8 ms·

You don't have to believe in God to make the argument that an embryo is a developing human being who is therefore worthy of legal protection. There are plenty o

by 19guid 10y ago

You don't have to believe in God to make the argument that an embryo is a developing human being who is therefore worthy of legal protection. There are plenty of secular pro-lifers. [1] [1] http://www.secularprolife.org/ http://www.secularprolife.org/

StavrosK 10y ago
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The question is at which point the embryo becomes enough of a human where its needs outweigh the needs of the parents.
- rhizome 10y ago
  The question is whether it ever does, and since (US, at least) domestic policy is to cut the social safety net and say "you're on your own" after a child is born, I'll take the "never" position. THat is, [US] government policy is that its needs outweigh the parents' only during gestation.
- bduerst 10y ago
  We have the technology to freeze viable embryos, right? If it's a question of balancing human lives, you could just freeze the removed embryos until a suitable parent or technology came along.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Wouldn't that solve the problem?
- gnaritas 10y ago
  That's really not relevant, it can be stipulated that life begins at conception and it simply doesn't matter, no persons right to life trumps another persons right to bodily autonomy. It's not murder to let someone die if you're the only bone marrow donor that could save their life and you refuse to donate and it's not murder to get an abortion; not all killing is murder, nor is all killing wrong. As long as the baby requires use of the mothers body to survive, it's right to life is secondary to her consent to carry it and that's true even if you give a fetus the full rights any other grown person would have. No grown person could demand their right to life is more important than your consent to your control your own body, even if your refusal kills them.
  - refurb 10y ago
    It's not murder to let someone die if you're the only bone marrow donor that could save their life and you refuse to donate and it's not murder to get an abortion "One of those things is not like the other, one of those things..." Not donating bone marrow requires doing nothing. Having an abortion require an active procedure.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > Not donating bone marrow requires doing nothing. Having an abortion require an active procedure. True, but simply not relevant to any point I made. No metaphor is perfect, but the point here is that your control over your own body trumps another right to life. You wouldn't allow the government to forcibly take your bone marrow to save a life, and that's no different than being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will in regards to the point of bodily autonomy. Another persons right to life ends when it depends on someone else's body to live. The other person has a right to not consent to use their body against their will.
      - refurb 10y ago
        but the point here is that your control over your own body trumps another right to life I think you need to refine that stance. As a parent, I certainly don't have control over my own body. If I fail to provide the necessities of life for my child, I will go to jail and my kid will be taken from me. The gov't can (and will) force me to do certain things with my body.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Child neglect has nothing to do with your body. You are free to give up your child for adoption if you don't want to take care of them. Abusing a child and being punished for it isn't remotely similar to anything being discussed here. You're yet again deflecting from the point and attempting to setup a strawman.
elastic_church 10y ago
You can unsubscribe from both life/choice "camps" and realize the Supreme Court rationale that inadvertently created those reactionary groups simply doesn't fit our standards of judicial review any longer. The whole case is on shaky legal ground without you having to take a stance on it!
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  Well considering how long the precedent has been in place and how it has been kept in place over multiple different courts, it seems to hold the status of "good law" no matter your opinion on the legal arguments themselves. The real issue is that Congress has not wanted to try to push this issue no matter which side has control because it is so divisive. Since the harms to the women from leaving a patchwork system of laws in place are real, that just leaves the courts to fill in the vacuum as far as setting a national policy goes.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    The Supreme Court makes rulings that are easy to comply with. Their job is to interpret things based on the constitution, in practice they weigh society's ability to stomach their rulings as well. This is primarily the reason it hasn't been overruled, and its been close in times past! The "precedent" hasn't been in place that long as far as case law goes. Check out a few of the dissenting opinions
ghurtado 10y ago
I suppose if your definition of "plenty" is different than mine, that you could be right. Having said that, I have a hard time taking any anti-abortion group seriously (whether religious or not) which does not actually have an official position on rape. What possible non-religious argument could there be made to force a woman to carry to term (and care for) the child of their rapist?
- komali2 10y ago
  Dunno, lemme give it a shot: First off, if a compromise can be found, that could solve the problem instantly - for example, if instead of abortion, a fetus could be removed and implanted safely in another woman, or in a laboratory, and brought to term, and there was a legal apparatus in place to ensure the child received care, that could eliminate the "killing" aspect of an abortion while preventing a woman from being forced to keep a rape-induced pregnancy to term. That doesn't exist yet though, so, lemme try this, though I feel very dirty doing so: If abortion is murder, then there's no legal justification in carrying it out because one is a victim of a crime, even if the abortion is a "solution" to one of the long-term effects of that crime (the rape). Just as one is not allowed to steal to replace stolen goods, one should not be allowed to "murder" an unborn child in response to a rape. Well, you're not wrong, it's a pretty hard argument to make without bringing religion in.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Religion is the only place where you'll find people arguing that a zygote is a human, so I'll say it's impossible to make the argument without religion.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      For a secular reference search "plead the belly".
    - refurb 10y ago
      That's a pretty bold claim that many disagree with.
bsder 10y ago
And religious people have argued that ensoulment did not occur until after recognizable human fetal development. And, by the way, female ensoulment occurred significantly later than male ensoulment. "Life begins at conception" is primarily a political construct.
- acqq 10y ago
  False! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Chur... "The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception". From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.""
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Well, you are correct for the modern church, but there is a history. The term quickening (sometimes animation) had various meanings from both secular (search for "plead the belly") and religious. Interpretations of Exodus also sometimes strayed into fetus having the features of a baby. For the modern policy a search of the Vatican's excellent web server is probably the best source http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=abortion&btnG=Search+on&site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entsp=a__policy_documenti&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&filter=0 http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=abortion&btnG=Search+on&s...
    - acqq 10y ago
      The Church disproves you, quoting older texts, even from the second century of the Church: See "Declaration on procured abortion, 18 November 1974," it can be thankfully found using your search: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docum... "Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion" [(c. 133 – c. 190 AD) he was a Father of the Church, another author quoted is Tertullian c. 155 – c. 240 AD, moreover, Synod of Elvira, the fourth century, and on and on through the centuries...] "In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault." To repeat: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."
Jarwain 10y ago
Well, technically, our constitution only gives legal protection to those who are Citizens of the United States of America (or Citizens of some other country I guess). However, one must be born for them to be considered a citizen of the United States. Since an embryo is by definition unborn, the argument could be made that they are not worthy of legal protection.

by 19guid 10y ago

StavrosK 10y ago

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The question is at which point the embryo becomes enough of a human where its needs outweigh the needs of the parents.

rhizome 10y ago
The question is whether it ever does, and since (US, at least) domestic policy is to cut the social safety net and say "you're on your own" after a child is born, I'll take the "never" position. THat is, [US] government policy is that its needs outweigh the parents' only during gestation.
bduerst 10y ago
We have the technology to freeze viable embryos, right? If it's a question of balancing human lives, you could just freeze the removed embryos until a suitable parent or technology came along.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Wouldn't that solve the problem?
gnaritas 10y ago
That's really not relevant, it can be stipulated that life begins at conception and it simply doesn't matter, no persons right to life trumps another persons right to bodily autonomy. It's not murder to let someone die if you're the only bone marrow donor that could save their life and you refuse to donate and it's not murder to get an abortion; not all killing is murder, nor is all killing wrong. As long as the baby requires use of the mothers body to survive, it's right to life is secondary to her consent to carry it and that's true even if you give a fetus the full rights any other grown person would have. No grown person could demand their right to life is more important than your consent to your control your own body, even if your refusal kills them.
- refurb 10y ago
  It's not murder to let someone die if you're the only bone marrow donor that could save their life and you refuse to donate and it's not murder to get an abortion "One of those things is not like the other, one of those things..." Not donating bone marrow requires doing nothing. Having an abortion require an active procedure.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > Not donating bone marrow requires doing nothing. Having an abortion require an active procedure. True, but simply not relevant to any point I made. No metaphor is perfect, but the point here is that your control over your own body trumps another right to life. You wouldn't allow the government to forcibly take your bone marrow to save a life, and that's no different than being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will in regards to the point of bodily autonomy. Another persons right to life ends when it depends on someone else's body to live. The other person has a right to not consent to use their body against their will.
    - refurb 10y ago
      but the point here is that your control over your own body trumps another right to life I think you need to refine that stance. As a parent, I certainly don't have control over my own body. If I fail to provide the necessities of life for my child, I will go to jail and my kid will be taken from me. The gov't can (and will) force me to do certain things with my body.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        Child neglect has nothing to do with your body. You are free to give up your child for adoption if you don't want to take care of them. Abusing a child and being punished for it isn't remotely similar to anything being discussed here. You're yet again deflecting from the point and attempting to setup a strawman.

elastic_church 10y ago

You can unsubscribe from both life/choice "camps" and realize the Supreme Court rationale that inadvertently created those reactionary groups simply doesn't fit our standards of judicial review any longer. The whole case is on shaky legal ground without you having to take a stance on it!

nikdaheratik 10y ago
Well considering how long the precedent has been in place and how it has been kept in place over multiple different courts, it seems to hold the status of "good law" no matter your opinion on the legal arguments themselves. The real issue is that Congress has not wanted to try to push this issue no matter which side has control because it is so divisive. Since the harms to the women from leaving a patchwork system of laws in place are real, that just leaves the courts to fill in the vacuum as far as setting a national policy goes.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  The Supreme Court makes rulings that are easy to comply with. Their job is to interpret things based on the constitution, in practice they weigh society's ability to stomach their rulings as well. This is primarily the reason it hasn't been overruled, and its been close in times past! The "precedent" hasn't been in place that long as far as case law goes. Check out a few of the dissenting opinions

ghurtado 10y ago

I suppose if your definition of "plenty" is different than mine, that you could be right. Having said that, I have a hard time taking any anti-abortion group seriously (whether religious or not) which does not actually have an official position on rape. What possible non-religious argument could there be made to force a woman to carry to term (and care for) the child of their rapist?

komali2 10y ago
Dunno, lemme give it a shot: First off, if a compromise can be found, that could solve the problem instantly - for example, if instead of abortion, a fetus could be removed and implanted safely in another woman, or in a laboratory, and brought to term, and there was a legal apparatus in place to ensure the child received care, that could eliminate the "killing" aspect of an abortion while preventing a woman from being forced to keep a rape-induced pregnancy to term. That doesn't exist yet though, so, lemme try this, though I feel very dirty doing so: If abortion is murder, then there's no legal justification in carrying it out because one is a victim of a crime, even if the abortion is a "solution" to one of the long-term effects of that crime (the rape). Just as one is not allowed to steal to replace stolen goods, one should not be allowed to "murder" an unborn child in response to a rape. Well, you're not wrong, it's a pretty hard argument to make without bringing religion in.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Religion is the only place where you'll find people arguing that a zygote is a human, so I'll say it's impossible to make the argument without religion.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    For a secular reference search "plead the belly".
  - refurb 10y ago
    That's a pretty bold claim that many disagree with.

bsder 10y ago

And religious people have argued that ensoulment did not occur until after recognizable human fetal development. And, by the way, female ensoulment occurred significantly later than male ensoulment. "Life begins at conception" is primarily a political construct.

acqq 10y ago
False! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Chur... "The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception". From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.""
- protomyth 10y ago
  Well, you are correct for the modern church, but there is a history. The term quickening (sometimes animation) had various meanings from both secular (search for "plead the belly") and religious. Interpretations of Exodus also sometimes strayed into fetus having the features of a baby. For the modern policy a search of the Vatican's excellent web server is probably the best source http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=abortion&btnG=Search+on&site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entsp=a__policy_documenti&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&filter=0 http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=abortion&btnG=Search+on&s...
  - acqq 10y ago
    The Church disproves you, quoting older texts, even from the second century of the Church: See "Declaration on procured abortion, 18 November 1974," it can be thankfully found using your search: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docum... "Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion" [(c. 133 – c. 190 AD) he was a Father of the Church, another author quoted is Tertullian c. 155 – c. 240 AD, moreover, Synod of Elvira, the fourth century, and on and on through the centuries...] "In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault." To repeat: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."

Jarwain 10y ago

Well, technically, our constitution only gives legal protection to those who are Citizens of the United States of America (or Citizens of some other country I guess). However, one must be born for them to be considered a citizen of the United States. Since an embryo is by definition unborn, the argument could be made that they are not worthy of legal protection.