.  You cannot say "well, it's not A human YET.  It only gets rights when it becomes A human."....and then say "but we don't know when it becomes a human because it's arbitrary."  It's the height of intellectual dishonesty and arbitrage.  

You don't get right to life until you reach point "X".  But I won't tell you when "X" is reached.  

You have to define "X" if you decide to hold that position Atlas.  You can't make a cut-off because it's either alive or it's not.  It does not magically become alive at some point as if someone flipped a switch.  If you hold that position, you have to define when the switch is flipped.

At least those who support late-term abortions have the courage to state their position.  It's not alive until it's out of the womb and breathing on its own.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You guys need to improve your reading comprehension.



I'll be honest, I didn't read Mr. Rothbard's work.


So, Atlas, you wanna come over for dinner tonight? I won't shoot you, I promise.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> a mere promise is not an enforceable contract



That's the best you've got?  "I had my fingers crossed"?  Really?



> contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft



I hardly think a judge would convict for theft when the "victim" invited the visitor into their home and gave them the combination to the safe.



> Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity



So the fetus is not capable of entering into a contract.  i.e....it's not alive.  I thought you said you never said it wasn't alive.  Which is it?



> Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.



I conceded this point....but niether does she have the right to violently remove the baby and cause him harm.  That is the point that you're missing (or dodging).  If she can remove him without harm, she would be welcome to do so under this premise.  Again...you cannot hold to this position unless you remove "humanity" from the developing child.  My reading comp is just fine.

The premise of what he said is flawed and so the rest of it is as well.  It is not a contract.  We don't treat pregnancy as a contract between mother and child, just as we don't treat parent/child relationships as contracts after they are born.  It is a responsibility the parent implicitly has to the child...whether born or un-born.  You either accept the responsibility to take care of the child or legally cede that responsibility to another.  But you cannot kill the child because you changed you mind.

It is no more a contract than I have with any other human whereby I "agree" in the contract not to shoot them in the face because I don't like them or don't want them near me.  I am legally required to not kill someone, not because I have a contract with each of them...but because the legislation (and the Bible) tell me not to or I will face consequences.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> If I donate a kidney to a total stranger and then 10 years later, my other one begins to fail...do I have the right to go get MY kidney back?  Do they get to keep my body part against my will and contrary to my survival?



Poor analogy. You can separate a body part and transfer ownership. You can't transfer ownership of your body as a whole, at least not as long as you are still alive.

The dubious claim that the mother somehow entered into a contract to carry a baby to term by having intercourse has already been addressed.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Rothbard,
> It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.



All the more problem with murdering the child. The child didn't even get a say so.

"enforcing voluntary slave contracts"  hold on.... I'm not done.....


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> If it is not "a" human at conception and only has the potential for life, then I assume you would ascribe it the rights of "a" human at some point in it's development.  You cannot say "well, it's not A human YET.  It only gets rights when it becomes A human."....and then say "but we don't know when it becomes a human because it's arbitrary."  It's the height of intellectual dishonesty and arbitrage.
> 
> You don't get right to life until you reach point "X".  But I won't tell you when "X" is reached.
> 
> ...



I have a simple question for you. What constitutes an individual human being?

There is a nice line of demarcation that you are looking for that can be drawn when the baby is born and becomes physically separate from the mother. If you want to push the envelope back earlier than that, any line you draw in prenatal development is completely arbitrary. Say its a human being with self ownership rights in the third trimester if you wish. It still wouldn't matter for reasons already laid out.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> So, Atlas, you wanna come over for dinner tonight? I won't shoot you, I promise.



Nothing would stop you apparently.  He has no right to be on your property or eat the fruits of your labor.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> Poor analogy. You can separate a body part and transfer ownership. You can't transfer ownership of your body as a whole, at least not as long as you are still alive.



The baby doesn't take ownership of her body.  Her body simply sustains his for a period of time...and yes...she implicitly agreed to that when she chose not to protect the same way I implicitly agreed to take care of my children when they were born.  

Nobody asked me if I was going to take them home and feed them and give them water.  Nobody asked me to sign a contract saying that I would do anything for them.  They simply handed me a baby and sent me on my merry way.

Why?  Because it is implied that I will sustain them while they need me....just like a developing baby.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> I have a simple question for you. What constitutes an individual human being?



Life begins at conception.  It is a human at conception and continues to be so all the way through death...whether that occurs at 1 day or 115 years.  It's a remarkably consistent position.



> There is a nice line of demarcation that you are looking for that can be drawn when the baby is born and becomes physically separate from the mother. If you want to push the envelope back earlier than that, any line you draw in prenatal development is completely arbitrary. Say its a human being with self ownership rights in the third trimester if you wish. It still wouldn't matter for reasons already laid out.



It's not arbitrary if you consider it living from the moment sperm meets and fertilizes egg and starts dividing.

It's only arbitrary at any point between there and birth.  That's why your position fails.  It's either a human at conception, or at birth.  Like you said...anything in between is completely arbitrary and allows for lots of positions of convenience when you don't have to declare when life begins.


----------



## pnome (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I have a simple question for you. What constitutes an individual human being?
> 
> There is a nice line of demarcation that you are looking for that can be drawn when the baby is born and becomes physically separate from the mother. If you want to push the envelope back earlier than that, any line you draw in prenatal development is completely arbitrary. Say its a human being with self ownership rights in the third trimester if you wish. It still wouldn't matter for reasons already laid out.



Late to the party...

This could be reworded to say "When do human rights begin?"

To me.  The only definite answer is at conception.  Everything from that point forward is just another stage of development.  Even until death.  But a new human isn't formed until the chromosome pair up.  And once that happens, you have a new human.

With modern medical technology we are able push your line of demarcation further back.  One can imagine a future where we are able to do the whole process ex-utero.  Where does your definition of human fall then?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To the part in red the intent is to remove the fetus from the womb. That is self evident.

As for the rest, I agree that it is neglect and not aggression.



> Suppose now that the baby has been born. Then what? First, we may say that the parents—or rather the mother, who is the only certain and visible parent—as the creators of the baby become its owners. A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party or parties may be the baby’s owner, but to assert that a third party can claim his “ownership” over the baby would give that person the right to seize the baby by force from its natural or “homesteading” owner, its mother. The mother, then, is the natural and rightful owner of the baby, and any attempt to seize the baby by force is an invasion of her property right.
> 
> But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children.
> 
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Life begins at conception.  It is a human at conception and continues to be so all the way through death...whether that occurs at 1 day or 115 years.  It's a remarkably consistent position.



A single fertilized egg is a human being? Looks like a single cell to me. No brain, no conscience, no feelings, no ability to perceive, feel or think, no will... Not a human in my view. Only a potential one just as the uncombined sperm and egg represent a potential human.

Suppose we develop the technology to bring a fertilized egg to term in an artificial environment. Does that mean that anyone who combines sperm and egg in a lab incurs an obligation to bring that fertilized egg to term at their expense and raise it to adulthood and if they don't they are committing murder?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

pnome said:


> Late to the party...
> 
> This could be reworded to say "When do human rights begin?"
> 
> ...



See my last post. There is a complete set of chromosomes in every cell of our body. The genetic information is there to clone us. But left undeveloped it's still just a cell, not an individual human being. Hence the question, what constitutes an individual human being?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> The baby doesn't take ownership of her body.  Her body simply sustains his for a period of time...and yes...she implicitly agreed to that when she chose not to protect the same way I implicitly agreed to take care of my children when they were born.
> 
> Nobody asked me if I was going to take them home and feed them and give them water.  Nobody asked me to sign a contract saying that I would do anything for them.  They simply handed me a baby and sent me on my merry way.
> 
> Why?  Because it is implied that I will sustain them while they need me....just like a developing baby.



You still don't get it. There is no enforceable contract in place. You don't have two mutually consenting parties. And even if you did it can't be an enforceable contract because the breaking of it does not involve implicit theft. Similarly if a woman agrees to have intercourse and in the middle of it changes her mind it cannot be claimed that she surrendered that right nor can it be claimed that the initial consent constituted a contract that could be enforced against her will.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> Suppose we develop the technology to bring a fertilized egg to term in an artificial environment. Does that mean that anyone who combines sperm and egg in a lab incurs an obligation to bring that fertilized egg to term at their expense and raise it to adulthood and if they don't they are committing murder?



When my wife and I were going through the process of in-vitro fert, that's exatcly the question we had to answer.  What do we do with the "extra" fertilized eggs if we get too many from the process and choose to not put them all in the oven?

Our options were 1) Throw them away...they aren't human or 2) freeze them indefinitely and for all time if we choose not to put them in for potential attachement.  

Our decision was to freeze and pay for them to be frozen forever if need be.  It's not an easy question.  I'll give you that.  Fortunately God blessed us with four good solid fertilized eggs and we didn't have to make the choice.

To answer your question, anyone who fertilizes an egg and puts it in an environment where it is able to develop fully takes on that responsibility...yes...without question.

Would it have been hypocritical of me to have frozen those embryos indefinitely since I claim they are human?  It would have been a tough decision.  They are human.  But they are only viable once attached inside the uterus of a mother.  A human baby needs another human to sustain it until it is fully gestated (and then beyond that for many years).  

I'm very well aware of the criticism that you might think I'm opening myself up to with this post.  But I'm a big fan of intellectual honesty...so I'm willing.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> See my last post. There is a complete set of chromosomes in every cell of our body. The genetic information is there to clone us. But left undeveloped it's still just a cell, not an individual human being. Hence the question, what constitutes an individual human being?



We have all been through this before.  There is no line any more clear than conception.  As any person would agree, a human is viable before it is born.  What makes it a human?  Thgouhts, feelings, emotions....the brain and spinal ord are amongst the first organs to develop, within a few weeks of conception.  The heart is beating within 18 days.  The embryo responds to external stimulus within the first trimester.  We could go on and on and on about how a pre-viable fetus could be defined as a human.  That leaves conception as the least arbitrary line as to when life begins.  And that is where rights begin.

I think Rothbard has the best pro-choice argument I have read to date, distinguishing rights (though I disagree).  Just like pro-life should leave religion out of it, I think pro-choice should leave when life begins out of it.  Both are losing arguments.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 4, 2011)

> You still don't get it.



No...I get it.  Trust me.




> There is no enforceable contract in place. You don't have two mutually consenting parties.



You're right.  The baby didn't get a choice.  He was put there, by the will of the mother....who has now changed her mind.

Me taking care of my kids is not a contract.  As I said, the premise is flawed and so that means the rest of the argument is as well.  Pregnancy is not contractual...it is obligatory.  There is a difference.  I am obliged and required by law to take care of my children.  They don't get a say in it and neither of us signed a contract.  I am an adult who took on a responsibility (whether I wanted to or not) to take care of them when they were born with my DNA in them.



> And even if you did it can't be an enforceable contract because the breaking of it does not involve implicit theft.



You mean....except for the theft of the life of the baby....right?  It's alive.  You acknowledge that didn't you?  Or did you just hedge and say "well I never said it WASN'T alive..."?



> Similarly if a woman agrees to have intercourse and in the middle of it changes her mind it cannot be claimed that she surrendered that right nor can it be claimed that the initial consent constituted a contract that could be enforced against her will.



Riiiiiiiiiiiight.....because that's what happens most of the time, right?  Women hop into bed and then right before the big moment....decide they've changed their mind and want out.

Well....that's your rape example then.  We can talk about that later.  99.9% of the time, there is consent and she doesn't change her mind in mid-stream (for lack of a better term).


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> To the part in red the intent is to remove the fetus from the womb...



....in order to kill the child.




atlashunter said:


> As for the rest, I agree that it is neglect and not aggression.



Ok, I read the quote, and see the logic, but cannot begin to understand how that logic operates in a civilized society.  To claim a parent has no obligation to feed a child removes any parental responsibility.  Without such, what is the foundation of society?  I am a libertarian, but that position is anarchy.  I get what you are saying, I just can't jump on board.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> When my wife and I were going through the process of in-vitro fert, that's exatcly the question we had to answer.  What do we do with the "extra" fertilized eggs if we get too many from the process and choose to not put them all in the oven?
> 
> Our options were 1) Throw them away...they aren't human or 2) freeze them indefinitely and for all time if we choose not to put them in for potential attachement.
> 
> ...



I don't know why you think I would pass judgment on you. I don't see any issue with freezing them. Nor would I have any issue with flushing them.

One's needs do not constitute a right to force others to supply those needs against their will. It's just that simple.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> We have all been through this before.  There is no line any more clear than conception.  As any person would agree, a human is viable before it is born.  What makes it a human?  Thgouhts, feelings, emotions....the brain and spinal ord are amongst the first organs to develop, within a few weeks of conception.  The heart is beating within 18 days.  The embryo responds to external stimulus within the first trimester.  We could go on and on and on about how a pre-viable fetus could be defined as a human.  That leaves conception as the least arbitrary line as to when life begins.  And that is where rights begin.



I just don't see a fertilized egg as a human being with rights. That's a tough sell. But even if a convincing case could be made it still wouldn't negate the woman's right over her body.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

So, the only way we can logically justify a pro-choice position is to also claim that a parent, or guardian, has no obligation to feed a child?

In reference to Rothbard's comments on step-parents, adoptive parents, etc., their implied contract is more explicit because it involves a voluntary acceptance of responsibility.  I think he should stick with addressing the biological parents rights. 

Even then, he is left claiming that the parent has no obligation to nurture a born child in order for the rest of his argument to hold water.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I just don't see a fertilized egg as a human being with rights. That's a tough sell. But even if a convincing case could be made it still wouldn't negate the woman's right over her body.



Did you read my comments about embryonic development.  All of those items have to be disregarded to claim it is not a human.

How 'bout implanted, I could possibly go there.  Otherwise, can you draw a more logical line?  Conception is the only definitive starting moment we have.

Like I said, where life begins, to me, is a losing argument for pro-choice.  Individual rights can be argued, but, as already stated, you have to proceed to say a parent has no obligation to feed a child.


----------



## Madman (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I just don't see a fertilized egg as a human being with rights.



If it is not a human being then what is it?



> But even if a convincing case could be made it still wouldn't negate the woman's right over her body



A woman has rights over her own body, however her rights end where it intersects anothers (the baby's).  

Her behavior ended in conception, perhaps she and the man should have thought about it a little better before engaging in such behavior.

That is why one should be married BEFORE engaging in such behavior.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok, I read the quote, and see the logic, but cannot begin to understand how that logic operates in a civilized society.  To claim a parent has no obligation to feed a child removes any parental responsibility.  Without such, what is the foundation of society?  I am a libertarian, but that position is anarchy.  I get what you are saying, I just can't jump on board.



It's important to understand that Rothbard is not speaking here of morals and moral obligations. In a free society what is and isn't moral should be left up to each individual to decide for themselves. I may have a moral obligation to help a neighbor in need. That does not mean they have a right to take my property without my consent or that I should be forced by law to help them. The proper role of law is to protect individual rights but that can't be done in a consistent manner without a coherent framework of what rights are and aren't. That framework is what he is laying out.


----------



## pnome (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> See my last post. There is a complete set of chromosomes in every cell of our body. The genetic information is there to clone us. But left undeveloped it's still just a cell, not an individual human being. Hence the question, what constitutes an individual human being?



When you don't have a clone.  When you have a new DNA sequence.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> If it is not a human being then what is it?



A cell.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Did you read my comments about embryonic development.  All of those items have to be disregarded to claim it is not a human.



We're on a similar line of thought. It's that gray matter between our ears that makes us human. It may begin developing early on but it's still a work in progress. If you take a snapshot of the fetus brain its no more developed than the brain of a great many animals. Put the brain of a chimp in a human body and you've got a chimp in a human body. It wouldn't be a human being.




JB0704 said:


> How 'bout implanted, I could possibly go there.  Otherwise, can you draw a more logical line?  Conception is the only definitive starting moment we have.



I think the furthest you could go would be to say if development progresses to a point where the life could be sustained outside the womb and that life can be removed from the womb with minimal damage that there is an obligation to go that route in the removal. Then you've got a life on a table with a right to not be agressed against but with no positive right to an environment which will allow it to survive. Even if we concede that there is a right of self ownership all the way back to conception (and that is one heck of a stretch to say something without a brain can own anything at all) that right still does not extend to ownership of the womb. That property right belongs to the woman.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

pnome said:


> When you don't have a clone.  When you have a new DNA sequence.



Identical twins are genetic clones of each other. They share the same DNA but are separate individuals.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Same genetic material, one body, but two individual human beings.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Even if we concede that there is a right of self ownership all the way back to conception (and that is one heck of a stretch to say something without a brain can own anything at all) that right still does not extend to ownership of the womb. That property right belongs to the woman.



I don't see how it matters where life begins from Rothbards perspective.  If a woman can control the womb, it doesn't matter what is inside, or outside, because that body has no obligation to sustain another body's life.  Which would condone abortion up to birth, regardless of viability, and or then even discarding a baby post birth.  To take one, you have to take the other.

It seems to me that a natural law gives the unborn's right to live precedent over the woman's right to ownership.  If left in a natural state, that is the default.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> You have asked the same question before in some other thread, and I will give you the same answer, she is still intentionally causing harm on another person, so there is no difference.



What should be her punishment for taking drinking or taking drugs while pregnant?  Strap her to a bed until she delivers?  Take her fetus away?


----------



## pnome (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Identical twins are genetic clones of each other. They share the same DNA but are separate individuals.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html


----------



## Madman (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> A cell.



Oh contraire!  It is not a cell, it is a human that has the ability to reproduce, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What should be her punishment for taking drinking or taking drugs while pregnant?  Strap her to a bed until she delivers?  Take her fetus away?



Not sure on that one.  We should probably agree, as a society, that the behavior is punishable before we discuss punishment. 

But I believe if you kicked her stomach to cause a miscarriage you would argue that the crime was greater than if she were not pregnant, but you give it no such distinction when she is the one violating the child.  Whats the difference?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What should be her punishment for taking drinking or taking drugs while pregnant?  Strap her to a bed until she delivers?  Take her fetus away?



Oh, and knowingly drinking and taking drugs while pregnant is just as bad as intentionally causing harm to a born child.  I see no difference.  At the least it is reckless.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> Oh contraire!  It is not a cell, it is a human that has the ability to reproduce, etc., etc., etc.



This:






Is no more a human than this:






Is a chicken.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Not sure on that one.  We should probably agree, as a society, that the behavior is punishable before we discuss punishment.
> 
> But I believe if you kicked her stomach to cause a miscarriage you would argue that the crime was greater than if she were not pregnant, but you give it no such distinction when she is the one violating the child.  Whats the difference?



The same difference as me going into your home and shooting a guest and you shooting a burglar.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Not sure on that one.  We should probably agree, as a society, that the behavior is punishable before we discuss punishment.
> 
> But I believe if you kicked her stomach to cause a miscarriage you would argue that the crime was greater than if she were not pregnant, but you give it no such distinction when she is the one violating the child.  Whats the difference?



The difference is that I don't have the right to kick her unless she asks me to.  I don't have the right to stop her from blowing herself up with dynamite, pregnant or not.

I think for me the issue involves a consciousness.  Very tricky footing, I know but I truly feel it's an important factor to consider.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The same difference as me going into your home and shooting a guest and you shooting a burglar.



I've been following your "intruder" position but I'm not sure I'm sold on it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Same genetic material, one body, but two individual human beings.




If one of them wanted to die, does the other one have any say?  I'm not sure.

They have a very unique relationship but not dissimilar to the relationship between a woman and a fetus, sans the conversation.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

Ambush and Atlas, if the baby is not a person, the offense should be no different, pregnant or not, if the baby is not a human.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ambush and Atlas, if the baby is not a person, the offense should be no different, pregnant or not, if the baby is not a human.



Offense for what?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Offense for what?



kicking a pregnant woman, or kicking a non-pregnant woman.  Same thing, right?


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 4, 2011)

Conception is the only logical starting point for defining the start of human life and the rights associated.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> kicking a pregnant woman, or kicking a non-pregnant woman.  Same thing, right?



I recon it is. It would be the same if they asked you to do it, too. 

The thought of kicking a pregnant woman does illicit a visceral reaction, though.  When I understand the nature of that reaction, perhaps I will better understand my position on the issue.  I think it may be a socialized reaction. Maybe not.  I should figure it out.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Conception is the only logical starting point for defining the start of human life and the rights associated.



How does this statement relate to this?:



atlashunter said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 4, 2011)

The chicken egg is an underdeveloped chicken, but it does not detract from the fact it is a chicken.  The concieved human egg is an underdeveloped human, but it does not detract from the fact it is human.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

The point of conception, there is no other line which can be drawn which clearly indicates life beginning so well.  Birth is simply switching from one oxygen and feeding system to another.  Nothing changes about the baby at birth.  Once we agree it is a human life, then we have to discuss human rights.

Thats why I believe the woman's right to self domain is logical, except you have to agree that the same woman has the right to starve the same child after birth in order for the argument to work.  I do not.  I believe the cell, implanted, is a human life with rights that are to be protected.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The point of conception, there is no other line which can be drawn which clearly indicates life beginning so well.  Birth is simply switching from one oxygen and feeding system to another.  Nothing changes about the baby at birth.  Once we agree it is a human life, then we have to discuss human rights.
> 
> Thats why I believe the woman's right to self domain is logical, except you have to agree that the same woman has the right to starve the same child after birth in order for the argument to work.  I do not.  I believe the cell, implanted, is a human life with rights that are to be protected.




Then you have to allow that she does not have the right to starve herself to death.  Back to "strapped down on the gurney until delivery" with the addition of "force fed".


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Then you have to allow that she does not have the right to starve herself to death.  Back to "strapped down on the gurney until delivery" with the addition of "force fed".



....to prevent her from killing somebody?  Would that change your perception if you believed the unborn was a human life?  What if she was going to kill her newborn?  Would you strap her down to stop her?  Again, we are back to when life begins.......

She could carry the baby and give it up for adoption.  That is also a choice.  I do not understand, and will never understand, why that option isn't chosen more often.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> If one of them wanted to die, does the other one have any say?  I'm not sure.
> 
> They have a very unique relationship but not dissimilar to the relationship between a woman and a fetus, sans the conversation.



That is a very good question. This is an extremely rare case where two individuals possess and share the same body. It's not comparable to a woman and a fetus though. A fetus has a separate body housed inside the body of the woman. The woman and her body precede the fetus so she is the sole owner and possessor of it. The fetus is at most a temporary intruder. Those sisters on the other hand both originated and possessed their body at the same time and thus neither one has a greater claim than the other.

Some here are trying to assert that from conception onward the fertilized egg is the rightful owner of itself. That's a bit absurd but even if we were to accept that, the ownership still would not extend to ownership over the womb, or the test tube, or whatever is housing and nurturing it.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> The chicken egg is an underdeveloped chicken, but it does not detract from the fact it is a chicken.  The concieved human egg is an underdeveloped human, but it does not detract from the fact it is human.



That's like calling an acorn an underdeveloped oak tree. It may have the potential to become an oak tree under the right conditions but it is not in and of itself an oak tree. This takes us back to the reason I asked people to define what constitutes an individual human being. If it's just a complete set of human DNA then every cell in our body is an individual with individual rights to life. Better not take a shower and wash some of those little people down the drain! We'd have to bring you in for mass murder!


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 4, 2011)

Interesting video on abortion (definitely from a religious perspective):





It was posted today at Hot Air:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/04/audio-an-evening-with-abby-johnson/


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

I just love when I hear religious people talk about how they are fighting evil. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Some here are trying to assert that from conception onward the fertilized egg is the rightful owner of itself. That's a bit absurd.....



I am very open to you giving me a better time when the embryo becomes the owner of itself.  Because you believe each person has dominion of their body, there must be a mark when that right is gained.  Do you have anything less arbitrary than conception?  If not, how "absurd" is the position to start with.  To me, it is a logical position based on facts, you should appreciate that, absurd or not.




atlashunter said:


> .......but even if we were to accept that, the ownership still would not extend to ownership over the womb, or the test tube, or whatever is housing and nurturing it.



Again, this must extend beyond the womb for it to hold water.  A mother has ownership of her womb, and her arms and legs.  If she is not obligated to nurture the baby in the womb, she is not obligated to nurture the baby with other body parts.  A position which I cannot accept, as it allows a mother to commit murder through neglect after birth as well.  A civilized society must have a few boundaries.  Killing babies should be one of them, IMHO.

The laws of nature are often painful.  A mother must carry a baby for a baby to survive.  Babies must survive for the species to continue.  Mothers must sacrifice for humanity.  It is what it is.  The right to live trumps the right to dominion when the right to dominion infringes on the right to live.....its just the natural order of life.

....again, back to the debate as to when a human life begins, and I am open to hearing anything more definitive than conception.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You gotta be joking. Please tell me you don't really think his infantile techniques are awesome. "Ever told a lie? Then that makes you a liar and liars deserve to burn forever!"
> 
> Well gosh Ray you know I've also told the truth so I guess by the same rationale that makes me a truth teller. Never mind that he sidesteps the fact that there is no reason to believe his god is any more real than any other god and never mind the immorality of torturing someone forever because they told a lie and never mind the absurdity of the very notion that people live forever. Yeah Ted, maybe in Christian circles Ray is a genius. To the rest of us he's just a buffoon.



I think his infantile techniques are exactly the same as yours Atlas. You are a master debater, so I am not making light of this. I firmly believe that you and Ray are cut from the same cloth, just sewn up differently.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 4, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yes typical, yet Ray still has his followers. How can he say there are no sects because we're all Christians if you believe in Jesus, then when asked how many people were killed in Jesus name, he blames it all on the Catholics and distances himself from that sect.
> You said it right about 'Ol Ray, Ted.



I was making that comment about you bullet.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 4, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh pleeeeze Ted, if your an Atheist and you lie, steal, blaspheme and are an adulterer(because you look at a woman in a lustful way) then it is a moral issue that you do not believe in God.
> What is the excuse for all the believers that do the EXACT same things?Ray admits to being a liar and I think he is telling one every time he opens his mouth.



Believers don't need an excuse, they have redemption.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If it's just a complete set of human DNA then every cell in our body is an individual with individual rights to life. Better not take a shower and wash some of those little people down the drain! We'd have to bring you in for mass murder!



Good grief, we covered every aspect of this in the last thread.......

A cell is part of a living system.  In the case of the fertilized egg, it embodies the total system.  A human cell can die, and the person live.  The fertilized egg dies, and the system dies with it.

oh, and a fertilized egg is naturally in the correct environment for it to become a human.  And within days, it starts to take human form.

Everybody who has ever had kids has probably read "What to expect when your expecting" 

http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Youre-Expecting/dp/0761148574 

Its a book for pregnant women (and dutiful husbands get guilted into reading it too), but it covers the development process very well.  I could also recommend a few psychology books and biology books (absolutely non-religious) which convinced me that conception is the only non-arbitrary place to determine when life begins is conception.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Good grief, we covered every aspect of this in the last thread.......
> 
> A cell is part of a living system.  In the case of the fertilized egg, it embodies the total system.  A human cell can die, and the person live.  The fertilized egg dies, and the system dies with it.
> 
> oh, and a fertilized egg is naturally in the correct environment for it to become a human.  And within days, it starts to take human form.



In either case we would be talking about the death of a single cell. We still haven't established what features make for an individual human being. You mentioned previously a brain and a spine and I think you were on the right track. A fertilized egg has none of that.

At birth we have a separate physical being that has developed to a point that it can be sustained by others on a consentual basis. If the mother walks away from it then others such as yourself can and will step in voluntarily. Prior to birth (medical advances aside) they are necessarily dependent on a particular host. They have a physical need, there is no denying that. But they do not have a RIGHT to what they need because they are not the owner of it. Not before birth and not after.

I'll reiterate this one last time. Most of you are talking about moral obligations and what you think those are or should be. I'm not. I'm talking about rights and what the law should be on that basis. The two are not the same. Don't let emotion get in the way of your thinking. If you do not have a right to the use of your mothers or any other woman's body against their will then neither can an unborn baby.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

Atlas, there are two parts to this debate.  When does life begin, and what rights does that life have which give it a claim to another person's resources.

When life begins, I think, determines what rights that life has and what claims that life has to another's domain (harsh I know, but see my thoughts on natural laws).  

You are seperating the two completely.  I get that you believe I am framing things from a moral perspective, but your case for when life begins is based soley on your opinion, or personal judgement, your sense of morality, and what you are comfortable with killing.

 Additionally, giving the woman dominion to the extent of a child she created having no claim to her efforts, to the child's detriment, is also a moral argument, please see my thoughts in reference to the right to life being superior to the right to dominion at the bottom of #152.  Is that my morality, maybe so, but no more than your position.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> That's like calling an acorn an underdeveloped oak tree.



Now you're catching on.  



> This takes us back to the reason I asked people to define what constitutes an individual human being. If it's just a complete set of human DNA then every cell in our body is an individual with individual rights to life. Better not take a shower and wash some of those little people down the drain! We'd have to bring you in for mass murder!



If somebody defined it that way, they were wrong.  Every cell in the body had DNA.  But every cell in the body will not, under the right conditions, divide billions of times and grow into a fully developed human baby.  

A fertilized egg is a specialized cell that becomes a new human under the right conditions.  My skin cannot and will not do that on its own....just like an oak leaf cannot become an oak tree on its own.  An acorn is a specialized set of cells, just like a fertilized egg.


And you called my analogy a bad one?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I was making that comment about you bullet.



Thanks for making it personal. I used to think you were above that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> You are seperating the two completely.



Here's why JB:

If he admits that, at any point while in the womb, the "baby" is alive...then it has rights over it's body and the mother faces a problem.  She has no right to take what is rightfully the baby's anymore than he does hers.

If he says, well, it's alive in the third trimester...but it's her body and she can kill the living baby.  Then you're granting the mother the right to kill her living child which must, logically, also extend outside the womb.

It must 100% be a non-life while in the womb and ONLY be granted life once it is born for the argument to hold water at all...and I don't think he'll go there.  But I could be wrong.  

If it is alive in the womb and she can kill it, then she must also be allowed to do so outside of the womb.  At that point, it is not about where the living person resides.  It is about whether murder is legal or not, regardless of the circumstances.  The baby is not an intruder.  He was put there.  A living human has rights over its body and you cannot violate them legally (or morally).

The fact that the baby is an "invader" (a misnomer that is the false premise to the argument...he's actually a captive if anything) is of no consequence once you grant him life.  If he is alive, you cannot intentionally harm him.  As we talked about before, I'll grant you that you may have the right to expel him.  But you cannot harm him in the process if he is alive....which is impossible.  

It would be as if I grabbed a homeless guy off the street and handcuffed him to a doorknob in my home, lost the key to the handcuffs and then decided I wanted him to leave.  If I rip the door of the hinges, well I just devalued my house.  I am legally allowed to make him leave.  But the only way I can do it without harming the house is to cut his hand off and get him out of the handcuffs....which is illegal.



I know he thinks that he's covered this with his original quote.  But it's not there.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Atlas, there are two parts to this debate.  When does life begin, and what rights does that life have which give it a claim to another person's resources.
> 
> When life begins, I think, determines what rights that life has and what claims that life has to another's domain (harsh I know, but see my thoughts on natural laws).



From a pure rights perspective it begins when you become a viable separate physical entity from the life that created you. That would be birth. Biologically speaking it goes much further back. Biologically speaking an egg is a living cell even before fertilization. Fertilize the egg and you are one step closer in the reproduction process but to say that the fertilized egg itself is a human being is an abuse of the term. It's not. And as has been pointed out a dozen different times it wouldn't matter from the standpoint of the mother's self ownership even if it was.

Look at it this way. A woman has a miscarriage at two or three months. How many people out there would name that "person" and have a funeral with a burial and headstone? Doesn't happen even among Christians.




JB0704 said:


> You are seperating the two completely.  I get that you believe I am framing things from a moral perspective, but your case for when life begins is based soley on your opinion, or personal judgement, your sense of morality, and what you are comfortable with killing.



Well all of this is a matter of opinion JB so let's not pretend like I am unique in that regard. It's not about what I am comfortable killing or even the morality of the act. It's about a woman having absolute ownership and control over her body.




JB0704 said:


> Additionally, giving the woman dominion to the extent of a child she created having no claim to her efforts, to the child's detriment, is also a moral argument, please see my thoughts in reference to the right to life being superior to the right to dominion at the bottom of #152.  Is that my morality, maybe so, but no more than your position.



It's a rights argument that has moral implications depending on the decision that is made. Look every freedom we have, every right we have involves moral questions. But they are two separate matters. My right to freedom of speech does not guarantee I will always be moral in what I say. My right to decide what I put in my body may or may not be practiced morally. But what is moral to one may be considered immoral by another. You may consider homosexuality to be immoral but if you claim that someone doesn't have the right to be homosexual you are discussing a different question. Rights are universal whether you believe they come from a creator or from our humanity. Morals are individual.

You can claim that the unborn has a right to life just as we all do but be careful in understanding what that claim means. Your right to life doesn't entail a right to force me to feed you even if I have a moral obligation to do so and even if my failure to do so means you will starve.

Two questions remain unanswered.

1. What are the features and characteristics that define an individual human being?

2. If we accept that the unborn is a human being with rights from conception to birth, by what right does someone claim the use of another person's body without their consent?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> Look at it this way. A woman has a miscarriage at two or three months. How many people out there would name that "person" and have a funeral with a burial and headstone? Doesn't happen even among Christians.



Her name was Leyla....and she has a headstone, a memorial tree growing in the front yard and books donated to the private school library in her name by several families.

It happened at 8 months.  But the timing doesn't matter, right?  Physical seperation is all that matters.


People (especially Christians) grieve miscarriages like a death every day.  Our neighbors just experienced it at 8 weeks.  They are still grieving that loss and it happened at least a month ago.




> You can claim that the unborn has a right to life just as we all do but be careful in understanding what that claim means. Your right to life doesn't entail a right to force me to feed you even if I have a moral obligation to do so and even if my failure to do so means you will starve.



Failure to do so, in this case, would mean also harming yourself.  From a pure discussion standpoint, go ahead....starve yourself to death.  Funny thing is, if the baby dies before you, you'll likely be charged with a crime.  For some reason, it's only not a crime if it's done in an operating room.  That's what's hypocritical in this whole thing.



> Two questions remain unanswered.
> 
> 1. What are the features and characteristics that define an individual human being?



A human being begins at fertilization when two cells combine and begin rapidly dividing.  

Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not.

At the average time when a woman is aware that she is pregnant (the fifth to sixth week after conception), the preborn human being living inside her is metabolizing nutrition, excreting waste, moving, sucking his or her thumb, growing, and doing many other things that non-living things just do not do.  As early as 21 days after conception, the baby’s heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother’s. (borrowed from prolifephysicians.org)




> 2. If we accept that the unborn is a human being with rights from conception to birth, by what right does someone claim the use of another person's body without their consent?



This has been answered multiple times.  The question claims a false premise.  The baby is not claiming a right to the mother's body.  He was "forcably" put there.  If you revoke consent, do so without harming the one who is being held captive in the womb.  If you can pull that off, you've got me.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Look at it this way. A woman has a miscarriage at two or three months. How many people out there would name that "person" and have a funeral with a burial and headstone? Doesn't happen even among Christians.



Au contraire. 

Two are buried in our church's cemetery, and we remember them (by name) in each and every service.

RIP David Bradford and Jonathan Michael.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Her name was Leyla....and she has a headstone, a memorial tree growing in the front yard and books donated to the private school library in her name by several families.
> 
> It happened at 8 months.  But the timing doesn't matter, right?  Physical seperation is all that matters.
> 
> ...



Well the timing shouldn't matter for someone claiming it's just as much a human at conception as it is at 8 months. Yes people grieve at miscarriages. Understandably so. But the lack of a funeral in almost all cases and especially so the earlier in the pregnancy indicates that there is a distinction in peoples minds between the born and unborn even among Christians. I come from an evangelical Christian background and knew of numerous miscarriages in other Christian families, none of which involved names, funerals, or headstones.






Huntinfool said:


> Failure to do so, in this case, would mean also harming yourself.  From a pure discussion standpoint, go ahead....starve yourself to death.  Funny thing is, if the baby dies before you, you'll likely be charged with a crime.  For some reason, it's only not a crime if it's done in an operating room.  That's what's hypocritical in this whole thing.



What law makes it a crime for a woman to cause herself to miscarriage?




Huntinfool said:


> This has been answered multiple times.  The question claims a false premise.  The baby is not claiming a right to the mother's body.  He was "forcably" put there.  If you revoke consent, do so without harming the one who is being held captive in the womb.  If you can pull that off, you've got me.



So your issue is not with the removal from the womb in itself but how it is done. That's progress of a kind.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> A woman has a miscarriage at two or three months. How many people out there would name that "person" and have a funeral with a burial and headstone? Doesn't happen even among Christians.



Actually, I have known folks who took a miscarriage that far, odd I know, but not unheard of.  I know several women who have mourned deeply over the loss of an unborn child.



atlashunter said:


> Well all of this is a matter of opinion JB so let's not pretend like I am unique in that regard. It's not about what I am comfortable killing or even the morality of the act. It's about a woman having absolute ownership and control over her body.



Never said you were unique in that regard.  Refer to my original thoughts on Rothbard framing the "appropriate frame of analysis."  My entire position is that each of us has formed an opinion based on the facts or emotions at hand.  I firmly believe the right to life trumps the right to domain.  That's the way we either evolved or were created.  A mother has to give birth.   Her domain must be violated for people to exist.



atlashunter said:


> Look every freedom we have, every right we have involves moral questions. But they are two separate matters. My right to freedom of speech does not guarantee I will always be moral in what I say.



I agree.  But I believe a right to live is greater than a right to free speech.  One is guaranteed by government, one is natural order across all cultures (I am not aware of many governments condoning murder).  



atlashunter said:


> Rights are universal whether you believe they come from a creator or from our humanity. Morals are individual.



I absolutely agree, but, somehow still fall on the opposite side of you on this.  



atlashunter said:


> You can claim that the unborn has a right to life just as we all do but be careful in understanding what that claim means. Your right to life doesn't entail a right to force me to feed you even if I have a moral obligation to do so and even if my failure to do so means you will starve.



I fully recognize that the mother's right to domain must be infringed, but believe natural law supercedes.  She has no right to terminate another life.  Isn't that part of what makes us humans?  Being able to reason that one's right to domain does not give us the right to kill people?  As far as feeding me goes, if a mother has a child, that child depends on her for nourishment.  She has a natural obligation to feed the child, again, it is the way nature designed things.



atlashunter said:


> 1. What are the features and characteristics that define an individual human being?.



A human system.  An implanted fertilized egg represents this.  Everything thereafter only represents a unique stage of development (credit to pnome, I think).  But if the system continues to develop, it is a living human system.



atlashunter said:


> 2. If we accept that the unborn is a human being with rights from conception to birth, by what right does someone claim the use of another person's body without their consent?



It is what it is Atlas. Either you give one person the right to domain, or the other the right to live.  Or both the right to domian which cannot infringe on another's right to live.  As humans, I believe rights are to be protected.  The basic necessity of government is protecting those rights, and chief amongst them is life.  Which is why, again, we must define life before we can even get into this portion of the debate.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Au contraire.
> 
> Two are buried in our church's cemetery, and we remember them (by name) in each and every service.
> 
> RIP David Bradford and Jonathan Michael.



At what stage in the pregnancy were they lost?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> At what stage in the pregnancy were they lost?



Not positive.  First or second trimester.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> What law makes it a crime for a woman to cause herself to miscarriage?





> Most people would assume that a pregnant woman so despondent about her life for whatever reason that she would attempt to kill herself should get some sort of help. In Indiana, however, this type of woman should be behind bars for murder, for murdering her own unborn child.
> 
> Via The Indystar:
> 
> ...






> Taylor confided in the nurse treating her that she hadn't always been sure she'd wanted this baby, now that she was single and unemployed. She'd considered both adoption and abortion before ultimately deciding to keep the child. The nurse then summoned a doctor, who questioned her further about her thoughts on ending the pregnancy. Next thing Taylor knew, she was being arrested for attempted feticide. Apparently the nurse and doctor thought that Taylor threw herself down the stairs on purpose.
> 
> According to Iowa state law, attempted feticide is an trying "to intentionally terminate a human pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy."
> http://news.change.org/stories/pregnant-iowa-woman-arrested-for-falling-down





> The law became official March 8. State Rep. Carl Wimmer proposed it after a 17-year-old girl who was 7 months pregnant paid a man she didn't know to beat her up to induce a miscarriage. He kicked her in the stomach repeatedly and even bit her neck. But the fetus survived and the baby was given up for adoption.
> 
> The young woman was charged with second-degree felony criminal solicitation to commit murder in Juvenile Court, but was not ultimately charged.
> 
> ...




38 states have fetal homicide laws and they are now being interpreted to include actions of the mother that would intentionally cause abortion.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I agree.  But I believe a right to live is greater than a right to free speech.  One is guaranteed by government, one is natural order across all cultures (I am not aware of many governments condoning murder).



The question is do you think that a right to live entails a right to violate the rights of others in order to support that life? Does your right to live carry with it a right to take others lives and property if that is what is necessary to sustain your life?




JB0704 said:


> I fully recognize that the mother's right to domain must be infringed, but believe natural law supercedes.  She has no right to terminate another life.



So if the fetus is surgically removed from the womb and left on a table to expire on its own she has enforced her rights without committing a positive act of aggression. Are you ok with that?

If you need a bone marrow transplant from me to live and I refuse, you die by virtue of my exercise of my rights, but I committed no act of aggression against you and therefore have not violated your right to life.




JB0704 said:


> Isn't that part of what makes us humans?  Being able to reason that one's right to domain does not give us the right to kill people?  As far as feeding me goes, if a mother has a child, that child depends on her for nourishment.  She has a natural obligation to feed the child, again, it is the way nature designed things.



She may have a moral obligation to feed her child. But her right to her own life and all that derives from it is not forfeit. To say that it is raises all kinds of other issues. Are you really concerned that in a world where we recognized rights as such that parents would be abandoning their kids? Would you abandon yours? We already have a mechanism in place to provide for the responsible transfer of children into loving homes when their parents are either unable or unwilling to care for them.





JB0704 said:


> It is what it is Atlas. Either you give one person the right to domain, or the other the right to live.  Or both the right to domian which cannot infringe on another's right to live.  As humans, I believe rights are to be protected.  The basic necessity of government is protecting those rights, and chief amongst them is life.  Which is why, again, we must define life before we can even get into this portion of the debate.



You see a conflict of rights. I don't. Conflicting rights indicates a shaky foundation of the concept. I don't know why it is so hard to grasp the idea that the right of self ownership does not grant one the right to live at someone elses expense without their consent. There is no such right.

Ok we've gone round and round enough and are now just repeating ourselves. Think I'm done with this one.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Not positive.  First or second trimester.



Then they were the exception to the rule.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> Then they were the exception to the rule.




Translation....


"I was wrong, but I don't want to admit it."


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> Does your right to live carry with it a right to take others lives and property if that is what is necessary to sustain your life?



Just for the sake of discussion....would you give us a realistic example outside of fetus/mother so we can talk about it?

But it must be framed in the context of implicit permission that was revoked like fetus/mother.  

If you give me "If you have bone cancer, are you entitled to take my bone marrow so you can survive because I'm a match?"...it's going to get dismissed.  Not the same situation in any regard.  In pregnancy, permission is "granted" for residency.  It must be revoked in every abortion.  The baby did not force entry.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Ok we've gone round and round enough and are now just repeating ourselves. Think I'm done with this one.



I agree.  Nobody is changing anybody's mind today.  I will give you this, the argument for personal dominion is the best pro-choice argument I have heard yet.  I just can't go there.

One thing though, the adoption mechanism you alluded to is a mess.  My wife and I are just now dipping our toes in those waters (I am pro-life, so I am going to put my money where my mouth is and adopt, that, and we want another kid), and it is a total disaster of a system.  We are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars before it is over with.  Now, if all those aborted babies were allowed to be born, thier personal conclusion would be much different than the abortion........

It's been fun!


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Translation....
> 
> 
> "I was wrong, but I don't want to admit it."



The point remains HF. I know you probably think I'm new to this game but I'm not. The men in my family pastored Assembly of God churches going three generations back. I grew up in a very staunch evangelical home. Miscarriages happen all the time. I never once saw a funeral or burial service for a miscarriage in all those years. It's rare to have a miscarriage at 8 months and that is very close to delivery so I can understand that some Christians would do a service in that case. But the further back in time you go the less likely that is to happen. Yet that shouldn't be the case if they really equate conception with 8 months of development.




Huntinfool said:


> Just for the sake of discussion....would you give us a realistic example outside of fetus/mother so we can talk about it?
> 
> But it must be framed in the context of implicit permission that was revoked like fetus/mother.
> 
> If you give me "If you have bone cancer, are you entitled to take my bone marrow so you can survive because I'm a match?"...it's going to get dismissed.  Not the same situation in any regard.  In pregnancy, permission is "granted" for residency.  It must be revoked in every abortion.  The baby did not force entry.



If permission were granted they wouldn't be having an abortion. That is the whole point.

If I am understanding your rejection correctly are you saying that abortion would be ok if permission were never originally granted as in the example you gave of a marrow transplant? You're saying that consent must be given but once given cannot be revoked. Is that correct?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I agree.  Nobody is changing anybody's mind today.  I will give you this, the argument for personal dominion is the best pro-choice argument I have heard yet.  I just can't go there.
> 
> One thing though, the adoption mechanism you alluded to is a mess.  My wife and I are just now dipping our toes in those waters (I am pro-life, so I am going to put my money where my mouth is and adopt, that, and we want another kid), and it is a total disaster of a system.  We are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars before it is over with.  Now, if all those aborted babies were allowed to be born, thier personal conclusion would be much different than the abortion........
> 
> It's been fun!



That's what happens any time you put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of something. Good luck with the process. Hope it works out for you and your wife.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> If I am understanding your rejection correctly are you saying that abortion would be ok if permission were never originally granted as in the example you gave of a marrow transplant? You're saying that consent must be given but once given cannot be revoked. Is that correct?



Nope.  I'm conceding your argument that each person has the right to their own body (even though I don't totally agree in this case).

If the woman has dominion over her body, then she can revoke permission...but she cannot harm another person in the process.

Go back to your "castle doctrine" argument.  If someone breaks into my house without my permission and threatens to harm me or my family, I am perfectly within my rights to kill them stone dead.

If I invite a neighbor over and they insult my wife's cooking, I can ask him/her to leave.  But I cannot pull out my .45 and give them two to the chest and one to the head, Soprano's style.

Permission, once granted, removes your right to harm the individual that the permission was granted to (unless he threatens to do bodily harm to you...which 99% of all fetuses don't do).

We can debate "mother endangered" and rape later.  I'm holding this to the 99.9% of pregnancies that are the result of a consentual act.

Consent can both be given and revoked if we concede that the mother has rights over her body.  How you revoke is at issue.  In my castle doctrine example above....in both cases the "intruder" is leaving.  How he leaves and the condition he leaves in is what is at stake.  In one example, he loses his right to maintain life by threatening mine without permission.  In the other, I simply don't want him in my house anymore after he insulted my wife.  He did not give up his right to live.

Unfortunately, for the pro-choice movement, not violating that right is called "delivery"...not "abortion".  They hate that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> The point remains HF.




Not really.  Three people in this tiny little micro-subset of all believers instantly gave you examples to the contrary.  Take that out to the population at large.  You won't like the results of the poll if you ask "Do you know somebody who...."



> I know you probably think I'm new to this game but I'm not. The men in my family pastored Assembly of God churches going three generations back. I grew up in a very staunch evangelical home.



I'm not sure which "game" we're talking about.  If it's just that you're familiar with Christianity, you're good.  I know that.  You're probably more familiar than most Christians unfortunately.

Qualifications don't matter much to me in this "game".  I'm a pastor's kid.  Was at the church every time the doors were open.  I knew everything there was to know.  Even went to an evangelical Christian college....except I didn't know Christ.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Even went to an evangelical Christian college....except I didn't know Christ.



Out of curiosity....which one?

Oh, and your counter-point to the intruder is also valid. And, you know, I typically don't enjoy admitting that.....   I had not considered this, but the mother revokes permission to the detriment of the child's life. 

We would be left with cases of rape and Mother's life scenarios.  But, does the 0.01 % of cases justify the death of the 99.9%?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

In your first example the trespasser was never granted permission. This could very well happen under circumstances that don't permit you to shoot the trespasser. Maybe the trespass was accidental and there is no threat being presented to your person or property. If someone is walking across your property and you just shoot them you're going to jail. But if you tell them to leave (kind of tough to tell a fetus isn't it?) and they refuse then you have the right to either physically remove them or have them removed. Ultimately such removal could escalate to deadly force. At no point in this process can it be said that if you granted permission force can not be used once permission is revoked and the trespassing party has been given an opportunity to remove themself.

If "how you revoke" is the issue then all you are really saying is that the doctor must remove the unborn intact and without physically damaging. Essentially like the cops escorting your friend off the premises after they were asked to leave and were either unwilling or unable to leave on their own.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> We would be left with cases of rape and Mother's life scenarios.  But, does the 0.01 % of cases justify the death of the 99.9%?



It is interesting that those topics are explicitly avoided in this discussion. Seems to me they shouldn't make any difference if you are arguing against abortion from a standpoint of the rights of the unborn.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It is interesting that those topics are explicitly avoided in this discussion. Seems to me they shouldn't make any difference if you are arguing against abortion from a standpoint of the rights of the unborn.



You are correct, and I am pro-life in all circumstances.  It is a harsh position, but its the only intellectually honest position for a pro-lifer to take.

When the mother's life is in jeapardy, then the decision must be made as to which life carries a greater value.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Qualifications don't matter much to me in this "game".  I'm a pastor's kid.  Was at the church every time the doors were open.  I knew everything there was to know.  Even went to an evangelical Christian college....except I didn't know Christ.



Well you're certainly right about that.

There is no convincing the deluded that you once shared their delusion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> But if you tell them to leave (kind of tough to tell a fetus isn't it?) and they refuse then you have the right to either physically remove them or have them removed.



That's where you're wrong.  You do not have the right to physically remove them.  If you harm them in the process, guess who is going to jail for assault?  You have the right to protect your physical body...not your property...with deadly force.  If you kill someone because they are taking things from your back shed, you're in big trouble.  Unless your life is in danger, you cannot harm them.  If they are simply on your property and you don't want them there, you have the right to call the cops and have them removed.



> Ultimately such removal could escalate to deadly force. At no point in this process can it be said that if you granted permission force can not be used once permission is revoked and the trespassing party has been given an opportunity to remove themself.



If it escalates to use of deadly force, you are going to jail.  See above.  

The "homeowner" cannot provoke the contact and be legally justified in killing.  




> If "how you revoke" is the issue then all you are really saying is that the doctor must remove the unborn intact and without physically damaging. Essentially like the cops escorting your friend off the premises after they were asked to leave and were either unwilling or unable to leave on their own.



Again....conceding your point that the woman has a right to her body and can revoke permission...then yes, that's what I'm saying.

Try to do that and let me know how it goes.  Remove the baby without harming it.  Hear of very many "full birth" abortions these days where the baby is delivered and then left on the table to fend for itself?

See, there are two problems that you'll run into.

1)  At birth, the Supreme Court agrees that the living breathing baby is now a "person" and is afforded the rights of a living breathing "person".  That REQUIRES the doctor to administer life saving help to the baby once it is born alive.

2)  The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act states that any baby that has been born alive is to be legally considered a person. As such, she or he would automatically be granted full protection under the U.S. Constitution. Other existing laws require that newborns must receive medical attention as needed. Killing a born-alive infant would be considered murder. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_aliv.htm)

Do it without harming the baby...as I said...it's called "delivery", not abortion.  Once delivered, the person delivered is legally afforded all rights to medical treatment just like any other person.  What's more....delivering live babies for the purpose of aborting them is illegal in the U.S.  

So, you can revoke permission.  But you can't harm the baby and you legally can't deliver them alive....and even if you could, you would be required to do everything possible to save them.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> There is no convincing the deluded that you once shared their delusion.



Atlas...you lived in a Christian home.  I'll give you that.  That's as far as your inclusion in the delusion goes.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Again....conceding your point that the woman has a right to her body and can revoke permission...then yes, that's what I'm saying.
> 
> Try to do that and let me know how it goes.  Remove the baby without harming it.  Hear of very many "full birth" abortions these days where the baby is delivered and then left on the table to fend for itself?
> 
> ...



You're moving from principle to current law. I was asking for your view in principle. Now that we have it we have essentially reached a point of agreement in that the mother may not have her body commandeered by you or anyone else to carry a pregnancy. The intact removal may not be how it is currently done but it could be and I have no issue with trying to save the fetus or whatever once it is out of the womb. If you want to have a law that requires that effort be made that's fine. I'd only propose that those supporting such legal requirements be the ones who pay for such efforts.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Atlas...you lived in a Christian home.  I'll give you that.  That's as far as your inclusion in the delusion goes.



You assume too much.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> You are correct, and I am pro-life in all circumstances.  It is a harsh position, but its the only intellectually honest position for a pro-lifer to take.
> 
> When the mother's life is in jeapardy, then the decision must be made as to which life carries a greater value.



Are there any other cases that you would support using someone's body without their consent in order to sustain someone else's life?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> You assume too much.



Not biblically speaking I'm not.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Are there any other cases that you would support using someone's body without their consent in order to sustain someone else's life?



Forcing a parent to get off their butt and use their arms and legs to feed their hungry newborn.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> You're moving from principle to current law. I was asking for your view in principle. Now that we have it we have essentially reached a point of agreement in that the mother may not have her body commandeered by you or anyone else to carry a pregnancy. The intact removal may not be how it is currently done but it could be and I have no issue with trying to save the fetus or whatever once it is out of the womb. If you want to have a law that requires that effort be made that's fine. I'd only propose that those supporting such legal requirements be the ones who pay for such efforts.



My view, in principle, is that the baby has a right to live in the space he was put in and currently requires for survival.  But I put that aside for the sake of continuing with the discussion.

My personal view is, no, the mother may not revoke permission once it's granted.

In matters of life and death, once you grant permission, you may not change your mind.  Just like I can't take my kidney back from the person I donated it to, the mother cannot take her body back for the period it's needed to gestate the child she put in there.

In revoking her "permission", she is also revoking his life....and it is not hers to take.  

This is not, ultimately, a Castle Doctrine kind of issue for me.  It's more like, I put my wife on life support after she's in a terrible accident.  But I find someone else to love and so I take her off life support because it's not convenient for me to visit her every day and keep paying the bills (not a perfect analogy...but you get what I'm saying).  I have no reason to remove her from life support I put her on other than "it's not convenient for me right now".  That is not reason enough to take a life.  It's reason enough to buy a different car or sell my home....but not to take a life.  

Even the Castle Doctrine says that.  "Tresspass" is not reason for deadly force.  You cannot shoot someone (or assault them) because they step across your property line.  There has to be a "good enough" reason to take life.  Yours or another's being threatened is the only reason the law allows.


In tact removal could only be done if the laws were changed (and I still wouldn't support it).  It's already illegal to do so for purpose of abortion.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Not biblically speaking I'm not.



Translation: My book says if you ever reject it's teachings you never really believed them in the first place. 

I know you really do believe you have a personal relationship with a man that's been dead for two thousand years. It only makes sense that you will deny anyone could once believe the same but now realize they were wrong. It's called delusion my friend and there is nothing I can do to make you see it. You have to get there on your own and it starts with genuinely caring about the truth of your beliefs.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> In matters of life and death, once you grant permission, you may not change your mind.  Just like I can't take my kidney back from the person I donated it to, the mother cannot take her body back for the period it's needed to gestate the child she put in there.



That's not a valid comparison. The kidney once physically separated from your body and consentually given is no longer yours. A better comparison would be ongoing marrow transplants to keep someone alive. The marrow that was removed from you and transferred is no longer yours. The marrow that is in your body is still your property and permission to share that may be revoked. Surely you aren't trying to argue the case that a woman can transfer her uterus while it is still a part of her.





Huntinfool said:


> In revoking her "permission", she is also revoke his life....and it is not hers to take.



No it's just an eviction. You're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it is not hers to take which must necessarily it is someone elses. Fine. Her womb then is also not someone elses to take. Make the physical separation between the two individual beings that you see and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> Forcing a parent to get off their butt and use their arms and legs to feed their hungry newborn.



The counter to that is, "well, they won't force you to feed your child.  They'll put you in jail and take the child from you."

To which we say....

Then let's do that to the mother.  She refuses to take care of the child.  Then the govt physically takes possession of her body and takes the child from her...once it is born.  See any difference in the two?  In both cases, the parent has a responsibility to sustain the child.  If they don't, the govt "enslaves" the parent and protects the child.

Oh man...that's gonna stir up some hornets.  Good thing I have to run to a meeting.  Y'all have fun for a while without me!


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> Translation: My book says if you ever reject it's teachings you never really believed them in the first place.



You got it.  Told you you knew a lot about Christianity!



> I know you really do believe you have a personal relationship with a man that's been dead for two thousand years



Actually...he was only dead for two days.  He's been alive for the 2000 since then.



> It only makes sense that you will deny anyone could once believe the same but now realize they were wrong.



No I believe that you thought you were saved.  



> It's called delusion my friend and there is nothing I can do to make you see it. You have to get there on your own and it starts with genuinely caring about the truth of your beliefs.



I think I'm in here enough and make rational enough arguments for you to know that I care deeply about honestly in belief and about getting to the truth of a matter.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure what the first picture is.  It appears to be a single cell,  

But hence the rediculous argument from the abortion crowd.  At conception my wife began carring HUMAN beings, not chickens, not cats, not foxes.  It makes no more sense to murder them at 5 weeks then it does at 11 months.

Abortion is only a convenience that society has allowed in a promiscuous age for a people who lack control.

But what else is to be expected from a society that demands immediate gratification and has lost all sense of self control and responsibility.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Forcing a parent to get off their butt and use their arms and legs to feed their hungry newborn.



How about organ transplants? Isn't the principle the same? What if we could save 5 lives by sacrificing the life of 1? Or if you want to go less extreme how about a law that requires everyone to be tested as a bone marrow donor. If there is a match then the donor can be forced to save the other person's life. After all they have a right to live don't they? Aren't we weighing one person's right to their life versus another person's property rights over their body?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Actually...he was only dead for two days.  He's been alive for the 2000 since then.



Yeah yeah I know. Then he levitated into the clouds like superman.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Madman said:


> Not sure what the first picture is.  It appears to be a single cell,



Nope it's a human being. Can't ya tell? Isn't it obvious?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> How about organ transplants? Isn't the principle the same? What if we could save 5 lives by sacrificing the life of 1? Or if you want to go less extreme how about a law that requires everyone to be tested as a bone marrow donor. If there is a match then the donor can be forced to save the other person's life. After all they have a right to live don't they? Aren't we weighing one person's right to their life versus another person's property rights over their body?



I thought we were done here?

For as long as time has been recorded, individuals have been restrained from being a threat to others.  Individuals have lost their right to their own dominion to keep from harming others.  We imprison them or execute them.  Like I said many, many times now, we have to determine where life begins first.

A woman who exercises her right to dominion within the first trimester causes harm on another human being, same for the following two trimesters, same for immidiately after birth.

If you conclude she is not under compulsion to feed a newborn, then we really have nowhere to go here.  I disagree based on the logic that has been pervasive throughout human history.  One person's right to self dominion gives no right to harm another.

We are still running in circles, and the transplant holds no water here because the action is not an intentional harm.  An abortion is.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> Yeah yeah I know. Then he levitated into the clouds like superman.




Told ya you knew a lot about Christian beliefs!


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> How about organ transplants? Isn't the principle the same? What if we could save 5 lives by sacrificing the life of 1? Or if you want to go less extreme how about a law that requires everyone to be tested as a bone marrow donor. If there is a match then the donor can be forced to save the other person's life. After all they have a right to live don't they? Aren't we weighing one person's right to their life versus another person's property rights over their body?



All of your examples above involuntarily harm one to save another.  The mother is (in most cases) done no harm by continuing to "house" the baby which she voluntarily gave access to her body up to that point.

How's this?  Let's go hypothetical a bit.  If there was some medical procedure that allowed me to attach myself to a machine willingly and start circulating my blood through a dieing patient so that we could share my blood and he could live.  We both use it, but it's my blood and we are both hooked up to a machine that circulates if for us both.

Kind of like a living bypass.  Let's just assume that was the only option for this patient.  Transfusions won't work.  My blood fits and he needs me to share it.  I volunteer to do so.

At what point is it ok for me to say "You know what?  I need to go to the bank.  I forgot to deposit a check.", rip the IV out of my arm and walk away leaving that man to die?  

It's my body, right?  My blood?  I can revoke permission to use it at will can't I?  He has no right to continue using my blood even though I let him use it for a little while...right?


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nope it's a human being. Can't ya tell? Isn't it obvious?



If it is a fertilized human cell then it is human.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

Don't worry Madman.  They all look the same to me.


Wait....is that racist?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Wait....is that racist?



Yes.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I thought we were done here?
> 
> For as long as time has been recorded, individuals have been restrained from being a threat to others.  Individuals have lost their right to their own dominion to keep from harming others.  We imprison them or execute them.  Like I said many, many times now, we have to determine where life begins first.
> 
> ...



Establishing that the right of self ownership begins at conception (and that is by no means established, only asserted but let's accept it for argument sake) only gets you to the point that you may say that we have two individuals and neither may agress against the other. The problem is that one is residing inside and feeding off of the other to begin with. So if the host is an unwilling party to this then it is their rights that are being violated. The abortion removes the one acting as a parasite from it's host. You may say that no damage should be done in the process of that removal but this is raising the bar of self defense. In any case the host is still well within their rights to remove another human being from their body that they do not agree to have there. You're in the same boat as HF effectively saying the abortion can be done as long as the aborted isn't done any harm in the process. That is the most you can say. The suggestion that the intent of the abortion is to kill is not correct. The intention is to end the pregnancy. Suppose there were an artificial womb that the fetus could be transferred to. How many women do you think would say "No it's not enough that the pregnancy end, I want it to die."? Very few. And under such a circumstance I would agree with you. Removing a parasite from your body by whatever means necessary can only be considered a violation of the rights of the one being removed if they have a right to be there and that cannot be if we are the exclusive owners of ourselves. The enforcement of the womans right over her body may very well result in a death. But so would the enforcement of self ownership in the case of transplants. You've already said that even if a woman was raped she should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. So if we are to accept this notion that it is ok to invade someone's person for the good of someone else then the transplant question remains. In trying to reach your end goal you've openly accepted the violation of one right in the name of another which doesn't exist (the right to live at someone else's expense by force). Once you've set the precedent that one person can live off another without their consent it's game over. You now have a society that is not based on the protection of individual rights but their violation.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> All of your examples above involuntarily harm one to save another.  The mother is (in most cases) done no harm by continuing to "house" the baby which she voluntarily gave access to her body up to that point.



Is that the measure of when someone should be able to exercise their property right in them self? How much harm is done to them? Who gets to decide that for others? You? A bone marrow transplant is probably less of an inconvenience than a pregnancy. So by your logic your cool with forcing that on everyone?




Huntinfool said:


> How's this?  Let's go hypothetical a bit.  If there was some medical procedure that allowed me to attach myself to a machine willingly and start circulating my blood through a dieing patient so that we could share my blood and he could live.  We both use it, but it's my blood and we are both hooked up to a machine that circulates if for us both.
> 
> Kind of like a living bypass.  Let's just assume that was the only option for this patient.  Transfusions won't work.  My blood fits and he needs me to share it.  I volunteer to do so.
> 
> ...



That's right. It's your body, it's your right, it's your decision to make. And for anyone to force you to either take part in this or continue in this against your will would be a violation of your rights. Spot on.

Now... if you are asking whether it would be ethical for you to stop that is a different question but ethical or not it is your decision to make and no one else's.


I'm reminded of that movie My Sister's Keeper where a girl is conceived and then used to be a donor for her sick older sister. Is that ethical or right to force that on someone against their will simply because it saves a life? I say absolutely not. I think most people would agree that it is up to the potential donor to decide and someone else's right to life does not trump that decision.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Suppose there were an artificial womb that the fetus could be transferred to.



I would absolutely support that.  I also think that establishes that my intent is not to control anybody, or limit anybody, but to protect the rights of the unborn.



atlashunter said:


> Removing a parasite from your body by whatever means necessary can only be considered a violation of the rights of the one being removed if they have a right to be there and that cannot be if we are the exclusive owners of ourselves. The enforcement of the womans right over her body may very well result in a death. But so would the enforcement of self ownership in the case of transplants. You've already said that even if a woman was raped she should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. So if we are to accept this notion that it is ok to invade someone's person for the good of someone else then the transplant question remains. In trying to reach your end goal you've openly accepted the violation of one right in the name of another which doesn't exist (the right to live at someone else's expense by force). Once you've set the precedent that one person can live off another without their consent it's game over. You now have a society that is not based on the protection of individual rights but their violation.


 
I know the rape thing is a tough position, and I struggle with it.  But, for me, I believe the child had no say in his or her creation, but has been created. And as a human, the child has all rights associated with such a distinction.  Therefore the cause of his creation is irrelevant, and that really stinks for the mother, I know.

As to the rest of it, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.  I think we have picked each other's arguments as clean as they are going to get, and my only counter-points are just a variation of what I have already said.

I said it before, but, to me, your position is the only logical defense of abortion.  I simply disagree with the premise, and the implications (if you are right, a newborn has no right to be fed) and I think there is more involved than a bare-bones "right of dominion."  Lets just have to leave it there.  I don't think we are going to budge each other's positions.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Thanks JB. I enjoyed the conversation.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> The counter to that is, "well, they won't force you to feed your child.  They'll put you in jail and take the child from you."
> 
> To which we say....
> 
> ...




Wow. Really?  Strap her to a gurney until she delivers?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> I'm reminded of that movie My Sister's Keeper where a girl is conceived and then used to be a donor for her sick older sister. Is that ethical or right to force that on someone against their will simply because it saves a life? I say absolutely not. I think most people would agree that it is up to the potential donor to decide and someone else's right to life does not trump that decision.



Once again....you're starting with "against your will".  Flase premise.  That's not where pregnancy starts in almost every case.  The issue comes down to this for me:

If you grant permission for someone to use your body to support their life for a period of time and they "accept" that offer, you should not be legally allowed to revoke that permission once they have "set up shop" per se.  You offered the use and they now depend on that use to live and have no other option.  Until and unless you, somehow, become harmed by that offer, they should have the right to maintain life by the means offered.  You can certainly choose to not offer use and they die (or never exist in the case of a baby).  But you should not be allowed to revoke it once permission is given.

That is why (as madman said) sex should not be entered into lightly as it is today.  The approach is "I don't need protection"...I'll just revoke permission if a baby takes up residence.  

It's unethical, immorral in every sense of the word and should be illegal....though, you are correct, it is not. 

It's a weighty decision to offer your body to someone else to sustain their life.  I would guess that if I asked you to hook up to that machine and share your blood with me, you might take a few days to think on it and seriously consider the potential consequences of saying "yes".  

Unfortunately, the only time that is spent considering the consequences of inviting a baby in is how long it takes to get all the clothes off.  It's the same thing.  You can't deny that (except for maybe I'm alive and the embryo isn't?).  But the former decision, somehow, seems more "weighty" to you...doesn't it?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> Wow. Really? Strap her to a gurney until she delivers?



Ambush....

Tell me, what would you do in a situation where someone neglects their two year old, where thye refuse to feed it, make is wallow in urine and feces and beat it senseless every time it cries?

You'd arrest the parents and throw them in jail (i.e. take control of their physical body).  You'd take custody of the child.

Is there a difference if both the fetus and the 2 year old are considered to be living human beings?

Think on it for a moment before you answer.  I'm very much a "hands off" kind of guy when it comes to govt intervention in private lives.  But the constitution clearly lays out that a person shall not be deprived of life without due process and we have laws on the books that prohibit murder or attempted murder.  If they fetus is a "person", then all of this applies.

If a mother attempted to kill her two year old daughter....would you leave the daughter in her custody unsupervised?


I realize the stigma "strap her to a gurney till she delivers" holds at this point in time.  But, if we can just assume the baby is a person for a moment...is there a difference between putting parents in jail and taking custody of the child and the above?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 6, 2011)

I don't have any statistics to back it up but I would venture to say that most abortion cases are not women who initially wanted the pregnancy and then changed their mind after the fact so your suggestion that permission was granted at some point doesn't hold up. It also isn't the case that once you have agreed to let someone else use your body you can't change your mind and revoke that permission. If what you are saying is true in principle then that would mean once a woman initially agrees to sleep with a man she is locked into that decision and may not change her mind and that it is legitimate to force her to keep the initial agreement. You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

I didn't say that the women all wanted the pregnancy.

Trying not to get explicit here, so I'll do my best at an analogy...


If you choose to walk through a cow pasture blindfolded...it's reasonable to expect that you have a good chance that you will have cow dung on your boots when you get to the other side.

"Permission" is granted when you have intercourse without protection and "complete the transaction".  You know what the likely result will be.  If you continue on with the transaction, you are implicitly agreeable to the potential outcome.  That's essentially what child support laws are based on aren't they?  Dad can't just say, once he learns of the pregnancy "well I don't want the kid" and get of the hook for the money just because the MOM decides to keep the baby.  No, it is implied that you were agreable or at least understood what you were opening yourself up to.

Permission granted means that the sperm met the egg and implanted in the uterus.  God didn't just miracle it there (except that once)....it's there BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED IT TO BE THERE....permission.

You cannot allow something that you do not also permit.



> If what you are saying is true in principle then that would mean once a woman initially agrees to sleep with a man she is locked into that decision and may not change her mind and that it is legitimate to force her to keep the initial agreement.



That's exactly what I'm saying my friend.  If you allow a life to form in your womb...you are locked into that decision.  You cannot change your mind because it doesn't suit your fancy.  That is not "good enough reason" to take a life.  Castle Doctrine already establishes that you have to have a good reason to take a life and that reason is that your life is in danger.

If we agree that it is a "person", then the laws are in conflict with each other.  Only one person is threatening the life of the other...and it is the mom who intends to abort.



Tell me this...why can't the dad change his mind?  I mean, he doesn't want that baby, right?  He can't force her to abort because she owns her own body.  He doesn't want the child...she does.  It's her decision to have the baby but he's declared "I didn't want this.  I've changed my mind.".  

Why, all of sudden, does she have the right to his money?  I mean, he changed his mind didn't he?  Isn't that reason enough to be rid of the baby and all responsibility related to it?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I didn't say that the women all wanted the pregnancy.
> 
> Trying not to get explicit here, so I'll do my best at an analogy...
> 
> ...



Two points...

1. Pregnancy can happen even when precautions are taken.

2. If no precautions are taken it doesn't mean that you agreed to have a child it just means that you were stupid.





Huntinfool said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying my friend.  If you allow a life to form in your womb...you are locked into that decision.  You cannot change your mind because it doesn't suit your fancy.  That is not "good enough reason" to take a life.  Castle Doctrine already establishes that you have to have a good reason to take a life and that reason is that your life is in danger.



I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If a woman decides to sleep with a man and then changes her mind he does not have the right to rape her despite her initial consent. She retains the right to revoke that consent at any time. I hope that is not exactly what you are saying.

The law is wrong as it pertains to fathers but that in no way negates the ownership right a woman has over her body.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Two points...
> 
> 1. Pregnancy can happen even when precautions are taken.


... but she knew there were other possible outcomes even though protection was used. Murdering a child because the "net" broke and men fell of the bridge is no justification.



> 2. If no precautions are taken it doesn't mean that you agreed to have a child it just means that you were stupid



Again, she knew the possibility of it happening. So essentially, yes, a woman (and a man) agrees to the possiblility of having a child when the two "cross the bridge"


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> Two points...
> 
> 1. Pregnancy can happen even when precautions are taken.



Agreed.  But, again, we're talking about the 99.99% of pregnancies that don't happen like this.



> 2. If no precautions are taken it doesn't mean that you agreed to have a child it just means that you were stupid.



Stupid....agreed...and you created a life which you should have no right to terminate.





> I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If a woman decides to sleep with a man and then changes her mind he does not have the right to rape her despite her initial consent. She retains the right to revoke that consent at any time. I hope that is not exactly what you are saying.



Good grief NO!  But I can't believe you're still on that argument.  In this entire post you've resorted to the fringe cases.  

1) The broken condom or failed pill (both of with are 97%+ effective...and you know that when you "complete the transaction")

2)  The woman goes in agreable and changes her mind mid-stream.  That's gotta be like 0.000000001% of the time.


I'll give you that there may be room for discussion in certain cases (i.e. the life of the mother is threatened).  I've not got a good firm grasp on where I stand on the "fringe" stuff.  But 99% of the time we're dealing with consentual non-protected encounters.

We agree.  If you do that and you get pregnant....you are stupid (in the moment...not for all time).  But I am convinced that you've also created a life.  Your right to your body does not over-ride someone else's right to their life.  If you "permit" the baby to be there by being stupid....your stuck with it until it's done with you.  Not in perpetuity....but for the next 9 months.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 6, 2011)

HF I'm testing the underlying principle behind what you are saying and you're not liking the outcomes of the principles you are trying to use in your particular case when they are applied to other circumstances. You reject those principles in other cases but not in this particular one. That basically reduces your position to one of special pleading so I see no reason why it shouldn't also be rejected. JB was at least consistent.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 7, 2011)

....I gotta be honest...I didn't follow that post at all.

To clarify, in every case...regardless of what happened...the woman knew there was a possible outcome of pregnancy.  If she's willing to take the chance, then she implicitly is willing to accept the result.  The life is there IMO.  You do not have a justifiable reason to take a life (unless yours is in danger...i.e. the Castle Doctrine).  I understand that we disagree on whether there is a life in there.  If it wasn't alive, I wouldn't care one way or the other what you did with it.

If I walk close to a cliff edge, I know it's possible I might fall even though I don't intend to and I'm very careful....OOPS....the wind just gusted....AHHHHHHHH


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 11, 2011)

Dude - that is the creepiest Pope photo *ever* in you avatar. You had to look hard to find that one.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Dude - that is the creepiest Pope photo *ever* in you avatar. You had to look hard to find that one.



Yeah not so much.


----------

