Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[Catholic Crusader]

...

 

[alwight]

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?

We haven't got to that part yet.

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

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

You haven't suggested anything material to say otherwise.

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.

I don't think it's quite that simple, I don't think there is some magic moment where full rights exist when once there were none. If it were up to me to choose whether the time had come then all the specific details of that specific case would be needed, not just whether a foetus might now have enough development to warrant rights of its own.

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.

I would say that it might become special but that there is no material reason to say a zygote at least was, and thereby no reason to deny the choice of a woman not to be pregnant.

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?

Nothing, here (UK) the abortion limit is 24 weeks, there are noises to reduce it to 20 weeks while at least one member of government would like it to be 12 weeks. The short answer is that there is no magic moment that I personally would want to define in advance but a legal statutory legal limit nevertheless has to be decided on at some point.

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.

Then for some reason you seem to think that there is a kind of metaphysical or non-material (?) human being quality associated with, but not actually of, a zygote itself, which I at least am unaware of, that you judge gives it full human rights.
Sorry but that is a spiritual belief whether you want to admit it or not. It has nothing to do with individual cells or the original zygote cell.

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.

Yes, I don't see abortion as some kind of black art, and yes it might be abused sometimes but yes I see no moral problem with allowing women who did not want to be pregnant at least a useful period of choice. If that is "defending the practice" as you put it then so be it, but there is no need for me to be associated with all abortions particularly those outside of my own comfort zone or which are simply abusing it.

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.

But it wouldn't be a choice at all if you had your way. What I do accept as tough would be the physical demands of pregnancy and birth and then some after that. However all that was nothing to do with the choice itself being tough or not. Sometimes it isn't tough at all, the woman perhaps never intended to be pregnant and still doesn't want to have to be. Each case will be different and shouldn't be covered or prevented by a third party's (metaphysical?) dogma. If abortion is sometimes an easier option for some then so what? They may not have any particular metaphysical beliefs either while it is their body and their choice to make, not yours.

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.

That was a bit unfair, I think the original context here was about the other end of life, prolonging life unnecessarily.
You said:
"I am all for letting nature take its course in both beginning of life and end of life care."

However, of course cancer is natural, if not what is it evil spirits? As far as I know all animals can just develop cancer by being alive, it's thought to be genetic that some people are more prone. If we get cancer then letting nature just take its course would be a highly unwise choice imo if not iyo.

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?

Both are important factors for me but nothing metaphysical is of course, however if we could agree that there are no such human attributes in a zygote to consider and are thus a valid and reasonable part of the equation at that time then fine, but no, only now at 27 weeks it seems you want to discuss human attributes because now such things exist and are on your side, c'mon. :AMR:

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.

Well no, my world is not black and white and if the woman was intending to give birth to a person then her right to do that was taken away by someone else's misdeed, who could have just as easily killed the woman. No I wouldn't necessarily consider the foetus a person myself if it had not yet a functioning CNS say. But Person-in-Law, why not?

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.

I'm simply attempting to preserve the woman's right not to have to be pregnant if that is what she wants. At this point all I am saying is that up to a certain time there is no more a person present after conception inside here than there was just before, there is no material capacity for anything inside her to be considered a person imo. Until I think that capacity might exist then I personally wouldn't see a moral problem with a choice to abort. If the woman decided that she does indeed want to be pregnant then I'd be very happy to recognise her foetus as a Person-in-Law from that time.

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?

Since I am conveniently aware of the real motives and pertinent facts here, which may not always be the case in real life, then for me the woman has previously decided not to be pregnant and imo is not actually carrying a "Person-in-Law", although the law might not agree with me. However in real life the woman could have been killed too and if the drunk driver gets done for murder anyway I'll not worry unduly, but maybe a smart lawyer could get a lesser sentence with a good argument, I don't know, any lawyers in the house? :sherlock:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

El DLo, rrr80120, Rusha, Silent Hunter, WeirdChick, and WoundedEgo voted that abortion is okay anytime for any reason. That is beyond disgusting. Its pure evil.

 

[quip]

Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
The big problem with this discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

Similar to Oz's argument, this follows the assumption that all humans hold equal value. Ostensibly, this may seem the obvious case yet, this assumption fails to acknowledge the, likewise, obvious physical inequalities between developed human entities and their unborn lineage, nor does this assumption acknowledge the fact that this (incipient) "human" resides upon and within a - fully developed - human-being.

This assumption is nothing more than a moral declaration that relies wholly upon the equivocation of a morally neutral scientific term....this stand-alone classification fails to ontologically qualify the being inherent to the human-being experience.

Qualify your use of the term "human" lest your argument disintegrates to mere manipulative, disingenuous propaganda.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Qualify your use of the term "human" lest your argument disintegrates to mere manipulative, disingenuous propaganda.

Too late . . . :sigh:

 

[quip]

Too late . . . :sigh:

Seems only fair to allow them a chance to lay out a rebuttal. :idunno:

But, yes...all I'll probably receive is more regurgitated propaganda....that's about as far as the spoon-fed, dependent thinker gets at critical discernment.

 

[alwight]

El DLo, rrr80120, Rusha, Silent Hunter, WeirdChick, and WoundedEgo voted that abortion is okay anytime for any reason. That is beyond disgusting. Its pure evil.

When did Rusha become even slightly pro-choice? :liberals:

 

[IMJerusha]

Seems only fair to allow them a chance to lay out a rebuttal. :idunno:

God has already laid out all the rebuttal you require. Wait...He'll be here shortly!

 

[Granite]

When did Rusha become even slightly pro-choice? :liberals:

I find this very surprising. If true.

 

[quip]

God has already laid out all the rebuttal you require. Wait...He'll be here shortly!

One utterly "divine"... case in point.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Wait...He'll be here shortly!

Yeah . . . that's what your kind have been saying for over 2000 years now. Pardon me while I don't hold my breath . . . .

 

[Silent Hunter]

Seems only fair to allow them a chance to lay out a rebuttal.

Oz has been told of this problem of semantics throughout the thread.

But, yes...all I'll probably receive is more regurgitated propaganda....that's about as far as the spoon-fed, dependent thinker gets at critical discernment.

So . . .

 

[Rusha]

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.

Heh, I voted PRIOR to reading this message. When I was reading the options, I misread option number one as meaning "abortion should be illegal at all times for any reason.

Sooo ... oops, sorry about that.

El DLo, rrr80120, Rusha, Silent Hunter, WeirdChick, and WoundedEgo voted that abortion is okay anytime for any reason. That is beyond disgusting. Its pure evil.

What is disgusting is that you would use such an important issue as abortion as an opening to lie about me for your own selfish reasons.

The anti-abortion advocates are fighting an uphill battle that apparently you are too petty and self-serving to take seriously.

Loser.

 

[Rusha]

When did Rusha become even slightly pro-choice? :liberals:

Never ... I apologized to WoO at the beginning of this thread for not reading the poll correctly.

EVERYONE here (who is honest or not brain dead) knows I am anti-abortion.

 

[99lamb]

There should be a new law of the land, if a person or couple wants to have a child, they should first be required to prove to the government that they can afford the child. If said persons can not afford a child they would automatically be put on birth control or fined a hefty fee for having a child they cannot afford, and they would not be given any government assistance.
This will correct the problem of people who would look to the government for aide in raising their children.
This is the affordable baby act.

 

[quip]

There should be a new law of the land, if a person or couple wants to have a child, they should first be required to prove to the government that they can afford the child. If said persons can not afford a child they would automatically be put on birth control or fined a hefty fee for having a child they cannot afford, and they would not be given any government assistance.
This will correct the problem of people who would look to the government for aide in raising their children.
This is the affordable baby act.

Ya Komrad dis is policy good...we show of example d'ose worthless breeding proletarians! :Commie:

doh: ...fined a hefty fee for having a child they cannot afford) <---------- Sound eerily Rupublikan-esque

 

[Catholic Crusader]

So you approve of people having kids who cannot afford them? That almost certainly condemns a child to poverty and misery.

Oh yes, I forgot, you would just murder the children instead, right?

 

[Granite]

Technically people shouldn't be having kids they can't afford. Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Technically people shouldn't be having kids they can't afford. Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

Thats two times now that I agree with you.

Something is wrong here.

 

[IMJerusha]

Technically people shouldn't be having kids they can't afford. Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

Well, I could say trust in God's provision or think of all those who want a child and are physically unable yet would make excellent parents. Is it better to sacrifice a life or allow it to give rise to joy and fulfillment?