Biden: Life Begins At Conception

[homersapien 11,352]

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.

No you don't. In fact, it's even worse than I postulated. This country has often gone to war even when not under a direct threat (self defense). While you certainly see some protests you don't see the sort of organized ongoing political effort to make the use of American military power illegal. Heck, the protests over Viet Nam developed only slowly and most of the concern then was more about American deaths. And carpet bombing was a tactic used then. In fact, overwhelming firepower in order to minimize American deaths is part of our military doctrine. No nukes needed.

And the fetus is an extension of the mother, at least to the point at which it becomes viable without her. So bottom line, whether or not that fetus has a chance to mature to the point it can be called a baby is simple luck of the draw. Just like the babies future outside of the womb is luck of the draw. Not saying I agree with that, but that's the way it is.

Would you accept legal abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life if the pregnancy is carried to term? Is such a pregnancy something you would force on your wife or daughter?

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

[TitanTiger 20,469]

No you don't. In fact, it's even worse than I postulated. This country has often gone to war even when not under a direct threat (self defense). While you certainly see some protests you don't see the sort of organized ongoing political effort to make the use of American military power illegal. Heck, the protests over Viet Nam developed only slowly and most of the concern then was more about American deaths. And carpet bombing was a tactic used then. In fact, overwhelming firepower in order to minimize American deaths is part of our military doctrine. No nukes needed.

A tactic the Catholic Church, among others, has long opposed. It doesn't even come close to fulfilling the requirements of Just War postulated by St. Augustine in the 4th century.

And the fetus is an extension of the mother, at least to the point at which it becomes viable without her. So bottom line, whether or not that fetus has a chance to mature to the point it can be called a baby is simple luck of the draw. Just like the babies future outside of the womb is luck of the draw. Not saying I agree with that, but that's the way it is.

A baby is still completely and utterly dependent upon a mother or some other being well after it is born. That doesn't make it ok to kill them.

Would you accept legal abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life if the pregnancy is carried to term? Is such a pregnancy something you would force on your wife or daughter?

I have said before that the only thing that rises to an equal level that would justify an abortion (though I would say that every effort should be made to save both and that a miscarriage should only be an unintended consequence of relieving the health issues the mother is having). A baby's life is not more valuable than the life of a mother. But neither is it less valuable.

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

[quietfan 233]

I generally steer clear of the threads on abortion, but have once or twice expressed my opinion in the past and so will summarize it once again:

I don't know when a blob of tissue becomes a "person" with the rights of a human being:

I think it's earlier than "12 hours before normal full-term delivery" and do not agree with the killing of a full-term baby for mere convenience simply because some part of its anatomy has not yet exited the birth canal, as might be suggested in the most extreme case of partial birth abortion.

But I also do not believe a fertilized egg is a person. Nature itself precludes this since a single fertilized egg can result in two adult persons (identical twins), while two fertilized eggs can result in only a single person (a chimeric embryo), ethics and theology not withstanding.

Culturally, we don't treat a fertilized egg or blastocyst as human in most matters: We don't investigate all natural miscarriages as potential homicides. We don't require a coroner's inquest, or a death certificate stating cause of death, nor would I want to put any woman through such inquiries after the trauma of a miscarriage. We do not punish persons for abuse of miscarried tissue in the way we have laws against the abuse of corpses. And while I've heard of a few rare cases where fundamentalist churches/religious groups conducting funerals for the miscarried, that is hardly the norm in our culture even among the pro-life community.

So again, I don't know when life begins. I don't believe any other human being knows for sure either. Even those who supposedly have more expertise, wisdom, or training on the subject--doctors, scientists, theologians, lawyers--cannot reach a uniform consensus on the question. I certainly don't think simply winning an election or serving in public office provides any greater enlightenment. So, knowing that I do not know, I respect the right of the woman who is pregnant to make her own decision on the matter...hopefully with the support and advise of her family, her doctor, and her religious adviser.

I see my pro-choice stance as a matter of simple humility:

I am not so arrogant as to pretend that I know when life begins. Neither am I so arrogant as to presume the authority to tell a woman what she should do.

I think it is equally arrogant on the part of the state or a politician to pretend to have such knowledge or wisdom, or to imagine there is some sort of "one size fits all" definition that can be codified into law.

[cooltigger21 0]

I generally steer clear of the threads on abortion, but have once or twice expressed my opinion in the past and so will summarize it once again:

I don't know when a blob of tissue becomes a "person" with the rights of a human being:

I think it's earlier than "12 hours before normal full-term delivery" and do not agree with the killing of a full-term baby for mere convenience simply because some part of its anatomy has not yet exited the birth canal, as might be suggested in the most extreme case of partial birth abortion.

But I also do not believe a fertilized egg is a person. Nature itself precludes this since a single fertilized egg can result in two adult persons (identical twins), while two fertilized eggs can result in only a single person (a chimeric embryo), ethics and theology not withstanding.

Culturally, we don't treat a fertilized egg or blastocyst as human in most matters: We don't investigate all natural miscarriages as potential homicides. We don't require a coroner's inquest, or a death certificate stating cause of death, nor would I want to put any woman through such inquiries after the trauma of a miscarriage. We do not punish persons for abuse of miscarried tissue in the way we have laws against the abuse of corpses. And while I've heard of a few rare cases where fundamentalist churches/religious groups conducting funerals for the miscarried, that is hardly the norm in our culture even among the pro-life community.

So again, I don't know when life begins. I don't believe any other human being knows for sure either. Even those who supposedly have more expertise, wisdom, or training on the subject--doctors, scientists, theologians, lawyers--cannot reach a uniform consensus on the question. I certainly don't think simply winning an election or serving in public office provides any greater enlightenment. So, knowing that I do not know, I respect the right of the woman who is pregnant to make her own decision on the matter...hopefully with the support and advise of her family, her doctor, and her religious adviser.

I see my pro-choice stance as a matter of simple humility:

I am not so arrogant as to pretend that I know when life begins. Neither am I so arrogant as to presume the authority to tell a woman what she should do.

I think it is equally arrogant on the part of the state or a politician to pretend to have such knowledge or wisdom, or to imagine there is some sort of "one size fits all" definition that can be codified into law.

Sure it can. We do it all the time with everything else. We as a society can say that at a certain point, whatever it may be, you are now responsible for a human being. If you're not willing to set a standard then you're copping out.

[cooltigger21 0]

Homie we're spending 3 trillion dollars a year. The vast majority of this is social programs. If we're diverting resources it's in the duplication and redundancy in the government. The bureaucracy is eating up all the money and it isn't getting to where it should. In other areas of the world the resources are being used by tyrants who take everything for themselves and leave nothing for the people. The left in America loved Hugo Chavez. He starved his own people while living a life of luxury.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Homie we're spending 3 trillion dollars a year. The vast majority of this is social programs. If we're diverting resources it's in the duplication and redundancy in the government. The bureaucracy is eating up all the money and it isn't getting to where it should. In other areas of the world the resources are being used by tyrants who take everything for themselves and leave nothing for the people. The left in America loved Hugo Chavez. He starved his own people while living a life of luxury.

I appreciate what you are saying. I think you are on the right track. However, I think you have to go deeper than the simple raw numbers often used to make political arguments rather than offer practical information. IMO, this is not a left vs. right issue. Hugo Chavez has nothing to do with this. Left vs. right, socialism vs. capitalism, it is a distraction.

As an example, the federal government will spend 1.02 trillion on healthcare this year. The entire industry will bill 1.2 trillion. When you consider the amounts paid in by insurers, states, and individuals, in addition to the federal government, it does not add up. What is the federal government paying for?

Is it possible that inefficiency is creating unnecessary overhead (exactly what you alluded to)? In other words, and exaggerated for the purposes of example, if you spend $2 in overhead for every $1 dollar actually going to the stated purpose of a program, is the problem the program or, the management of the program?

If we believe the federal government should operate more like a business, perhaps we should stop talking about the budget in terms of political ideology and, start analyzing the numbers like a businessperson.

I think we have to get back to reality. I do not believe people on the political left "love Hugo Chavez" or, want to create a "socialist utopia". I do not believe people on the right wish to deprive the sick and the poor. Sure, there are probably a few on the extremes of both sides that do but, they should not define the debate with their propaganda.

We can, and will do better when we stop blaming the "other guys" and start holding all politicians and public servants accountable, not in a political sense but, in a business sense. Reminds me of my biggest problem with AG Holder. In his first few months in office, he gathered the JD for a conference. He paid out $200,000.00 as a consulting fee for the privilege of purchasing muffins at a cost of $15/ea. and coffee at a cost of $8/cup. Stupidity? Corruption? Business as usual?

[homersapien 11,352]

Would you accept legal abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life if the pregnancy is carried to term? Is such a pregnancy something you would force on your wife or daughter?

I have said before that the only thing that rises to an equal level that would justify an abortion (though I would say that every effort should be made to save both and that a miscarriage should only be an unintended consequence of relieving the health issues the mother is having). A baby's life is not more valuable than the life of a mother. But neither is it less valuable.

Well if you look behind all the qualifications and hypothetical possibilities, that ultimately sounds like a choice between the woman or her baby.

[quietfan 233]

I generally steer clear of the threads on abortion, but have once or twice expressed my opinion in the past and so will summarize it once again:

I don't know when a blob of tissue becomes a "person" with the rights of a human being:

I think it's earlier than "12 hours before normal full-term delivery" and do not agree with the killing of a full-term baby for mere convenience simply because some part of its anatomy has not yet exited the birth canal, as might be suggested in the most extreme case of partial birth abortion.

But I also do not believe a fertilized egg is a person. Nature itself precludes this since a single fertilized egg can result in two adult persons (identical twins), while two fertilized eggs can result in only a single person (a chimeric embryo), ethics and theology not withstanding.

Culturally, we don't treat a fertilized egg or blastocyst as human in most matters: We don't investigate all natural miscarriages as potential homicides. We don't require a coroner's inquest, or a death certificate stating cause of death, nor would I want to put any woman through such inquiries after the trauma of a miscarriage. We do not punish persons for abuse of miscarried tissue in the way we have laws against the abuse of corpses. And while I've heard of a few rare cases where fundamentalist churches/religious groups conducting funerals for the miscarried, that is hardly the norm in our culture even among the pro-life community.

So again, I don't know when life begins. I don't believe any other human being knows for sure either. Even those who supposedly have more expertise, wisdom, or training on the subject--doctors, scientists, theologians, lawyers--cannot reach a uniform consensus on the question. I certainly don't think simply winning an election or serving in public office provides any greater enlightenment. So, knowing that I do not know, I respect the right of the woman who is pregnant to make her own decision on the matter...hopefully with the support and advise of her family, her doctor, and her religious adviser.

I see my pro-choice stance as a matter of simple humility:

I am not so arrogant as to pretend that I know when life begins. Neither am I so arrogant as to presume the authority to tell a woman what she should do.

I think it is equally arrogant on the part of the state or a politician to pretend to have such knowledge or wisdom, or to imagine there is some sort of "one size fits all" definition that can be codified into law.

Sure it can. We do it all the time with everything else. We as a society can say that at a certain point, whatever it may be, you are now responsible for a human being. If you're not willing to set a standard then you're copping out.

I understand and respect your right to that opinion. It's good that we can discuss it civilly.

I acknowledge that we, as a society, have the power or ability to set boundaries. As far as the state has been concerned, the line was set at one point before Roe v Wade and reset elsewhere afterward. In both cases I accepted the line as then drawn as the valid law of the land whether I agreed with it or not.

But the deeper issue is where or whether to set a line, why, and by whom? Presumably, pro-choice people would set it much further along, even perhaps up to 8-9 months, while pro-life folks would set it much earlier, indeed at conception. It still boils down to accepting one person or groups' belief of when human personhood and legal protections begin. Until that question can be answered more definitively than merely the opinion of one group or another, when even doctors, scientists, theologians, and lawyers can't agree, I think that definition and decision has to be made by each pregnant woman according to her beliefs.

[homersapien 11,352]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

[quietfan 233]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

Well, if we choose to establish a Sharia-style theocracy, based on whatever religion, it's the woman's fault for bringing such dishonor upon her family, right?

[homersapien 11,352]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

In some cultures, the girl would be stoned.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

Well, if we choose to establish a Sharia-style theocracy, based on whatever religion, it's the woman's fault for bringing such dishonor upon her family, right?

Sharia Law, Old Testament, any justification for throwing rocks at Homer.

[homersapien 11,352]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

Well, if we choose to establish a Sharia-style theocracy, based on whatever religion, it's the woman's fault for bringing such dishonor upon her family, right?

Sharia Law, Old Testament, any justification for throwing rocks at Homer.

Bring it on.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

Well, if we choose to establish a Sharia-style theocracy, based on whatever religion, it's the woman's fault for bringing such dishonor upon her family, right?

Sharia Law, Old Testament, any justification for throwing rocks at Homer.

Bring it on.

Look how defensive Homer is!

[homersapien 11,352]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

Well, if we choose to establish a Sharia-style theocracy, based on whatever religion, it's the woman's fault for bringing such dishonor upon her family, right?

Sharia Law, Old Testament, any justification for throwing rocks at Homer.

Bring it on.

Look how defensive Homer is!

Well, if you've got folks throwing rocks at you......

[icanthearyou 4,462]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

Well, if we choose to establish a Sharia-style theocracy, based on whatever religion, it's the woman's fault for bringing such dishonor upon her family, right?

Sharia Law, Old Testament, any justification for throwing rocks at Homer.

Bring it on.

Look how defensive Homer is!

Well, if you've got folks throwing rocks at you......

Good grief! You are such a liberal. You fight fire with fire! You stupid liberals go get a hose.

[quietfan 233]

What about a pregnancy as a result of a violent gang rape?

You don't fix a tragedy by creating a new one. Killing the child won't undo a rape, won't make it hurt less, won't restore lost innocence or trust in people. All it does it add to the trauma. It compounds the issue rather than relieving it.

It's not the child's fault for how it was conceived. The child has done nothing wrong, nothing deserving of being snuffed out. The child can be given up for adoption, but it shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the sins of another.

Well, you may be personally willing to forcefully subordinate your daughter's psyche to an unwanted pregnancy but I am not. I would let her decide. If she chooses abortion, then tough luck for the fetus.

A real man, a good father, would have guarded his daughter and her virtue. You should be stoned to death.

Well, if we choose to establish a Sharia-style theocracy, based on whatever religion, it's the woman's fault for bringing such dishonor upon her family, right?

Sharia Law, Old Testament, any justification for throwing rocks at Homer.

Bring it on.

Look how defensive Homer is!

Well, if you've got folks throwing rocks at you......

Just be sure to examine the thrown rocks carefully! It seems to me that sometimes people obsessed with throwing rocks are just stupid enough to include some gold nuggets or diamonds in their projectiles. (...which I'm sure, as a socialist, you'll share with the rest of us libs?)