When does life begin?

[Dreepa]

((NOTE:? Obviously, I'm talking about ELECTIVE abortion, not abortion for the sake of the mother's health.?

I often see people say they are against abortion except for:
mother's health, or rape.
But isn't that (according to some) still killiing?

BTW I used to be prochoice.
Now I am against Roe v Wade (It is against States Rights).

I am somewhat distant from this whole debate. 

[AlanM]

just that if she keeps it you pay for the next 18 years.

You play, you pay.

[Eli]

Now I am against Roe v Wade (It is against States Rights).

Nope.  It simply affirms that states may not violate the rights of sovereign individuals.

[KBCraig]

The question was, "when does life begin?" You took the position that until an infant was born and the umbilical cord was cut, then killing it was perfectly acceptable. Please present your "self defense" argument for ending a life that is no threat to your own (or the mother's, as it were). Please tell us how surgical mutilation or chemical poisoning of a genetically distinct, individual human being squares with "I do not believe in the use of force."

I never took any such position. Please don't make assumptions.
As far as abortion is concerned, I said it was up to the mother, that I, as a man, had no right to make that decision, for, or against.

Your said:

To me, life begins at birth, when the child is separated from the umbilical cord. until then, IMHO, it is like another part of the mother.

And you've continued to say that the mother can choose to kill the baby.

It's interesting that you call the woman "mother", yet maintain that the baby is just "another part" of her.

Kevin

[mvpel]

Dreepa, you raise an interesting point.

As I've observed the pro-abortion movement over the years, they seem to engage in a concerted effort to deny that the fetus is "alive," or "human," or a "person," etc.  As I see it, this is done in an effort to avoid the significant legal implications that would then attach.  They even go to the extent of not allowing a woman undergoing an abortion to see the ultrasound screen during the procedure, and fighting against informed consent for abortion patients.

This strikes me as shortsighted and dishonest.

If someone comes at me with a knife, I don't need a law or a court ruling that says he is not a "Constitutional person" or that he is not "alive" or "human," in order to shoot him dead in self-defense.

Not all homicides are created equal.

Defining an abortion as a "homicide," which is is under the most precise scientific meaning, does not automatically mean that a woman must then be legally forced to bear the unborn human to term, just as the "homicide" of shooting an attacker in self-defense is not an act of "murder."

But the pro-abortion crowd doesn't seem to get this point, and they thrash away against any effort to recognize the scientific fact that the unborn are living, genetically distinct human organisms from the moment of conception.

This issue came up in the discussion of the fetal homicide bills in the Criminal Justice & Public Safety committee a couple of weeks ago.

[Lex]

The question was, "when does life begin?" You took the position that until an infant was born and the umbilical cord was cut, then killing it was perfectly acceptable. Please present your "self defense" argument for ending a life that is no threat to your own (or the mother's, as it were). Please tell us how surgical mutilation or chemical poisoning of a genetically distinct, individual human being squares with "I do not believe in the use of force."

I never took any such position. Please don't make assumptions.
As far as abortion is concerned, I said it was up to the mother, that I, as a man, had no right to make that decision, for, or against.

Your said:

To me, life begins at birth, when the child is separated from the umbilical cord. until then, IMHO, it is like another part of the mother.

And you've continued to say that the mother can choose to kill the baby.

It's interesting that you call the woman "mother", yet maintain that the baby is just "another part" of her.

Kevin

I don't think the question of "When does life begin?" is really that important to answer because there IS NOT RIGHT ANSWER. Just like asking at what age do children become adults? Again, there is no right answer.

Having said that, there is a very simple and logical concept we can apply to all of this (as was described by Rothbard in the article I posted earlier):

The baby is alive as soon as it's alive, that's all there is to it. Now, if the mother choses to expell the baby from her body the baby will most likely die. The baby cannot infringe on the right of the mother to do with her body whatever she wants. The babies dependence on the mother requires the mothers consent, as soon as the mother no longer consents to the dependence then the baby dies.

If the mother decides to no longer provide nutrients to the baby via the umbilical cord then the baby will die and it is the mothers natural right to do this. If the mother decides to no longer give breastmilk or feed her child then the child dies. Instead of starving the baby to death they use more humane ways of ending it's life quicker without suffering. It sounds horrible and it is horrible but such is life.

In my opinion that is the simplest and most principled approach. If we want people to own themselves and be responsible for themselves then you have to give mothers an ultimate right to their body even when a baby needs the mothers body to survive. You cannot force the mother to share her body with the baby.

[Lex]

Thank your mother she had you.

Yup! 

[Caleb]

I, as a man, had no right to make that decision, for, or against.

I never have really understood this particular line of reasoning; the argument seems to be that only women are entitled to a say in the abortion debate.  Men better just butt their noses out.

Must a person be a victim of a violent crime to have an opinion on the death penalty?
Must a person be a soldier to have an opinion on war?

As to Dreepa's issue of the health of the mother argument denying the personhood of the fetus, I don't see how that can be.

If someone attacks you with mortal intent, and you kill them, are you denying their personhood?  No, you simply made a choice:  is it my life or theirs.  Now, I am NOT saying that the fetus is "attacking" the mother, (obviously, it lacks any evil intent), but if it is having a significant destructive impact on her life or health, then the mother is faced with a real choice:  Is it my health or my life, or the childs.   This is a difficult decision for the mother, and like I said, often she grieves for much longer than the typical grieving process because she begins to blame herself for the death of the infant.

But in the typical "elective abortion" issue, the issue isn't really "Pro-CHOICE" ... because there is nothing to choose, or to put it a better way, the choices are not equivalent.  My life vs the child's life is a real choice.  But elective abortion seems to compare life with convenience.  "My convenience vs the child's life", and as such seems to spit in the face of life itself.  Someone else's life isn't even worth a little inconvenience on my part.

Caleb

[Lex]

But in the typical "elective abortion" issue, the issue isn't really "Pro-CHOICE" ... because there is nothing to choose, or to put it a better way, the choices are not equivalent.  My life vs the child's life is a real choice.  But elective abortion seems to compare life with convenience.  "My convenience vs the child's life", and as such seems to spit in the face of life itself.  Someone else's life isn't even worth a little inconvenience on my part.

"Convenience", eh? How many kids do you have calibaba77?

[Lex]

Does it seem honest to you to claim that an unborn fetus is a parasite, in any sense of the word?

Okay, they are an endosymbiont.

[AlanM]

The question was, "when does life begin?" You took the position that until an infant was born and the umbilical cord was cut, then killing it was perfectly acceptable. Please present your "self defense" argument for ending a life that is no threat to your own (or the mother's, as it were). Please tell us how surgical mutilation or chemical poisoning of a genetically distinct, individual human being squares with "I do not believe in the use of force."

I never took any such position. Please don't make assumptions.
As far as abortion is concerned, I said it was up to the mother, that I, as a man, had no right to make that decision, for, or against.

Your said:

To me, life begins at birth, when the child is separated from the umbilical cord. until then, IMHO, it is like another part of the mother.

And you've continued to say that the mother can choose to kill the baby.

It's interesting that you call the woman "mother", yet maintain that the baby is just "another part" of her.

Kevin

I have said, and I will repeat it, that abortion is the decision of the mother. It is not my decision. I do not use force, so if it WERE my decision, I would not choose abortion. However, it is not my decision, as it concerns something happening inside another human being. That being the case, it is entirely the woman's decision.

[KBCraig]

It is not my decision. I do not use force, so if it WERE my decision, I would not choose abortion.

You acknowledge that abortion is the use of force.

However, it is not my decision, as it concerns something happening inside another human being.

It is happening to another human being.

[Lex]

It is not my decision. I do not use force, so if it WERE my decision, I would not choose abortion.

You acknowledge that abortion is the use of force.

Preventing a mother from having the abortion is use of force on here.

[AlanM]

It is not my decision. I do not use force, so if it WERE my decision, I would not choose abortion.

You acknowledge that abortion is the use of force.

However, it is not my decision, as it concerns something happening inside another human being.

It is happening to another human being.

I have already stated my belief on when life begins, that being when the being is "Aware" or "knows".
Existence, which is what I refer to as "unknowing life", probably begins when the fetus reaches the stage of being viable outside the womb.

Let me tell you a little story about Helen Keller, who, of course, was born deaf and blind.
She was once asked to describe her life before Anne Sullivan managed to communicate with her. She said she lived, prior to that time, "in a swirling vortex". She further said something to the effect that she had no knowledge of life until she achieved the ability to communicate, that without communication, life was a concept she did not understand.
In my view, she "existed" until she became "knowing".

[KBCraig]

It is not my decision. I do not use force, so if it WERE my decision, I would not choose abortion.

You acknowledge that abortion is the use of force.

Preventing a mother from having the abortion is use of force on here.

I believe you've said you've been a father for just over two months. If your wife decided she didn't want to be a mother any more, and raised a knife to your baby, would you stop her? Would stopping her be the initiation of force, or a defense against force? Your infant is still totally dependent on others, no less so than when in the womb. What difference is there in ending that baby's life now, versus three months ago? Or a year from now, versus 10 months ago?

Kevin