Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[IMJerusha]

Then ask an OB-GYN. In layman's terms I think the phrase works just fine.

Why would a layman use a term that a physician would not, be it an OB-GYN or Pathologist? If you've never read a pathology abortion report, I suggest you do so.

I worked in a pathology lab. In the middle of an abortion examination, the pathologist held up with tweezers a crudely broken human leg with attached foot, all the toes perfectly formed, shook it in my face and said "This is what you did to your baby." I was only two weeks along at the time of my abortion and he knew that. He didn't call my baby a "clump of cells". He called it my "baby" and he was right to do so.

 

[Granite]

Why would a layman use a term that a physician would not, be it an OB-GYN or Pathologist?

How in the world do you consider this a serious question?

If you've never read a pathology abortion report, I suggest you do so.

I'm sure I have a couple lying around the house somewhere.

 

[WizardofOz]

What was the point of your distinction i.e. "a fetus is one thing a blastocyst is something else.

It's not my distinction; it's a medical one.

Is that what medical professionals say? They say "a fetus is one thing a blastocyst is something else".

Sounds precise.

One happens to be further along in the process.

:liberals:
You were taking time to point out that a fetus is further along in the process than a blastocyst?

Why? :idunno:

And I posted there. Sorry if you missed it.

Thank you. I have been AFK for a while. I will mosey on over :thumb:

Is a fetus a human?

I've already said no. Several times.

Please explain to me when human development begins; when does a new human form and begin to develop?

Once there is a new unique human DNA we have a new human and this happens on conception. The key to understand it is: Human DNA: is what makes us different from other species. Unique DNA: because that makes it a different human than the parents. Therefore: a fetus is not only a human is also a unique human.

Let me know where we differ.

This is why we have to have this discussion to avoid talking past one another.

:rotfl: Rich coming from you. See above.

Well, I just displayed why it is important. You don't feel that a human fetus is a human. Fine, words mean different things to different people. Most every pro-choice individual I've had similar discussions with acknowledge that a human fetus is a human but at least now I know what you are, and what you are not, referring to.

I refer to them as humans because that is what they objectively and indisputably are.

And I would disagree. So yeah, this is very much a disputable issue.

Well anything can be disputable.

Let's try this: A human zygote is not a human, rather it is ____________.

What is a zygote if not a human?

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).

I see, so now you're willing to play the P Word. This boils down to usage: "You're only human" isn't the same as "you're only a human being."

But you said earlier:

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

"You're only human" isn't the same as "you're only a human being."
BUT:
"He's a human" and "he's a human being" seem interchangeable.

I am not talking about figures of speech here. I am talking about (biological, philosophical) classifications.

As I have said--before--I believe personhood is recognizable and undeniable when brain waves/heart beat are first detected. (I actually said this on your personhood thread. Did you not even check there?)

I will take this there as well but you've put markers on your position. A heartbeat is detectable by 3 week and brain waves by 7 weeks.

Therefore, either you feel all elective abortion should be illegal after 7 weeks or your personhood distinction is a red herring and has nothing at all to do with your argument about the legality of elective abortion. :think:

 

[WizardofOz]

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.

Why do you think that this needs to be pointed out or feel that it has any relevancy whatsoever in this discussion?

Old people die...everyday...from natural causes. An abortion is not a natural death.

Do you have a point to make about the unborn dying naturally and how this relates to abortion?

 

[Granite]

Is that what medical professionals say? They say "a fetus is one thing a blastocyst is something else".

...my being a layman might have something to do with it, you drip.:loser:

Grow up.

You were taking time to point out that a fetus is further along in the process than a blastocyst?

For a guy who demands "precision" you should appreciate why I made the distinction.

Please explain to me when human development begins; when does a new human form and begin to develop?

Development's one thing, personhood's another.

Let me know where we differ.

I don't believe zygotes or blastocysts are "human beings" or "persons." If you don't get that by now you never will. Hopefully you won't insist on me spelling out and repeating what I believe one more time.

Let's try this: A human zygote is not a human, rather it is ____________.

One. More. Frigging. Time. I believe a zygote is human matter and a potential person. Are you dense, deliberately stupid, or just trolling at this rate?

I will take this there as well but you've put markers on your position. A heartbeat is detectable by 3 week and brain waves by 7 weeks.

I have held this position since my time on TOL. Sorry it's a revelation to you this late in the game.

Therefore, either you feel all elective abortion should be illegal after 7 weeks...

I believe exceptions must occasionally be kept in place. I'm not an absolutist on this issue.

 

[12jtartar]

If you believe abortion should be legal, do you believe it should be legal for the duration of pregnancy or is there some cutoff point after which you feel it should no longer be a legal option?

If you choose an option that includes "up to a certain period during pregnancy", please explain where this distinction should be made and why.

I'd like to keep posts limited to those who consider themselves pro-choice for at least the first page or two.

If I missed an option, let me know!

Wizardofoz,
Since I did not create life, I must turn to the one who did, and find out what He think about terminating a started life. I believe that Ex 21:22, 23, touches on that question. Read and think!!

 

[12jtartar]

Attica! . . . Attica! . . .

Silent Hunter,
Where, might I ask, will this belief lead me, or YOU???

 

[IMJerusha]

Clearly I don't see it quite that way, if it hadn't been me it would have been someone else.

It doesn't matter how you see it. The biological fact is that no two blastocysts are identical. Each are unique. You are one of a kind.

No, I simply made a bald assertion just as you did, I really don't claim to know but if you want to simply assert things like that then fine I can do the same.

Since I acknowledge, understand and recognize the value of life in all it's stages from God's perspective, it is not a bald assertion on my part.

Yes, the two terms are not mutually exclusive even if some theists seem to have a hard time with that idea.

It's simple English regardless of ones beliefs.
From the Free Dictionary online:
Agnostic:
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Atheist:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

 

[IMJerusha]

Sure, in the same way I am grateful that my parents decided to have sex prior.

So what?

Don't you think that all individuals conceived should have the ability to say that? What makes you better than they?

 

[IMJerusha]

How in the world do you consider this a serious question?

Since when does being a layman divest one of the necessity for accuracy within a specific subject?

I'm sure I have a couple lying around the house somewhere.

Droll and ineffective. You have access to the internet. Use it.

 

[WizardofOz]

...my being a layman might have something to do with it, you drip.:loser:

Grow up.

I've never felt the need to talk down to you or call you names.

I need to grow up though. lain:

For a guy who demands "precision" you should appreciate why I made the distinction.

I think a fetus being further along in the process than a blastocyst was already firmly established.

Please explain to me when human development begins; when does a new human form and begin to develop?

Development's one thing, personhood's another.

I clearly asked about human development.

I don't believe zygotes or blastocysts are "human beings" or "persons." If you don't get that by now you never will. Hopefully you won't insist on me spelling out and repeating what I believe one more time.

If you take the time to read closely, I never referred to them as either of the two. I don't need you to spell our or repeat answers to questions that I have not asked.

Let's try this: A human zygote is not a human, rather it is ____________.

I believe a zygote is human matter and a potential person.

When does a human zygote or fetus become a human? Don't answer if the answer is identical to when a human zygote or fetus becomes a person.

I have held this position since my time on TOL. Sorry it's a revelation to you this late in the game.

Sorry, I left my notebook at home.

Therefore, either you feel all elective abortion should be illegal after 7 weeks...

I believe exceptions must occasionally be kept in place. I'm not an absolutist on this issue.

Can you offer any examples of what you feel should be permissible exceptions?

 

[Granite]

The two exceptions that come to mind would be sexual assault or a danger to the mother's life. Nothing too surprising there.

 

[IMJerusha]

The two exceptions that come to mind would be sexual assault or a danger to the mother's life. Nothing too surprising there.

Been there, done that.....no excuse!

 

[alwight]

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.

Every human begins this same way. Biologically speaking, when does human development begin? A zygote is a human even if only at the very first stages of development.

No a zygote is not a human, it has no specific human attributes at all and no humans are being lost with each failed zygote.

The intent of the woman not to be pregnant can be tolerated even if not exactly personally approved by you. :idea:

I am not arguing against the intent not to become pregnant but once she's pregnant the intent is secondary as whether she intended to be or not, she is pregnant.

Best intentions and all....

Nevertheless she did not want to be pregnant so for me she doesn’t have to be if say contraception failed, I see no moral distinction at all.

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?

Both unnecessarily put the patient at risk but only one also seeks to kill a human. If a person wants cosmetic surgery, they are the only one at risk. An abortion puts both the mother and child-to-be at risk, resulting in the death of the latter.

So, apples and something other than apples

So we can agree that talking about any risks involved to the woman would be a red herring unless you feel a need to ban other people from having cosmetic surgury. However a human zygote is a human zygote not a human being.

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.

Allowing all abortion regardless would be avoiding being dictatorial as much as possible, would it not? That statement doesn't exactly reflect your position as you're OK with being dictatorial but on your terms.

Is getting an elective abortion a misuse of medical facilities and a sign of incompetence by the mother? Again, if the 7th is, even the 1st must be in your view, even if to a lesser degree.

I would personally allow any elective abortion unless I thought the foetus might have acquired enough human rights of its own. I wouldn’t call a limit on a woman whom I thought was abusing facilities since I don’t see any risks other than to the woman. She however may need some counselling about her whole situation imo.

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?
Quote:

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?

That special and demonstrable material reason is that the early term fetus, even a zygote, is a developing human.

Why can you not tell me what specifically is special? If and when a foetus exists and becomes more significantly developed then that original cell has perhaps ceased to be or is now totally inconsequential to the foetus.

What exactly is so special about a 27 week old foetus, 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?

Will you kindly answer mine? ^

But I could probably point to many now existing physical human attributes that exist at 27 weeks that would arguably give it at least some human rights of its own. Surely this is obvious?
I simply conclude there would now be perhaps two sets of conflicting individual human rights and if the woman has already had a choice in the matter then that’s it for me unless other factors exist. Why do you think that I would be hell bent on always wanting an abortion? I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice rather as I was about dogma.

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?

In part, you offered an answer to the question.

I’ve never suggested it is always easy although at the start and end of a pregnancy there isn’t any great problem imo.

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 do not necessarily want to do so and this highlights my point. The individual lingering unnecessarily currently has more of a right to not be killed when they have much closer to a zero probability of being a thinking "person" again. Whereas, the human developing inside a womb has a much higher probability of becoming so but can be killed for any or even no reason at all.

This, to me, is backward.

If you could tell me what is so special about a zygote that makes it as important as an extant person then I could perhaps understand your thinking. Yes it may be called a potential person but it simply isn’t one unless it becomes one, while the chances are it won’t.

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?

Off topic but with end-of-life care and planning the individual can make a conscious choice to consent to their own death. The unborn has no such say obviously.

Do not force people to live artificially if they do not want to. I am all for letting nature take its course in both beginning of life and end of life care.

I see that you perhaps want to avoid making possibly tough choices and don’t want anyone else to be able to either if they have chosen not to be pregnant at that time. And perhaps nature or life does conspire sometimes against what is actually wanted by extant persons. Yet you apparently want to prevent informed human choices and actions being taken intended to be for the best outcome of real persons, in real situations, in favour of letting nature take its course.
Cancer is often nature taking its course btw. lain:

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

The same things that you feel are special about a 27-week-old fetus.

As covered above, I can point to actual human attributes at 27 weeks and if the woman has already had a reasonable opportunity to choose then my main objective anyway is already fulfilled.

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.

Exactly, you are pro-choice...until you're not. Are you then pro-dogma?

You keep implying that my position is based on dogma, please explain why you feel it must be. Keep in mind of pro-life atheists/agnostics like fool or Rusha when you do.

If you simply don’t want to even consider the choices and the specific circumstances of extant women and instead seek to impose your view on others then sorry that looks close enough to dogma for me not to make much difference.
Am I being dogmatic? No I’m simply concluding that at some point a foetus has accrued enough rights to rival the woman’s, I don’t really have any room for dogmatism by my criteria without making an arbitrary choice between the two parties.

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

Do you agree with the states that declare all unborn "persons" in regard to (criminal) acts other than (legal) abortion?

I quoted them earlier and can again for reference if you're unsure what I am referring to.

IIRC you mean if a pregnant woman was a victim of physical assault then her foetus is considered a person too. Well, if I can presume initially that the pregnant woman knew and wanted to be pregnant then afaic my own previous time criteria no longer need apply and is fine by me, there is indeed another legal “person” involved for the purposes of prosecuting, even if I might otherwise argue that in fact for the purposes of abortion choice there is no actual person.
Whether another person actually did exist is perhaps a different matter.
If you want to suggest a slightly different scenario then I’ll try to decide on the individual specific details but I have no great dogmatic interest in favouring or being fair and reasonable to criminals who themselves don’t have respect for other people’s lives.

 

[alwight]

Clearly I don't see it quite that way, if it hadn't been me it would have been someone else.

It doesn't matter how you see it. The biological fact is that no two blastocysts are identical. Each are unique. You are one of a kind.

As would someone else if they had occupied my mother’s womb instead of me.

No, I simply made a bald assertion just as you did, I really don't claim to know but if you want to simply assert things like that then fine I can do the same.

Since I acknowledge, understand and recognize the value of life in all it's stages from God's perspective, it is not a bald assertion on my part.

Other believers in your God may or may not simply accept what you say I really don’t know but I’m not such a person.

Yes, the two terms are not mutually exclusive even if some theists seem to have a hard time with that idea.

It's simple English regardless of ones beliefs.
From the Free Dictionary online:
Agnostic:
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Atheist:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Your selected dictionary confirms that indeed I am an atheist because I don’t believe in any gods, good. This doesn’t require that I know or think it is knowable that no gods exist.
Some atheists will claim to know that gods don’t exist and might be described as gnostic/atheists, since they claim that such knowledge is knowable. Many theists claim to know their god exists and I would call them gnostic/theists.
A similar sentence could be constructed for agnostic theists and atheists who both do not claim that such knowledge is knowable nor will say they know, but they can both tend to believe or disbelieve.
My not believing in specific gods is not the same thing as knowing or being able to know that gods do or don’t exist. Belief and knowledge are two different things.

 

[TruthSetsFree]

the poll may as well say

Wehn is murder acceptable?

when the mother doesn't want the child

when the mother would lose her figure

etc....

Murder is NEVER acceptable... ​

 

[quip]

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."

I'm following along quite fine...much better than you it seems. This "pitting" idea was your brain-child. Again, I'm still waiting on your response on why we should - de facto - treat a blastocyst the moral equal of the mother who's carrying it. What is your logical rationale behind this assumption? It's as simple as that. The whole "pitting" idea is your- seemingly confused - straw-construction.

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.

No, there is no "pitting" to speak of, you're simply dodging my question. Let me rephrase. Is the life of a blastocyst the moral equal to that of the mother's life? If so, defend; if not, why should we care if it gets aborted?

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.

No, this is mere obfuscation. Your initial moral position (we don't kill humans) implies that the human blastocyst is the moral equivalent of you, I and the mother carrying it, thus we're not morally justified to kill it. All I'm asking you is to defend that implication.

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.

What else am I supposed to conclude about your drawn-out scenarios with little to no relevance to the argument?

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?

None of my concern.

More argumentum ad populum. What inconsistencies?

Not at all...simply showing the absurd inconsistencies of subjectively assinging absolute morality to a blastocyst. You can decipher the logical inconsitency here can't you?

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?

I don't speak for "they"...I speak for me and I speak for that pregnant woman's right to a personal choice in the matter.

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?

Hard to speak for millions of women. Emotional reactions to pregnancy and the choice of whether or not to abort may be all up and down the spectrum...all I know it that tagging this choice as an "inconvenience" is merely a convenient game of semantics played by you, who holds (again, conveniently) only an idealistic stake in a academic abortion debate....not to mention insulting to those that have given the choice considerable thought.

You're good at disagreeing with points without actually making any of your own.

You're good at constructing easily disagreeable points. YOU are my best argument. :chuckle:

: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?

I dunno...you tell me! You're the one appearing boastful about advertising that I've yet to give a full-on argument. I've alluded to my position here-and-there in the course of challenging yours. I think you're better off worrying about your own argument...as it's not going too well for you!

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.

Because I'm not the one on TOL suggesting to everyone that my personal moral views on abortion are the ones that should be adopted by the entire pregnant population of this country.

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:

Whoopie!

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.

Why shouldn't it be legal beyond the 26th week? My personal position on abortion isn't being debated here nor do I conflate my subjective opinion with what I presume the law should be. Again, you're simply constructing (or projecting) this scenario on my behalf.

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.

There's plenty of counter-arguments to be made against regarding the killing of a blastocyst the moral eqivalent of killing a fully formed human being....I've given you some, alwight has given plenty on this thread. I could go on all night about such inconsistencies in your very own position...but rather I'll focus on common sense:

1. A blastocyst is not the ostensible equal to fully developed human beings.

2. A blastocyst is (obviously) not the physical nor mental equal to fully developed human beings.

3. A blastocyst is not the sentient equal to fully developed human beings.

4. A blastocyst may never qualify for either 1, 2 or 3 without the sustenance provided by the body of a fully developed human being.


Why would you ever equate the life of blastocysts to the lives of fully developed human beings?



Let common-sense be your guide.

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.

Other than through forced birthing...that is.

As a matter of fact, the simplest panaceas for pregnancy out there is the one you are here defending.

:doh: Zero-sums cannot be considered panaceas. When one wins the other loses. One half of that equation blithely ignored by the right side.

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.

That wasn't the comparison though, you're misstating the analogy by either being obtuse or intentionally ....via intellectual dishonesty.

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.

I have no problems with the morality of abortion. Your problems in this regard exist because you take a morally subjective abortion issue and insist on expanding your personal ideals into absolute moral dictates regarding it. I've no such motives nor such burdens.

Quite the rebuttal :think:

Logical consistency is suddenly naivety.

From what I gather pro-lifers simply want to save every unborn life sans deliberation....(as far as they care) the rest will simply take care of itself. Naivety is simply a nice way of describing it! :shut:

Nice projection there. I call you out for failing to answer a question and you accuse me of dodging. lain:

The point of the analogy was to show the absurdity of your: "...distinction this thread is trying to discover."

You seem to have conveniently overlooked..ie. dodged the relevant aspects of the analogy and rather insist upon a straw-take on it.

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.

I have no moral "proscriptions" just my own moral compass to guide me by. And you have yours..yet, I've (nor anyone else) no obligation to accept yours by force nor default.

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.

Who says she not taking responsibility by choosing abortion. Who assigned you prime-arbiter of the morals of responsibility?

And we both agree that no line should exist at all so this argument is waste of both our time.

Ok.

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?

Only temporarily so...we've discussed this.

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.

You give me links concerning legislation for the unborn but I'm the one appealing to authority?! That's a good one! Anyway, its only an overt fallacy if you're propping your entire argument upon such an appeal otherwise they're simply ancillary points. But hey, who am I to steal your thunder!

 

[WizardofOz]

No a zygote is not a human, it has no specific human attributes at all and no humans are being lost with each failed zygote.

At what point are we dealing with a human? At what point are we dealing with a person?

However a human zygote is a human zygote not a human being.

And not a human, as you've said above ^

I would personally allow any elective abortion unless I thought the foetus might have acquired enough human rights of its own.

What (plural) rights are you referring to? Either the fetus has a right to life or it does not.

That special and demonstrable material reason is that the early term fetus, even a zygote, is a developing human.

Why can you not tell me what specifically is special?

I feel that every human life, whether born or not yet born, should have a fundamental right to life. That the developing human is a member of my species makes it "special" and worthy of protecting.

What is so special about a 27-week-old fetus that you feel it should be illegal to electively abort at this point in the pregnancy?

If and when a foetus exists and becomes more significantly developed then that original cell has perhaps ceased to be or is now totally inconsequential to the foetus.

I don't see the relevance of this statement. The developing human is the important subject, not the parts that may be discarded during development. Cutting the umbilical cord will kill the baby if it's cut during pregnancy but no one cares what happens to it once the baby has been born. :idunno:

Why do you think that I would be hell bent on always wanting an abortion? I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice rather as I was about dogma.

You're defending the practice. I never said you were hellbent of wanting abortion. You are "hellbent" on wanting elective abortion to be an available option during just about all stages of development if circumstances are severe enough.

I see that you perhaps want to avoid making possibly tough choices and don’t want anyone else to be able to either if they have chosen not to be pregnant at that time.

You have this backward imo.

Going through with the pregnancy is often the "tough choice". Isn't it easier to have a zygote sucked out of you than it is to go through 9 months of pregnancy and birth?

Abortion is the easy way out. It's the path of least resistance.

Cancer is often nature taking its course btw. lain:

You're comparing being pregnant with having cancer? Cancer is not natural in any way. Becoming pregnant after having sex is natural. Giving birth to a baby 9 months after becoming pregnant is natural. Cancer is not natural.

As covered above, I can point to actual human attributes at 27 weeks and if the woman has already had a reasonable opportunity to choose then my main objective anyway is already fulfilled.

What is valued by you, then? Is it the chance to make a choice or the human attributes or both?

IIRC you mean if a pregnant woman was a victim of physical assault then her foetus is considered a person too. Well, if I can presume initially that the pregnant woman knew and wanted to be pregnant then afaic my own previous time criteria no longer need apply and is fine by me, there is indeed another legal “person” involved for the purposes of prosecuting, even if I might otherwise argue that in fact for the purposes of abortion choice there is no actual person.

This does not fly in the face of logic for you? The developing human is "person" if the woman is hit by a drunk driver but is not a "person" if the woman wants to abort.

How does the circumstance change the idea of "personhood" for you? Does the mother alone arbitrarily define when her fetus is a "person"? If so, then all abortion should be legal from day 1 to just prior to giving birth.

Whether another person actually did exist is perhaps a different matter.
If you want to suggest a slightly different scenario then I’ll try to decide on the individual specific details but I have no great dogmatic interest in favouring or being fair and reasonable to criminals who themselves don’t have respect for other people’s lives.

A woman is on her way to have an abortion. On the car ride over to the clinic, she is hit by a drunk driver and her fetus dies as a direct result although the woman is otherwise unharmed. Why should it be a legal person during the accident but not later when she goes for her abortion?

 

[WizardofOz]

Again, I'm still waiting on your response on why we should - de facto - treat a blastocyst the moral equal of the mother who's carrying it.What is your logical rationale behind this assumption? It's as simple as that. The whole "pitting" idea is your- seemingly confused - straw-construction.

No, there is no "pitting" to speak of, you're simply dodging my question. Let me rephrase. Is the life of a blastocyst the moral equal to that of the mother's life? If so, defend; if not, why should we care if it gets aborted?

No, this is mere obfuscation. Your initial moral position (we don't kill humans) implies that the human blastocyst is the moral equivalent of you, I and the mother carrying it, thus we're not morally justified to kill it. All I'm asking you is to defend that implication.

quip's strawman of my position and a false dilemma to boot -> "Your initial moral position implies that the human blastocyst is the moral equivalent of you, I and the mother carrying it, thus we're not morally justified to kill it."

I have said repeatedly that there is no reason that I must argue this as you imply.

Since you keep insisting that your strawman of my argument must be my argument, I'll try this another way.

If you are walking down the street and a kitten walks in front of you, would it be immoral to stomp that kitten to death?

Is the kitten the moral equivalent of you? Must it be in order to label killing it immoral? :nono:

The false dilemma you are positing, that the life of the zygote must be the moral equivalent of the mother in order to protect it, is fallacious because the choice is not between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn.

Is the mother's life at risk? Then no moral equivalent is required. We are not forced to choose between one life or the other. Rather, we are forced to choose between the life of the unborn and the ongoing pregnancy (see inconvenience etc) of the mother.

I have pointed out your false dilemma strawman of my position repeatedly but insist on repeating the same error.

Tougher to defend the elective abortions that make up 97% of all abortions though, hmm?

How many abortions are carried out that are deemed a medical necessity?

None of my concern.

Telling. Most pro-choice individuals bring up life of the mother, rape, incest, etc because defending elective abortion is untenable.

You bring up the fringe cases because it's more convenient for your argument while refusing to engage and defend the majority of cases i.e. "none of my concern".

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?

Not at all...simply showing the absurd inconsistencies of subjectively assinging absolute morality to a blastocyst. You can decipher the logical inconsitency here can't you?

There are no inconsistencies other than your vague declaration. Explain what inconsistencies you perceive. :e4e:

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?

I don't speak for "they"...I speak for me and I speak for that pregnant woman's right to a personal choice in the matter.

Another dodge. The question is there if you feel up to it.

When pro-choice individuals make that switch following week X (the point at which the feel choice should be removed) are they morally dictating a woman's volition when the circumstances of her choice don't morally align to their self-serving moral view?

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?

Hard to speak for millions of women. Emotional reactions to pregnancy and the choice of whether or not to abort may be all up and down the spectrum...all I know it that tagging this choice as an "inconvenience" is merely a convenient game of semantics played by you, who holds (again, conveniently) only an idealistic stake in a academic abortion debate....not to mention insulting to those that have given the choice considerable thought.

You're splitting semantic hairs. Can pregnancy be described as "inconvenient"? Of course. I will be sure to describe it as "inconvenient, etc" to cover all other as of yet unmentioned adjectives that may offend you if omitted.

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.

Because I'm not the one on TOL suggesting to everyone that my personal moral views on abortion are the ones that should be adopted by the entire pregnant population of this country.

That doesn't make my point a red herring nor does it make your dodge any less of one.

What is immoral about aborting a 27-week-old fetus? The question is there if you ever feel up to it.

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.

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.

Why shouldn't it be legal beyond the 26th week? My personal position on abortion isn't being debated here nor do I conflate my subjective opinion with what I presume the law should be. Again, you're simply constructing (or projecting) this scenario on my behalf.

Another dodge. The question is there if you ever feel up to it. If you're going to bring up non-points (being reliant on the mother/host) then expect to debate them to their logical conclusion and defend their untenable nature in lieu of a more sound argument.

There's plenty of counter-arguments to be made against regarding the killing of a blastocyst the moral eqivalent of killing a fully formed human being....I've given you some, alwight has given plenty on this thread. I could go on all night about such inconsistencies in your very own position...but rather I'll focus on common sense:

1. A blastocyst is not the ostensible equal to fully developed human beings.

2. A blastocyst is (obviously) not the physical nor mental equal to fully developed human beings.

3. A blastocyst is not the sentient equal to fully developed human beings.

Points 1-3 are redundant and a false dilemma as deconstructed (piece meal) earlier in this post. That a blastocyst is or is not the moral equivalent of a fully developed human need not be argued as an abortion is not the choice between one life over the other.

4. A blastocyst may never qualify for either 1, 2 or 3 without the sustenance provided by the body of a fully developed human being.

Point 4 was also deconstructed above. Unless you are arguing for no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever then #4 is irrelevant to the question as to whether abortion should be legal or illegal. The unborn is a greater burden on its host later in pregnancy when abortion is restricted or illegal.

Common sense pro-choice fallacies.

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.

Other than through forced birthing...that is.

After week X, nearly every pro-choice individual supports forced-birthing as well. :think:

So, forced birthing really isn't the issue (just another red herring on your part), it's when the force should begin that is the question.

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.

That wasn't the comparison though, you're misstating the analogy by either being obtuse or intentionally ....via intellectual dishonesty.

The lake/pond differentiation is a semantic argument only with no moral implications whatsoever.

When we can and can not kill a developing human on the other hand...

You are being intellectually dishonest by continuing to grasp at such a failed comparison/analogy.

I have no moral "proscriptions" just my own moral compass to guide me by. And you have yours..yet, I've (nor anyone else) no obligation to accept yours by force nor default.

You are simply taking the position that requires the least amount of effort to defend. If a pro-choice individual feels that abortion should be illegal after week X, would you feel up to telling them why they are wrong and how your view that abortion should be legal anytime for any reason is the superior argument?

My response to quip's next post is here. I was afk for a while...

 

[quip]

quip's strawman of my position and a false dilemma to boot -> "Your initial moral position implies that the human blastocyst is the moral equivalent of you, I and the mother carrying it, thus we're not morally justified to kill it."

There's nothing false about the dilemma...you simply refuse to answer it because it's the death knell for your argument...and you know it.

I have said repeatedly that there is no reason that I must argue this as you imply.

No, you don't have to argue this point...not if you'd rather dodge my point ad nauseam. :chuckle:

Since you keep insisting that your strawman of my argument must be my argument, I'll try this another way.

If you are walking down the street and a kitten walks in front of you, would it be immoral to stomp that kitten to death?

Is the kitten the moral equivalent of you? Must it be in order to label killing it immoral? :nono:

No it's not moral because I've no opposing moral reason to stomp on kittens. :doh: Via placing your head in the sand by completely ignoring the constitutional rights of the woman....you've subsequently placed yourself in this indefensible position....while subjecting TOL readers to a pointless analogy that amount to no more than comic relief. :dunce:

The false dilemma you are positing, that the life of the zygote must be the moral equivalent of the mother in order to protect it, is fallacious because the choice is not between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn.

Again, your being thick headed. There is no "pitting" of lives here...the abortion argument consists of the life of the unborn against the rights of the mother. My initial point: The life of the unborn must be equal to the mother's life because you've lumped them together in the "human" category. You've simply taken your own inference and obfuscated a straw-man out of it ... because you won't or can't qualify your "human" assertion.

Is the life of a human blastocyst the moral equal to that of the mother's life? If so, defend; if not, why should we care if it gets aborted?

There's no reason reeling in your red herrings and redirecting your dodges any further unless/until you answer this question. Otherwise, you're no more than a huge time waster.