Where Todd Akin went wrong...

[appolose]

theprof00 said:

appolose said:

theprof00 said:

I feel like yours is the kneejerk.

The idea that they are avoiding the science is evidenced by the decision 'to arbitrarily decide when life begins when it isn't written out specifically in the Bible'.

It's not two arguments from where I'm standing. It is an argument over who has rights. Myself, I believe that BOTH have rights. But how can that be? They have overlapping rights! Who is MORE right. Well, the mother always has rights by the idea that life confers rights. So the question within the argument of "who has rights" is "do both fetus and mother have rights concurrently". I would again, say no, because an egg to me is not life.

But isn't that the argument?  Many anti-abortionists think the egg is living, so that wouldn't really be an overlapping of the two arguments.

There are plenty of instances within those 9 months, according to some studies up to 30% rate of miscarriage with an average of 15% in meta, in the first 12 weeks.

So, giving the fetus full rights despite a 15 to 30% chance to miscarry anyway, seems faulty. I would argue that these first 12 weeks at the very least, the fetus has no rights. Afterwards it does, until the point where a woman's life is under threat of death, then the woman's rights supercede once again.

As per my reasoning, I draw upon the ideas of both military and medical, that the provider must ensure their own ability to function before all else. If the mother believes that delivering would substantially destroy the family, then she has the right to abort. A medic's job is to protect and save the wounded, but if they cannot guarantee the safety of both, they are generally not allowed to attempt action. Unless that person wants to risk their own life and be called "a hero under fire", they should hold back. In the same vein, women who decide to deliver despite all odds is also a hero, and should not be the standard, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I say they shy away from the science because science would say "heartbeat" or "live on it's own" or "brainwave" or something similar. HOWEVER, all of those things occur after conception, and would therefore prvide for abortion up to a point. The pro-lifers cannot allow ANY abortion, and so decide that it is specifically at conception. I would call this shying away from the science, because everything we've ever used to define life is being ignored JUST FOR THIS ONE INSTANCE. That seems odd...i mean, doesn't it?

Why would science conclude that?  I understand how one might argue that it is normal that we define life with these things all the other times, but that's not really a scientifically derived assessment.  Science can determine when any of these things happens, of course, but how does it get around to saying anything about them?

1. Yes, that is my point. That is the argument. It is one argument with two variables. I think you're confusing the intent of my post there. badger was saying that there are two distinct arguments. Women's rights vs fetus rights. He called me wrong. I'm saying that from my standpoint, it is one argument of at what point does the fetus actually gain rights, because it is evident to me that both have rights.

2. Why would science conclude what? Life? The definition of life referring to organisms that are capable of homeostasis, where a fetus cannot? The definition of life when we say 'mars has had life at some point'? Our definition of life scientifically is VERY complex and decisive, because scientists depend on them for research, funding, discoveries, etc.

At this point I re-read your second post, and I have to say, I really have no idea what you're saying, so I can't respond further. Homeostasis is an excellent point to define as life because no organism can exist without that ability.

1.  But you had said that you did not consider the egg (or fetus) to be living, which falls into the argument of the anti-abortionists, whereas the other argument Kasz and badgenome refered to was an argument of women's rights, which does not really seem to address the issue of whether or not the fetus is alive.

2.  Why would science conclude that life comes after the heartbeat or brainwave, I mean?  My point was, to be sure, science can find most any particular characteristic we would ascribe to life, but it cannot come up with the definition of life itself.  Science can only be used to determine when life begins once it's decided what life actually is. 

To me, it sounds like you're saying science itself can come up with the definition of life.