Defining life based on convenience

[TheCurious]

All these abortion threads have really illuminated one thing about human reasoning.

Most people define life as it is most convenient to them at that moment.

A woman seeking an abortion, or a man who wants his sex partner to abort the child, will say "No, this mass of cells is not a human being, what we want to do is no worse than removing a skin growth" etc. However if a woman at the same stage of pregnancy is assaulted and she is killed... the attacker can be charged with a double homocide. The death of the child and the mother. This ruling is, to the best of my knowledge, not dependent on the mother's desire to birth the child or not. So essentially the definition of life is in fact an extension of the level of convenience offered to the mother or conversely when looking to punish a criminal, an absolute truth.

If the child is wanted, it is a human to her from the moment the mother realizes she is pregnant. If the child is not wanted... the child is regarded as being a mass of cells or "not a real live human" for as long as possible so that the mother may, guilt free, terminate the life of "the mass of cells"

I'm not going to turn this into a "what I believe, versus what you believe" debate. I am however trying to illustrate just how sad the way we have chosen to define life is. From my best interpetation of the opinions given and the collective opinion of the nation as displayed through supreme court rulings and the media... we define life based entirely on what is convenient to us at the given moment. If we need to kill something, it is not living. If we need to preserve something or punish those who bring it harm, it is living. This is a very sad dichotomy.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[Countess DeWinter]

It is very sad indeed, curious.

 

[TheCurious]

Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

Sorry, babe...but this thread has more of a chance than the other one...you are asking for everyone's opinions and there won't be many that agree wtih each other.

Good luck, tho.

Well, being logical, emotional opinion doesn't bear weight here.

Look at it this way. If life isn't life until birth.... then its not lawful to charge a criminal with murder if the child dies in the womb. To be true to that interpetation we would have to make it so that a physical entity would only be offered protection of the law after birth.

If we refuse to make that distinction, then in fact life exists before birth and abortion is legallized murder.

Something can't be a human being, and an american citizen subject to the protections of being such by one standard, and by another standard in the same system be nothing more than disposable cells. Its either one thing or the other. Everyone is entitled to believe which "thing" it is, but the fact of the matter is our legal system doesn't truely know.

I'm being very logical here, and if I could think of a good way to shape an example that wasn't so emotionally charged I'd do it.

Laws should deal with the truth, not with the convenience of the involved parties.

 

[seXieleXie]

so you don't think the death pentalty is right either?

 

[TN_Vixen]

Most people define life as it is most convenient to them at that moment.

Well, I'm so glad that's settled. Moron.

 

[TheCurious]

so you don't think the death pentalty is right either?

Comparing the execution of a criminal charged with a crime that has been deemed by the society he or she resides in, punishable by death.... to the death of an unborn child who has no capacity to commit a criminal act.... is logically flawed.

If this isn't exactly what you were asking, please clarify. I'd prefer not to turn this into a thread debating the death penalty, so if you wish to debate that, please start another thread and I will happily partake in it.

 

[TheCurious]

Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

Well, I'm so glad that's settled. Moron.

I don't recall saying anything worthy of your anger. If you have personal demons regarding this subject, its no fault of mine.

 

[TN_Vixen]

Re: Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

I don't recall saying anything worthy of your anger. If you have personal demons regarding this subject, its no fault of mine.

you're confusing a fact-based opinion for anger here, but let's move on, okay?

Pertaining to the previous quote of yours I highlighted, I would like to know how you came to this specific conclusion. Wait.. wait... base your answer on facts and statistics rather than just your personal opinion (which you bashed me for having about you). Are we clear?

Good. Carry on.

 

[Angel]

If the child is wanted, it is a human to her from the moment the mother realizes she is pregnant. If the child is not wanted... the child is regarded as being a mass of cells or "not a real live human" for as long as possible so that the mother may, guilt free, terminate the life of "the mass of cells"

Untrue.

Not every child that has been aborted was unwanted.

 

[seXieleXie]

Comparing the execution of a criminal charged with a crime that has been deemed by the society he or she resides in, punishable by death.... to the death of an unborn child who has no capacity to commit a criminal act.... is logically flawed.

you don't think so? it's only okay to kill a fetus sometimes, if the conditions are right. same goes with post-pardum adults. you can only kill 'em if the circumstances are right, then morality is on your side.

 

[TheCurious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

Wait.. wait... base your answer on facts and statistics rather than just your personal opinion (which you bashed me for having about you). Are we clear?

You can lose the attitude now

As for facts and statistics. What pray tell are you looking for? The number of cases in the US where an unborn child was given legal status for the purposes of prosecuting a criminal with more than the assault/homocide commited against the mother? I'm not sure if such statistics have been compiled, but it would certainly be interesting to look for them.

My arguements above are logically sound. You may not like the path they follow, but as far as logic goes its near air tight. Either something is or isn't, and for one legal body to define the same thing as being two different things at the same time based on circumstances, is unacceptable and hypocritical.

 

[seXieleXie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

at what point in development can a fetus be concidered part of a homicide?

 

[TheCurious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

at what point in development can a fetus be concidered part of a homicide?

That is a very good question. I don't think there is a clear legal ruling on the matter, just scattered legal precdents through lower court actions.

 

[TN_Vixen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

You can lose the attitude now

I really don't have an attitude. Well, ok I do... but I'll wait for you to define it for me only to see if you're reading my "tone" in type as it would be in person. That's answer number one from you I'll wait for.

As for facts and statistics. What pray tell are you looking for?

The one I clearly quoted from your original statement. Need it repeated? OK.

Originally posted by TheCurious

Most people define life as it is most convenient to them at that moment.

THAT is the statement I originally objected to and the objection still stands sans attitude. And, just so you remember, I asked for hard facts and statistics to back up this statement of yours.

My arguements above are logically sound.

btw, it's "arguments" and no, sorry honeychile, they are not logically sound.

 

[Lancecastor]

You Are Done. Move Along.

STRIKE ONE: It is a fact that the social contract in North America gives, in some places, a woman with a life growing inside her the right to choose between nurturing and ending that life form. Call that sad if you want, it is reality. Where life begins and ends is a red herring, as women are allowed to have abortions.

STRIKE TWO: You have attempted to devalue the words "choice" and "right" to the morally cheaper "convenience" from the outset of your argument. They are at the opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. Your argument starts with a "When did you stop beating your wife?" statement.

STRIKE THREE: After talking about how "sad" this is, you tried changing your tune later in the thread when you got cornered on the death penalty and told another poster that your aguments were based on "logic" and not "emotion".

YOU'RE OUT, Monsieur Troll.

We have some lovely parting gifts for you, plus The Lit Home Game!

Buh-bye!

 

[TheCurious]

Re: You Are Done. Move Along.

[/B][/QUOTE]

It is a fact that the social contract in North America gives, in some places, a woman with a life growing inside her the right to choose between nurturing and ending that life form.

I'm not argueing that point. My point however is that the very life form inside her is given status as a person if she is assaulted. Essentially if she doesn't want it she can kill it, but if she wants it and she's attacked, then what was just cells in her body, is now a lifeform with legal rights. This is not logical. Its either just cells until birth, or its a living human inside her. It can't be both and have the legal system make any sense.

You have attempted to devalue the words "choice" and "right" to the morally cheaper "convenience" from the outset of your argument.

I personally don't feel comfortable calling it a right. A legal right perhaps. A choice yes. Whether or not a good or moral choice is a matter of debate of course.

After talking about how "sad" this is, you tried changing your tune later in the thread when you got cornered on the death penalty and told another poster that your aguments were based on "logic" and not "emotion".

[/QUOTE]

After talking about how "sad" this is, you tried changing your tune later in the thread when you got cornered on the death penalty and told another poster that your aguments were based on "logic" and not "emotion".

I'm not changing my tune at all. My root arguement is logically sound enough to withstand a beating in any Deductive Logic class. Right now in our legal system there are two methods for determining when someone/thing is a human being and when it is not. Those methods are based entirely on whether nor not the mother wishes to have the baby or kill the baby. This is an unacceptable hypocrisy.

YOU'RE OUT, Monsieur Troll.

Funny how quickly one becomes a troll when the unwashed masses don't agree with them.

 

[Lancecastor]

Thanks for playing!


Drive safely!

 

[horny_giraffe]

Re: Re: You Are Done. Move Along.

Funny how quickly one becomes a troll when the unwashed masses don't agree with them.

Aaaaawwww.

Yes, calling you a troll was a little harsh. Your "logic" may be a little disingenuous, but it is rather obviously so--don't you think. It's not as if you were actually fooling anyone.

 

[TN_Vixen]

hmmmmmmmmmmm.... where in the world did TheCurious go after I specifically defined my questions? Isn't that curious?

 

[phatcat]

ok.. closer look in order:

You say the penal code contradicts the woman's right to choose?
Fine. Why do you assume the right to choose is incorrect? Just agree with me that the penal code is wrong and be done with it. Congress should rewrite it reflect charges for assaulting a "pregnant" woman instead of the woman and her fetus. That would be correct. See? Problem solved.

Questions?

 

[*bratcat*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining life based on convenience

 

[Anais Dahl]

Drops a gigantic dead horse on everyone in this thread. Then picks up the horse and repeatedly bashes the hell out of Curious with it.