Those Against Abortion yet Pro-Capital Punishment and War

[Ghost of Jaco]

How about we just let a woman decide what she does with her body.

I agree, the entire issue can be summed up with that one sentence.

Agreed.

Good job Kim! 

Not so fast, there, Quicksdraw! There's more THINNING to be done around here, lol! (<---- obscure cultural reference)

Okay, thinking caps on? Minds open to "crunching" logical thoughts? Ok, Let's go!

Assuming that the premise is true (a person owns their own body), then how do we define what it is that one truly owns?
What defines a person's body?

Let's try to reason that out, shall we?
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a busload of people are involved in a crash. Many are hurt, some even losing limbs.
The "first-responders" do an excellent job of triage; they throw the severed limbs into a big container of ice and speed to the hospital, arms, legs, and injured in tow.
Now, some of the limbs can be reattached, but unfortunately some cannot. The cells were deprived of oxygen/blood for too long and have "died".
So, how do the doctors determine which limb or limbs belong to which injured person? Some are going to get their limbs reattached but some are going to be making major lifestyle changes, unfortunately. Now the doctors have to match the limbs with the patient. Which body-part does a particular injured person own is their dilemma.

There's only one way currently available to be REALLY sure and that's a DNA test. We can all agree, I think, that when we say that a person "owns" their body, we mean they own that which is genetically identical. None of the injured bus crash victims can lay claim to someone else's limb. They have no "right" to another's body part. You cannot "own" your body and then claim MY arm as part of your body, because I can prove that it is not using DNA tests. My DNA is not identical to yours, therefore you cannot claim MY body or any part of MY genetic body as part of YOUR genetic body. Any"body" here disagree with this definition of a person's "body" as being that which is genetically identical?

And you certainly have no RIGHT to kill me by claiming I am part of your body and I am an inconvenience; an "accident"; a "mistake" for which you are "just not ready" to take responsibility, now do you? My genetic body belongs to me and yours to you.
Please keep your evil intentions off of my body (unless I give you permission. It is MY body, after all), lol!

One more thing I think we can agree upon: skin cells, blood cells, etc. are living, are they not? In our severed limbs example above, the limbs that could no longer be useful were rendered that way because of "cell death". And , of course, the DNA in any one person's cells is identical; they own their cells (but no one else's, we agreed).

So, we have our agreed-on premise:
"Let a woman person decide what to do with her their body."

And we have our agreed-upon definition of a person's body:
"genetically different from another person's body".

And we agree that human body cells are alive and the cells one can claim as part of their body are genetically identical.

Okay, that's a lot of thinking to do and I am proud of those who stuck with it. Here's the pay-off:
When the sperm cell that one person owns meets an egg cell that another person owns, the DNA of each combine to form a cell that has it's own distinct DNA. It's DNA is identical to neither the sperm cell nor the egg cell. Thus it is a living cell with it's own unique DNA. It quickly begins to divide, and left to mature will produce a genetically unique person.

So, a woman has a "right" to do with her body what she wants, as long as no "body" else is harmed.
The fetus, from the moment of conception, is a separate, living, entity. It is not, genetically, part of a woman's body.
You do not have to be a "religious neocon" (poke!) to reason that if a woman has a "right" to kill a fetus for whatever justification she chooses, then every"body" has a "right" to kill any"body" else with different DNA at any age and for any reason.

Class dismissed.


Oh, wait! Homework assignment: "What about "identical" twins? Aren't they genetically identical"?

[Palehorse]

GOJ- I like the path you are going down here but I believe you make an assumption I disagree with; that life begins at conception. I disagree. Human Life begins with the first breath.

Cells are alive in the respect that they grow, in some cases replicate, and evolve. They are incapable of cognizant thought, as defined within human terms.

The question (or definition if you will) that must be answered first is what is human "life" and when does it begin?

[me]

Not so fast, there, Quicksdraw! There's more THINNING to be done around here, lol! (<---- obscure cultural reference)

Okay, thinking caps on? Minds open to "crunching" logical thoughts? Ok, Let's go!

Assuming that the premise is true (a person owns their own body), then how do we define what it is that one truly owns?
What defines a person's body?

Let's try to reason that out, shall we?
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a busload of people are involved in a crash. Many are hurt, some even losing limbs.
The "first-responders" do an excellent job of triage; they throw the severed limbs into a big container of ice and speed to the hospital, arms, legs, and injured in tow.
Now, some of the limbs can be reattached, but unfortunately some cannot. The cells were deprived of oxygen/blood for too long and have "died".
So, how do the doctors determine which limb or limbs belong to which injured person? Some are going to get their limbs reattached but some are going to be making major lifestyle changes, unfortunately. Now the doctors have to match the limbs with the patient. Which body-part does a particular injured person own is their dilemma.

There's only one way currently available to be REALLY sure and that's a DNA test. We can all agree, I think, that when we say that a person "owns" their body, we mean they own that which is genetically identical. None of the injured bus crash victims can lay claim to someone else's limb. They have no "right" to another's body part. You cannot "own" your body and then claim MY arm as part of your body, because I can prove that it is not using DNA tests. My DNA is not identical to yours, therefore you cannot claim MY body or any part of MY genetic body as part of YOUR genetic body. Any"body" here disagree with this definition of a person's "body" as being that which is genetically identical?

And you certainly have no RIGHT to kill me by claiming I am part of your body and I am an inconvenience; an "accident"; a "mistake" for which you are "just not ready" to take responsibility, now do you? My genetic body belongs to me and yours to you.
Please keep your evil intentions off of my body (unless I give you permission. It is MY body, after all), lol!

One more thing I think we can agree upon: skin cells, blood cells, etc. are living, are they not? In our severed limbs example above, the limbs that could no longer be useful were rendered that way because of "cell death". And , of course, the DNA in any one person's cells is identical; they own their cells (but no one else's, we agreed).

So, we have our agreed-on premise:
"Let a woman person decide what to do with her their body."

And we have our agreed-upon definition of a person's body:
"genetically different from another person's body".

And we agree that human body cells are alive and the cells one can claim as part of their body are genetically identical.

Okay, that's a lot of thinking to do and I am proud of those who stuck with it. Here's the pay-off:
When the sperm cell that one person owns meets an egg cell that another person owns, the DNA of each combine to form a cell that has it's own distinct DNA. It's DNA is identical to neither the sperm cell nor the egg cell. Thus it is a living cell with it's own unique DNA. It quickly begins to divide, and left to mature will produce a genetically unique person.

So, a woman has a "right" to do with her body what she wants, as long as no "body" else is harmed.
The fetus, from the moment of conception, is a separate, living, entity. It is not, genetically, part of a woman's body.
You do not have to be a "religious neocon" (poke!) to reason that if a woman has a "right" to kill a fetus for whatever justification she chooses, then every"body" has a "right" to kill any"body" else with different DNA at any age and for any reason.

Class dismissed.


Oh, wait! Homework assignment: "What about "identical" twins? Aren't they genetically identical"?

You know they're gonna come up with something to counter this don't ya?  I can see it now...but...but...but...
Even though I understand both sides of the argument I still tend toward the no abortion thing.  I'm especially against that partial birth abortion or what ever its called.  That is definitely cruel beyond belief.

[awol]

how 'bout conjoined twins, since we're getting ridiculous?

what about people who are born having absorbed their fraternal twin?   do they have no right to have any remnants removed from their bodies?

[Sandy Eggo]

You know they're gonna come up with something to counter this don't ya?  I can see it now...but...but...but...
Even though I understand both sides of the argument I still tend toward the no abortion thing.  I'm especially against that partial birth abortion or what ever its called.  That is definitely cruel beyond belief.

Is that not what a discussion is? Point, counter point?

So, you're against abortion and you would tell another woman that she doesn't have a right to have an abortion based on YOUR beliefs?

[Ghost of Jaco]

GOJ- I like the path you are going down here but I believe you make an assumption I disagree with; that life begins at conception. I disagree. Human Life begins with the first breath.

Cells are alive in the respect that they grow, in some cases replicate, and evolve. They are incapable of cognizant thought, as defined within human terms.

The question (or definition if you will) that must be answered first is what is human "life" and when does it begin?

I intentionally didn't make any assumptions as to when human life begins, PH.
My argument is to whether a person can claim that which is not genetically identical to themselves a their own and exercise dominion over it (them).  If one of your limbs were in the pile-on-ice and could be reattached, by what criteria could you prove that you owned it?
2) You must prove that it is genetically identical to the rest of your body, and,
1) You must agree that you have a right to your own body parts.

Ok, now take that to a cellular level. Your cells are:
3) living, human, cells
2) They are genetically identical to the rest of your body.
1) You agree that you have a right to your own body parts.

My conclusion is that a woman does NOT have a right to do with as she pleases with living, human cells that do not belong to her.
Or, if she does, then so does every"body" else. I don't address "when life begins" as it is not relevant to my argument.
But I like the way you are thinking, PH!

[Ghost of Jaco]

You know they're gonna come up with something to counter this don't ya?  I can see it now...but...but...but...
Even though I understand both sides of the argument I still tend toward the no abortion thing.  I'm especially against that partial birth abortion or what ever its called.  That is definitely cruel beyond belief.

Of course, and that's a good thing. I made a reasoned, non-religious argument that if a woman has a right to kill cellular tissue that she does not own because it's "inconvenient", then I have a right to, say, kill Ex or dan because they are pompous asses.

Do I have a right to cut off your arm? No.
Why not? Because it's not mine, it's yours.
How do you prove that it's not mine? Because your arm is not genetically identical to my body.
What if I DO have a right to cut off your arm? The you have a right to cut off any"body" else's arm.

[Palehorse]

How about fingerprints (body parts). Easily identifiable and of course there are records of mine related to service, not crime.  These are commonly utilized in the identification of corpses when identification is not available.

But okay, the figerprints were chemically removed in the accident. . . I get it. . .

[Sandy Eggo]

A woman has the right to decide if she wants her body to play host to a clump of nonviable cells whether they are genetically identical or not. It's her body which the required life giving sustance would be obtained from.

[Ghost of Jaco]

how 'bout conjoined twins, since we're getting ridiculous?

what about people who are born having absorbed their fraternal twin?   do they have no right to have any remnants removed from their bodies?

Good questions, awol. I don't know the answers, I am just making an argument from biology.
However, if you plug them into my argument then conjoined twins would have the right to kill each other, but no one else.
Fraternal...is that the one's that are genetically identical? If so then the same would apply. Unless, of course, we agree that a woman has a right to hack off someone else's arm. Then it's OK for EVERYONE to kill ANYONE! Woo-hoo! Saddle up the horse and fetch me my broadsword! I got scores to settle!, lol!


Maybe these would be "corner cases". You know, like rape, incest, and "life of the mother' are often "corner cases" in abortion debates. What do you think?

And it's not ridiculous. I put together a cogent argument. You may argue against it, and by all means do so. But I think you are secretly impressed with my effort. 

[Palehorse]

And although no two person's have identical DNA, the DNA of a fetus would be close enough to the "host" organism, (mother), as to identify it (mother) as its source to a statistically profound exclusion of all others.

In reality a fetus is nothing more than a parasite to the host (female) body; but for the genetic similarity between the host and the parasite the body's immune system would reject it with extreme prejudice.

So, since nature's identification system readily accepts this parasite as a part of the host, it should be easy to say that according to the laws of biology the parasite is in fact a part of the host; providing the host via proxy the legal ability to choose between excising the parasite or bringing it to full term. Or should we be so bold (foolish) as to assume that mankind's laws supercede those of nature?

[me]

A woman has the right to decide if she wants her body to play host to a clump of nonviable cells whether they are genetically identical or not. It's her body which the required life giving sustance would be obtained from.

You know, I didn't think of any of my kids as clumps of nonviable cells at any point during my pregnancy's. 

[Ghost of Jaco]

How about fingerprints (body parts). Easily identifiable and of course there are records of mine related to service, not crime.  These are commonly utilized in the identification of corpses when identification is not available.

But okay, the figerprints were chemically removed in the accident. . . I get it. . .

It is an interesting argument, strictly from biology, no? No need to account for religious beliefs, or trying to figure out when life begins, etc.

It certainly opens up some new questions, such as awol put forth.

[me]

Darn phone interrupted my train of thought now the train has left and my thought with it. 

[Palehorse]

And although no two person's have identical DNA, the DNA of a fetus would be close enough to the "host" organism, (mother), as to identify it (mother) as its source to a statistically profound exclusion of all others.

In reality a fetus is nothing more than a parasite to the host (female) body; but for the genetic similarity between the host and the parasite the body's immune system would reject it with extreme prejudice.

So, since nature's identification system readily accepts this parasite as a part of the host, it should be easy to say that according to the laws of biology the parasite is in fact a part of the host; providing the host via proxy the legal ability to choose between excising the parasite or bringing it to full term. Or should we be so bold (foolish) as to assume that mankind's laws supercede those of nature?

Would not a choice to excise the parasite be a natural one to the host organism? Why not? It happens at the cellular level all the time; think still birth, or death in the womb.

It happens in the food chain too, when dominant male lions kill the offspring of subordinates or rival males. Certainly humankind's ability to reason places us above such instinctual behaviors, or is this in fact a restriction?