Life begins at conception type question ...?

Question

Please note, I am an atheist, and a Libertarian. I have no personal interest in the abortion issue because I don't have and don't want kids.

Yet, I still find this quite a paradox of logic.

Why would pro-choice people say life doesn't begin at conception and thus abortion is not murder, but then also say the random killing of a pregnant woman and her fetus (Scott Peterson for example) is TWO murders and clamor for the murderer being charged with TWO crimes?

This seems like talking out of both sides of your mouth, regardless of the lack of biological logic. So which way is it?

Answer 1

People who talk from both sides of their mouth (the choice side) are often lying.

It's a fetus when you don't want it and it's a baby when it's wanted.

That side is known for it's lies, distortions and candy coating of information to hide their more sinister side of the real business of killing which they are in.
(notable liars: Planned Parenthood, NOW, Feminist Majority, NARAL, etc. etc.)

Answer 2

You make a good point. I have seen that myself, especially during the Peterson trial.

As for do I think life begins at conception. It was alive before conception. Sperm and eggs are alive... they're just single cells that combined, form a child. As for if I feel abortion is wrong... only when it's used because the woman just doesn't want the responsibility. You wouldn't adopt a child without wanting the responsibility. Then you should take care not to get pregnant if you do not want that responsibility. It's not like we don't know how babies are made. But I do know there are circumstances that warrant an abortion.

I am pro-choice. But not in the general, politically correct, way.

Answer 3

I reject your premise.

There are two ways to respond -- one is that life begins while the baby is still in the womb, and it is a question of viability. In the case of Scott Peterson, the baby was far enough along where he was viable. This is consistent with laws on abortion, as late term pregnancies cannot be aborted.

The second approach would be to say that the killing of a fetus is a crime, but not murder. Pro-choice people believe that the choice is with the mother. The fetus is more like property. It is illegal to destroy the property of another -- so would be illegal to destroy the fetus of another without permission. This argument follows from British Common Law -- where Rape was considered an act of theft from the father or husband of the woman involved.

Answer 4

You may think you've hit a home run but think again First, almost all rules have exceptions, which in and by themselves don't take away from the general rule I've seen many try and convince that an exception invalidates a rule it's a fallacy IMHO most parasitic twins are remnants and thus nonviable and I think most on both sides of the aisle would agree that a removal is the way to go In your example, it is an interesting case (HIGHLY UNCOMMON!!) because it is a head which shows life, an interesting debate can be had between the supporters of life and choice But in the end, no matter what the outcome of such debate, it wouldn't invalidate nor strengthen anyone's position on the issue, as it is a very unusual occurrence (an exception) The exception doesn't invalidate a rule, nice try though Peace

Answer 5

It is a paradox of logic. Agreed. However, I would guess the argument would be that abortion is a choice made by the mother. A women should be allowed to choose what happens to her body.

On the flip side, killing a pregnant women who wants to keep her baby is depriving her of that choice. It's murder because two lives were taken against their will. I would probably venture a guess that this paradox is due to the fact that pro-choice people (myself included) feel that until the time of birth, the mother is the spokeperson for both herself and her unborn child. She is allowed to prevent birth if she so chooses because of this status.

I know that sounds a bit confusing. It's hard to explain some things in this format, obviously. Again, this is just my guess and my take on the issue. There is certain to be other, and probably more logical, explanations for this paradox.

Answer 6

There are all sorts of ambiguities and confusion in your statements.

First, it is almost exclusively the anti-choice side that wants to claim a murder of a pregnant women is a double murder.

Second, I think most pro-choice people would be willing to admit that a just fertilized embryo is "alive". But so was the sperm and the unfertilized embryo.

The question is not does "life" begin at conception, but is a conceived embryo somehow a full human? People who believe that "God" somehow creates a new soul and inserts it into the embryo at conception would say that yes, a just conceived embryo is a full human. Atheists like myself, who think that there is no such thing as a immortal "soul", would say that an embryo is still no more a full human than any other single living cell in a human body is a full human.

Note that I think that every abortion is a tragedy, and I fully support any means that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, as long as such means leaves each woman with ultimate control over her body.

Answer 7

I agree with your point. Since it's murders (Scott Peterson), life begins at conception.

Scientifically, the blood of the fetus has nothing to do with the blood of the mother. The nutrients are passed from the mothers blood to the placenta, then from the placenta to the fetus' blood. Rh factor has been a known fact for years, but not used in this argument, by pro-choice people (for obvious reasons).

Second, actual, separate, distinct brain waves can be measured in the fetus as early (with more modern instruments) 12 days. Brain activity proves life.

Can't argue with science. Can't argue with God. God told Jeremiah that He knew him in his mother's womb. How can God know the person in the womb, unless the fetus is a person?

Answer 8

In my life I am always prochoice but it is a women's right to choose and I don't want that right stripped I do not believe it is a use for birthcontrol

About your question I miscarried a child I wanted badly it was in the second month I was in shock the first day and cried all the next and was emotional a bit after that. Was it just tissue that I lost if it was why did it hurt so much after knowing something was living and growing inside of me.
About Scott Peterson that baby if born at the time of killing was big enough to survive it was his choice to kill both the mother and the baby they found the baby separated from the mothers body

Answer 9

Some people believe that life begins at conception others believe it begins when a child draws his first breath. Others believe that a fetus has a right to be born. Others believe that after some time a fetus has the ability to survive outside the womb even if it is not full term.

Answer 10

I think you've confused the pro-choice people with the anti-choice people. I don't believe that many pro-choice were advocating for the double homicide.

Certainly not me.

I get upset when there's no way to issue a legal document declaring the fetus is a human being, but it's still considered murder. Without the events that would make someone eligible for a birth certificate have not occurred, then the fetus is not a person.

.

Answer 11

I believe most pro choice believe that life begins when a fetus can survive outside of the Mother's womb. That is why you could charge him for two murders. She was in the last part of her pregnancy.