Bible Thumper #19446
****DDG: Excellent point. The law once said women's bodies were not their own. Now it does. Problem corrected.****
Of course it's not that cut and dried. We all have limits placed on us regarding what we can and cannot do with our bodies.
A man cannot forcibly have sex with a woman. I cannot take my hands and choke someone to death.
The right to control what I do with my body ends where another life begins.
DDG: EXACTLY. And the problem is that we disagree about the definition and qualification of this "other life." Please don't be deliberately obtuse, and note my related comments below.
****DDG: The problem here is one of definition. You look at a clump of cells and see a human being. Others look at a clump of cells and see ... a clump of cells.****
I look at a "clump of cells" as a human life in the process of reaching its potential.
We are all, in essence, "clumps of cells" that were left alone and allowed to reach our potential.
If the "clump of cells" is not violated in any way and is healthy, it will reach the same potential that you and I did.
The question is.....is it fair to violate another's chance to reach the full potential of life?
DDG: Again, this still comes down to an individual's opinion and personal ideas as to what qualifies as a person. Your opinion as to how the "clump of cells" is defined has no bearing on mine -- or, more importantly, on any woman weighing such a decision for herself. You need to come up with some truly objective qualification of "personhood" that extends all the way back to the blastocyst stage to fit your definition -- a difficult qualification to make fairly and reasonably. Yahweh has written a lot on this topic, and he has covered the ground pretty thoroughly; I recommend that you check out his blog on the subject.
****Frankly, I consider the "cutoff point" between the two to be when the fetus develops sufficient signs of being not just a potential human being, but a realized human being with such features as normal brainwaves, breathing capacity, etc.****
If you see any cutoff, then you do not objectively see a woman's body as her own as you stated above. Either a woman has the right to control what she does with a pregnancy or she does not.
If you believe at some point in gestation that a fetus' right to life outweighs the mother's rights to do as she wishes with her body, then you believe exactly as I do. We just disagree as to when the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's right to control of her body.
DDG: Again, you are being deliberately obtuse. I said *HER* body. As I and most nonfundies (and, as I understand it, medical and legal sources) define a fetus, it is not an independent organism for a long time; and until it is, it is part of *HER* body, to do with as she wishes, whether you or I like it or not.
Yes, after a certain point, the fetus does qualify for personhood-based protection from abortion (barring danger to the life of the mother, whose life is no "potential" matter but already actual). What we disagree on is more than just the point of cutoff; if I understand you correctly, since you consider the fetus a "person" from day one, you would have there be NO point of cutoff at all, so to say that we "only differ on the cutoff point" mischaracterizes the whole disagreement.
****DDG: Again, this depends on how you define "others" in the "do unto others" part; if "others" are to be construed as human beings, and *IF* fetuses (feti?) are considered not yet human beings (already noted as a point of contention)****
Fetuses of human mothers are definitely human. There is no question about that. I think the point of contention is the rights of a human who is not yet cognizant of its surroundings and that has essentially not reached full "personhood".
The issue is irrelevent to me because my belief is that we have no right to interrupt a process that has begun in which a human will reach full personhood, its full potential, and complete autonomy if simply left alone.
DDG: Obviously there *IS* considerable question about whether a fetus qualifies as "definitely [a] human [being]," or we wouldn't be having this charming conversation. And it is not the issue that is "irrelevant" to you, but the views of others. That is an exceedingly arrogant position to take. I acknowledge the legitimacy of your opinion, but ONLY as opinion. Do not make the mistake of thinking that your opinions are fact simply because your belief in them is strong.
****then they do not count as "others" in the Golden Rule formulation, any more than tumors or parasites do.****
We were all "clumps of cells" at one time in the process of becoming what we are today. So we most definitely were what the "others" are now who are being aborted.
DDG: Yes, of course. But what is that supposed to prove? We weren't fully realized people at that point by ANY recognized authoritative definition. At most, all you've done is raise a specious fatalism as if it were an issue and somehow germane to the topic. It is not.
~David D.G.
