The Politics of Life

[Mythtaken]

With the impending election looming in America, the ongoing battle between the "pro life" and the "pro choice" camps is again heating up, with plenty of new laws coming on the books in various states, and politicians dancing all around the issue. There have been a whole host of "decisions" on if and when a woman is allowed to have an abortion, with a variety of dates attached. Even frozen embryos have been dragged into the mix, with new laws claiming them to be children.

So with all this nonsense floating about, it begs the question of when does life really begin? Who gets to decide that and why?

 

[*SD*]

So with all this nonsense floating about, it begs the question of when does life really begin? Who gets to decide that and why?

There are a lot of ideas around this. Some making more sense than others, naturally. I'm very much pro-choice but this debate is barely even a thing in the UK, where I live. In the US, very different story. To me it makes little sense to refer to a zygote, which is essentially just a blob of cells as being "alive". It's something of a Sorites paradox and UK law kinda reflects this. There's a hundred rabbit holes one can go down on this topic.

Hadn't heard about the frozen embryos are children thing. I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that there probably are politicians arguing in this vein in the US.

Quick thing - sorry it took a while for your post to appear, you weren't being ignored, we've had server problems. Maintenance is scheduled for 27/3/24 (the 27th of March 2024).

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So with all this nonsense floating about, it begs the question of when does life really begin? Who gets to decide that and why?

Life began 3.5 billion years ago. Remember, the sperm and egg are also alive before they are fertilized. The question is malformed because answering it correctly does not answer the question that people are trying to ask.
People are trying to ask about personhood. Does a fertilized egg count as a person, meaning do they get the same protections as other people do under the law? Seeing as how one in three fertilized eggs will not implant, I feel like just defining a person as a fertilized egg is absurd. Also, remember that many forms of common contraception stop fertilized eggs from implanting.

However, I also feel that this ignores the bigger question of bodily autonomy. Essentially, if a fertilized egg is a person, does that mean that person is entitled to use someone else's body? In my opinion, bodily autonomy is a vital argument. In the same way you cannot be forced to give blood, you should not be forced to be pregnant. Consent is key.

Hadn't heard about the frozen embryos are children thing. I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that there probably are politicians arguing in this vein in the US.

​

 

[Mythtaken]

this debate is barely even a thing in the UK, where I live. In the US, very different story. To me it makes little sense to refer to a zygote, which is essentially just a blob of cells as being "alive"

Yes, that is essentially the same story here in Canada. We have long ago come to the same conclusion, as well as the realization it is a medical issue between the woman and her physician. Essential a person is a person when they are born by either natural or artificial means.

The question is malformed because answering it correctly does not answer the question that people are trying to ask.

I agree completely, though that isn't how so-called "pro-life" Americans see it. What I find especially difficult to follow is the shear level of cognitive dissonance at play when they try to discuss the issue. The majority of American pro-lifers tend to point towards the bible for their reasoning, which makes no sense, since the bible clearly portrays life as beginning at the first breath. At the same time, those pro-life advocates are very vocal against any social programs that might aid babies (especially babies among the poor).

Also, remember that many forms of common contraception stop fertilized eggs from implanting.

Which is why many states are attempting to outlaw contraception as well.

However, I also feel that this ignores the bigger question of bodily autonomy. Essentially, if a fertilized egg is a person, does that mean that person is entitled to use someone else's body? In my opinion, bodily autonomy is a vital argument. In the same way you cannot be forced to give blood, you should not be forced to be pregnant. Consent is key.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Strangely though, when a group of pro-lifers were asked if men should be mandated to have reversible vasectomies until they were married and decided have children, the outcry against the government interfering in a man's bodily autonomy was loud and clear.

One interesting and quite funny twist on the Alabama Supreme Court decision has arisen. Several people who had frozen embryos stored (as many as 48 in one case) have applied to the government to receive their retroactive tax benefits for all their "children" causing something of a panic among legislators.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes, that is essentially the same story here in Canada. We have long ago come to the same conclusion, as well as the realization it is a medical issue between the woman and her physician. Essential a person is a person when they are born by either natural or artificial means.

It was settled law here until a handful of activist judges changed the law overnight, ignoring 50 years of prior court precedent on this issue.

I agree completely, though that isn't how so-called "pro-life" Americans see it.

That is because they are not pro-life. They are anti-choice.

What I find especially difficult to follow is the shear level of cognitive dissonance at play when they try to discuss the issue. The majority of American pro-lifers tend to point towards the bible for their reasoning, which makes no sense, since the bible clearly portrays life as beginning at the first breath.

This is because most Christians are unfamiliar with what the Bible says and repeat what is preached to them from the pulpit.

At the same time, those pro-life advocates are very vocal against any social programs that might aid babies (especially babies among the poor).

This is also due to a different part of modern Christian Nationalism. They like to pretend to be small government, so they will spout talking points and vote against government interventions like this in the belief that their church will step in and help with any family needs.

Which is why many states are attempting to outlaw contraception as well.

The anti-choicers want to outlaw all contraception. That includes condoms and diagrams, which prevent the fertilization of an egg. Honestly, I feel most of the anti-choicers do not understand pregnancy in the first place and believe that anything that interferes with the baby-making process is terrible. Their wanting to outlaw contraception has little to do with just outlawing the type that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Strangely though, when a group of pro-lifers were asked if men should be mandated to have reversible vasectomies until they were married and decided have children, the outcry against the government interfering in a man's bodily autonomy was loud and clear.

As I said, they pretend to be for a small government.

One interesting and quite funny twist on the Alabama Supreme Court decision has arisen. Several people who had frozen embryos stored (as many as 48 in one case) have applied to the government to receive their retroactive tax benefits for all their "children" causing something of a panic among legislators.

This is just more unforeseen (by the anti-choicers) consequences for their action of overturning Roe. What is funny is that Catholics are/were firmly against IVF because fertilized embryos would be discarded during the process. Anyone who knew anything about fertility treatments and contraception saw this coming from miles away. When the news about Alabama broke, I wondered with my friends if the judges involved in it were Catholic or just heathens who followed the logic of the law to its apparent conclusion.

However, I love seeing all the Republicans demonstrating just how little they know about IVF when it comes to all their anti-choice rhetoric.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The anti-choicers want to outlaw all contraception. That includes condoms and [diaphragms], which prevent the fertilization of an egg.

​

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

With the impending election looming in America, the ongoing battle between the "pro life" and the "pro choice" camps is again heating up, with plenty of new laws coming on the books in various states, and politicians dancing all around the issue. There have been a whole host of "decisions" on if and when a woman is allowed to have an abortion, with a variety of dates attached. Even frozen embryos have been dragged into the mix, with new laws claiming them to be children.

So with all this nonsense floating about, it begs the question of when does life really begin? Who gets to decide that and why?

I believe that has to deal in the very vague definitions of what life is. I believe zygotes would be considered alive. They are organic, have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

I think the actual debate stems from people determining if related stages of development are a person. When do you become a person? What qualifies as a person?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Life began 3.5 billion years ago. Remember, the sperm and egg are also alive before they are fertilized. The question is malformed because answering it correctly does not answer the question that people are trying to ask.
People are trying to ask about personhood. Does a fertilized egg count as a person, meaning do they get the same protections as other people do under the law? Seeing as how one in three fertilized eggs will not implant, I feel like just defining a person as a fertilized egg is absurd. Also, remember that many forms of common contraception stop fertilized eggs from implanting.

However, I also feel that this ignores the bigger question of bodily autonomy. Essentially, if a fertilized egg is a person, does that mean that person is entitled to use someone else's body? In my opinion, bodily autonomy is a vital argument. In the same way you cannot be forced to give blood, you should not be forced to be pregnant. Consent is key.

​

Bodily autonomy, if fertilized eggs were persons, would also apply. Could the mother forcibly violate the bodily autonomy of an egg in terms of termination? If that was a person you've just killed it.

The question is should potential life be safeguarded as persons? I believe that is the real argument of anti abortion people.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It would behoove you to address the enormous error I pointed out in this post (and quoted here). Otherwise, it appears you are just running from a colossal mistake and hoping no one else will notice it.

Bodily autonomy, if fertilized eggs were persons, would also apply.

Yes.

Could the mother forcibly violate the bodily autonomy of an egg in terms of termination?

Yes. Just like a person could violate the bodily autonomy of someone trying to use their blood, bone marrow, and kidneys without their consent.

If that was a person you've just killed it.

Correct. Just like someone who needed blood, bone marrow, or anything else.

The question is should potential life be safeguarded as persons? I believe that is the real argument of anti abortion people.

So, your argument?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

It would behoove you to address the enormous error I pointed out in this post (and quoted here). Otherwise, it appears you are just running from a colossal mistake and hoping no one else will notice it.

What does that have to do with Abortion? How is this relevant? Or people simply don't care of supposed mistake?

Yes. Just like a person could violate the bodily autonomy of someone trying to use their blood, bone marrow, and kidneys without their consent.

How could a person that had NO consent to someone else's blood, bone marrow kidney's etc violate someone else's autonomy? They didn't choose to be there? Seems like in order to commit to the action of violation someone has to have the intent or the ability to make that determination? On the flipside the mother is very clearly choosing to violate the autonomy of the random life inside of her. In my estimation the mother is doing the violating.

Correct. Just like someone who needed blood, bone marrow, or anything else.

It is the mother's body its function to provide such things. How do you violate bodily autonomy when the mother's body is carrying out its reproductive function? Does the egg violate the autonomy of a chicken for being made? Seems like two parties that couldn't exercise consent except for the mother choosing to have relations and then suddenly regretting it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What does that have to do with Abortion? How is this relevant? Or people simply don't care of supposed mistake?

It has nothing to do with abortion but a gauge of your honesty. An honest interloper would be willing to address mistakes they made in the past. Feel free to keep running from them, but I will keep asking about them. Beyond that, I did find a better post of all your mistakes and lies for you to address as soon as you are no longer afraid.

The question is should potential life be safeguarded as persons? I believe that is the real argument of anti abortion people.

So, what you would argue for?

How could a person that had NO consent to someone else's blood, bone marrow kidney's etc violate someone else's autonomy?

Simple, by not obtaining their consent.

They didn't choose to be there?

Yes, and?

Seems like in order to commit to the action of violation someone has to have the intent or the ability to make that determination?

No, they do not. That is not how ownership works. If someone trespasses on your land, even if they did not know it was your land, that is against the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Beyond that, ability is also not an excuse. There are separate courts for minors, and trials will take people's mental faculties into account as well. Neither one of those excuses the crime. It might just lead to different outcomes if the crime is tried.

On the flipside the mother is very clearly choosing to violate the autonomy of the random life inside of her.

Yeah. I already agreed to that. Work on your reading comprehension, please.

It is the mother's body its function to provide such things. How do you violate bodily autonomy when the mother's body is carrying out its reproductive function?

This laughingly stupid argument shows that you have never engaged with this subject. A naturalistic fallacy.

Do you violate the autonomy of a female chicken to produce eggs?

Non sequitur.

Seems like two parties that couldn't exercise consent except for the mother choosing to have relations and then suddenly regretting it.

Then, another appeal to nature wrapped in an appeal to consequences. You realize that sex does not automatically lead to a baby (beyond the fact that one and three fertilized eggs will not implants anyway), and you know that you live in a modern society in which we have come up with ways to have sex by decreasing the chances of pregnancies, right?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

So, what you would argue for?

To me it make sense to protect the complete innocent over the partial innocent. Something unborn is more clean than someone already born. Robbing the opportunity of life for a potential human regardless of circumstances seems incredibly evil. More evil under the majority of circumstances that people seemingly get abortions. The excuse of you lack the funds, wrong birth month are essentially reasons of convenience from my perspective. I can see the "safe, legal and rare" take on abortion to be legal. There are definitely instances where abortion seems reasonable considering it is not under grounds of convenience and mostly dealing with literal life and death of the mother or better odds for the mother should both be in jeopardy. Killing the innocent in my mind seems only remotely reasonable should it be for express life savings.

Simple, by not obtaining their consent.

I don't believe a Zygote or other potential human had a choice in where they are gestated - any infant in progress or some such had NO SAY. Keep in the mind my position is based on reasons for abortion as a majority that I consider to be convenience. Convenience is not a legitimate reason to kill the innocent. Your statement requires that both parties have the ability to violate. A developing life has no such ability. Something in such a state CANNOT ask for consent nor do they have ANY autonomy themselves.

Yes, and?

How do you commit a violation, or violate someone's autonomy when said supposed violator has no ability to commit to the action of violating or choosing to follow any rule or set of rules? To violate autonomy means you have autonomy over them by your will.

No, they do not. That is not how ownership works. If someone trespasses on your land, even if they did not know it was your land, that is against the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Beyond that, ability is also not an excuse. There are separate courts for minors, and trials will take people's mental faculties into account as well. Neither one of those excuses the crime. It might just lead to different outcomes if the crime is tried.

Your comparison is incompetent. Does a potential life wander onto someone else's person? No. They literally have no autonomy of themselves. A better equivalent would be an unconscious person being dropped off on someone's property. That would mean that trespass laws could not be leveraged against someone without knowledge or autonomy. I mean developing life at the early stages don't even have legs in order to trespass with. Apples to Apples, not Apples to Pineapples.

Yeah. I already agreed to that. Work on your reading comprehension, please.

Ok then confirmed the mother is the violator of autonomy by default and your admission. Keep that in mind.

This laughingly stupid argument shows that you have never engaged with this subject. A naturalistic fallacy.

Incorrect. I am NOT arguing that female reproduction is natural and therefore correct or right. I argued that a function of female reproduction is what females do. You can't really fault the process for robbing autonomy of the mother. The mother's function is literally to child bear/rear. The person that is violating the mother's autonomy would be the person that put the innocent life in her to begin with. Not some innocent creature put there.

Non sequitur.

We are comparing female reproduction and if the process of reproduction if the mother cannot choose to halt it in one instance or another is violation of bodily autonomy. Would it be a violation to continue to force chickens to give birth to eggs if otherwise left alone?

Then, another appeal to nature wrapped in an appeal to consequences. You realize that sex does not automatically lead to a baby (beyond the fact that one and three fertilized eggs will not implants anyway), and you know that you live in a modern society in which we have come up with ways to have sex by decreasing the chances of pregnancies, right?

Right but from what I have seen the overwhelming reasons for abortions would be reasons of convenience. Ultimately whenever you have sex assuming generalities you risk reproduction. If you haven't thought that through then I don't really have any sympathy for you. The only time I actually do have sympathy is when people are competent and crimes are committed against the innocent - generally.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

It has nothing to do with abortion but a gauge of your honesty. An honest interloper would be willing to address mistakes they made in the past. Feel free to keep running from them, but I will keep asking about them. Beyond that, I did find a better post of all your mistakes and lies for you to address as soon as you are no longer afraid.

Just because you want to waste your time combing through a few year old messages on the forum doesn't mean everybody else wants to or even has the time or energy.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Wow. A couple people are still posting on this forum.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I heard a while back that Hackenslash is no longer an atheist. Thought I would check back here to see if anyone knew anything about that. Where did everyone go?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Sparhafoc also went missing from another forum about a year ago. Is she a Christian now too?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

It has nothing to do with abortion but

Holy shit! You are still here??? No one sent you the memo that Atheists are wrong and that we now have proof that god exists?

 

[*SD*]

I heard a while back that Hackenslash is no longer an atheist. Thought I would check back here to see if anyone knew anything about that. Where did everyone go?

No idea. Hack is no longer a member here.

 

[*SD*]

Sparhafoc also went missing from another forum about a year ago. Is she a Christian now too?

Doubtful.

 

[*SD*]

Holy shit! You are still here??? No one sent you the memo that Atheists are wrong and that we now have proof that god exists?

Stop trolling.