Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

That's fine as far as it goes...which is only as far as you, your opinion.

Yes, we are all simply offering our opinion. Did you think we were writing a Supreme Court brief?

Because a blastocyst is a human

And this implies that a blastocyst is the moral human equivalent of you or I...ie.. other persons. So, where's your evidence in support of this implication?

It implies no such thing. Rather, it states a rather simple biological truth; one that several of you seem to be having a bit of trouble wrapping your head around.

When is it moral to kill a human?

Abortions, executions, war, defense of yourself and others.

Executions - assumes guilt of a capital crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt of the condemned.

War - Uniformed soldiers are legitimate targets, civilians are not. Assumes the target is taking part in the war and likewise trying to kill you first.

Defense of yourself and others - Assumes lethal force must be used against the offender in order to save the life of an innocent.

Abortion - ? See how it doesn't fit with the other 3? The human being killed has done what to deserve that fate?

One of these is not at all like the others...

Not to mention, you would actually go as far as to call an abortion "moral", as in the right thing to do? When is an abortion moral?

It is wrong to unnecessarily kill a human
A blastocyst is a human
It is wrong to unnecessarily kill a blastocyst

Premise 2 is weak, (morally) ambiguous and (morally) unsupported.

Premise two is objectively factual but call it weak all you want. Of course the morality is subjective (seeing as how you think having an abortion is moral) but the killing of a human should never be taking lightly (morally) and in all other examples you gave is only done when necessary to prevent harm or render justice.

This is clearly not the case with abortion.

But, let's test your morality. It is immoral to abort a 27 week-old fetus? Why or why not?

The onus is on you to show us why blastocysts are the moral equivalent to you or I.

I have never attempted to claim a "moral equivalent" so that's just something you're making up to distract from the issue. When an abortion occurs, it isn't a choice between an adult human and the unborn human. The mother lives regardless so your challenge is really a red herring.

Never said it did.
What is does do is guarantee persons certain rights and protections..that's why you simply can't out-of-hand dismiss the term... as you're wont to do.

Who defines what is or what isn't a "person"?

The problem is, it's not just her body anymore. Once she has another body growing inside of her both should be given legal consideration.

The problem with this is that it's not about the fetus nor the mother per se..rather its about the nature of pregnancy...to which, of course, the mother holds the default advantages legally, physically and morally. Any controversy regarding the nature of pregnancy - rape, incest, danger to the mother - always falls in favor of the mother's choice. The body growing in side of her does not and should not get (full) legal consideration. Otherwise, you'll only persist in creating moral and legal contradiction.

What (partial) legal consideration should it get?

 

[WizardofOz]

A zygote is not a foetus.

I know. What is the point? They are the same being but in different states of development. So, semantics.

In practice I think the spirit of the law is often good enough for a judge. If all the individual and unique circumstances are not explicitly catered for in law then a judge might decide what is reasonable.

I've never heard of a woman petitioning a court for a later abortion than is legally allowed. Either her doctor will perform one or he/she will not based on established legal/ethical guidelines.

I can't pretend to know what to expect a rape victim to do. She might be in shock or denial etc and may not muster the courage to seek medical attention until after 26 weeks.

Only that isn’t an argument for not allowing a more prompt abortion.

But is it an argument for allowing a later than usual abortion? That is the question/point.

Except that isn’t an argument to prevent a non-cynical use of abortion.

Sure it is. If they are a misuse of medical facilities and/or a sign of incompetence by the woman how are those points (that you gave) not an argument against a woman being granted numerous elective abortions? Should her doctor be required to perform them if he/she becomes frustrated by a woman using medical facilities as personal birth control?

And, what other medical procedure could conceivably be viewed as a misuse of medical facilities as abortion could be? :think:

Perhaps you should try to accept that zygotes are in the main expendable instead of imbuing them with the status of “person”,

I have purposely not done so. What is a "person"? Are all humans "persons" or only some? Now we're wading into the philosophical and not....

which imo could only be a form of spiritual presumption rather than anything supportable by biology.

Biology.

What is and what isn't a person really has little to nothing to do with biology.

Is it a spiritual presumption to say that a toddler is a "person"? It seems you want to frame this as a spiritual/religious vs secular debate but it really isn't. I don't see what spirituality has to do with anything we're discussing. :idunno:

That every lost zygote is not a lost person

This is your philosophical view and is not objectively provable for falsifiable.

Every aborted zygote is a purposely (and usually needlessly) killed human. That is an objective fact.

that lost zygotes are normal and to be expected.

And senior citizens often die. This is also normal and to be expected. Therefore....?

What conclusions can we reach about the expendability of seniors?

 

[WizardofOz]

But, that's not the way the law works. Either any given abortion is legal or it is not.

State by state this couldn't be any more untrue.

:liberals: And in one country they may be illegal but legal in the next. This really misses the point. When a woman walks in to a abortion providing facility, either her obtaining one will be legal or it will not depending on the jurisdiction she is in. There is no grey area in regard to the law in that specific jurisdiction.

A 180 degree switch implies a complete change of mind, not the ability to differentiate nuance. Yeeeeesh.

See above. The same is true with the majority of individuals who consider themselves pro-choice. Once a woman is X weeks along, they feel she should no longer be able to legally obtain an abortion. Since you cannot *kinda* abort, yes, there is a 180 change that occurs. Either "yes" she should be able to legally abort or "no" she should not. Of course there is necessarily a gray area with all pro-choice individuals (is she right at the cutoff?) but not with regard to the law in any given jurisdiction.

That there is necessarily such ambiguous gray area is really only a further indictment of the pro-choice position.

A fetus is one thing. A blastocyst is something else. A blastocyst is potential, at best.

A potential what?

Potential person.

If a fetus is one thing and a blastocyst is a potential person, what is a fetus?

Scientifically and medically a blastocyst and fetus aren't the same thing. I think you're smart enough to know that. If not, do a little reading.

You said that a blastocyst is a potential person only. So, what is a fetus if not only a potential person as with a blastocyst? :think:

Is a fetus more than only a potential? Please be less ambiguous than simply stating that a fetus is "one thing".

 

[Granite]

This really misses the point. When a woman walks in to a abortion providing facility, either her obtaining one will be legal or it will not depending on the jurisdiction she is in. There is no grey area in regard to the law.

Okay, that clarifies what you meant.

See above. The same is true with the majority of individuals who consider themselves pro-choice. Once a woman is X weeks along, they feel she should no longer be able to legally obtain an abortion. Since you cannot *kinda* abort, yes, there is a 180 change that occurs. Either "yes" she should be able to legally abort or "no" she should not. Of course there is gray area (is she right at the cutoff?) but not with regard to the law in any given jurisdiction.

You're speaking of the legality of the issue when I thought you meant more the emotional ramifications. Women can be plenty ambivalent about giving birth or aborting--that is often a gray area, to be sure.

You said that a blastocyst is a potential person only. So, what is a fetus if not only a potential person as with a blastocyst?

Both are potential persons. A fetus is further along, to be sure, and isn't a mere clump of cells. But since you're not interested in personhood and have dismissed the discussion out of hand I'm not sure why you're asking.

 

[WizardofOz]

You're speaking of the legality of the issue when I thought you meant more the emotional ramifications. Women can be plenty ambivalent about giving birth or aborting--that is often a gray area, to be sure.

I am speaking of the legality but I was also referring to the change that happens with the majority of pro-choice individuals. That was really the idea behind the OP and the poll. Other than quip, most pro-choice individuals I know feel that at some point abortion should be illegal. So yes, once a woman is beyond this threshold there is a 180 switch when the otherwise pro-choice individual becomes pro-life in each individual case.

Not many are pro-choice 100% of the time

Both are potential persons. A fetus is further along, to be sure, and isn't a mere clump of cells. But since you're not interested in personhood and have dismissed the discussion out of hand I'm not sure why you're asking.

I didn't ask anything. This is how this particular point began....

I haven't denied as much. It's human matter. Gcthomas has said the same thing. If you're trying to disagree with us it's a gigantic waste of time.

I don't recall gcthomas making that point but I won't split hairs on that particular claim. A toenail is human matter. Sperm is human matter. There is a differentiation to be made between what is human matter and what is a human. A fetus (fertilized egg, blastocysts etc) is a human, albeit at the earliest stage(s) of development.

A fetus is one thing. A blastocyst is something else. A blastocyst is potential, at best.

Yes, of course a fetus is further along than a blastocyst. The point was that a blastocyst is much more than mere human matter. It is a human, albeit at a very early stage of development.

Comparing it to a toenail or even sperm is a gigantic waste of time and is a failure to accurately identify what exactly is being discussed.

 

[Granite]

I didn't ask anything. This is how this particular point began....

Yeah, you did. And it's this kind of comment that makes me think you're just interested in hearing yourself talk and being contrary.

Lemme spell out what just happened. You asked: "So, what is a fetus if not only a potential person as with a blastocyst?"

I answered. Hope that clears things up.

The point was that a blastocyst is much more than mere human matter.

Then you don't seem to really understand what a blastocyst is.

It is a human, albeit at a very early stage of development.

You tried to sidestep a discussion about personhood but really all you're trying to do is have your cake and eat it too. You're actually saying "a blastocyst is a human being," in other words, a person. You're just using hair splitting to avoid using the specific phrase, for whatever reason.

 

[IMJerusha]

You're morally lumping blastocysts with person/humans and proclaiming it immoral to kill them. The subjective assertion "You can't kill a human." does not necessarily nor simply follow if you include blastocysts into that group....you've provided no evidence as why we should morally include blastocysts, you just gave everyone your subjective opinion. :idunno:

If I may, Quip, blastocysts are differentiated. In other words, a human being can only give rise to a human blastocyst and a human blastocyst can only give rise to a human being. Unless you can show me that a human blastocyst can give rise to a dog or a cat or some other creature (not that all life isn't precious to God), therein lies the reasoning for proclaiming that if you destroy a human blastocyst, you've destroyed a human being.

 

[alwight]

A zygote is not a foetus.

I know. What is the point? They are the same being but in different states of development. So, semantics.

No I don’t think so, one of them is more likely to die before being able to develop, react or be even become remotely aware of being alive, the other can be pretty much expected to do all that. But only one has a built-in element of expendability imo, I’ll let you work out which imo that is.

In practice I think the spirit of the law is often good enough for a judge. If all the individual and unique circumstances are not explicitly catered for in law then a judge might decide what is reasonable.

I've never heard of a woman petitioning a court for a later abortion than is legally allowed. Either her doctor will perform one or he/she will not based on established legal/ethical guidelines.

The law is a guide in most cases, going to court is where it would get thrashed out if need be. I wouldn’t be too surprised if a certain amount of latitude slipped by unchallenged or unnoticed from time to time.

I can't pretend to know what to expect a rape victim to do. She might be in shock or denial etc and may not muster the courage to seek medical attention until after 26 weeks.
Quote:

Only that isn’t an argument for not allowing a more prompt abortion.

But is it an argument for allowing a later than usual abortion? That is the question/point.

I’m not arguing for late term abortions unless there are reasonable medical grounds. I am very much pro-choice for what I think are good pragmatic reasons best known to the woman concerned, and against a dogmatic refusal of choice, perhaps based only on how third parties feel personally or what their religious doctrine seems to say about abortions. If medical opinion was that in the woman’s best interest a late term abortion would be a possibly least-worst action to take then so be it.

Except that isn’t an argument to prevent a non-cynical use of abortion.

Sure it is. If they are a misuse of medical facilities and/or a sign of incompetence by the woman how are those points (that you gave) not an argument against a woman being granted numerous elective abortions? Should her doctor be required to perform them if he/she becomes frustrated by a woman using medical facilities as personal birth control?

And, what other medical procedure could conceivably be viewed as a misuse of medical facilities as abortion could be? :think:

I really don’t think you should seek to deny a reasonable course of action to some women because of others who may misuse it.
A “non-cynical” abortion doesn’t qualify as misuse or a sign of incompetence in my book, it might be that the normal method of contraception simply failed for some reason.

Perhaps you should try to accept that zygotes are in the main expendable instead of imbuing them with the status of “person”,

I have purposely not done so. What is a "person"? Are all humans "persons" or only some? Now we're wading into the philosophical and not....

Then you are imbuing them with some quality that they simply don’t have short of a religious or spiritual conviction.

which imo could only be a form of spiritual presumption rather than anything supportable by biology.

Biology.

What is and what isn't a person really has little to nothing to do with biology.

Is it a spiritual presumption to say that a toddler is a "person"? It seems you want to frame this as a spiritual/religious vs secular debate but it really isn't. I don't see what spirituality has to do with anything we're discussing. :idunno:

What else is there if not biology or spiritual? There is nothing about a cell with an albeit unique DNA that has any capacity to be aware of anything. If it’s just biology then allow the extant woman, who is biology, to have a reasonable choice.

That every lost zygote is not a lost person

This is your philosophical view and is not objectively provable for falsifiable.

Every aborted zygote is a purposely (and usually needlessly) killed human. That is an objective fact.

A human what? Cell?
You really need offer rather more than that to deny others a choice.

that lost zygotes are normal and to be expected.

And senior citizens often die. This is also normal and to be expected. Therefore....?

What conclusions can we reach about the expendability of seniors?

So, People live and people die, what has this to do with a woman’s right to control what happens to her body and perhaps her future life too? Is this a slippery slope argument, I’m not advocating for the right to kill old people/persons?

 

[alwight]

therein lies the reasoning for proclaiming that if you destroy a human blastocyst, you've destroyed a human being.

If you put "potential" before "human being" then I'd agree.

 

[IMJerusha]

If you put "potential" before "human being" then I'd agree.

Again, you would have to show me what other potential a human blastocyst could possibly have other than the potential to become a human being. Do we kill it because we're afraid it will become the Incredible Hulk?...What?

 

[alwight]

Again, you would have to show me what other potential a human blastocyst could possibly have other than the potential to become a human being. Do we kill it because we're afraid it will become the Incredible Hulk?...What?

There are perhaps a virtually infinite number of potential human beings possible. A blastocyst is a potential human being, not an actual human being.

 

[IMJerusha]

There are perhaps a virtually infinite number of potential human beings possible.

Infinite? Uh, no, not from one blastocyst.

A blastocyst is a potential human being, not an actual human being.

Yeah?...make a human being without one!

 

[gcthomas]

Infinite? Uh, no, not from one blastocyst.

Yeah?...make a human being without one!

The 'potentially' does make it 'actually'. A pile of bricks is potentially a house, but if you knock over a pile of bricks that is not the same a knocking down a house.

You can't make a house without the bricks, but they are not the same regardless.

 

[alwight]

Infinite? Uh, no, not from one blastocyst.

I didn't say one, there is a virtually infinitely different possibility for DNA that would represent a human.

Yeah?...make a human being without one!

It's still only information and a starting point on how to make a human being.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yeah, you did. And it's this kind of comment that makes me think you're just interested in hearing yourself talk and being contrary.

Lemme spell out what just happened. You asked: "So, what is a fetus if not only a potential person as with a blastocyst?"

I answered. Hope that clears things up.

In my last post I directly quoted that entire portion of our conversation. You ambiguously said that fetus is one thing but a blastocyst is only a potential person. So, what is a fetus if not a potential person?

You're not exactly being clear with the point you're trying to convey there. And no, you didn't answer that even after being asked to clarify. I get condescending one-liners but no actual clarification.

Then you don't seem to really understand what a blastocyst is.

More condescending one-liners :sigh:
Anyway, sure I do. Explain the difference between a sperm and a blastocyst, biologically speaking and maybe you'll understand my point. "Human matter" is also rather ambiguous. A toenail is human matter. A toenail will not develop into....anything.

You tried to sidestep a discussion about personhood but really all you're trying to do is have your cake and eat it too. You're actually saying "a blastocyst is a human being,"

I never said human being your desire to put words in my mouth notwithstanding. I am being careful and precise with my words for good reason.

in other words, a person. You're just using hair splitting to avoid using the specific phrase, for whatever reason.

I've given ample reasons...repeatedly. Again, this just shows that you would prefer to put words in my mouth than attempt to actually understand my position.

 

[quip]

If I may, Quip, blastocysts are differentiated. In other words, a human being can only give rise to a human blastocyst and a human blastocyst can only give rise to a human being. Unless you can show me that a human blastocyst can give rise to a dog or a cat or some other creature (not that all life isn't precious to God), therein lies the reasoning for proclaiming that if you destroy a human blastocyst, you've destroyed a human being.

I'm not disputing that. Rather I'm disputing the de facto assumption/implication that a human blastocyst is morally equal to that of fully developed humans. In my view...they're not one and the same thus, lumping them together (morally) is wholly subjective.

 

[quip]

Yes, we are all simply offering our opinion. Did you think we were writing a Supreme Court brief?

LOL...no we're not yet, some opinions stand up more so to the rigors of logic than others.

It implies no such thing. Rather, it states a rather simple biological truth; one that several of you seem to be having a bit of trouble wrapping your head around.

No, you're taking this biological truth beyond simple fact notation. Rather you're implying that this brute, scientific, biological fact IS a moral claim against the act of abortion. It no such thing....its mearly a brute fact sans subjective interpretation. This is what you "need to get your head around."

Executions - assumes guilt of a capital crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt of the condemned.

War - Uniformed soldiers are legitimate targets, civilians are not. Assumes the target is taking part in the war and likewise trying to kill you first.

Defense of yourself and others - Assumes lethal force must be used against the offender in order to save the life of an innocent.

Abortion - ? See how it doesn't fit with the other 3? The human being killed has done what to deserve that fate?

I wasn't equating the four, just giving you the examples you asked for. The fetus hasn't done anything ....simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One of these is not at all like the others...

They're all different; they're all the same...depends on context. :idunno: Point?

Not to mention, you would actually go as far as to call an abortion "moral", as in the right thing to do? When is an abortion moral?

To save the life of the mother..an obvious one...otherwise, you have every moral right to remove an intrusion upon your body. In this case death ensues, thus the controversy.

Premise two is objectively factual but call it weak all you want. Of course the morality is subjective (seeing as how you think having an abortion is moral) but the killing of a human should never be taking lightly (morally) and in all other examples you gave is only done when necessary to prevent harm or render justice.

This is clearly not the case with abortion.

No, it's quite weak used within the syllogistic context you're attempting to support.

But, let's test your morality. It is immoral to abort a 27 week-old fetus? Why or why not?

lain: Are you being disingenuous?
You know my position here quite well, personally I believe that its immoral to abort at 27 weeks, but my moral opinions hold no obligation to others.

I have never attempted to claim a "moral equivalent" so that's just something you're making up to distract from the issue. When an abortion occurs, it isn't a choice between an adult human and the unborn human. The mother lives regardless so your challenge is really a red herring.

Yet, you've implied it, evident by this very argument and your arguable position within it.

Who defines what is or what isn't a "person"?

You...I...society.

What (partial) legal consideration should it get?

I'm all for protection (from third-party violence, for example) for the fetus...I'm not claiming that the fetus has zero worth. That's simply an oft used lifer straw-man.

 

[WizardofOz]

No I don’t think so, one of them is more likely to die before being able to develop, react or be even become remotely aware of being alive, the other can be pretty much expected to do all that. But only one has a built-in element of expendability imo, I’ll let you work out which imo that is.

How are higher rates mortality linked to expandability? This is what I keep asking you.

Is an adult human in a persistent vegetative state expendable? Are the elderly expendable? The former is likely to die before being able to react or even become remotely aware of being alive, the latter is likely to die and has a relatively high rate of mortality compared to younger members of the species.

How is any of this linked to expandability?

An individual in a persistent vegetative state has a very low probability of ever becoming self aware again. Even zygotes of blastocysts have a higher probability. Does this indicate expandability of those in a PVS? Are they no longer "persons" and can therefore be electively killed off?

The law is a guide in most cases, going to court is where it would get thrashed out if need be. I wouldn’t be too surprised if a certain amount of latitude slipped by unchallenged or unnoticed from time to time.

Unfortunately you are right, even when the late-term abortion results in the death of a young woman.

I really don’t think you should seek to deny a reasonable course of action to some women because of others who may misuse it.

A “non-cynical” abortion doesn’t qualify as misuse or a sign of incompetence in my book, it might be that the normal method of contraception simply failed for some reason.

But when does elective abortion become a misuse of medical facilities and/or a sign of incompetance on behalf of the woman receiving them?

After the 1st? 2nd? 4th? 7th? If the 7th is gross misuse and incompetence then the first must also be, even if to a lesser degree.

I have purposely not done so. What is a "person"? Are all humans "persons" or only some? Now we're wading into the philosophical and not biological

Then you are imbuing them with some quality that they simply don’t have short of a religious or spiritual conviction.

:liberals: Not really, I just asked some questions...

Are you imbuing a 27-week-old fetus with some quality they simply don't have short of religious or spiritual conviction because you don't think they should be legally aborted save severe circumstance?

You've got a bit of a double standard.

What else is there if not biology or spiritual? There is nothing about a cell with an albeit unique DNA that has any capacity to be aware of anything. If it’s just biology then allow the extant woman, who is biology, to have a reasonable choice.

Even the cell is likewise extant. The cell also has more potential to become aware of something (even if not the current capacity) than humans in a PVS but we cannot legally put a pillow over their face and snuff them out.

Is the future potential more important and valuable than the present capacity?

A human what? Cell?
You really need offer rather more than that to deny others a choice.

It's not just a human cell. It is a human that is a cell. I am not arguing for legal protections of human cells I am arguing for the legal protection of all humans, regardless of developmental state or capacity to feel pain or capacity to be aware etc.

So, People live and people die, what has this to do with a woman’s right to control what happens to her body and perhaps her future life too?

It is tied to your expandability argument of humans with high rates of mortality.

Is this a slippery slope argument, I’m not advocating for the right to kill old people/persons?

I'm simply looking for a consistent standard.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm not disputing that. Rather I'm disputing the de facto assumption/implication that a human blastocyst is morally equal to that of fully developed humans. In my view...they're not one and the same thus, lumping them together (morally) is wholly subjective.

The argument doesn't need to be that they are morally equal. An abortion does not pit the life of the unborn versus life of the mother in some death-match scenario. Allowing the fetus to live doesn't mean that the mother must die so your characterization is a bit of a red herring. Even if pro-life individuals feel they are morally equal, it need not be the argument to have or red herring for you to try to debunk.

LOL...no we're not yet, some opinions stand up more so to the rigors of logic than others.

Forgive me if I have missed it but you are yet to present a logical argument yourself. I do not mean this to be condescending but you are simply cynical of pro-life arguments without presenting counter-arguments of your own.

No, you're taking this biological truth beyond simple fact notation. Rather you're implying that this brute, scientific, biological fact IS a moral claim against the act of abortion. It no such thing....its mearly a brute fact sans subjective interpretation. This is what you "need to get your head around."

Do the unborn have objective moral worth? As long as the unborn are treated as persons in criminal cases such as DUI manslaughter, I would say that they do.

Can a mother go to trial and declare that she had intended on aborting anyway so the offender didn't actually commit the act of manslaughter?

Several states grant legal personhood to the unborn at any state of development:

Alabama - defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability

Arizona - define negligent homicide, manslaughter and first and second degree murder. The law specifies that the offenses apply to an unborn child at any stage in its development.

Arkansas - defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child of 12 weeks or more gestation.

etc etc.

Even though many go on to allow for abortion, they legally declare the unborn as "persons".

Does this impact your idea of personhood at all?

I wasn't equating the four, just giving you the examples you asked for. The fetus hasn't done anything ....simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You must admit that abortion is very different than the other three examples given.

To save the life of the mother..an obvious one...otherwise, you have every moral right to remove an intrusion upon your body. In this case death ensues, thus the controversy.

Is the unborn more or less of an intrusion at 8 months than it is at 8 weeks? Yet, no you cannot remove the intrusion at this point so that argument is....weak

No, it's quite weak used within the syllogistic context you're attempting to support.

Let's take your above example and test it for syllogism...

You have every right to remove an intrusion upon your body
Being 8 months pregnant is an intrusion upon your body
You have every right to remove an 8 month old fetus from your body

:think:

You're better at being cynical of arguments than you are presenting valid counter arguments.

lain: Are you being disingenuous?
You know my position here quite well, personally I believe that its immoral to abort at 27 weeks, but my moral opinions hold no obligation to others.

Is it immoral to abort at 26 weeks, 25 weeks, 24 weeks? When does the morality change from moral to immoral? That is the distinction this thread is trying to discover.

I have never attempted to claim a "moral equivalent" so that's just something you're making up to distract from the issue. When an abortion occurs, it isn't a choice between an adult human and the unborn human. The mother lives regardless so your challenge is really a red herring.

Yet, you've implied it, evident by this very argument and your arguable position within it.

No, I have not, regardless of these half-baked attempts to pigeonhole me. Debate what I've said and not was you're simply declaring that I have implied.

Who defines what is or what isn't a "person"?

You...I...society.

So when certain states declare that all unborn are legal "persons", you of course disqualify this out of hand?

I'm all for protection (from third-party violence, for example) for the fetus...I'm not claiming that the fetus has zero worth. That's simply an oft used lifer straw-man.

Either the unborn is worthy of legal protection or it isn't. It shouldn't matter if it is the mother and her doctor taking its life or a drunk driver. The circumstance of death does not nullify the value of the life taken.

 

[quip]

The argument doesn't need to be that they are morally equal. An abortion does not pit the life of the unborn versus life of the mother in some death-match scenario. Allowing the fetus to live doesn't mean that the mother must die so your characterization is a bit of a red herring. Even if pro-life individuals feel they are morally equal, it need not be the argument to have or red herring for you to try to debunk.

:bang:
You don't seem to be grasping the implications of your own argument. No one is "pitting" the mother against the unborn. Your argument simply - by default - makes a moral declaration that human life (as a whole) is sacred. Thus by including blastocysts into this moral catagory of sacred human life you're, in effect, asserting that blastocysts are the moral equal to fully developed human beings...sans any supporting argumentation.

Forgive me if I have missed it but you are yet to present a logical argument yourself. I do not mean this to be condescending but you are simply cynical of pro-life arguments without presenting counter-arguments of your own.

I've not presented a full-on argument...I'm simply - piece-meal - deconstructing yours.

Do the unborn have objective moral worth? As long as the unborn are treated as persons in criminal cases such as DUI manslaughter, I would say that they do.

Can a mother go to trial and declare that she had intended on aborting anyway so the offender didn't actually commit the act of manslaughter?

Several states grant legal personhood to the unborn at any state of development:

Alabama - defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability

Arizona - define negligent homicide, manslaughter and first and second degree murder. The law specifies that the offenses apply to an unborn child at any stage in its development.

Arkansas - defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child of 12 weeks or more gestation.

etc etc.

Even though many go on to allow for abortion, they legally declare the unborn as "persons".

Does this impact your idea of personhood at all?

I have no idea the relevance of this to what I posted but I'll answer nonetheless.

Again, I've no problems giving ad hoc personhood status (protection) to the unborn under certain circumstances. (Though the propensity for political abuse makes this rather risky.) This is generally what I was referring to earlier.

You must admit that abortion is very different than the other three examples given.

Ok...rather insignificant to the overall issue - but if it makes you happy....

Is the unborn more or less of an intrusion at 8 months than it is at 8 weeks? Yet, no you cannot remove the intrusion at this point so that argument is....weak

It's simply a principle of liberty and bodily sovereignty yet, not an absolute one (no rights or principles are). At some point you must consider the unborn; while the state, by month 8, holds a compelling interest in the well-being of this unborn child.
Your response here comes off more like an emotional knee-jerk one rather than a salient point of debate.

Let's take your above example and test it for syllogism...

You have every right to remove an intrusion upon your body
Being 8 months pregnant is an intrusion upon your body
You have every right to remove an 8 month old fetus from your body

:think:

You're better at being cynical of arguments than you are presenting valid counter arguments.

Again, I've yet to flesh out an argument. Moreover, I've never made the argument you've presented here. This is no more than a straw-man joke.

Is it immoral to abort at 26 weeks, 25 weeks, 24 weeks? When does the morality change from moral to immoral? That is the distinction this thread is trying to discover.

Good question. Kind of like asking at what exact milliliter of water does a pond transpire into a lake. You know what a pond is and likewise what a lake is but that exact moment of transformation is rather elusive. I believe you're simply chasing will-o-wisps here..if that is indeed your motivations behind this thread.

No, I have not, regardless of these half-baked attempts to pigeonhole me. Debate what I've said and not was you're simply declaring that I have implied.

Then you've no overriding point to make. Oz: :sozo: Scientific Brute Fact: A blastocyst is human....... lain: ............. lain:..........:idunno:... :nightall:

I mean... this is no more a science class than it is a Supreme Court briefing. :chuckle:

So when certain states declare that all unborn are legal "persons", you of course disqualify this out of hand?

I could.. I suppose but it would be rather useless.

Either the unborn is worthy of legal protection or it isn't. It shouldn't matter if it is the mother and her doctor taking its life or a drunk driver. The circumstance of death does not nullify the value of the life taken.

Black/White reasoning now? You just gave me hyperlink examples of ad hoc situations where the unborn are granted special personhood privileges for the sake of justice...and now this "either or" mentality? You're contradicting yourself...I believe you need to step back and review your debate tactics a bit more. :think: