|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
http://i969.photobucket.com/albums/ae17 … e6f30c.jpg
To be clear, both sides are hypocritical like this. Rightists tend to say that you can't choose who to marry, can't choose to do drugs, can't choose to buy alcohol before noon on Sundays, etc...
Liberal: "Mr. Government, please force that conservative not to do what I think is bad!"
Conservative: "Mr. Government, please force that liberal not to do what I think is bad!"
Kinda sad, this thread was an interesting question and now it's just another abortion thread.
I think the original point is very good, authoritarianism is owned by neither party but by factions within both, I guess where the issue becomes complex for me is when these actions directly affect the lives of others without their consent and without extraordinary circumstances, conservatives see that as the abortion debate and I would see that as the global warming issues that you mention in the comic, right-wingers don't believe you should be allowed to kill a fetus, left wingers don't believe you should be allowed to damage the environment that affects us all, according to Kofi Annan and UN studies global warming kills about 300 000 people a year.
I think there is trade and compromise to be found on these issues.
A part of the problem, and perhaps a major part, it seems to me is the underlying belief. Not incontrovertible fact, belief.
Abortion is murder - if the fetus is a person.
Global warming is a problem we should address - if it's actually happening and human activity is a significant cause.
Environmental damage is a real concern that needs addressed - if it's "significant" and the gain to humanity isn't of greater importance than the damage.
It's hard to trade and compromise when beliefs are concerned and opposing.
That's a pretty clear straw man argument, and dodgy re: copyright too.
Straw man argument? Really?
So you never see someone who says 'The government shouldn't tell a woman what she can do with her body' also be on the side of the likes of Bloomberg?
Besides, did you completely miss the point about this being a problem among all political ideologies?
ETA: also fair-use and satire
I'm pro choice for all of it! It's none of my business what others choose to do. Not the government's business either if you ask me!
Yup, we should focus more on libertarian vs. authoritarian than we focus on right vs. left.
For all of it? So you think we should have the right to choose to murder someone if we want to without consequences?
I was referring to everything that was mentioned in the photo and in the text below the photo. I thought that'd be pretty obvious since murder wasn't in the discussion.
well that escalated quickly...
Why do you equate freedom to do what you want with your own body with freedom to do what you want with someone else?
Depends on how you define someone else. A fetus, in my book is someone else. So I am not equating "freedom to do with your own body with freedom to do what you want with someone else?" You are, if you are for killing an innocent baby which last time I checked noone equates a fetus with being the mother's body, especially science.
I agree, a fetus is someone else. That's not the point.
The point is, pro-choice people argue that women should have the freedom to do what they want with their body. Some of them also argue that other people shouldn't have that same freedom.
I find it interesting that endangered animal fetuses, say bald eagle eggs, are protected by law. If you willingly destroy a bald eagle egg, you'll go to prison. Abortions, however, are fine. It seems that the law protects eagles more than people.
I do not define a fetus incapable of actual life as "someone else". Even if I did I wouldn't equate the life of a fetus equal to the life of a person alive in this world. Just as I don't equate fetal cells in test tubes as people. And even if I did equate it all equally, so long as that someone else is being contained inside another person it would be that person's (and in most situations the other parent of that fetus) business. Until life outside the body is possible it is the mother's business not mine or yours or the governments! It's beyond me how so many are against pro choice when we already have so many living unwanted, abused, and neglected children out there. Why add to that?
On another note my cigarettes could kill me and my second hand smoke could kill others. I suppose you are for making anything that could kill someone else illegal right?
When you say "I suppose you are for making anything that could kill someone else illegal right?" I have no idea where you are coming from because I never said anything about making anything illegal. My only point was that when you say "I'm pro choice for all of it!" you are saying you think we should have the right to choose to murder someone if we want to without consequences. I wasn't talking about anything that wasn't mentioned in the cartoon either. So far those are two points you replied about that are irrelevant to anything I said so I really wonder if this conversation is worth pursuing with you. Anyway pro choice in relation to abortion is as much a choice as choosing to murder anyone you want, the only difference is it is legal. A fetus is a human being as much as anyone else and should be entitled to human rights from conception. You can not say a fetus isn't human because it cannot live out side the woomb - that is no different than saying you are not human because you cannot live on the moon. And a fetus doesn't have to go to term to survive outside the woomb. Do you want to play God and determine where to draw the line? I wouldn't.
"I suppose you are for making anything that could kill someone else illegal right?" I have no idea where you are coming from because I never said anything about making anything illegal." I was showing you the same exact point the OP made. One side says don't do that I think it's bad and so does the other. You think abortion is bad therefore you don't think others should do it.
As for a fetus not having to go to term, I am well aware, I'm a mom to a preemie. However a fetus at 9 weeks can NOT survive outside the womb. Therefore yes I do draw a line.
But if a fetus could survive at 9 weeks, you wouldn't draw the line?
Sorry, being 'human' is innate. Not subjective depending on your level of technology.
If a fetus was capable of surviving outside the womb at the moment of conception I would reconsider my thought. Though I'll admit my thought process on it is much deeper than just life. I think more about quality of life afterwards. We have over 500,000 children in foster care, half waiting on adoption. I don't see the point in adding unwanted babies to an already bad situation, then claiming oh well just put it up for adoption if you don't want it.
If "humanness" is innate, what you suggest as a test to determine if a fetus is human or not? What is the difference between a human organism and a non-human organism?
We have plenty of "human" cells in laboratories. That doesn't mean they should all be given human rights.
I didn't say human cells, I said genetics.
Genetics allow us to determine whether or not a fetus is part of the mother or a unique entity. As unique DNA, it is a unique entity. The fact that it is life is obvious, otherwise it would have to be dead or inorganic.
A fetus is clearly a unique human being, just earlier in development than a newborn.
With chimps sharing 98% of our genes, where would you put the cutoff?
Can your genetics distinguish between a human fetus and a "thing" with no forebrain, no limbs and that won't make term let alone survive outside the womb?
So? Chimp DNA isn't human DNA. DNA shows that a fetus is a unique human being, rather than part of the mother.
If a human being is going to die of natural causes, then it is going to die. We don't kill someone who might die of natural causes though. To the contrary, we make that illegal.
You misunderstand - human and chimp share most of their genetic structure. At the same time, both are extremely variable (particularly humans), ranging from dwarfs to Andre the Giant, encompass all the various races and vary a great deal in appearance and function. I suspect that captive chimps, given the same level of care as human infants, would show much the same wide variation.
At some point, one day, the two species are likely to come very close to the same genetically if specific individuals are tested. Some genes commonly considered human will be found in the chimp, some commonly considered chimp will be found in the human.
Can genetics tell the difference between the two as far as making a definitive call that one is human and one is not? What percentage of human DNA is variable in unusual humans? 2% 5%? If humans vary more than 2% could it a chimp variation rather than a human?
Chimps actually vary up to 8%, last time I checked.
Besides, that's not how it works. Humans differ X% from each other, and those differences are in certain sequences of DNA. The sequences that differ humans from chimps are different, so there will never be a genetic match between the two.
I'm not a geneticist and having trouble asking my question - forgive me.
Chimps vary as much as 8% - good. What is the minimum difference?
Is it possible for chimps to contain some genes commonly associated with humans only? Does it ever happen? At the same time, the reverse - can people contain some genes commonly associated only with chimps (or gorillas or any of the other great apes, for that matter).
If so, can the total difference between two specific individuals ever fall below that minimum listed above (I thought I'd seen 2%). Or, even if the total difference is still greater than the minimum, is the crossing of specific genes in specific individuals enough to cause any trouble at all in using a current definition of genetic differences? Would a geneticist blind testing the two wonder at all what he was looking at?
Does that make better sense? And if it does, is it possible that convergent evolution (rare, but it happens) will ever cause that same geneticist to wonder just what he had in front of him?
To put it simply, there are different 'chains' of DNA, and different types. Some types of DNA chimps only differ a couple of %. Other types they differ much more. The differences tend to come in chains, where all mammals have a similar chain structure, but different species have different 'chains' inside that total long strand.
Think of a big chain with links. The first link is the same on two chains. The second link is different. That chain is where the differences between chimps and humans exist. The fifth link is where humans differ from each other. Humans never differ from each other on the second link, so chimps and humans can never 'accidentally' match up.
I believe I understand - biology was my weakest science by far. I do fine with the mathematics of genetics, but that's about all.
So, outside of extremely unlikely evolutionary changes, chimps and humans cannot be mistaken for each other no matter how widely they vary intra-species.
That still leaves the question of hybridization, though, as well as intentional GMO work. That one particularly is just around the bend, science wise.
Correct, not going to happen. If a chimp's DNA was human in nature, then it wouldn't have turned into a chimp. It's like asking if the code for one program might accidentally start up a different program. It's just going to start up the program it was designed to start.
I believe hybridization is impossible, not even the primates are close enough for the interactions to occur.
"A fetus is a human being as much as anyone else"
Do you have anything to support this statement outside of personal opinion/definition?
Your DNA that you have... you had that DNA as a fetus. Unique from either parent, it clearly wasn't a part of the mother. Genetically, you were you from right after conception.
Life does not begin at conception, an embryo and a fetus in its early stages are not viable outside the womb. A woman has the right to an abortion up until the fetus develops enough to be viable outside the womb. That is pure logic.
What is "viable"? Survive on it's own (given food, temperature control and all the rest every infant needs) or survive with a little help?
Viable means being able to live outside the womb.
With how much help? Super measures in a neonatal intensive care? Open heart surgery? I've seen a infant no larger than my hand that stood a good chance of surviving, and that was 30 years ago.
Do you require that living outside the womb mean that eventually it will no longer need help to survive?
With any amount of help. It's a stupid line to draw, and nobody will engage me about that, but whatever. We don't kill humans because it's inconvenient, or because they might die in the future of natural causes.
So a creature with no brain tissue outside of that necessary for autonomic functions is still human. I would disagree.
If we agree to disagree on that question, many animals can produce hybrids between two different species. If humans can do that (and if they can I don't want to know), is the offspring human or otherwise? And will the genetics you mention make a clear distinction?
If a person is brain-dead, would you be ok with chopping off its head? Or, should we just let nature take its course?
I would be OK with chopping off it's head. It's not human. We turn off the machines on brain dead people - no difference.
Seriously, no words.
1 - You have no right to desecrate the corpse of another person. The only people who have legitimate claim are that person through directives, or that person's family.
2 - An act that kills is far different than letting someone die. There is a difference. Letting nature take its course isn't ending the life of a being. Chopping off its head is.
Sorry - I'm not speaking of legality here, or even desecration of a corpse. Just the ethical stance of what is human in reference to abortion.
Of course removing the head is the wrong thing to do - the parents might object and such action could harm them emotionally. Killing a brain dead "thing", though, is not murder. It is not human, so murder does not apply. This is no different than removing machinery keeping it alive; any claim to the contrary is semantics only or an effort to legitimize an otherwise wrong claim.
No, it's not.
Whether or not a 9-week fetus is 'human' has to be objective, separate from technology. Two 9-week fetuses are either both human, or both not human. You can't say it's ok to abort one and not the other, from a logical standpoint.
Jaxson, the truth is the truth and you are right - what defines a human being? - DNA -if a fetus isn't a human being what is it? What clouds the issue is not what is a human being but the fact that a human being begins it's life inside another human being. Believe me if humans laid eggs that would hatch on their own into human beings without any required care by the mother do you think there would be any question that destroying that "egg" would be murder or that the embyo in it was a human being?
Will a fertilized chimpanzee egg, implanted in a woman grow to term? If so, is it human?
One day we will undoubtedly have test tube babies that never see a womb - are they non-human?
Thanks for taking this to the level of ridiculous.
If that happened, a woman would birth a chimpanzee.
I don't see it as ridiculous - one of the defining factors of "humanity" often seems to be borne of woman. You just denied that as a definition - something with which I heartily agree.
At the same time, seems to me, a test tube baby cannot be claimed to be non-human, something with which I would agree.
But we still haven't defined "human" in a testable manner. We don't know what a "human" is. We cannot declare a fetus or embryo to be human or not.
We do know what a human is, and we can tell through DNA. You can do it right from the start, but the procedure can kill the fetus. It is very testable.
Again, can a human produce a hybrid with another species? Is it genetically human? Ethically human?
As far as we know? No. Too many differences, there are no other species compatible.
If it happened, we would deal with it, but that is completely separate from the topic at hand.
I hope it has never been tested but, knowing man's insatiable curiosity, it probably will be one day.
But it is germane to defining "human" for purposes of labeling abortion "murder" or "killing".
The reason I ask is that I would like to incorporate the concept of intelligence into "human", or least the future assumption of intelligence as the organism matures. Realize, of course, that this definition is again useful only for deciding if it's murder or killing - I do not attempt to define an actual species this way.
Would you agree with that, bearing in mind that some people see killing of cetaceans as murder? Or that we may one day encounter intelligent aliens?
a fertilized chimpanzee egg is a chimpanzee - like what is your point? Implanting it does not change its DNA orthe factit is achimpanzee - a human egg implanted in a chimpanzee would still be a human - that is the whole point.
But, since it's not...
The woman made a choice(excepting rape) to bring about that situation. She is responsible.
The right to life is trumped by NO rights.
Therefore, killing a fetus is wrong. Its right to life trumps the mother's right to convenience/etc/etc.
Viability outside the woomb does not define a human being (unless you are looking for an excuse to murder what is a human being)- if a crime is committed and DNA evidence can prove who the human was who did it, right. So what of DNA from a fetus. Does it say I'm not human or does it have the same weight as DNA from a crime scene?
I'm going to make this as simple as possible.
DNA is basically the stuff that makes you 'you'. DNA is the stuff that caused your body to divide cells, grow different types of cells, and become who you are today. Your DNA has been your DNA since right after conception, which means that you have been you(just in different stages of development) since right after conception.
If you follow your own timeline back, the only moment when you can say that you no longer exist would be right before fertilization. Going backward, when you hit fertilization, that's when all the stuff that makes you 'you' didn't exist. So after that moment, you were the most-undeveloped stage of 'you'.
I just love those who will never find themselves in that situation to begin with.
Yes, I'm sure at some point you might find yourself pregnant for nine months and wondering how you might raise that child on your own Of course, there are fathers who raise children alone (although they've missed the pregnancy and initial fear about the future altogether) But, in reality, only 1 in 10 children are raised by a lone father.
Still, I'm sure the future was *just* as frightening for those 90% of fathers that didn't have to cope with pregnancy, childbirth and raising a child alone. Of course, they should have *exactly* the same rights as a woman that does experience this. After all, they know *exactly* how it feels.
The term "pro choice" was only coined in response to the "pro life" movement.
But "pro life" is a misnomer..
What they really mean is "pro fetus."
And it's perfectly acceptable to these pro-lifer zealots to MURDER doctors or clinic workers who are trying to do their job -- which is legal.
A fetus isn't life? What is it then? Dead or inorganic?
And only a tiny percentage of pro-lifers murder doctors, what's the point of bringing that up? I doubt anyone here is guilty of that.
Yes, it's life. So is a tree or a frog.
An early fetus is a non-human collection of organic cells that may, one day, become a person.
At least that seems the current legal definition.
Take you at your peak. Your DNA is 'X'.
Take you as a child. Your DNA was 'X'. You just weren't fully developed.
Take you as an infant. Your DNA was 'X'. You just weren't fully developed.
Take you as a fetus. Your DNA was 'X'. You just weren't fully developed.
Non-human? You were, genetically, the same as you were when you were a child. Definitely human.
All true, but only if you accept DNA as the primary, if not sole, determinate of being human.
I don't think I do. "Think" because admittedly I'm still foggy on just how to determine what is human or what is not. I don't, for instance, feel that a fertilized egg is human. Nor an embryo. Nor the indeterminate point where that embryo becomes a fetus.
And yet a full term fetus is human - somewhere between a fertilized egg and birth it becomes a human being. I don't know when, I don't know the difference between fetus and human, and don't know how to determine that point.
Thus the silly questions I've been asking. Abortion is a huge question in the US and I'd like to have an opinion, but can't until the definition of human is settled in my own mind.
I'm sure you're right. But those that do engage in violence should call themselves something else besides pro LIFE.
But I do wonder how many here have adopted crack babies or taken in foster kids who are considered "unplaceable."
Why not pro-life?
A fetus isn't dead or inorganic, so it's life.
It's not genetically a part of the father or mother, so it's a unique human entity.
Abortion actively kills the fetus... there's no other word for it.
If someone commits murder -- taking a LIFE -- to make a point about protecting unborn life,
that is the ultimate hypocrisy. They are not pro LIFE.
They are pro FETUS.
As are those who advocate for the "innocent babies" only up until the point they are born.
After that, they are society's cast-offs and their LIVES have no value.
If life is sacred, it is sacred for babies, toddlers, teens, young adults, adults, and elderly.
Not saying ideologically pro-lifers aren't noble.
Just pointing out what appears to be, at time, an inability (or unwillingness) to see the inherent inconsistency of their humanitarian policy views.
That could be considered hypocritical, yes. What about the other 99.9999% of pro-lifers who never kill anyone?
And why don't you put down that broad brush? You know all pro-lifers aren't the same in all their views, right?
The fact is, a fetus is life. Scientific fact. Sorry.
And then leave a child in the hands of the state, bounced from one home to another, sometimes unable to form attachments, or develop healthy relationships. Then, that * fetus* is no longer their problem. Just some delinquent.
Nice to see you, MM.
I don't really see what that has to do with anything. I wasn't making a comment on abortion, per se, I was making a point about hypocrisy.
But don't you feel that hypocricy also stems from those who make judgements about a course of action which they oppose, when they also know that they will never find themselves in a situation when they have to make that decision or live the consequences?
Men have to live with the decision and consequences too.
No, I'm failing to see 'hypocrisy' there. There are many actions I oppose that I will never have the opportunity to do. I will never know what it's like to be in Pol Pot's position when he committed genocide, but I know for certain that it was wrong. Are you suggesting that we can only make a judgment on anything in the world if we have had direct experience of it? If that is the case, we would struggle to judge anything important at all.
And why is it that it is only 'hypocritical' if we oppose a particular action? What if we support it? Will you complain about those people too?
I ran into the biggest group of selective libertarians. They basically said it's ok to fire someone for voting for Obama, but should be illegal to fire someone for voting for Romney.
by Scott S Bateman2 years ago
The abortion debate is dominated by two extremes. On the one side, "pro life" extremists insist that abortion is murder. On the other side, "pro choice" extremists insist that abortion is a personal...
by Doug Robinson7 years ago
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/t … sm-america
by Kathryn L Hill20 months ago
The essence of the current battle seems to be this:Liberalism/Socialism vs Republicanism/FreedomWe have to keep this country free. The Constitution, rightly understood and followed, provides the laws/boundaries which...
by SportsBetter5 years ago
Freedom of choice or government entitlements and regulations?
by Epleeba12 years ago
The national debate around abortion centers around two peaks of moral high ground. There is the woman's right to have ultimate control over her own body versus the right to life of a fetus. I will admit upfront to...
by Dave Mathews6 years ago
Abortion and euthanasia, and suicide all require a cessation of life. For abortion it is a requirement for the cessation of life of the fetus. For euthanasia and suicide, it is a requirement by an already living and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.