you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

It's not an analogy of church and state, it's the legal precident to AVOID a church and state analogy. The Bible isn't part of the discussion, if we want to consider the law, democracy, and Roe v. Wade. Yes, there are laws against murder, and Roe v Wade was agreed upon for a Federal law that legalized abortion, which is for the benefit of the living. If "life begins at conception", or with a beating heard, or with the first brain activity, or at the end of the 1st trimester, Roe v Wade confirmed that none of these definitions of 'life' can be applied to the law regarding abortion. Why separate church and state? Because you cannot legislate morality. You can however legislate criminal activity, which Roe v Wade determined did not apply to many abortions. Who had safe hospital abortions before Roe v Wade? Rich people. Who risked their lives with dodgy methods for illegal abortions? Poor people, and the middle-classes. Don't use a church and state analogy, unless you want to promote theocratic rule. And if you want a theocracy, look at the shitty situations theocracies are in. The vast majority of their constituents are absolutely miserable.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

"Because you cannot legislate morality."

We all know that killing healthy unborn infants is immoral.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Right. But aborting an embryo is not killing an infant.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Honest question here. Would you say that an embryo is 3/5 of a person? I don't know the answer, but I think the heart of this debate is where each person thinks life begins. I used to be totally pro-choice until I became a father. Now, I don't understand how anyone who is a parent can be pro-choice. I agree that a 2 month old embryo is not the same as a 2 month old baby, but it's still life, in my opinion, and I'm non-religious so that doesn't factor into my beliefs.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Would you say that an embryo is 3/5 of a person?

Nope. A collection of cells with no brain is not a fraction of a human.

I don't know the answer, but I think the heart of this debate is where each person thinks life begins.

Agreed.

I used to be totally pro-choice until I became a father. Now, I don't understand how anyone who is a parent can be pro-choice.

Even when the embryo are a rapists genes, and you want to torture a teenager for nine months while she gives her body to carrying someone who violated her?

I agree that a 2 month old embryo is not the same as a 2 month old baby, but it's still life, in my opinion, and I'm non-religious so that doesn't factor into my beliefs.

A bacteria is life.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

A collection of cells with no brain is not a fraction of a human.

Another honest question: why do you think researchers have the 14-day rule when dealing with human embryos?

you want to torture a teenager for nine months while she gives her body to carrying someone who violated her?

No, but again, where does life begin and you allow a murder on top of someone committing a rape?

A bacteria is life.

I guess we should clarify that we are talking about a human life.

I think all of this comes down to the when we think that an embryo or infant or adult is a human life. No bad people in this debate.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Another honest question: why do you think researchers have the 14-day rule when dealing with human embryos?

Ethics committees can get a bit overzealous.

For research purposes iirc you can get 8 or 16 cells. So cell division can occur 3 or 4 times. That was chosen because all the cells are still embryonic stem cells. There's no differentiation between the cells. So augments about whether it's human yet or not can't even begin, because there's no different parts. Just a cell clump.

No, but again, where does life begin and you allow a murder on top of someone committing a rape?

"Murder" is a bit strong for "choosing not to get involved in supporting the life of".

9 million people due from hunger each year. Did those of us who have the resources to feed at least one of them murder them?

But I agree it matters where life begins. Not because some innocent person could ethically be fingered by the state to give of their body to keep a person who they want nothing to do with alive, but because rights must be balanced ... And a clump of cells doesn't have rights.

I guess we should clarify that we are talking about a human life.

Then no. A 2 month old embryo is not human life.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

9 million people due from hunger each year. Did those of us who have the resources to feed at least one of them murder them?

If we took food from them with the intent for them to starve to death, then yes.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But not for not taking food to them?

A clump of cells will die if you don't pass nutrients and oxygen to it from your body, unless its about halfway through the pregnancy, and even then it's touch and go with the best tech available.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

But not for not taking food to them?

A clump of cells will die if you don't pass nutrients and oxygen to it from your body, unless its about halfway through the pregnancy, and even then it's touch and go with the best tech available.

Which side are you arguing?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then no. A 2 month old embryo is not human life.

I'm not trying to kick a dead horse here, but fuck, it would become human life.

You're a smart guy. I don't think I need to argue with you, I think now you're going to work it out on your own and come to the rather obvious conclusion.

As an aside, pro life has really shitty PR. They never explain it well. They come off sounding backwards and weird, and it frankly looks bad they care the kid is born but then give zero fucks about it.

But what they're doing is giving the kid a chance. A chance to live as you and I are.

Although if you're like me you never asked to be born and you occasionally wish you were dead. But we have that choice.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not trying to kick a dead horse here, but fuck, it would become human life.

At some point, and all things going well, it would. But when it clearly isn't there's no need to finger some poor child to give of their health and welfare, and further have their body subjected to the will of a rapist.

You're a smart guy. I don't think I need to argue with you, I think now you're going to work it out on your own and come to the rather obvious conclusion.

Mate, I've given it thought. Human cells without a brain is not a human. It's doesn't want anything, much less a chance of a life of neglect and hatred and crime. A human's welfare comes first. A mother's body is hers to give to the people she loves, and to withhold from those that she does not. If that unloved fetus has no brain yet, there's no other consideration.