The Case for Conception

[level_head]

This document makes the case for treating human life as beginning at the moment of fertilization.It's reasonably well-written, and I find points of agreement with it -- including that the Roe v. Wade case was incompetently argued

Comments

[ihuitl]

I argued for a pro life stance on my LJ too, but it quickly turned into something between anarchy and a charge across no-man's-land with the artillery falling short.

http://akhetnu.livejournal.com/62575.html?nc=135

So beware of the emotions that may flare up ;)

(1) - If life begins at conception, then yes, which is why birth control should be taken before sexual activity.
(2) - Either way someone is dying, so I would say that it is morally neutral, much like the morality of throwing yourself on a grenade to save others. I cannot hold a mother blameworthy whether she has an abortion to save her life, or if she does decide to give birth and die.
(3) - See (1)

[level_head]

And, apparently, over and over by the same person.

"You DON'T UNDERSTAND!"

"Just demonstrate that I'm wrong."

"I did, below, where I said 'YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!'"

That seems to be the distilled essence.

One could MAKE reasoned arguments on some of those points -- but that didn't happen there.

===|==============/ Level Head

[level_head]

I followed up on some of those conversations. You have unusual visitors. ];-)

You and I don't completely agree on this topic, but at least we can be pleasant about it. And let me know if you ever catch me in an ad-hominem.

===|==============/ Level Head

[silverlightstar]

Sir, you handled that debacle with grace; for that, I salute you.

[rowyn]

Do you really feel that (1) is the same issue as (3)? The latter being:

(3) If a woman learns that she has a medical condition that prevents or impedes implantation, is risking pregnancy making her potentially guilty of murder?

Arguing that a woman who has a condition that makes her likely to miscarry should not bear children for the same reason that a woman who might be pregnant should not take drugs designed to prevent implantation is ... weird. I mean, it's consistent, but I can't see how arresting a woman who wanted to have a baby for manslaughter because she miscarried could possible be just. O_o

[ihuitl]

I was looking at it from an ethical standpoint, not a legal one. Both (1) and (3) would be impossible to enforce or even present a prima facea case for anyway.

[level_head]

They certainly don't fit the rules of habeas corpus.

In fact, procedures to determine the answer, medically, would risk causing the harm she's arrested for, if it hadn't already happened.

Still, under the guidelines I'm using in the hypothetical situation, a human life -- possibly -- has been ended. And some wish to act (and legislate!) on such a possibility.

And have done so, for that matter, though not to this extent.

===|==============/ Level Head

[firebyrd]

Unfortunately, more and more evidence is piling in that hormonal methods of birth control actually are just preventing implantation rather than ovulation. Your #1 would leave barrier methods as the only reasonable form of BC, and they have a noticeably lower rate of success.

[ihuitl]

I have no problem with spermicide and barriers, which can be effective enough when combined, as well as non-procreative kinds of sex. Unplanned pregnancies can be adopted or the parents can be responsible and settle down.

Either that or I could bite the bullet and draw the line later when the fetus is considered viable. Of course, when you try to nail down life versus nonlife, it soon becomes apparent that life is just a matter of chemistry, which is a notion that most would rather not introduce into the debate.