NY Expands Abortion Law

[rjd970]

Ive changed my mind on plenty of things.
It may not be in the heat of the argument but people do change their opinion. People get dug in in the rhetoric of their position.
Take the extremes.
-Keep your laws off my body, or, if you don’t agree with abortion don’t have one.

-And, Abortion is against God’s will.

Both of those stances are not where debate can or will occur. And, it is very hard to get people off those hardline positions. Hitting people in the face with facts may not have an immediate impact, but it may resonate later or call them to question their position. I’d guess 80% on both sides of the issue can’t argue facts and simply repeat the same rhetoric. I’ve actually seen pro choicers and pro-lifers concede problems in their position when discussing facts. For example, I challenge pro lifers on the subject of personhood and rights. They areclaiming the developing human is a person. Well, there is no fact that determines personhood. Hell, remember when TRUT was arguing that newborns are no too persons but property and it should be within the legal rights of parents to kill their newborn?

Rights? Do the unborn have rights? Does the mother have a right to abort? Ok, where do these rights come from? What objective referent can everyone agree on?

I challenge both sides that there are no objective human rights. Rights are determined by societies. In our society it’s the constitution. But, that is subject to interpretation and amendment. (see slavery and voting)

Bottom line is, what are the facts, and given those, will someone submit themselves to the reality of these facts?

I think your extremes are, correct, but not complete. Those are the dogmatic views for justification of positions, but the central question is and always has been when do life and rights begin. The opinion in Roe v Wade was addressing this, and the court stated In the absence of consensus in the medical, biological, religious, and philosophical fields that it wasn’t up to the court to decide where that line is drawn. In that paradigm, the debate is really one of life and rights. Should a fertilized egg receive all the same inalienable rights as infant at the very instant fertilization occurs?

I don’t know, but my opinion is it shouldn’t. Those rights start at some point before birth and some point after fertilization. There are facts supporting opinions when life starts at a continuum all along that spectrum. Heartbeat, brain waves, unique genetic material, ability to survive outside the womb, etc....are all biological facts supporting those different positions.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Does human life have value?

That is an interesting question. I would say that not all human life does.

 

[Matt2496]

This is satire, but it makes a good point.

Report: More Unborn Babies In New York Identifying As Convicted Criminals So They Can't Legally Be Executed

 

[RikidyBones]

Did you ever have a stance that differs from your current position?

I did. Was pro choice entirely and now i struggle to validate one of the choices, abortion.

 

[Roustabout]

I think your extremes are, correct, but not complete. Those are the dogmatic views for justification of positions, but the central question is and always has been when do life and rights begin. The opinion in Roe v Wade was addressing this, and the court stated In the absence of consensus in the medical, biological, religious, and philosophical fields that it wasn’t up to the court to decide where that line is drawn. In that paradigm, the debate is really one of life and rights. Should a fertilized egg receive all the same inalienable rights as infant at the very instant fertilization occurs?

I don’t know, but my opinion is it shouldn’t. Those rights start at some point before birth and some point after fertilization. There are facts supporting opinions when life starts at a continuum all along that spectrum. Heartbeat, brain waves, unique genetic material, ability to survive outside the womb, etc....are all biological facts supporting those different positions.

If anyone takes a retroactive look at Roe wade they know it is built on a house of cards. Even the lady who was Roe admitted this. This is exactly why liberals want the courts stacked in their favor.

Again, you’d first have to find a justification and grounding for ANY innate human rights.

Biologically, life begins at conception. That isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. It’s simply what stage of development that life is in form that point on. Humans are continually in development until adulthood, then we start decaying. If Roe were looked at with fresh eyes and the science we now have, I think you’d have a much different outcome.
That is why my argument rest in an the a priori acceptance that human life has value.

A fertilized egg has all the potentiality that a human will ever have. It is biologically unique and 100% human.

 

[Roustabout]

That is an interesting question. I would say that not all human life does.

Examples?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Examples?

Christian/Newsome killers. We should use the same rope for all of them, and let each one watch a they wait their turn.

 

[Roustabout]

Christian/Newsome killers. We should use the same rope for all of them, and let each one watch a they wait their turn.

That is a really bad example and completely misses the point. The only way to accurately measure the atrocity of their behavior is against the truth that human life has value. Are you saying that those humans, when children, would not be worth raising with value?

I’d say there is a good chance that they turned out this way because they were treated without value and then acted as such. It’s a self defeating proposition. How would they know to treat Newsome and Christian with value?

I’ve worked in inner city ministry and we deal with the effects of childhood trauma and how it manifest later in life.

 

[Wafflestomper]

That is a really bad example and completely misses the point. The only way to accurately measure the atrocity of their behavior is against the truth that human life has value. Are you saying that those humans, when children, would not be worth raising with value?

I’d say there is a good chance that they turned out this way because they were treated without value and then acted as such. It’s a self defeating proposition. How would they know to treat Newsome and Christian with value?

I’ve worked in inner city ministry and we deal with the effects of childhood trauma and how it manifest later in life.

Out of curiosity, how would you justify war?

 

[VolStrom]

Christian/Newsome killers. We should use the same rope for all of them, and let each one watch a they wait their turn.

I absolutely despise what those pieces of **** did to those kids. To think that any of them are still alive is a miscarriage of justice.

 

[rjd970]

If anyone takes a retroactive look at Roe wade they know it is built on a house of cards. Even the lady who was Roe admitted this. This is exactly why liberals want the courts stacked in their favor.

Again, you’d first have to find a justification and grounding for ANY innate human rights.

Biologically, life begins at conception. That isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. It’s simply what stage of development that life is in form that point on. Humans are continually in development until adulthood, then we start decaying. If Roe were looked at with fresh eyes and the science we now have, I think you’d have a much different outcome.
That is why my argument rest in an the a priori acceptance that human life has value.

A fertilized egg has all the potentiality that a human will ever have. It is biologically unique and 100% human.

Its a biological fact that life begins at conception? Where is that stated as scientific fact? Certainty is fleeting and absolutes are rare in science. Its why despite our vast knowledge there are very few actual laws of science. There may be a large consensus, but I would be really interested to know where it is scientifically stated that it is an absolute fact that life begins at conception.

There is a scientific case to be made that life begins at implantation. There is another that life begins with the first breath, heartbeat, brain wave, etc. I would even be willing to say the process of life might begin at conception, but life itself has yet to be manifested. The question is and always has been, scientifically, ethically, philosophically, and religiously...when does "it" become "alive".

I doubt you would have a different outcome with the science we have now, because the science we have now is not conclusive. There is still heated debate in the fields of ethics, philosophy, and religion to claim any consensus. This hasn't changed from Roe v Wade.

For reasons already stated, I don't find the potentiality argument compelling. I still think if you go that route and claim biological function and process, the process of making a human begins at penetration of some sort, at a minimum. Natural conception is impossible without it (that is a FACT). Opening that rabbit hole, one could even say given the science we have now, any cell with DNA could be a potential human. You may not find that compelling, and think it doesn't apply. I'm not even sure I do, but in my opinion, the potentiality argument opens up a huge box of possibilities.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument. I'm saying it isn't as factual and as certain as you think it is.

 

[Roustabout]

Its a biological fact that life begins at conception? Where is that stated as scientific fact? Certainty is fleeting and absolutes are rare in science. Its why despite our vast knowledge there are very few actual laws of science. There may be a large consensus, but I would be really interested to know where it is scientifically stated that it is an absolute fact that life begins at conception.

There is a scientific case to be made that life begins at implantation. There is another that life begins with the first breath, heartbeat, brain wave, etc. I would even be willing to say the process of life might begin at conception, but life itself has yet to be manifested. The question is and always has been, scientifically, ethically, philosophically, and religiously...when does "it" become "alive".

I doubt you would have a different outcome with the science we have now, because the science we have now is not conclusive. There is still heated debate in the fields of ethics, philosophy, and religion to claim any consensus. This hasn't changed from Roe v Wade.

For reasons already stated, I don't find the potentiality argument compelling. I still think if you go that route and claim biological function and process, the process of making a human begins at penetration of some sort, at a minimum. Natural conception is impossible without it (that is a FACT). Opening that rabbit hole, one could even say given the science we have now, any cell with DNA could be a potential human. You may not find that compelling, and think it doesn't apply. I'm not even sure I do, but in my opinion, the potentiality argument opens up a huge box of possibilities.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument. I'm saying it isn't as factual and as certain as you think it is.

I’d actually be willing to concede implantation.
The facts remain that it is settled science regarding when human development begins. Beyond that, you are once again equivocating potential. A fertilized egg has a unique genetic identity and ALL the potentiality of any human being.
You can keep repeating that but it doesn’t make it so. It is not a given potentiality that a sperm will develop into a unique human.

 

[Roustabout]

Out of curiosity, how would you justify war?

Contingent on the facts. I struggle with the founding of this country based on oppressive taxation. Yep, we killed each other over taxes.

I can understand US entering WWII because we were attacked and the horrible inhumanity of Nazi Germany.

 

[rjd970]

I’d actually be willing to concede implantation.
The facts remain that it is settled science regarding when human development begins. Beyond that, you are once again equivocating potential. A fertilized egg has a unique genetic identity and ALL the potentiality of any human being.
You can keep repeating that but it doesn’t make it so. It is not a given potentiality that a sperm will develop into a unique human.

It’s not a given that a fertilized egg will develop into a unique human being either, unless we are equating simple genetic material with a human being. Maybe you are, I don’t know. I go back to when something becomes “alive” to be considered human. Potentiality and development becomes more tangible at that point, whenever that is.

Settled science it may or may not be, but it is a far cry from “biological fact.”

It’s a tough question with very serious and real ethic and moral implications. Absolutely. I just tend to question anyone who claims to have figured it all out once and for all.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Contingent on the facts. I struggle with the founding of this country based on oppressive taxation. Yep, we killed each other over taxes.

I can understand US entering WWII because we were attacked and the horrible inhumanity of Nazi Germany.

But the Nazis, bad as they may be, are still humans with inherent value, right?

 

[Roustabout]

It’s not a given that a fertilized egg will develop into a unique human being either, unless we are equating simple genetic material with a human being. Maybe you are, I don’t know. I go back to when something becomes “alive” to be considered human. Potentiality and development becomes more tangible at that point, whenever that is.

Settled science it may or may not be, but it is a far cry from “biological fact.”

It’s a tough question with very serious and real ethic and moral implications. Absolutely. I just tend to question anyone who claims to have figured it all out once and for all.

It’s not a given that a baby will live, or that a youth will become an adult. That isn’t the point and I’m not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.
Yes, it’s a biological fact and is taught as such. You are one of several billion case studies walking the planet right now. It is verifiable, testable and repeatable.

You are taking a definition of “alive” and equivocating, just like you are with potential.
Fertilization being the first stage of human development is a settled scientific fact and to argue against it is absurd. You are a human. When your parents did the nasty, the first stage of you came into being when the sperm and egg met. This formed the genetic blue print of you and from that point forward you were in a stage of human development. Your mother’s body began to do its purpose and nurture your growth and development.

That is not my opinion. That is an observable and verifiable biological fact.

 

[Roustabout]

But the Nazis, bad as they may be, are still humans with inherent value, right?

Of course. So we’re all those Japanese that were vaporized. If humans didn’t have value then war would be easy, arbitrary and without moral dilemma.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Of course. So we’re all those Japanese that were vaporized. If humans didn’t have value then war would be easy, arbitrary and without moral dilemma.

So they all had value, but not enough to make their killing unjustified?

Or was their killing unjustified? It's not clear what you're saying.

 

[Roustabout]

So they all had value, but not enough to make their killing unjustified?

Or was their killing unjustified? It's not clear what you're saying.

Those are great discussions to have. I have doubts and struggles with those things. The reason it’s difficult is because we know all human life has value. The debate becomes a matter of doing nothing and humanity suffers, or taking action and other human life being ended. If human life doesn’t have value, then there is no dilemma. It’s night makes right.

If you want to start a thread on that, be my guest. Otherwise, it seems you are simply trying to move the goalposts.

 

[rjd970]

It’s not a given that a baby will live, or that a youth will become an adult. That isn’t the point and I’m not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.
Yes, it’s a biological fact and is taught as such. You are one of several billion case studies walking the planet right now. It is verifiable, testable and repeatable.

You are taking a definition of “alive” and equivocating, just like you are with potential.
Fertilization being the first stage of human development is a settled scientific fact and to argue against it is absurd. You are a human. When your parents did the nasty, the first stage of you came into being when the sperm and egg met. This formed the genetic blue print of you and from that point forward you were in a stage of human development. Your mother’s body began to do its purpose and nurture your growth and development.

That is not my opinion. That is an observable and verifiable biological fact.

The start of life and the start of development are two different things. You may be saying they happen at the same time, but there is absolutely no biological fact stating as such and I challenge you to find me something that does. You can find arguments for and against that position, but no, it’s not settled by any stretch.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Those are great discussions to have. I have doubts and struggles with those things. The reason it’s difficult is because we know all human life has value. The debate becomes a matter of doing nothing and humanity suffers, or taking action and other human life being ended. If human life doesn’t have value, then there is no dilemma. It’s night makes right.

If you want to start a thread on that, be my guest. Otherwise, it seems you are simply trying to move the goalposts.

But you could say something similar about abortion: The reason it’s difficult is because we know all human life has value. The debate becomes a matter of doing nothing and people suffer, or taking action and another human life being ended.

This is not trying to move the goalposts--I'm trying to figure out why your position doesn't involve special pleading.

 

[Roustabout]

But you could say something similar about abortion: The reason it’s difficult is because we know all human life has value. The debate becomes a matter of doing nothing and people suffer, or taking action and another human life being ended.

This is not trying to move the goalposts--I'm trying to figure out why your position doesn't involve special pleading.

I’m willing to discuss that.
I agree and have stated this in my argument before. If my facts are wrong then I would be forcing a women to have and raise a child that could have be tremendous burden. That would be wrong. If I’m right, then abortion is murder.

I don’t think it’s hard to figure out which one is more egregious. By your own admission the pregnant female is a mother. How do we determine a good mother?

What would you say of a women who smoke, drank and did drugs during pregnancy, knowing the harm it could cause? Good or bad? Any sane person would say this is a bad mother and this is reprehensible. But, if she wants to have that developing child destroyed then she’s suddenly doing nothing wrong. Now, facts aside, anyone can see the complete hypocrisy and contradiction.
Yet, many will suppress this truth to hold on to an untenable position.

One of my best friends just adopted a child born addicted and is fostering another at this moment. Why didn’t they let the birth mother keep the child?

Even if I said that war was justifiable, at best it would mean I’m inconsistent. It wouldn’t change the facts I’ve presented.

 

[82_VOL_83]

But you could say something similar about abortion: The reason it’s difficult is because we know all human life has value. The debate becomes a matter of doing nothing and people suffer, or taking action and another human life being ended.

This is not trying to move the goalposts--I'm trying to figure out why your position doesn't involve special pleading.

1st is conjecture, 2nd is fact.

 

[Roustabout]

The start of life and the start of development are two different things. You may be saying they happen at the same time, but there is absolutely no biological fact stating as such and I challenge you to find me something that does. You can find arguments for and against that position, but no, it’s not settled by any stretch.

Life is not a definitive biological term.
A plant is alive. A sperm is alive. I’ve used the term human development to be more specific and to conform to scientific fact. I’ve quoted numerous text books and science publications in previous discussions of which I know you’ve been part.
That burden isn’t mine.

Everything I’ve stated is a fact and you’ve yet to refute it. Your just being incredulous. We are no obligation to prove a round earth to flat earth era. The speherical nature of earth is a settled fact. That human development begins at fertilization is a settled fact.

What is pregnancy?
What is the purpose of an abortion?

 

[rjd970]

Life is not a definitive biological term.
A plant is alive. A sperm is alive. I’ve used the term human development to be more specific and to conform to scientific fact. I’ve quoted numerous text books and science publications in previous discussions of which I know you’ve been part.
That burden isn’t mine.

Everything I’ve stated is a fact and you’ve yet to refute it. Your just being incredulous. We are no obligation to prove a round earth to flat earth era. The speherical nature of earth is a settled fact. That human development begins at fertilization is a settled fact.

What is pregnancy?
What is the purpose of an abortion?

I don't know how else to state it. I don't disagree that human development starts with fertilization. Please stop attributing that position to me and please stop saying I have a burden here. I'm not refuting this.

You are equating the start of human development with the start of human life. That is absolutely not a biological fact. That is not a philosophical fact, that is not an ethical fact, that is not a religious fact. That burden absolutely, 100%, is yours...if that is your claim.