Biden: Life Begins At Conception

[AURaptor 1,122]

Titan - you're wrong on the "3/5 a person "issue.

That was a compromise between slave & free states. Counting blacks as " full" persons , which slave states wanted , gave the South a larger population, which equated to more power in Congress. Slaves had no right to vote or own land, etc... and the North correctly pointed out that such persons weren't real , whole citizens, and shouldn't be counted at all. It actually did slaves a disservice to count them at all , which may sound odd, but doing so would have actually made slave states MORE powerful .

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Titan - you're wrong on the "3/5 a person "issue.

That was a compromise between slave & free states. Counting blacks as " full" persons , which slave states wanted , gave the South a larger population, which equated to more power in Congress. Slaves had no right to vote or own land, etc... and the North correctly pointed out that such persons weren't real , whole citizens, and shouldn't be counted at all. It actually did slaves a disservice to count them at all , which may sound odd, but doing so would have actually made slave states MORE powerful .

I was more going at the idea that you can arbitrarily, based on you own interests, decide for yourself who is or isn't a person.

[AURaptor 1,122]

But that wasn't the issue with the 3/5 agreement, and it was a specific issue. There's nothing arbitrary about it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

But that wasn't the issue with the 3/5 agreement, and it was a specific issue. There's nothing arbitrary about it.

You're in the weeds too much. My point is more big picture and conceptual. I'm talking about the notion that some people get to declare others "non-persons" or any sort of percentage of persons for any purpose whatsoever as a concept. I'm talking about the idea that anyone gets to decide such a thing as wrong in and of itself.

[aujeff11 6,243]

That's not what I asked.

Their position is " It's a woman's choice " so I guess life begins when the woman decides to keep her baby.

It should be the woman's choice regardless of when you "guess" life begins.

Do you feel you are in a better position to make that decision for her?

I think after a number of weeks ,say 10 or 12, that "choice" because more than just an inconvenience. It becomes an actual life, a human individual. You know the whole phrase "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Yes, it applies to the unborn as well.

Regardless, it's not your business to control what the woman does.

In some areas, smoking with a child in the car is punishable by fines. I suppose you don't agree with the fine?

[AURaptor 1,122]

It's too bad if you think that knowing and comprehending this country's history is "in the weeds", but I think it's kind of important. You may WANT to use the 3/5 argument as an example for something totally unrelated, but I think sticking to the true history and teaching it in context helps broaden the understanding of what actually happened.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

It's too bad if you think that knowing and comprehending this country's history is "in the weeds", but I think it's kind of important. You may WANT to use the 3/5 argument as an example for something totally unrelated, but I think sticking to the true history and teaching it in context helps broaden the understanding of what actually happened.

I understand it. But I think it is emblematic of a bigger philosophical issue. That's all I'm trying to say.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Yes, I do get a little tweeked when I see people try to make a valid point, as you have done , but do so by misinterpreting or using the example that does not fit. Other than that, I think we're on the same page.

[homersapien 11,364]

I find it interesting how people compartmentalize their moral standards depending on the situation. For example, you rarely see the same sort of moral outrage when we deploy our military even though we know that innocent people - including actual babies and children - will die. There's always extenuating circumstances or intentions that are used as an excuse to make that acceptable.

My opinion regarding abortion is that it is the pregnant woman's decision, period. It is not for anyone else - particularly the government - to force her to have a child. That's it. I don't advocate terminating a pregnancy any more than I advocate killing innocents in war, but it's not my decision to make. It's the woman. It's her body not mine - or the fetus's for that matter.

Look at it as a principled position similar to the principled position that justifies killing innocents for the sake of self defense.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I find it interesting how people compartmentalize their moral standards depending on the situation. For example, you rarely see the same sort of moral outrage when we deploy our military even though we know that innocent people - including actual babies and children - will die. There's always extenuating circumstances or intentions that are used as an excuse to make that acceptable.

Except that you do see it. Frequently. The Catholic Church alone calls out about the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians in war, talking about proportional responses and so on. I've made similar arguments here repeatedly.

To take your comparison and make an analogy to abortion, deploying the military to take out an aggressor that is killing people and having innocents die unintentionally would be more like performing an operation on a woman who is in dire medical need and an unintended consequence of that operation is that it causes her to miscarry.

If the military were deployed and killed innocent civilians in a way analogous to our current abortion policy, we would simply carpet bomb or nuke various areas of the world simply because they have something we want or are getting in the way of something we value. No pretense of attacking a combatant needed.

And these are actual babies. There is nothing magical about traveling a few inches through a vagina that somehow bestows magic pixie dust on someone that makes them a real boy or girl like Pinocchio. They already were a real child.

My opinion regarding abortion is that it is the pregnant woman's decision, period. It is not for anyone else - particularly the government - to force her to have a child. That's it. I don't advocate terminating a pregnancy any more than I advocate killing innocents in war, but it's not my decision to make. It's the woman. It's her body not mine - or the fetus's for that matter.

Look at it as a principled position similar to the principled position that justifies killing innocents for the sake of self defense.

You contradict yourself. Earlier you were asked if a woman wished to have an abortion 12 hours before her delivery date, would that be permissible in your mind. You answered 'no.' So you clearly understand that at some point that child has passed the point of it simply being the mother's decision.

A fetus is just not an extension of the mother. It is a wholly other being. That is not her DNA, her brain processing information and stimuli, her heart pumping, her nervous system feeling and sensing. It is not a parasite, a wart or mole, a tumor and it did not crawl up inside her from some other place. And in more than 97% of the cases it is there because of a conscious decision of the mother to engage in an activity that has one of its primary and most basic purposes being to result in a pregnancy.

So no, it is not just her decision. If she wants to get a rhinoplasty, a breast augmentation, have a mole removed, get gastric bypass, donate a kidney or part of her liver, get a tattoo, have LASIK surgery done...those are the kinds of things that are solely within her realm to decide. They ultimately only affect her. That is not the case with a child in the womb.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The debate is infuriating.

One extreme will not compromise on the rights of the mother. The other extreme will not compromise on the rights of the unborn child.

What is apparent, is the futility and stupidity of "all or nothing politics". Have we gotten to the point that the political implications now overshadow the stated moral concerns?

The late-term abortion ban could have passed were it not for some very questionable restrictions. Do we want compromise that represents progress or, do we want a political win?

[homersapien 11,364]

That's not what I asked.

Their position is " It's a woman's choice " so I guess life begins when the woman decides to keep her baby.

It should be the woman's choice regardless of when you "guess" life begins.

Do you feel you are in a better position to make that decision for her?

I think after a number of weeks ,say 10 or 12, that "choice" because more than just an inconvenience. It becomes an actual life, a human individual. You know the whole phrase "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Yes, it applies to the unborn as well.

Regardless, it's not your business to control what the woman does.

In some areas, smoking with a child in the car is punishable by fines. I suppose you don't agree with the fine?

Not really. I don't think you can impose common sense or responsibility with fines. I would issue a citation that explains and educates the smoker. But if a pattern of child abuse emerges, the child should be removed from that environment.

[alexava 6,973]

That's not what I asked.

Their position is " It's a woman's choice " so I guess life begins when the woman decides to keep her baby.

It should be the woman's choice regardless of when you "guess" life begins.

Do you feel you are in a better position to make that decision for her?

I think after a number of weeks ,say 10 or 12, that "choice" because more than just an inconvenience. It becomes an actual life, a human individual. You know the whole phrase "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Yes, it applies to the unborn as well.

Regardless, it's not your business to control what the woman does.

In some areas, smoking with a child in the car is punishable by fines. I suppose you don't agree with the fine?

Not really. I don't think you can impose common sense or responsibility with fines. I would issue a citation that explains and educates the smoker. But if a pattern of child abuse emerges, the child should be removed from that environment.

same for speeding or running a stop sign?

[homersapien 11,364]

The debate is infuriating.

One extreme will not compromise on the rights of the mother. The other extreme will not compromise on the rights of the unborn child.

What is apparent, is the futility and stupidity of "all or nothing politics". Have we gotten to the point that the political implications now overshadow the stated moral concerns?

The late-term abortion ban could have passed were it not for some very questionable restrictions. Do we want compromise that represents progress or, do we want a political win?

Actually, I am willing to compromise on the rights of the mother, which is the reason I said a late term abortion should be prohibited (except in the case of the birth threatening the mother's health).

Otherwise, the decision lies with the mother and no one else.

[homersapien 11,364]

That's not what I asked.

Their position is " It's a woman's choice " so I guess life begins when the woman decides to keep her baby.

It should be the woman's choice regardless of when you "guess" life begins.

Do you feel you are in a better position to make that decision for her?

I think after a number of weeks ,say 10 or 12, that "choice" because more than just an inconvenience. It becomes an actual life, a human individual. You know the whole phrase "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Yes, it applies to the unborn as well.

Regardless, it's not your business to control what the woman does.

In some areas, smoking with a child in the car is punishable by fines. I suppose you don't agree with the fine?

Not really. I don't think you can impose common sense or responsibility with fines. I would issue a citation that explains and educates the smoker. But if a pattern of child abuse emerges, the child should be removed from that environment.

same for speeding or running a stop sign?

No. Those are obvious threats to others as everyone already understands.

Here's one for you: Should people be allowed to purchase SUV's for use as family vehicles when they are inherently less safe than say, a mini-van or station wagon?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The debate is infuriating.

One extreme will not compromise on the rights of the mother. The other extreme will not compromise on the rights of the unborn child.

What is apparent, is the futility and stupidity of "all or nothing politics". Have we gotten to the point that the political implications now overshadow the stated moral concerns?

The late-term abortion ban could have passed were it not for some very questionable restrictions. Do we want compromise that represents progress or, do we want a political win?

Actually, I am willing to compromise on the rights of the mother, which is the reason I said a late term abortion should be prohibited (except in the case of the birth threatening the mother's health).

Otherwise, the decision lies with the mother and no one else.

I wasn't referring to you specifically or the debate here (although this thread is disheartening). I was referring to the extremes on both sides who screwed up the Senate vote. With just a little bit of compromise, without the extremists, the bill could have been crafted to actually pass and, do something that was a big step in the right direction.

[homersapien 11,364]

My opinion regarding abortion is that it is the pregnant woman's decision, period. It is not for anyone else - particularly the government - to force her to have a child. That's it. I don't advocate terminating a pregnancy any more than I advocate killing innocents in war, but it's not my decision to make. It's the woman. It's her body not mine - or the fetus's for that matter.

Look at it as a principled position similar to the principled position that justifies killing innocents for the sake of self defense.

You contradict yourself. Earlier you were asked if a woman wished to have an abortion 12 hours before her delivery date, would that be permissible in your mind. You answered 'no.' So you clearly understand that at some point that child has passed the point of it simply being the mother's decision.

You make a good point. I shouldn't have said "period". I think there should be some limits to a woman's prerogative based on term.

[aujeff11 6,243]

That's not what I asked.

Their position is " It's a woman's choice " so I guess life begins when the woman decides to keep her baby.

It should be the woman's choice regardless of when you "guess" life begins.

Do you feel you are in a better position to make that decision for her?

I think after a number of weeks ,say 10 or 12, that "choice" because more than just an inconvenience. It becomes an actual life, a human individual. You know the whole phrase "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Yes, it applies to the unborn as well.

Regardless, it's not your business to control what the woman does.

In some areas, smoking with a child in the car is punishable by fines. I suppose you don't agree with the fine?

Not really. I don't think you can impose common sense or responsibility with fines. I would issue a citation that explains and educates the smoker. But if a pattern of child abuse emerges, the child should be removed from that environment.

I agree. I think there is real slippery slope as far as judges taking away women's rights in favor of the fetus's rights. One day it is smoking, the next day a pregnant woman falling down the stairs.

And that is sickening.

[Grumps 3,704]

Just a curiosity question:

Has anyone on this forum EVER heard of a real life situation where an abortion was deemed to be necessary to save the life of the mother?

[cooltigger21 0]

Just a curiosity question:

Has anyone on this forum EVER heard of a real life situation where an abortion was deemed to be necessary to save the life of the mother?

I did read once of a woman who knew that carrying the baby would likely cost her life. She chose to carry the baby and she did die. Instances like that are so rare that they barely even register.

[Grumps 3,704]

Just a curiosity question:

Has anyone on this forum EVER heard of a real life situation where an abortion was deemed to be necessary to save the life of the mother?

I did read once of a woman who knew that carrying the baby would likely cost her life. She chose to carry the baby and she did die. Instances like that are so rare that they barely even register.

I can think of several instances where delivery was induced early to protect the mother, but I don't know of ANY specific situation where an abortion was performed to save the life of a mother.

[channonc 466]

Just a curiosity question:

Has anyone on this forum EVER heard of a real life situation where an abortion was deemed to be necessary to save the life of the mother?

I did read once of a woman who knew that carrying the baby would likely cost her life. She chose to carry the baby and she did die. Instances like that are so rare that they barely even register.

I can think of several instances where delivery was induced early to protect the mother, but I don't know of ANY specific situation where an abortion was performed to save the life of a mother.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/07/01/how-a-lateterm-abortion-saved-my-life/

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

[AUDub 11,147]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.