Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[alwight]

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?

You seem pretty determined to use the word “expandable” here rather than the expected “expendable”? I’ll assume the latter however.
I consider zygotes to be expendable because most do fail in the natural order of things and there seems to be no material reason to grant them the status of a “human being” or to worry for the ones lost. If you however think that each one is a full human being with equivalent rights to live then this world must seem like a far crueler and ghastly place to you than perhaps it actually is or can be from my own perspective.
If you don’t agree then that’s up to you but you still haven’t explained why I should think your way.
Shouldn’t we be trying for a higher zygote success rate as we strive to help people live longer and more active lives, with some success too? Shouldn’t we be financing medical research programs into why most zygotes fail and then attempt to do something to stop this apparently dreadful waste? Or maybe the scientific opinion is more in keeping with my own and that it doesn’t need fixing, that’s just the way it is?

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.

Fudging the rules is often how things work in the most part; there are usually no absolutes in real life even if legislation has to be set up that way. Some people are rather keener to feather their own nests than to keep even to the spirit of the law if not the letter. As indicated when they run away instead of honestly facing up to the consequences of what they do.

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.

But that all rather depends on the actual intent not on enforcing some arbitrary number. It’s far more important to me that honest people are not denied a choice and to do so because you say that some will be abusing the facilities would be being disingenuous imo because you actually don’t want any woman to have that choice.

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
Quote:

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.

Because I may happen to think that a line must be drawn somewhere doesn’t mean I have “double standards”. But in a way though you’re right because at one point in a pregnancy I think a particular standard should apply, while at a later point in time I think a different standard should be applied. I don’t see anything wrong with that because they don’t both apply at the same time.

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?

Now I think you’re simply being unnecessarily dogmatic. A person who has lived, has experiences and memories perhaps still occupying part of their CNS is not the same thing at all. You can apply your same reasoning here to any number of potential zygotes that never were because the sperm and egg were never allowed to meet.

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.

But it is only a human cell, why not hold fire until it is more than that and thus allow a woman some liberty to choose? I rather think that perhaps controlling others with your dogma is, after all, your real agenda here?

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.

Anyone who knows me knows that if nothing else I am expandable.

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.

You won’t get it if two different standards can reasonably and rationally be applied at different times.

 

[Granite]

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?

"Ambiguously"? No, "simply" is how I'd put it. And I've answered this question twice now: A fetus is a potential person.

I am being careful and precise with my words for good reason.

Wrong, you're being evasive and slippery because you don't want to get into a discussion about personhood. Why, I don't know. Maybe you're not comfortable with it or the implications of whatever your position happens to be. Maybe you don't want to acknowledge the logical conclusion of your position is that a blastocyst is a human being: A person, in other words, as loathe as you are to use the word. (Again, less than honest. Quip's right in calling you disingenuous.) But again, you're trying to have it both ways. Avoiding the "P Word" is less than honest, but it's the only way you can avoid stepping into a minefield you already declared off-limits.

 

[WizardofOz]

"Ambiguously"? No, "simply" is how I'd put it. And I've answered this question twice now: A fetus is a potential person.

When you say that "a fetus one thing" and then say that a blastocyst is a potential person at best, it leads me to believe you are differentiating somehow between the two. Now you're declaring them both only "a potential person" so I'm not sure why you set out to differentiate in the first place.

If you had a point you were trying to make, it's long been lost in layers of ambiguous equivocation.

Wrong, you're being evasive and slippery because you don't want to get into a discussion about personhood. Why, I don't know.

I'm not being evasive or slippery, I'm being careful with my argument. You want to talk about personhood, that's fine with me. But, when you say you don't know why I'm hesitant to give any weight to the term, it shows you have not been paying attention as I explained why numerous times in this thread. You jumped in at the 11th hour but couldn't be bothered to get up to speed before accusing me of being evasive, slippery and disingenuous.

Maybe it's just you being lazy :idunno:

Maybe you're not comfortable with it or the implications of whatever your position happens to be. Maybe you don't want to acknowledge the logical conclusion of your position is that a blastocyst is a human being: A person, in other words, as loathe as you are to use the word.

Is there a difference between a human and a human being? A person and a human being? A person and a human?

Without getting into completely subjective philosophy, a fetus (blastocyst, etc) is a human. That fact alone suffices for my argument.

You feel other caveats are required. I do not.

(Again, less than honest. Quip's right in calling you disingenuous.) But again, you're trying to have it both ways. Avoiding the "P Word" is less than honest, but it's the only way you can avoid stepping into a minefield you already declared off-limits.

There is nothing disingenuous about it. I have been completely upfront and honest and you hi-fiving quip hardly comes as a surprise. I clearly laid out why I view the topic as deflective but you keep brining it up without addressing or even acknowledging the concerns.

"You won't talk about personhood"
"I will but it is a deflective rabbit hole. We could even discuss it in this other thread I created just for this topic"
"yeah but you won't talk about personhood"

What about personhood would you like to discuss or do you find relevant or (more importantly) objectively provable? That I linked you to another thread I created entitled "what is a person" really shows me declaring the topic off-limits lain:

 

[Granite]

When you say that "a fetus one thing" and then say that a blastocyst is a potential person at best, it leads me to believe you are differentiating somehow between the two.

Wrong. I said previously they are both potential persons. So either you missed it or you're thinking I said something I didn't. Having to repeat myself to you makes me think you're skimming my posts, not reading them.

I'm not being evasive or slippery, I'm being careful with my argument. You want to talk about personhood, that's fine with me.

:rotfl:

Except when you said it wasn't.

Is there a difference between a human and a human being?

"He's a human" and "he's a human being" seem interchangeable in my book.

A person and a human being?

I don't believe so. You seem to. You refuse to refer to blastocysts or fetuses as "persons," but you do come up close and insist on referring to them as "humans," which again means the word "person" sticks in your craw when referring to a clump of cells, though you demand we acknowledge their "humanity." Once again: You're trying to have it both ways.

A person and a human?

No, but you're the one splitting hairs on this one and insisting on a differentiation or a refusal of personhood's acknowledgment. A person is a human being; a human being is a person; a fetus and a blastocyst are neither. Potential persons, yes; human matter, absolutely. But I won't bestow humanity or personhood on a blastocyst. I'm willing to speak very clearly to what I believe. You're not.

Without getting into completely subjective philosophy, a fetus (blastocyst, etc) is a human. That fact alone suffices for my argument.

There you go again. See above. You seem deeply uncomfortable referring to a blastocyst as a "person," and once again, for the record: A fetus is not a blastocyst. Either a "human" is a "person" or not, wiz. Straddling the fence usually doesn't have a happy ending.

 

[quip]

I consider zygotes to be expendable because most do fail in the natural order of things and there seems to be no material reason to grant them the status of a “human being” or to worry for the ones lost. If you however think that each one is a full human being with equivalent rights to live then this world must seem like a far crueler and ghastly place to you than perhaps it actually is or can be from my own perspective.
If you don’t agree then that’s up to you but you still haven’t explained why I should think your way.
Shouldn’t we be trying for a higher zygote success rate as we strive to help people live longer and more active lives, with some success too? Shouldn’t we be financing medical research programs into why most zygotes fail and then attempt to do something to stop this apparently dreadful waste? Or maybe the scientific opinion is more in keeping with my own and that it doesn’t need fixing, that’s just the way it is?

Well said. :thumb:

Such common sense seems to be lacking on the lifer side of the aisle.

 

[IMJerusha]

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.

Nor does the potential of something negate it's real presence and value but should rather increase it.

 

[IMJerusha]

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.

When one considers that one can not be had without the other, where is the logic in not treating them equally? It is the blastocyst that actually carries the greater importance as it is the building block of the human being and in many cases more than one human being.

 

[alwight]

When one considers that one can not be had without the other, where is the logic in not treating them equally? It is the blastocyst that actually carries the greater importance as it is the building block of the human being and in many cases more than one human being.

The logic is that it can indeed be reasonable for a woman to be able to freely choose an early abortion rather than be told by some that she is killing a human being/person when evidentially she would not be.

 

[WizardofOz]

:bang:
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.

You pit them against each other when you declare that since a mother has moral worth and the unborn does not, or does but to a lesser degree, and can therefore be unnecessarily killed. You are pitting their worth against each other, despite the fact that the mother is not being threatened in any way. She is only inconvenienced for a few months....at worst.

This perceived inconvenience, which is most likely due directly to willful actions of the mother, is insufficient to allow the unnecessary killing of the unborn.

Inconvenience of one human does not outweigh the death of another.

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.

Again, they don't need to be the moral equal. You keep shoving that argument out there but it isn't one I have made nor need to make.

I've not presented a full-on argument.

My point.

..I'm simply - piece-meal - deconstructing yours.

:chuckle:
That's laughable. I'm sure you're quite the legend in your own mind. Why is it immoral to abort a 27 week old fetus, quip? Let's talk about your moral proscriptions for a change and we'll see how your attempted deconstructing goes.

Several states legally declare all unborn "persons"

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.

So a particular human is a person in one case but then not in the other depending on who would do that human mortal harm. I think we both know it is logically and morally unsustainable and see the risk for abuse but for opposite reasons.

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

It is significant. You offered self-defense, war, execution and abortion as justifiable rationalizations for the willful killing of another human. Abortion is completely different than the other three in necessity, motive et al.

In the other three cases you are killing to (potentially/likely) preserve the life of another human. This is decidedly not the case with abortion.

Calling the lack of necessity in the killing of a human insignificant to the overall issue of human killing (and when it's OK/moral) is convenient given your position but is akin to sticking your head in the sand for convenience sake.

you have every moral right to remove an intrusion upon your body.

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.

quip - you said "you have every moral right to remove an intrusion upon your body."

If you don't actually have a moral right to remove an intrusion then your statement has been debunked by your own logic.

Good job! You finally piece-meal - deconstructed an argument. Sorry that it had to be yours.

Seriously though, this is where pro-choice logic fails and why it is untenable. The "intrusion", as you so eloquently called pregnancy, can be removed until it cannot/should not.

The unborn can be killed...until it can/should not. A pro-choicer can effectively debate and debunk their own position depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

Pro-choice logic eventually deteriorates and the switch is made.

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.

Another eloquent comparison. Blurring the line between a pond and a lake doesn't result in human death.

Noted is your refusal to address the question. It's there whenever you feel up to it. You said aborting at 27 weeks is immoral so there is a line that is crossed even with your 'who knows' sense of morality.

You're really putting the untenable nature of the pro-choice position on display. When is it immoral to kill a human? You cannot even answer because 'it's like trying to determine when a pond becomes a lake, so :idunno:'

:doh:

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.

I hope Granite reads this.

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:

:chuckle: I am not contradicting myself, I simply showed precedent of all unborn being legally recognized as "persons", which flies in the face of your (and others) objection in this thread. I didn't write the laws for these states I simply pointed out that such law exists.

Yes, when the result is death it is black and white. You cannot kinda sorta abort. The unborn is either killed or isn't.

 

[WizardofOz]

You seem pretty determined to use the word “expandable” here rather than the expected “expendable”? I’ll assume the latter however.

Yes, sorry. I notice that this happens a lot when posting from my Ipad. Words suddenly change to what Steve Job's ghost thinks I mean.

I consider zygotes to be expendable because most do fail in the natural order of things and there seems to be no material reason to grant them the status of a “human being” or to worry for the ones lost. If you however think that each one is a full human being with equivalent rights to live then this world must seem like a far crueler and ghastly place to you than perhaps it actually is or can be from my own perspective.
If you don’t agree then that’s up to you but you still haven’t explained why I should think your way.

Again, I am concerned with humans intentionally killing other humans not the elderly or unborn dying by entirely natural causes.

Abortion is something humans are in control of, zygotes naturally failing or the elderly dying in their sleep is not.

Shouldn’t we be trying for a higher zygote success rate as we strive to help people live longer and more active lives, with some success too? Shouldn’t we be financing medical research programs into why most zygotes fail and then attempt to do something to stop this apparently dreadful waste? Or maybe the scientific opinion is more in keeping with my own and that it doesn’t need fixing, that’s just the way it is?

All sound like noble pursuits but I am not in the medical field. I am sure that such research and financing is going on.

Fudging the rules is often how things work in the most part; there are usually no absolutes in real life even if legislation has to be set up that way. Some people are rather keener to feather their own nests than to keep even to the spirit of the law if not the letter. As indicated when they run away instead of honestly facing up to the consequences of what they do.

But that woman would likely be alive had she not sought an abortion. Abortion is rarely a medical necessity and more likely put the mother in harms way, unnecessarily.

But that all rather depends on the actual intent not on enforcing some arbitrary number. It’s far more important to me that honest people are not denied a choice and to do so because you say that some will be abusing the facilities would be being disingenuous imo because you actually don’t want any woman to have that choice.

I don't but this is about your position. There must be law otherwise there will be no limits. It cannot be left up to the doctor and the ability of the mother-to-be to create an effective sob story in order to be granted a late-term abortion.

The point is, when you say a woman seeking her 7th abortion is a misuse of medical facility and sign of incompetence, the 1st must also be if even to a lesser degree.

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

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.

Because I may happen to think that a line must be drawn somewhere doesn’t mean I have “double standards”.

If the reason for my pro-life position can only be due to religious or spiritual conviction but your pro-life view (once that threshold has been crossed) is not necessarily due to religious or spiritual conviction, it shows a double standard.

We agree that the line must be drawn somewhere. I believe what you do but consistently from day 1 and it does not necessarily have anything to do with religious or spiritual conviction.

Why do you feel it must?

But in a way though you’re right because at one point in a pregnancy I think a particular standard should apply, while at a later point in time I think a different standard should be applied.

:thumb: Exactly right. Nearly all pro-choice individuals do. Further, when that standard changes, it changes from one polar opposite to the other. Yet, ways are found to rationalize this shift as somehow logical. What variable changes that makes it such? Why the moral hesitation in allowing a 28 week-old fetus from being killed? Suddenly the choice of the mother is irrelevant trumped by arbitrary factors. Third party values are now what matter.

Nearly all pro-choice arguments are ultimately rendered untenable.

Now I think you’re simply being unnecessarily dogmatic. A person who has lived, has experiences and memories perhaps still occupying part of their CNS is not the same thing at all.

So the (perhaps) capacity is more valuable than future probability? Most in a PVS will never recover even if the capacity to reanimate is theoretically possible. Why value their existence more than a zygote who if left to nature ultimately will have the capacity?

I find the value system backward even if I would personally choose to protect them both.

But it is only a human cell, why not hold fire until it is more than that and thus allow a woman some liberty to choose?

It is not simply a human cell. A skin cell is a human cell. It is a human. I feel all human life is worth protecting.

I rather think that perhaps controlling others with your dogma is, after all, your real agenda here?

:idea: Or could my agenda be what I have said it is, to protect human life regardless of age or state of development?

What dogma? Is it a desire to control others later on when you feel the life should be protected? You cannot demonize my position without demonizing what is eventually your position as well.

When you come to my side in desiring to protect any given unborn based on state of development, I'll simply asked what took you so long. Ultimately, however, your view mirrors mine in desiring legal protection.

Anyone who knows me knows that if nothing else I am expandable.

:rotfl:

I enjoy our chats, alwight. You're able to discuss without the childish antics and vitriol. I appreciate that.

 

[quip]

When one considers that one can not be had without the other, where is the logic in not treating them equally? It is the blastocyst that actually carries the greater importance as it is the building block of the human being and in many cases more than one human being.

You're simply referring to potentiality...not actuality. You're taking a retroactive moral view and projecting your valuation backwards. There's no logic to this...mere revisionist sentimentality.

 

[WizardofOz]

Wrong. I said previously they are both potential persons.

You're still missing it.

What was the point of your distinction i.e. "a fetus is one thing a blastocyst is something else. A blastocyst is potential, at best."

You made a point to differentiate so saying they are both "potential persons" does nothing to clarify why you made a point to create a distinction between the two in the first place.

:rotfl:

Except when you said it wasn't.

Also not at all what I said.

I did say "What a person is is not objectively definable. We would offer our personal opinion on the matter and it would settle nothing."

I also asked "What about personhood would you like to discuss or do you find relevant or (more importantly) objectively provable?"

You want to discuss it, by all means.... That's why I also invited you (twice) to the thread actually entitled "what is a person?"

If you're intent on discussing it here, that's fine. What about "personhood" would you like to chat about?

"He's a human" and "he's a human being" seem interchangeable in my book.

Is a fetus a human? If so, then by your understanding of the words being used, the fetus is also a human being. Correct?

A person and a human being

I don't believe so. You seem to. You refuse to refer to blastocysts or fetuses as "persons,"

This is why we have to have this discussion to avoid talking past one another. I've had numerous pro-choice individuals say a person and a human being are interchangeable but a human and a human being are not. You clearly understand these words to mean different things.

This is why it's tough to have discussions using terms that are undefinable, objectively speaking. They may mean different things to different people.

but you do come up close and insist on referring to them as "humans,"

I refer to them as humans because that is what they objectively and indisputably are. It's a good starting point to progress the conversation. They way, we both know exactly what the other is referring to.

which again means the word "person" sticks in your craw when referring to a clump of cells, though you demand we acknowledge their "humanity."

What does "humanity" mean to you? See the problem with a lot of the words tied to this particular topic? :think:

No, but you're the one splitting hairs on this one and insisting on a differentiation or a refusal of personhood's acknowledgment. A person is a human being; a human being is a person; a fetus and a blastocyst are neither. Potential persons, yes; human matter, absolutely.

If "human" and "human being" seems interchangeable and the above is also true then a fetus demonstrably is a person and a human being because they are undeniably human (noun).

If everything is interchangeable in your book then you either must qualify or disqualify a fetus from all possible terminology we've laid out.

You want to label a fetus a "clump of cells" but is that scientifically precise? I think we can do better.

But, if that's the best you can do, fine. We will, however, have to clarify exactly what it means and represents.

So, when does a human progress beyond "clump of cell" stage and how are the semantics relevant to abortion?

I said earlier, "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."

I find referring to fetuses, blastocysts etc as humans is a bit more accurate and precise than "human matter" or "clump of cells".

 

[alwight]

You seem pretty determined to use the word “expandable” here rather than the expected “expendable”? I’ll assume the latter however.

Yes, sorry. I notice that this happens a lot when posting from my Ipad. Words suddenly change to what Steve Job's ghost thinks I mean.

A ghost in the machine.

I consider zygotes to be expendable because most do fail in the natural order of things and there seems to be no material reason to grant them the status of a “human being” or to worry for the ones lost. If you however think that each one is a full human being with equivalent rights to live then this world must seem like a far crueler and ghastly place to you than perhaps it actually is or can be from my own perspective.
If you don’t agree then that’s up to you but you still haven’t explained why I should think your way.

Again, I am concerned with humans intentionally killing other humans not the elderly or unborn dying by entirely natural causes.

Abortion is something humans are in control of, zygotes naturally failing or the elderly dying in their sleep is not.

Which imo is exactly why you should be thinking my way, that zygotes at least cannot be “a” human since it is only a human cell. The intent of the woman not to be pregnant can be tolerated even if not exactly personally approved by you. :idea:

Shouldn’t we be trying for a higher zygote success rate as we strive to help people live longer and more active lives, with some success too? Shouldn’t we be financing medical research programs into why most zygotes fail and then attempt to do something to stop this apparently dreadful waste? Or maybe the scientific opinion is more in keeping with my own and that it doesn’t need fixing, that’s just the way it is?

All sound like noble pursuits but I am not in the medical field. I am sure that such research and financing is going on.

I’m no expert either but I’m not aware of any attempts to rectify what is after all how humans have generally evolved to be imo. Some here might even accuse science of playing God if they tried to reengineer our basic functioning, while there may even be an obscure practical reason for it being that way.

Fudging the rules is often how things work in the most part; there are usually no absolutes in real life even if legislation has to be set up that way. Some people are rather keener to feather their own nests than to keep even to the spirit of the law if not the letter. As indicated when they run away instead of honestly facing up to the consequences of what they do.

But that woman would likely be alive had she not sought an abortion. Abortion is rarely a medical necessity and more likely put the mother in harms way, unnecessarily.

That would be an argument for not using abortion as a casual birth control, and also people have died from cosmetic surgery too, so ban it too yes?

But that all rather depends on the actual intent not on enforcing some arbitrary number. It’s far more important to me that honest people are not denied a choice and to do so because you say that some will be abusing the facilities would be being disingenuous imo because you actually don’t want any woman to have that choice.

I don't but this is about your position. There must be law otherwise there will be no limits. It cannot be left up to the doctor and the ability of the mother-to-be to create an effective sob story in order to be granted a late-term abortion.

The point is, when you say a woman seeking her 7th abortion is a misuse of medical facility and sign of incompetence, the 1st must also be if even to a lesser degree.

I think the law should allow for at least an element of personal choice and avoid being dictatorial as much as possible.

Because I may happen to think that a line must be drawn somewhere doesn’t mean I have “double standards”.

If the reason for my pro-life position can only be due to religious or spiritual conviction but your pro-life view (once that threshold has been crossed) is not necessarily due to religious or spiritual conviction, it shows a double standard.

We agree that the line must be drawn somewhere. I believe what you do but consistently from day 1 and it does not necessarily have anything to do with religious or spiritual conviction.

Why do you feel it must?

Well I and others keep asking you what exactly is so special about a reasonably early term foetus, even a zygote, which to you seems to make it sacred and untouchable. So much so that you’d deny a woman’s right to control what happens to her own body. Shouldn’t there be a very special and demonstrable material reason for doing that if there is no spiritual or religious convictions involved?

But in a way though you’re right because at one point in a pregnancy I think a particular standard should apply, while at a later point in time I think a different standard should be applied.

:thumb:Exactly right. Nearly all pro-choice individuals do. Further, when that standard changes, it changes from one polar opposite to the other. Yet, ways are found to rationalize this shift as somehow logical. What variable changes that makes it such? Why the moral hesitation in allowing a 28 week-old fetus from being killed? Suddenly the choice of the mother is irrelevant trumped by arbitrary factors. Third party values are now what matter.

Nearly all pro-choice arguments are ultimately rendered untenable.

But the circumstances gradually change over time until a tipping point is reached when the law suddenly gives rights to the foetus over the woman. I don’t see a problem with that other than there is a rather large grey area that probably can’t be covered particularly well in law.
Why must the same rules apply throughout a pregnancy?

Now I think you’re simply being unnecessarily dogmatic. A person who has lived, has experiences and memories perhaps still occupying part of their CNS is not the same thing at all.

So the (perhaps) capacity is more valuable than future probability? Most in a PVS will never recover even if the capacity to reanimate is theoretically possible. Why value their existence more than a zygote who if left to nature ultimately will have the capacity?

I don’t think the medical profession is particularly dogmatic about it. Individual cases are assessed and dealt with on the individual circumstances not a dogma. Who actually wants to keep people lingering on unnecessarily or prolonging pain?

I find the value system backward even if I would personally choose to protect them both.

But you want to prevent any freedom of choice for the woman and her pregnancy while I wonder what latitude you would allow at the other end of life? Would you insist that in every case everything possible is done to prolong life at all costs no matter how much pain they were in?

But it is only a human cell, why not hold fire until it is more than that and thus allow a woman some liberty to choose?

It is not simply a human cell. A skin cell is a human cell. It is a human. I feel all human life is worth protecting.

Since it isn’t spiritual or religious then what is it exactly that is so special about it? :bang:

I rather think that perhaps controlling others with your dogma is, after all, your real agenda here?

:idea:Or could my agenda be what I have said it is, to protect human life regardless of age or state of development?

What dogma? Is it a desire to control others later on when you feel the life should be protected? You cannot demonize my position without demonizing what is eventually your position as well.

If the woman has had her reasonable chance to choose then at some point my vote goes to the foetus, sorry if you can’t reconcile that, but I am pro-choice not pro-dogma.

When you come to my side in desiring to protect any given unborn based on state of development, I'll simply asked what took you so long. Ultimately, however, your view mirrors mine in desiring legal protection.

Only because at some point imo the foetus acquires enough rights of its own, not that I always thought it had them or any.

Anyone who knows me knows that if nothing else I am expandable.

:rotfl:

I enjoy our chats, alwight. You're able to discuss without the childish antics and vitriol. I appreciate that.

Me too actually , if you started cussing me then I really would know I’d struck home while for some getting abusive with people they don’t happen to agree with seems to be quite normal from the start.

 

[quip]

You pit them against each other when you declare that since a mother has moral worth and the unborn does not, or does but to a lesser degree, and can therefore be unnecessarily killed. You are pitting their worth against each other, despite the fact that the mother is not being threatened in any way. She is only inconvenienced for a few months....at worst.

This perceived inconvenience, which is most likely due directly to willful actions of the mother, is insufficient to allow the unnecessary killing of the unborn.

Nature simply puts them in such relative positions...the woman simply acts in accordance to her rights. You're selling this so-call "pitting" scenario simply because it befits your agenda for high emotional appeal. There is simply no question as to abort when this "inconvenience" exist as a danger to the mother's life ....moreover, many choicers as well as lifers also agree the same when said conception is beget from violence/incest. You're position is fraught with inconsistencies and overwrought drama. You simply want to morally dictate a woman's volition when the circumstances of her choice don't morally align to your self-serving moral view.

Inconvenience of one human does not outweigh the death of another.

"Inconvenience" is simply your subjective and conveniently diminishing spin on the issue...It's much more than this to a woman who's making the choice.

Again, they don't need to be the moral equal. You keep shoving that argument out there but it isn't one I have made nor need to make.

Then, again, you've no further point to make. The status quo which exists - that the unborn are protected under certain circumstances - should suffice for you.

But it doesn't... does it Oz? :think:

My point.

Rather moot one at that...but if it feeds the ego......:idunno:

:chuckle:
That's laughable. I'm sure you're quite the legend in your own mind. Why is it immoral to abort a 27 week old fetus, quip? Let's talk about your moral proscriptions for a change and we'll see how your attempted deconstructing goes.

Red herrings only illustrate the deconstructing effect. You're grasping.

So a particular human is a person in one case but then not in the other depending on who would do that human mortal harm. I think we both know it is logically and morally unsustainable and see the risk for abuse but for opposite reasons.

Actually, the unborn is granted temporary status...I wouldn't misconstrue this as actual personhood lest it's rendered redundant legislation. Yes, its logically questionable while also existing as the brain-child of the irrational, anti-choice right.

It is significant. You offered self-defense, war, execution and abortion as justifiable rationalizations for the willful killing of another human. Abortion is completely different than the other three in necessity, motive et al.

In the other three cases you are killing to (potentially/likely) preserve the life of another human. This is decidedly not the case with abortion.

Pregnancy is, as well, a rather a unique scenario ....as compared to the other three. Nowhere within the other scenarios is the moral status of the human under question nor physically attached/physically reliant upon it's host. Apple/Oranges.

Another toothless point you've uttered once again.

Calling the lack of necessity in the killing of a human insignificant to the overall issue of human killing (and when it's OK/moral) is convenient given your position but is akin to sticking your head in the sand for convenience sake.

It's not convenience but rather discernment. The ambiguities inherent to the proclamation "killing of a human" are simply and conveniently being ignored by you....thus I could likewise accuse you of placing your head in a similar, convenient sandy orifice.

quip - you said "you have every moral right to remove an intrusion upon your body."

If you don't actually have a moral right to remove an intrusion then your statement has been debunked by your own logic.

Good job! You finally piece-meal - deconstructed an argument. Sorry that it had to be yours.

Seriously though, this is where pro-choice logic fails and why it is untenable. The "intrusion", as you so eloquently called pregnancy, can be removed until it cannot/should not.

The unborn can be killed...until it can/should not. A pro-choicer can effectively debate and debunk their own position depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

Pro-choice logic eventually deteriorates and the switch is made.

Again, in the real world such principles don't entail simple panaceas. The only one arguing for (unattainable) absolute answers here are you and your pro-life ilk. It's time to wake-up to inconvenient realities.

Another eloquent comparison. Blurring the line between a pond and a lake doesn't result in human death.

You seem to have the convenient habit of avoiding analogous points by overstating their non-analogous irrelevancies.

Seriously though, this is where pro-choice logic fails and why it is untenable. The "intrusion", as you so eloquently called pregnancy, can be removed until it cannot/should not.

The unborn can be killed...until it can/should not. A pro-choicer can effectively debate and debunk their own position depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

Pro-choice logic eventually deteriorates and the switch is made. analogies Seriously though, this is where pro-choice logic fails and why it is untenable. The "intrusion", as you so eloquently called pregnancy, can be removed until it cannot/should not.

The unborn can be killed...until it can/should not. A pro-choicer can effectively debate and debunk their own position depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

Pro-choice logic eventually deteriorates and the switch is made.

Again, such principle don't always lend themselves to simplistic panaceas. The only ones naively seeking easy absolute answers are you and your pro-life ilk.

Another eloquent comparison. Blurring the line between a pond and a lake doesn't result in human death.

And this dodge doesn't make that elusive moment you demand any less elusive.

Noted is your refusal to address the question. It's there whenever you feel up to it. You said aborting at 27 weeks is immoral so there is a line that is crossed even with your 'who knows' sense of morality.

You're really putting the untenable nature of the pro-choice position on display. When is it immoral to kill a human? You cannot even answer because 'it's like trying to determine when a pond becomes a lake, so :idunno:'

:doh:

It's a personal choice...and per the nature of such choices (and the nature of pregnancy) vagaries exists. As far as the law/state is concerned, their "compelling interest" must draw a line somewhere. Hence, the fervor over where this line should be (or exist at all).

:chuckle: I am not contradicting myself, I simply showed precedent of all unborn being legally recognized as "persons", which flies in the face of your (and others) objection in this thread. I didn't write the laws for these states I simply pointed out that such law exists.

Yes, when the result is death it is black and white. You cannot kinda sorta abort. The unborn is either killed or isn't.

This "precedent" is temporarily assigned and granted only under specific legal circumstances. The brute fact that such legislation is itself promulgated logically infers that the residing status of the unborn is not one consisting of unalienable personhood. What you seek is unassailable black and white answers to a issue that cannot have one...you simply contradicted yourself by the very evidence you presented. Sorry if you can't see the inherent contradiction you painted yourself in the corner with....but don't blame me for your shortcomings.

 

[IMJerusha]

You're simply referring to potentiality...not actuality. You're taking a retroactive moral view and projecting your valuation backwards. There's no logic to this...mere revisionist sentimentality.

Regardless of my view, and sentimentality notwithstanding, the actuality is that a destroyed blastocyst can not reach its potential.

 

[IMJerusha]

The logic is that it can indeed be reasonable for a woman to be able to freely choose an early abortion rather than be told by some that she is killing a human being/person when evidentially she would not be.

The evidence and scientific fact is that without a blastocyst, a human being can not be. Therefore, anyone destroying such is destroying a human being.

 

[quip]

Regardless of my view, and sentimentality notwithstanding, the actuality is that a destroyed blastocyst can not reach its potential.

It happens naturally millions of times a day.

 

[alwight]

The evidence and scientific fact is that without a blastocyst, a human being can not be. Therefore, anyone destroying such is destroying a human being.

No only a few human cells in actuality, however, logically you must also oppose any contraception for very similar reasons, preventing a potential human being, right?

 

[IMJerusha]

It happens naturally millions of times a day.

What occurs naturally is not subject to morality.

 

[IMJerusha]

No only a few human cells in actuality, however, logically you must also oppose any contraception for very similar reasons, preventing a potential human being, right?

A few human cells that are in the process of becoming a mature human being in actuality.
I don't have a problem with contraception providing the ovum is not fertilized. Once it is fertilized, it is no longer contraception but rather the destruction of a human being in process.