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.
You're not following along. You said earlier: "I'm disputing the de facto assumption/implication that a human blastocyst is morally equal to that of fully developed humans."
You are trying to create a strawman out of the "pitting" scenario by insisting that my argument must imply that a human blastocyst is morally equal a fully developed human.
However, unless we are choosing the life of the blastocyst over the
life of the mother (rather than the inconvenience, etc of the mother) then no such moral equivalent must be argued, your attempts to strawman aside.
You, on the other hand, say I am selling a pitting argument for emotional appeal while conceding the point by stating that "nature simply puts them in such relative positions". So, you're really playing all the possible angles on this one.
There is simply no question as to abort when this "inconvenience" exist as a danger to the mother's life....
Tougher to defend the elective abortions that make up 97% of all abortions though, hmm? :think:
How many abortions are carried out that are deemed a medical necessity?
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.
More argumentum ad populum. What inconsistencies?
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.
And after 26 weeks, the majority of pro-choice individuals likewise want to "morally dictate a woman's volition when the circumstances of her choice don't morally align to your self-serving moral view".
Or, is it different when they do it?
"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.
Semantics. Call pregnancy whatever you find pleasing, whether an inconvenience or something else. It simply isn't a risk to her life. What term can you think of that better describes a pregnancy than "inconvenience"?
"It's much more"? What is it then,
exactly?
You're good at disagreeing with points without actually making any of your own.
quip said:
I've not presented a full-on argument.
My point
Rather moot one at that...but if it feeds the ego......:idunno:
:chuckle:
How does pointing out that you have not presented an argument feed
my ego? Did it feed your ego when you agreed with me that you indeed have not?
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.
Predictably, you're dodging. Why is it immoral to abort a 27-week-old fetus?
How is my asking you a question a red herring? Someone is grasping alright.
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.
I noted how abortion is very different than war, capital punishment or self defense. You point out yet another way in which it is different.
Yet, my point is toothless :doh:
The human under question is physically attached/physically reliant upon its host at 27 weeks as well as on day 1 so being reliant really isn't a factor in the point you were grasping at.
:idea: Unless, of course, you would like to tell the majority of pro-choice individuals why abortion should remain legal beyond the 26th week. The fetus is certainly reliant on its host beyond this point yet this is the point where the majority of pro-lifer's position flips to mirror that of their pro-life counterparts.
The ambiguities inherent to the proclamation "killing of a human" are simply and conveniently being ignored by you.
They are not being ignored, there are simply not any compelling counter-argument to be had out of any perceived ambiguities.
Explain why a mother should be legally able to abort the human growing inside of her when the abortion is not a medical necessity.
Let ambiguities be your guide.
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.
I never said that they would. Pregnancy is a tough and challenging 9 months to endure, I'm sure. There is no simple solution. I am not here offering a solution or way out of the pregnancy.
As a matter of fact, the simplest panaceas for pregnancy out there is the one you are here defending.
You seem to have the convenient habit of avoiding analogous points by overstating their non-analogous irrelevancies.
Because you overstate irrelevant comparisons. When a pond becomes a lake is a poor comparison to when it becomes immoral to kill an unborn human.
Not being able to say when abortion is moral or immoral only further highlights the untenable nature of the pro-choice position, however, your inability or unwillingness to lay our your own moral proscriptions notwithstanding.
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.
Quite the rebuttal :think:
Logical consistency is suddenly naivety.
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.
quip said:
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:
And this dodge doesn't make that elusive moment you demand any less elusive.
Nice projection there. I call you out for failing to answer a question and you accuse me of dodging.
lain:
Why is abortion at 27 weeks immoral? Your moral proscriptions are so meaty and thoughtful but mine are naive, toothless, emotional, fraught with inconsistencies yadda yadda yadda...because you say so.
It's a personal choice...and per the nature of such choices (and the nature of pregnancy) vagaries exists.
Engaging in sexual activities that are known to result in pregnancy is the crucial choice that was made. If a woman gets pregnant due to choices she made she should be responsible for the consequence of that choice....like with all other choices adults make.
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).
And we both agree that no line should exist at all so this argument is waste of both our time.
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.
I have hardly painted myself in a corner nor have I contradicted myself, your stale declarations notwithstanding.
I brought the point up to show that all unborn are granted legal personhood (in some cases/in some jurisdictions). Do you agree that a zygote, for example, should be granted legal personhood in
any case?
What the law
is isn't the point and never was. I know the law does not agree with my position :duh:. That you think yet another logical fallacy (appeal to authority) will help you here only shows how inept you are at actually constructing and presenting arguments.
