Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

I could not vote because my option was not on the list.

The question is: Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

Are your pro-choice?

 

[meshak]

I'm a moral person, so I follow most of what you call God's laws and I call secular ethics.

God's law is much higher than secular ethicks.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The question is: Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

Are your pro-choice?

Nope.

I misunderstood who the question was aimed at. It was aimed at people who play God and draw their own line at where life begins and which lives can be murdered.

My bad. Thats not me. I am a mere mortal.

 

[gcthomas]

God's law is much higher than secular ethicks.

Nope. IMO they are functionally substantially the same and that biblical ethics were provided by the society at the time the books were written, not by a hypothetical God. They reflect secular ethics.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

:wazzup:

Has anyone heard of this?

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
>> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

I'm James Matthew (Matt) Wallace, aka The Compleat Heretic. I'm both a Secular Humanist atheist and a pro-life advocate. All too often, I fear that I'm the only nonreligious person who opposes the genocide of abortion used as a birth control substitute. Accordingly, I have created this web site as a virtual rallying point and clearinghouse for all atheists, agnostics, and other "godless" people who call themselves "pro-life."

 

[alwight]

What is a "human person"? No one can objectively define this. A zygote is decidedly a human. This is an objective biological fact. No need to debate philosophical semantics.

I think you simply want to ignore the concept of personhood, but really it isn't all that difficult, we don't need to be exact as to what it takes to be a person. But I will suggest at this point it isn't a zygote.

You would like to impose your view on those who see it differently and are perhaps more pro-choice than you are.

Why is it OK when you do it?

I don't think you understood me, I don't want to impose my ideas on anyone. We all live in a society whether we like it or not, pay taxes and obey laws. If society didn't exist then there would be anarchy and fights about who is right, a reasonable society is a reasonable compromise imo. If the consensus of society was against any abortions I would be campaigning for change or looking for another place to live.

That's fine but at least concede that your biological values are completely arbitrary. When I say give all humans (born or not yet born) legal protection there is nothing ambiguous about it.

From a practical point of view that isn't making life any easier for some women who didn't want to be pregnant and shouldn't have to be imo. There is nothing particularly arbitrary about when a central nervous system doesn't exist.

You bring this up a lot as if it carries any weight as an argument. A lot of senior citizens die of heart disease. Does this have any bearing on a senior citizen that does not have heart disease?

Nope.

If 2/3rds of humans die before reaching age X does this biological fact impact the value of those who are successful past that age?

I would stop using that particular argument.

Yes I do keep bringing it up.:IA:
However no one has yet explained why they have such strong feelings for the apparent humanity of a zygote one minute but can simply dismiss all the ones that fail the next. Clearly they are unimportant and expendable else you could perhaps direct me to this special quality that I'm unaware of?
What matters most imo are Human beings with at least some of the following: Organs, senses, brains, reactions, emotions, memories, hopes, desires, fears and dreams... iow persons.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Imagine

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Planned Parenthood reported a record number of abortions in 2012

America's largest abortion provider, performed a record 333,964 abortions by year's end which pushed Planned Parenthood's three year total to 995,687 abortions according to its annual report.

It is estimated, since Roe-Wade became the law of the land in the early 1970s, over 55 Million abortions have been performed in the United States.

Although President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2010 promising not to fund abortions with federal tax dollars, Planned Parenthood reported a record $542 million dollars in taxpayer funding.

The Susan B. Anthony List notes, this taxpayer funding represents - 45% of Planned Parenthood's annual funding.

Meanwhile Contraceptive Services dropped by - 12%, while Cancer Screening and Prevention Services have dropped by a Staggering - 29%.

According to SBA President, Marjorie Dannenfelser, these all time high in government subsidies have greatly contributed to the record number of unborn lives lost to abortion.

"Destroying nearly "1 million Children" in three years is not healthcare, and does not reflect the concern for vulnerable women and girls," which Planned Parenthood claims to champion.

The tide could be irresistibly turning in the culture war over abortion as New York's Time Magazine reported that many abortion clinics are closing as a result of more information on abortion, such as the alternative availability, adoption, which has always been an option.

Some of the early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, were decidedly Pro-Life, according to the same Times article.

The worst part about it is that in the mid-2000's, abortion was in decline and the pro-life (i.e. Christian) view was on the increase. This has once again reversed and we are culturally in trouble. Utilitarianism is the morality of the day.

 

[gcthomas]

It's not an attempt. What is invalid or unsound about my argument? By all means....

If you use the word human to include blastocysts, then I disagree that all humans are due human rights. If I agree that human rights are due to all humans, then I will deny that the word human can be applied to small bundles of cells.

So do you.

You voted in the poll for: "For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy."

Nope. The poll didn't ask for reasons and you haven't either. My feelings are that a foetus cannot be considered a person without a functioning central nervous system.

You too seem to be willing to extend post-birth human rights to pre-birth humans. Why should abortion be limited after a certain point in pregnancy? Is your logic without reasoning? Is your logic a simple assertion? Let's hear your logic and reasoning as to why abortion should be limited after your arbitrary point of development.

The point is that although I can be completely certain that a foetus before, say, twenty weeks cannot feel pain or have feelings or thoughts, as the pregnancy continues that judgement becomes steadily less certain. I am NOT certain that there is ANY point during a pregnancy that a foetus has the facilities to justify protection, but I am content with twenty weeks to be on the safe side. Twenty weeks allows almost all terminations to happen in a safe time. Very few are requested after that here.

You use pro-life logic as well, I am simply consistent in my logic. Whereas, your logic changes completely from one end of the spectrum to the exact opposite dependent on...who knows what. :idunno:

My logic is consistent as far as I have written. I'm sure you'll point out any weakness, and I'll be happy to tighten it up if that is the case.

A zygote is a human and functions the exact way it is supposed to function.

A zygote does not have any human functions apart from the potential to divide.

You would extend human rights to a fetus beyond X weeks. Is it a functioning human then? What functions are required in order to be considered human?

At least a functioning central nervous system. When that fails in an adult we say they are dead even if the heart beats. If they stop being human when it stops, how can they be human before it starts?

Limiting legal protection based on factors other than being human can only be at best ambiguous and arbitrary. I prefer more consistent logic and feel all humans should have their lives protected regardless of age or state of development.

Yours is arbitrary, and relies on picking the earliest date with no orher reason than you'd like to call a zygote human in order to protect them. Why, apart from asserting it is logical and necessary, do you think that date is right? Why do you feel a single cell must be protected? Calling it human is begging the question.

 

[WizardofOz]

I think you simply want to ignore the concept of personhood, but really it isn't all that difficult, we don't need to be exact as to what it takes to be a person. But I will suggest at this point it isn't a zygote.

Then nothing is ever going to be settled by declaring what is or isn't a "person". What is personhood? Who determines this?

We need to be exact if the differentiation as to what does or does not constitute personhood is literally a matter of life and death. Otherwise, you're playing fast and loose with definitions and are then by extension playing fast and loose with human lives.

I don't think you understood me, I don't want to impose my ideas on anyone. We all live in a society whether we like it or not, pay taxes and obey laws. If society didn't exist then there would be anarchy and fights about who is right, a reasonable society is a reasonable compromise imo. If the consensus of society was against any abortions I would be campaigning for change or looking for another place to live.

Should a woman who is 8 months pregnant but otherwise completely healthy be able to legally obtain an abortion?

Answer this and we'll see if I have misunderstood you or not.

From a practical point of view that isn't making life any easier for some women who didn't want to be pregnant and shouldn't have to be imo.

How did they become pregnant? Actions have consequences. Sex leads to pregnancy. Society should not allow or encourage people to shirk their responsibility by killing their offspring for the sake of convenience.

There is nothing particularly arbitrary about when a central nervous system doesn't exist.

The CNS does not poof into existence. It is a period of development. So, let's test your standard.

At 40 days, brain waves are recordable. Should all abortion after 40 days be illegal?

At 13 to 16 weeks pain sensors are operative. Should abortion be illegal after 12 weeks or after 16?

What state of CNS development is required before you feel that the being possessing them should no longer be arbitrarily killed?

Yes I do keep bringing it up.:IA:
However no one has yet explained why they have such strong feelings for the apparent humanity of a zygote one minute but can simply dismiss all the ones that fail the next. Clearly they are unimportant and expendable else you could perhaps direct me to this special quality that I'm unaware of?

You're failing to differentiate between natural and unnatural death. A zygote failing to implant is natural death just like a person suffering a stroke may die a natural death. This is very different than purposely killing an otherwise healthy human. We do not snuff out grandpa just because a person his age with similar health defects naturally kicks the bucket.

In short, there is little that can be done to prevent natural death. We should, however, strive to prevent as many preventable deaths as possible.

What matters most imo are Human beings with at least some of the following: Organs, senses, brains, reactions, emotions, memories, hopes, desires, fears and dreams... iow persons.

We're not forced to choose between the life of one who possesses these attributes (mother) and one who does not (not yet born offspring).

So unless the mother's life is in peril, this argument and value judgement falls flat.

 

[WizardofOz]

If you use the word human to include blastocysts,

Is it a human or a monkey blastocyst?

then I disagree that all humans are due human rights.

What humans are not due human rights? Please be specific...
I am also not talking about human rights (plural). I am talking about a singular right, a right to life.

If I agree that human rights are due to all humans, then I will deny that the word human can be applied to small bundles of cells.

Either the organism is human or it isn't, your incredulity aside.

Nope. The poll didn't ask for reasons and you haven't either. My feelings are that a foetus cannot be considered a person without a functioning central nervous system.

I didn't inquire at all about what can or cannot be considered a person. At what point do you feel that a human has an adequately functioning central nervous system?

The point is that although I can be completely certain that a foetus before, say, twenty weeks cannot feel pain or have feelings or thoughts, as the pregnancy continues that judgement becomes steadily less certain. I am NOT certain that there is ANY point during a pregnancy that a foetus has the facilities to justify protection, but I am content with twenty weeks to be on the safe side. Twenty weeks allows almost all terminations to happen in a safe time. Very few are requested after that here.

And if a woman is raped but doesn't realize realize or acknowledge her pregnancy until later, you would force her to give birth?

Or, does your twenty weeks line in the sand blow away in the wind under varying circumstance?

A zygote does not have any human functions apart from the potential to divide.

Yet, if left alone, it nature is allowed to take its course, the zygote will become fully human in form and function.

Yours is arbitrary, and relies on picking the earliest date with no orher reason than you'd like to call a zygote human in order to protect them.

Are you implying that a human zygote isn't human or a human?

Why, apart from asserting it is logical and necessary, do you think that date is right?

Let's talk about logic and necessity. What is logical about allowing underdeveloped humans to be unnecessarily killed?

Are you opposed to abortion when it is medically unnecessary? What is objectively logical and/or necessary about abortion, especially elective abortion?

My date is right because it is inclusive and protects all human life rather than excluding human subset X because it is not yet developed beyond an arbitrarily set point that need not be determined neither because of logic nor necessity.

Why do you feel a single cell must be protected? Calling it human is begging the question.

Why do you feel a human with a CNS must be protected? What makes your value the right one? Why shouldn't a woman who is 8 months pregnant be able to legally obtain an abortion?

 

[gcthomas]

Is it a human or a monkey blastocyst?

Huh? You are using the word human here as an adjective not a noun. Human blastocyst uses the word in the same sense as a human leg. Of a human, not A human.

What humans are not due human rights? Please be specific...
I am also not talking about human rights (plural). I am talking about a singular right, a right to life.

Your use of 'human' is slippery. But as I have already said, I don't believe early foetuses are people, so do not require special protections.

I'm interested: why, if foetuses are fully human do you only want to give them ONE right instead of ALL human rights? Seems like you are treating them as less than human by denying all but one human right.

Either the organism is human or it isn't, your incredulity aside.

Do you mean 'human' as in adjective (see 'leg' above') or 'a human' as in noun? Early foetuses are not yet humans (noun) in my understanding of the word. How do YOU define a human person?

I didn't inquire at all about what can or cannot be considered a person. At what point do you feel that a human has an adequately functioning central nervous system?

That is a verifiable medical science question. I don't know when the nervous system has sufficient function, but it cannot be before twenty weeks as the parts are not integrated into one nervous system.

And if a woman is raped but doesn't realize realize or acknowledge her pregnancy until later, you would force her to give birth?

That would require a court to decide. For late pregnancies, as I've indicated already, I am not convinced as to the personhood of the foetus, so I am content to let others decide that one. That is an area with significant lack of firm knowledge. I will not decide black and white when there is really grey.

Or, does your twenty weeks line in the sand blow away in the wind under varying circumstance?

As I have repeated before, the twenty weeks line is the earliest that the foetus could be thought to be functioning in a way consistent with judgenements accepted for the end of life.

Vary under different circumstances? Of course. Unless you have a dogmatically unmovable black and white preconception, you will recognise the lack of certainty as to WHEN exactly a smooth change from non- to actual human can be considered to happen. This leaves room for the balancing of interests.

Yet, if left alone, it nature is allowed to take its course, the zygote will become fully human in form and function.

Well done. This is not contested, is it? An acorn may become a mighty oak, but while I may campaign to stop the felling of a two hundred year old oak, I will not fight the squirrels for the acorns.

Are you implying that a human zygote isn't human or a human?

Implying nothing. Human zygotes have none of the functional properties I expect of a human, so they are not humans (human people).

Are you opposed to abortion when it is medically unnecessary? What is objectively logical and/or necessary about abortion, especially elective abortion?

No, within the limits I have indicated. And who are you to judge the necessity involved in an elective abortion.

My date is right because it is inclusive and protects all human life rather than excluding human subset X because it is not yet developed beyond an arbitrarily set point that need not be determined neither because of logic nor necessity.

Yet your choice here is thoroughly arbitrary. It would be more inclusive to include as yet unfertilised eggs and sperm and the elderly brain dead, yet I suspect you don't. What criteria are you using to reject human eggs and human elderly with no higher brain function from having human rights?

Why do you feel a human with a CNS must be protected? What makes your value the right one? Why shouldn't a woman who is 8 months pregnant be able to legally obtain an abortion?

I don't feel it 'must' since the medical understanding post-twenty week foetuses is not complete. Unlike you, I do not feel the need to be certain in the absence of sufficient knowledge.

 

[Stripe]

I don't believe early foetuses are people, so do not require special protections.

And by this you justify the murder of innocent people.

 

[gcthomas]

And by this you justify the murder of innocent people.

That's an opinion. One that is not shared by legislators in most countries or by their populations as a whole. If you want that to change you'll have to come up with better arguments than that.

 

[alwight]

I think you simply want to ignore the concept of personhood, but really it isn't all that difficult, we don't need to be exact as to what it takes to be a person. But I will suggest at this point it isn't a zygote.

Then nothing is ever going to be settled by declaring what is or isn't a "person". What is personhood? Who determines this?

We need to be exact if the differentiation as to what does or does not constitute personhood is literally a matter of life and death. Otherwise, you're playing fast and loose with definitions and are then by extension playing fast and loose with human lives.

Well, I determine for me what time period I can be comfortable with for a woman to have a completely free rein to exercise her choice before I may start to feel that a foetus has significant rights of its own.
You however, somewhat dogmatically imo, apparently don’t want to allow any time period at all for any such free choice, based only on an assumption that there simply never is a period from conception when a human person can be supposed not to yet exist. I otoh think that clearly there is and that denying such a choice would be being unnecessarily restrictive and dictatorial over the rights of an extant woman who may well have her own opinions.

I don't think you understood me, I don't want to impose my ideas on anyone. We all live in a society whether we like it or not, pay taxes and obey laws. If society didn't exist then there would be anarchy and fights about who is right, a reasonable society is a reasonable compromise imo. If the consensus of society was against any abortions I would be campaigning for change or looking for another place to live.

Should a woman who is 8 months pregnant but otherwise completely healthy be able to legally obtain an abortion?

Answer this and we'll see if I have misunderstood you or not.

Clearly society sets such restrictions not me, but after 8 months I can assume she has already had ample chances to choose and has imo made her own choice to go through with it. The consensus of society has already made that choice in advance which I could have previously sought to change had I not agreed. This specific foetus has rights too.
It’s really no good presenting me with a specific situation here when what I want all along is that each case should be considered on the individual specific facts not simply some dogmatic catch-all covering every stage in human reproduction after conception.

From a practical point of view that isn't making life any easier for some women who didn't want to be pregnant and shouldn't have to be imo.

How did they become pregnant? Actions have consequences. Sex leads to pregnancy. Society should not allow or encourage people to shirk their responsibility by killing their offspring for the sake of convenience.

There’s no need to be judgemental, it really doesn’t matter to me how it came to be. I don’t agree with using abortion as a form of contraception but if there never was any desire to be pregnant, whether contraception failed, or rape or incest, there should be no extra problems created if a timely abortion is thought to be for the best. Do you claim that using contraception is shirking their responsibilities by preventing the life of their offspring, effectively “killing” the egg and sperm?

There is nothing particularly arbitrary about when a central nervous system doesn't exist.

The CNS does not poof into existence. It is a period of development. So, let's test your standard.

At 40 days, brain waves are recordable. Should all abortion after 40 days be illegal?

At 13 to 16 weeks pain sensors are operative. Should abortion be illegal after 12 weeks or after 16?

What state of CNS development is required before you feel that the being possessing them should no longer be arbitrarily killed?

Yes but this has now moved beyond my initial argument. If you can now accept that there is even a small window of opportunity when it is reasonable to assume that an abortion need not affect an extant human person, then we can and should move on, but I suspect that is not the case.

Yes I do keep bringing it up.:IA:
However no one has yet explained why they have such strong feelings for the apparent humanity of a zygote one minute but can simply dismiss all the ones that fail the next. Clearly they are unimportant and expendable else you could perhaps direct me to this special quality that I'm unaware of?

You're failing to differentiate between natural and unnatural death. A zygote failing to implant is natural death just like a person suffering a stroke may die a natural death. This is very different than purposely killing an otherwise healthy human. We do not snuff out grandpa just because a person his age with similar health defects naturally kicks the bucket.

In short, there is little that can be done to prevent natural death. We should, however, strive to prevent as many preventable deaths as possible.

You asked me why I thought zygotes were expendable; I didn’t want to go back to my hobby horse because I thought it was understood. Clearly imo zygotes routinely fail, for all I know there is some higher function going on, or dummy run perhaps. But there seems to be no point in worrying or being sentimental over the seeds of life, nature usually does over-produce such things, it’s just the way it is afaic. There is no human tragedy constantly going on.

What matters most imo are Human beings with at least some of the following: Organs, senses, brains, reactions, emotions, memories, hopes, desires, fears and dreams... iow persons.

We're not forced to choose between the life of one who possesses these attributes (mother) and one who does not (not yet born offspring).

So unless the mother's life is in peril, this argument and value judgement falls flat.

I simply look for a reasonable opportunity to do what I think is the right thing and yes I think there is such a right thing based in the physical evidence, a zygote at least has no ability at all to be a person.

 

[Stripe]

That's an opinion. One that is not shared by legislators in most countries or by their populations as a whole.

I know. Evil is popular.

If you want that to change you'll have to come up with better arguments than that.

That was not an argument. You just got finished calling it an opinion, remember?

 

[gcthomas]

I know. Evil is popular.

That was not an argument. You just got finished calling it an opinion, remember?

That's why it is a rubbish argument, Stripe! Get with it.

 

[Stripe]

That's why it is a rubbish argument, Stripe! Get with it.

:dizzy:

An opinion is not an argument. Let me guess: You are an evolutionist, right?

 

[gcthomas]

... You are an evolutionist, right?

Don't you have any other insults? This is both over used by you and a compliment. :crackup:

 

[Stripe]

Don't you have any other insults? This is both over used by you and a compliment. :crackup:

:dizzy:

Opinions still are not arguments.