ARCHVE: Attention all sick pro-aborts

[jes1994]

Evangelion,

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that the majoroty of US states prohibit abortion after the third trimester unless the mother's life is at risk. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct on this. AFAIK, it's causing some problems because some doctors have "adjusted" their information downward and performed abortions that technically would have been illegal. Of course, that is more of a licensing/competence and truth in reporting type issue, but it would not be an issue if a state had pro-life laws in effect.

I would prefer it if abortions were illegal - without qualification.

But you have said that prior to viability, it should be a freedom of choice issue.

Practically speaking, however, this is simply not possible. (Some women who have been raped would prefer to abort ASAP, for example.) People's individual circumstances must be taken into consideration. They should have the freedom of choice.

This is generally called the "rape/incest exception" issue. There is also a "disabled child exception" issue. I'll discuss them if you wish, although I would rather postpone that part of a debate for later, or a separate thread. Besides, the last numbers I heard on those abortions were one percent for the rape/incest case, and three percent for the disabled child case, so from a percentage standpoint, we're talking relatively small numbers. Note that those percentages are from an old source.

Back to statements #1 and #2...

Statement one does beg the question of who to prosecute for murder. This is an issue, but for the purposes of our discussion here, I would prefer to focus on whether or not a victim exists.

What we are saying with statements one and two is that whether or not a victim exists is a function of viability of the fetus. A non-victim becomes a victim if they are viable. Since that victim/non-victim distinction is really a personhood distinction, we've turned our statements one and two into criteria statements for whether or not a fetus is a person.

Small detour for a second if I may...
We would be furious, and clamoring for legal changes if personhood was defined on the basis of gender. Rightly so. Same for skin color. And (aside from Enyart types) if the basis was sexual preference. Again, rightly so.
On the other hand, species of the victim/non-victim is pretty much a valid distinction. Hunting animals isn't a legal issue (PETA types excluded). Killing bacteria while washing dishes isn't a legal issue. Grown adult humans are a problem. So, species is a valid criteria for personhood.

Now, viability.

What does viability depend on? What is viability a function of?

The obvious first answer is biology... development level. But human biology is pretty stable... develop far enough along, and voila, personhood. Age becomes a criteria for personhood.

Viability is also a function of technology. At the turn of the last century (1900s) the technology was so primitive that viability was pretty much obtained at the end of gestation, approximately 38 weeks. Now, viability is at around 20 weeks.

So...

If we as a society extend personhood status to something based on viability, we end up with personhood status being a function of age and our technology level. Since our society does not believe that those two things are valid criteria for personhood, to be pro-choice is to say that personhood depends on a person's age and societal technology.

I do not think that our society should extend personhood status based on viability. I only see being a member of the human species as a valid criteria for personhood. That's why I am pro-life.

Thoughts, comments?

 

[cirisme]

I just now took a look at the commercial... all I can say is, wow!

 

[Evangelion]

Jes -

Yes, you are correct on this. AFAIK, it's causing some problems because some doctors have "adjusted" their information downward and performed abortions that technically would have been illegal. Of course, that is more of a licensing/competence and truth in reporting type issue, but it would not be an issue if a state had pro-life laws in effect.

Yes, I've heard of a few doctors trying to bend the rules. What are they usually charged with if they're caught performing an illegal procedure?

Quote:
I would prefer it if abortions were illegal - without qualification.


But you have said that prior to viability, it should be a freedom of choice issue.

Yes, that's correct. Again - in a perfect world, there would be no need for qualification. In our current world, I make my own choice on the issue, and encourage others to make their own. What I prefer, and what can be reasonably achieved, are two entirely different things. My position is a realistic one.

This is generally called the "rape/incest exception" issue. There is also a "disabled child exception" issue. I'll discuss them if you wish, although I would rather postpone that part of a debate for later, or a separate thread.

I'm happy to leave it out of this thread.

Besides, the last numbers I heard on those abortions were one percent for the rape/incest case, and three percent for the disabled child case, so from a percentage standpoint, we're talking relatively small numbers. Note that those percentages are from an old source.

Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

Back to statements #1 and #2...

Statement one does beg the question of who to prosecute for murder. This is an issue, but for the purposes of our discussion here, I would prefer to focus on whether or not a victim exists.

Surely the legal terms "accomplice, 1st degree murder, & 2nd degree murder" would apply in this case?

What we are saying with statements one and two is that whether or not a victim exists is a function of viability of the fetus.

Yes, that is my position.

A non-victim becomes a victim if they are viable. Since that victim/non-victim distinction is really a personhood distinction, we've turned our statements one and two into criteria statements for whether or not a fetus is a person.

And necessarily so.

Small detour for a second if I may...
We would be furious, and clamoring for legal changes if personhood was defined on the basis of gender. Rightly so. Same for skin color. And (aside from Enyart types) if the basis was sexual preference. Again, rightly so.

Agreed.

On the other hand, species of the victim/non-victim is pretty much a valid distinction. Hunting animals isn't a legal issue (PETA types excluded). Killing bacteria while washing dishes isn't a legal issue. Grown adult humans are a problem. So, species is a valid criteria for personhood.

Agreed.

Now, viability.

What does viability depend on? What is viability a function of?

The obvious first answer is biology... development level. But human biology is pretty stable... develop far enough along, and voila, personhood. Age becomes a criteria for personhood.

Agreed.

Viability is also a function of technology. At the turn of the last century (1900s) the technology was so primitive that viability was pretty much obtained at the end of gestation, approximately 38 weeks. Now, viability is at around 20 weeks.

Actually, I believe it's not quite so specific as that. The viability of the fetus differs from case to case - sometimes beginning at the 20th week, sometimes the 24th. But only 40% of babies born at this stage will reach adulthood.

So...

If we as a society extend personhood status to something based on viability, we end up with personhood status being a function of age and our technology level.

...a function of biological development and our technology level, Jes. Viva la difference.

Since our society does not believe that those two things are valid criteria for personhood, to be pro-choice is to say that personhood depends on a person's age and societal technology.

No, that is not true. I argue that biological development (which is not the same as mere "age") is an essential factor. And is it reasonable to say that just because a fetus can be delivered alive at 24 weeks, it must therefore be treated as a person? Is it reasonable to say that a "person" can be induced to leave the womb (its natural place of residence at this early stage) prematurely, only to be placed on life support because it is incapable of independent existence? If you view this 24-week fetus as a "person", on what moral basis can you justify a decision to ...

• Force it from the womb.
  
• Place it on life support.

...instead of allowing it to develop properly, as God intended?

I do not think that our society should extend personhood status based on viability. I only see being a member of the human species as a valid criteria for personhood. That's why I am pro-life.

I understand your position, but I still maintain that mine is perfectly valid and consistent.

 

[DavidCaroYates]

Quote:
DCY: All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thought abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the allegedly false comparisons.

Ev: In that case, you don't have an argument.

DCY: What?!? Why would you interject at this point? It makes no sense! Before this turns ugly, let's all step back, take a deep breath and try to maintain some civility in this discussion. I know it's a controversial subject where emotions inevitably run high, but nonetheless surely we can still practise common courtesy with each other, can't we?

Quote:
DCY: Rather, as you only allude above, it was you expressing your position that abortion should be a choice left up to the individual.

Ev: So what this really comes down to, is your own subjective definition of what constitutes a "person." This is precisely why it amounts to a false equivocation - because you are using a subjective definition instead of a universally accepted one.

DCY: There IS NO "universally accepted" definition!! So yes, this IS what it "really comes down to." This is of course the crux of the whole issue: Does the foetus possess full personhood? Or, does the foetus become a person at some point during gestation, like at the point of viability (whenever THAT is?! It's different for every baby)? Or, is the foetus not at all a person until s/he has been fully delivered from the birth-canal?
I presume that we would virtually all agree that causing the deliberate death of another 'person' rightly warrants being deemed 'wrong' and that it's that that we should endeavour to avoid to the best of our ability. Correct?
However, you've rather arbitrarily dubbed the position to which I personally adhere--that the foetus attains personhood at the moment of conception--"subjective." But how is it that your position--that the foetus is not a person until the point of viability, or after the beginning of the third trimester--manages to escape this category? In point of fact, since this is the central issue that underlies the whole debate, your position is every bit as subjective as mine. Scientific knowledge (as if that's the only method for attaining truth that exists) provides no more support for your stand on this than it does mine. That being so, it only stands to reason that, since it in fact is so difficult to determine with any appreciable degree of certainty at just which point the foetus achieves verifiable personhood, and since causing the deliberate death of another 'person' is what constitutes a wrongful act, then we would do well to give the foetus the benefit of the doubt and refrain from deliberately acting so as to cause her or his death at all points of gestation.
Arbitrarily judging upon the status of 'personhood' is always a dangerous business. The Nazis did it to the Jews. The white slave-owners of the American South did it to the Blacks. Heck, it was only relatively recently that even the governments of the Western democracies declared that females possessed the status of 'persons'. I'm sure none of us would be very comfortable if our own status as 'persons' were left up to others to decide. Amidst all this uncertainty, one thing I am certain of is that none of us are really qualified to accurately determine at which point a foetus achieves that arbitrary status either. My prayer and prediction is that, just as those other moral evils were eventually by and large corrected, the powers that be will finally recognise this error and will then take measures to rectify the moral evil of abortion, also. And the sooner the better.

Quote:
DCY: Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

Ev: In what way is it "still outstanding"? Are you seriously asking if I believe that people should be free to decide if rape and murder are OK?
That, sir, is an insult to my intelligence and morals. I shall not dignify it with an answer.

DCY: Well, you're arguing that it should be okay to allow people to decide upon the murder of their unborn children! Why not also ask if you think it alright to rape and otherwise murder?!?

Quote:
DCY: I cannot of course speak to your own personal situation

Ev; No, you cannot. But I note with interest that this didn't stop you from implying it.

DCY: Well at least I had the courtesy to exclude you from my 'implication' if it didn't apply to you.

Ev: I do not hold this position because I want to be "with it", nor do I hold it in deference to "social trends." In fact, my position is at odds with the current "social trends." It is quite conservative - though not as right-wing as yours.

DCY: I agree. And this is why I asked why you evidently thought it necessary to in effect direct your opposition in the direction of those with whom you would ostensibly be in large agreement. Both Jes and I have already conceded that we would consider abortion a viable option in those rare instances where the mother's life was in genuine jeopardy should she carry her pregnancy to term, and yet you're reserving your obloquies exclusively for us! What gives, man?

Quote:
DCY: Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!?

Ev: I said "emotivism", not "overt emotionalism." You have chosen to employ a logical fallacy known as "The Argument From Pity." That is a classic case of emotivism.

DCY: And this is called a 'distinction without a difference'. And it's not called an 'argument from pity', it's called an 'appeal to pity'. And furthermore, that is not what I was doing when you accused me of emotivism. I'll admit, this could have been legitimately construed when I was referring to the photo of the sliced-up baby but, for goodness' sake, it WAS A PHOTO OF A SLICED-UP BABY!!! My gosh, when it comes to an image of a sliced-up baby, pity should NOT have to have been elicited by me. I'm frankly astonished that such a picture couldn't have done that by itself. It just goes to show how far into barbarism we've descended over these past few decades. (And no, this last comment was not directed at you, Ev. You're excluded from it.)

 

[DavidCaroYates]

Jes: the last numbers I heard on those abortions were one percent for the rape/incest case, and three percent for the disabled child case, so from a percentage standpoint, we're talking relatively small numbers. Note that those percentages are from an old source.

(DCY: Indeed, Jes, the figures I saw recently were much lower--but they were in a Canadian magazine and I'm not sure if they covered all of N. America or just Canada. Nevertheless, it only makes sense. First of all, it is extremely rare that rape results in pregnancy. Not only would a woman have to be extremely unlucky to have been raped during those few days each month in which she is ovulating, but even so, pregnancy rarely results due to the trauma involved. And incest numbers are now known to have been notoriously exaggerated in the past [as were the rape numbers, for that matter]. More recent statistics show that instances of true incest are also extremely rare. By far the majority of 'incest' cases are actually a situation of a young girl being molested by her mother's live-in boyfriend or, even less often than that, a step-father, and so, does not really constitute incest.)

Ev: Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

DCY: My goodness, Ev, your parameters are stretching past the breaking point. What happened to the "only where a mother's life is in danger" criterion? And why the hell is adoption never brought in as a viable alternative in a situation like this? I would really like to see some statistics on the percentage of adoptees who would rather have been aborted than adopted.
As far as the "young girls getting pregnant" argument is concerned, I'm sorry, but it hits a little too close to home for me. My own mother was only fifteen and my father sixteen when she got pregnant with me. By this criterion I might not be here right now. I can assure you though that both my parents are awfully glad they had me. On the other hand, my brother got his girlfriend
pregnant a few years back--and both were older than my parents were at my conception--but opted to abort, and both are now profoundly regretful of it--to the point of tears and self-denigration at the mere thought of what they have done.

..........................
Jes: Now, viability is at around 20 weeks.

Ev: Actually, I believe it's not quite so specific as that. The viability of the fetus differs from case to case - sometimes beginning at the 20th week, sometimes the 24th.

DCY: You admit this criterion can be inaccurate up to a full month and you're still willing to risk that a viable baby's existence, and therefore a person's life, could still be determined by the whim of a young girl? Do you honestly have no qualms in advocating the legal right of one person to legitimately decide whether or not the life of another should be allowed to continue?

Ev: But only 40% of babies born at this stage will reach adulthood.

DCY: But Ev, that's still a pretty high percentage, all things considered. Heck, given the decision between life and death, I'd take those odds. Wouldn't you?

Jes: Since our society does not believe that those two things are valid criteria for personhood, to be pro-choice is to say that personhood depends on a person's age and societal technology.

Ev: No, that is not true. I argue that biological development (which is not the same as mere "age") is an essential factor.

DCY: Indeed, biological development is much more arbitrary than is age. Age can measured with great accuracy. Biological development, on the other hand, cannot--especially when it comes to a foetus. Heck, our own OB-Gyn was, at one point way off in determining the 'development' of our second baby. And I've heard of several instances where an attending physician made all sorts of misdiagnoses. One, using ultrasound, declared a couple's unborn a girl when it later turned out to be a boy (and vice versa). There are also numerous instances in which a doctor determined a yet-to-be born child to be hopelessly retarded or physically-handicapped, and have even gone so far as to strenuously recommend termination of the pregnancy, but was later proved 100% wrong.
No Ev, as you've already condeded, this is far from an exact science, which is why we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt.

Ev: And is it reasonable to say that just because a fetus can be delivered alive at 24 weeks, it must therefore be treated as a person? Is it reasonable to say that a "person" can be induced to leave the womb (its natural place of residence at this early stage) prematurely, only to be placed on life support because it is incapable of independent existence?

DCY: If it comes down to the life or death of the child, yes.

Ev: If you view this 24-week fetus as a "person", on what moral basis can you justify a decision to ...

--Force it from the womb.

--Place it on life support.

...instead of allowing it to develop properly, as God intended?

DCY: Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Why even bring this into the conversation, Ev? And, besides that, why wouldn't we use the technology that is available to us and thereby attempt to save the baby's life if it was otherwise in danger?

Jes: I do not think that our society should extend personhood status based on viability. I only see being a member of the human species as a valid criteria for personhood. That's why I am pro-life.

Ev: I understand your position, but I still maintain that mine is perfectly valid and consistent.

DCY: Well, this is really the overarching point of the discussion, isn't it? Naturally you see your own position as "perfectly valid and consistent." Just as Jes does his and I do mine; otherwise we wouldn't be making them. It is really here where the disagreement that is the basis of the whole conversation lies.
However...
Not that you'll miss me. I'm sure, but this is as good as time as any to announce that I'm bowing out of this particular discussion. I really enjoyed it, but it's simply taking up too much of my very limited time. I came to this site to discuss more theological matters of a biblical-exegetical turn, not moral issues. So, farewell and God bless. (Jes is doing a better job than I could in arguing for the pro-life position anyway.) Thanks, all.

 

[o2bwise]

The Widow of Zerephath

The Widow of Zerephath

Ev: Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

Then, where is faith, Evan.

Remember the widow of Zerephath!

 

[Evangelion]

DCY - I'll address your latest series of posts tomorrow, when I've arrived home from work.

 

[jes1994]

Evangelion,

Yes, I've heard of a few doctors trying to bend the rules. What are they usually charged with if they're caught performing an illegal procedure?

I think the laws used in the cases say something along the lines of "performing an illegal abortion". But I am not sure. It would likely vary from state to state.

Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

There's one more option you did not list... give the baby up for adoption. But this is the rape exception, and I'd rather put it on hold until we've discussed some of the other issues.

Surely the legal terms "accomplice, 1st degree murder, & 2nd degree murder" would apply in this case?

The difference between first and second degree murder is premeditation. Since We're talking about thinking through and performing a medical procedure, that seems pretty well premeditated in my book. In a nutshell, I would prosecute the doctor along the lines of a murderer. The patient would get counted as an accomplice, and prosecuting as such would be an option. When looking at grown up situations, the decision to prosecute an accomplice is usually made along the lines of this: if the accomplice assists in prosecuting the murderer, the charges/sentence are reduced or dropped. If the accomplice does not assist, then they are charged but not handled as severely as the murderer.

For the purposes of abortion, I would be happy to have the law grant full immunity to the patient and just prosecute the doctor for a crime along the lines of murder.

In our current world, I make my own choice on the issue...

Would your choice be to prosecute the doctor performing an abortion as a murderer?

If yes, then you and I are in agreement. Such a position in the US is generally not known as a pro-choice position. I just misunderstood your terms.

If no, then I'd like to further address the points from your previous post in my next one.

I understand your position, but I still maintain that mine is perfectly valid and consistent.

Understood. I'm glad we're having this discussion.

 

[Zakath]

Re: The Widow of Zerephath

Re: The Widow of Zerephath

Originally posted by o2bwise
Then, where is faith, Evan.

Remember the widow of Zerephath!

A mythical story, set thousands of years ago? Unfortunately we have to live in the real world today where prophets don't show up to miraculously deliver children from starvation. Remember the tragic case of little Samuel Ribidoux? Where were all the prophets when little Samuel was starved to death in the name of God?
See: http://www.boston.com/dailynews/153/region/Murder_trial_begins_for_religi:.shtml

Then, where is "faith", o2bwise?

 

[me again]

Zak! Is Back!

I thought you left?

 

[jes1994]

Zakath,

Welcome back. It's good to see you again.

 

[jes1994]

DCY,

First, the equivocation I made was a false equivocation. I made it, I should not have. I should have come right out with the statement that the false equivocation point ended up at. When I made the statement as I should have made it in the first place, Evangelion and I agreed on the statement. Please drop the issue.

Second, about using pictures of aborted babies as avatars... I oppose it. If you support it, then please look here and address my points, or start a new thread.

Thank you,

 

[Projill]

*starts jumping up and down* Zakath's back! Zakath's back!!

*runs off to buy the beer*

Welcome back!

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by me again
Zak! Is Back!

I thought you left?

Yup. If I never left, then I couldn't be back now, could I?

Originally posted by jes1994
Zakath,

Welcome back. It's good to see you again.

Thanks and I'll be checking things out from time to time, not at my old posting frequency. Work is just too hectic...

Originally posted by Projill
*starts jumping up and down* Zakath's back! Zakath's back!!

*runs off to buy the beer*

Welcome back!

Thanks Jill.
If you jump up and down too much, you'll shake up the beer!
How are things? Still keeping the denizens of TOL in line?

 

[me again]

You made a grand return, just like when you made a grand exit!

 

[Projill]

Originally posted by Zakath

Thanks Jill.
If you jump up and down too much, you'll shake up the beer!

Whoops! Sorry! *sheepish grin*

How are things? Still keeping the denizens of TOL in line?

Quite well. I did well on my finals and everything and I've started taking my place amongst the other avowed skeptics on here...though I still have quite a bit to learn.

Other than some minor clashes with Knight seeing as how we're both hot-headed and argumentative, everything has been smooth sailing. Just glad you're back to lend your well-reasoned voice on occassion.

 

[Atheist_Divine]

Originally posted by DavidCaroYates
DCY: Of course this is POSSIBLE, A-D, but surely it is not DESIRABLE--especially where horribly murdered, defenseless babies are concerned. Shouldn't this 'de-sensitisation' to which you refer be guarded against? And, in point of fact, to the degree to which soldiers and journalists and the like are genuinely de-sensitised to such images, I think they do lose a bit of their humanity--and I would even wager good money that most of them would agree with that.

I would not wish to deny anyone's humanity, for any reason. It is a dangerous precedent. If a person is no longer to be regarded as human, what is to stop us killing that person?

The fact is, my goodness, I'm honestly stunned that anyone would even wish to argue about this. Are you sincerely not bothered by the photo of a sliced-up human baby?!? Heck, as far as I'm concerned, it could be a picture of a puppy, kitten or practically whatever sliced-up in like manner and I think I'd find myself bothered by it.

No, I'm not bothered by it. I have seen too many pictures used as propaganda for right-wing Christians to pay much attention to them. Pictures of sliced up animals do not bother me anymore than seeing a dead chicken does - they're just dead things. I've seen dead people before - they're just dead. Now, pictures of living people in pain or danger, those do upset me, but there is little point agonising over those already dead.

~AD~

 

[Brother Vinny]

Zakath,

Hey, good to see you again. You left just prior to my return, so I was sorry to have missed you.

I know this is off the subject, Zak, but does your return imply that you've figured out a hypothetical situation in which it would be morally acceptable to rape a nine-year-old? From what I've read, this question was still dangling when you departed.

If you wish to answer this, I'd ask that you start another thread.

If you don't wish to answer this, I'll completely understand.

 

[Jefferson]

Zakath asked Projill:

How are things? Still keeping the denizens of TOL in line?

Projill replied:

Quite well.

Oh, please. Zakath, Projill has been dodging my questions to her on this thread . . .
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I29F52DF for over 5 months. She's not holding up. She's barely hanging on.

 

[Evangelion]

For DCY.

For DCY.

DCY -

Quote:
DCY: All due respect Ev, but there still isn't a false equivocation being made here. It was not a statement from you to the effect that you thought abortion should be an "everyday procedure" that prompted the allegedly false comparisons.

Ev: In that case, you don't have an argument.

DCY: What?!? Why would you interject at this point? It makes no sense! Before this turns ugly, let's all step back, take a deep breath and try to maintain some civility in this discussion. I know it's a controversial subject where emotions inevitably run high, but nonetheless surely we can still practise common courtesy with each other, can't we?

Sure. I don't have a problem with that - and I'm perfectly calm, in case you were wondering. I'm simply pointing out that you have no argument. If anything, this is a courtesy that I'm extending to you!

DCY: There IS NO "universally accepted" definition!!

*snip*

Strictly speaking, no. Practically speaking, yes - the medical definition.

I have already made my position clear on this subject.

However, you've rather arbitrarily dubbed the position to which I personally adhere--that the foetus attains personhood at the moment of conception--"subjective."

Of course it's subjective. If I place three adults in a room, along with a small petri dish containing the mass of cells which constitute a fertilised egg, and then invite someone into that room and ask them to tell me how many "persons" they can see, I think we both know that the answer would be based on the number of adults in the room.

The petri dish (which I would leave unlabelled, so as not to influence the judgement of the person I had invited into the room) would most likely be ignored.

But how is it that your position--that the foetus is not a person until the point of viability, or after the beginning of the third trimester--manages to escape this category?

Because until the foetus is fully developed, we don't literally have a person. At the very most, I could say that we have a partially developed person. But that's about all.

In point of fact, since this is the central issue that underlies the whole debate, your position is every bit as subjective as mine.

*snip*

That is demonstrably false.

*snip*

Arbitrarily judging upon the status of 'personhood' is always a dangerous business.

Very true. And in light of this fact, I would advise you to consider your position very carefully.

Quote:
DCY: Trust me, there is no false equivocation being made in this request, which by the way is still outstanding.

Ev: In what way is it "still outstanding"? Are you seriously asking if I believe that people should be free to decide if rape and murder are OK?
That, sir, is an insult to my intelligence and morals. I shall not dignify it with an answer.

DCY: Well, you're arguing that it should be okay to allow people to decide upon the murder of their unborn children! Why not also ask if you think it alright to rape and otherwise murder?!?

No matter how much emotion you bring into this debate, you are still presenting a false equivocation, and nothing in the world can change that fact. Since I note with interest that Jes1994 has agreed with me on this point, I see no reason to repeat my previous argument with you.

*snip*

DCY: Well at least I had the courtesy to exclude you from my 'implication' if it didn't apply to you.

No, I'm not entirely convinced that you did. Otherwise, why bring it up in the first place?

*snip*

Both Jes and I have already conceded that we would consider abortion a viable option in those rare instances where the mother's life was in genuine jeopardy should she carry her pregnancy to term

...as did I. So what's your point?

and yet you're reserving your obloquies exclusively for us! What gives, man?

I have not "reserved" any "obliquies" for either of you, as an objective review of this thread will show.

Quote:
DCY: Where's the overt emotionalism in what I posted?!?

Ev: I said "emotivism", not "overt emotionalism." You have chosen to employ a logical fallacy known as "The Argument From Pity." That is a classic case of emotivism.

DCY: And this is called a 'distinction without a difference'.

Emotivism does not equate to "overt emotionalism." Emotivism is in fact a philosophical term. Read David Hume.

And it's not called an 'argument from pity', it's called an 'appeal to pity'.

Mea culpa. I stand corrected, but my point remains.

And furthermore, that is not what I was doing when you accused me of emotivism.

You clearly did, as an objective review of this thread will show.

I'll admit, this could have been legitimately construed when I was referring to the photo of the sliced-up baby

*snip*

...and it could also be legitimately construed from the comments to which I took exception. Which it was.

Ev: Yes, I can imagine that they're pretty small. But then you have the young girl who gets pregnant - what should she do? Keep the child, even if she can't support it? Condemn them both to a life of misery and hardship? Or deliver the child and just hope for the best, even if she's not even remotely suited for motherhood? This is where my "freedom of choice" qualification comes in.

DCY: My goodness, Ev, your parameters are stretching past the breaking point.

Really? Do tell...

What happened to the "only where a mother's life is in danger" criterion?

I still stand by it. Your problem here is that you're reading my hypotheticals as if they constitute my actual position. Think again.

And why the hell is adoption never brought in as a viable alternative in a situation like this?

Because I am talking about a case where adoption has already been ruled out by the mother. Wasn't it obvious?

*snip*

As far as the "young girls getting pregnant" argument is concerned, I'm sorry, but it hits a little too close to home for me. My own mother was only fifteen and my father sixteen when she got pregnant with me.

*snip*

OK, so you got lucky. Many don't. Either way, the choice is still in the hands of the mother.

*snip*

DCY: You admit this criterion can be inaccurate up to a full month

No, that's not what I wrote. What I am saying here is that because the speed of development varies from foetus to foetus, some foetuses will be viable at an earlier stage than others.

Once again you've totally missed the point, and jumped in with another emotive attack. This is ridiculous. Your arguments are rife with intellectual dishonesty.

and you're still willing to risk that a viable baby's existence, and therefore a person's life, could still be determined by the whim of a young girl?

*snip*

You seem to believe that a 20-24-week-old baby is "viable" in the sense of being ready for birth. Allow me to point out that this is simply not true.

The baby is only viable at this point if the doctors take the radical step of invading the womb and removing the foetus. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Take the foetus out of the womb just because you can, and hope that it somehow manages to survive? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, DCY.

Remember - even after this is done, the foetus must be maintained on life support, as it is physically incapable of independent life at this stage of development - and even if the foetus does survive removal from the womb, it only has a 40% chance of reaching adulthood. Do those sound like good odds to you, DCY? I can tell you right now that they sure sound pretty lousy to me.

If the foetus was properly viable (i.e. capable of being born in the usual manner) at 20-24 weeks, your argument would stand. But it isn't, so your argument has no support from the plain, cold, hard facts of life - and these are the facts which matter.

Ev: But only 40% of babies born at this stage will reach adulthood.

DCY: But Ev, that's still a pretty high percentage, all things considered. Heck, given the decision between life and death, I'd take those odds. Wouldn't you?

Of course I would - but the point I am making here is that others wouldn't, and they should be allowed to make that choice. After all, your country doesn't even have a proper national health care system. How many teenage girls have enough money to keep a foetus on life support for an indefinite period of time? Would you care to step outside your personal comfort zone, and consider - just for a moment - the fact that many people in this world don't enjoy the same benefits and privileges that you do?

*snip*

Ev: No, that is not true. I argue that biological development (which is not the same as mere "age") is an essential factor.

DCY: Indeed, biological development is much more arbitrary than is age.

Oh, really? That's a fascinating assertion. I would be interested to know how you might go about proving it.

Age can measured with great accuracy. Biological development, on the other hand, cannot--especially when it comes to a foetus.

*snip*

So I can safely ignore all those pro-life Websites which confidently assure me that a 10-week-old foetus has such-and-such features, while a fifteen-week-old foetus has developed to such-and-such a point, etc., etc.? Is that what you're saying?

No Ev, as you've already condeded

*snip*

Straw man. I have "conceded" no such thing, and I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth., this is far from an exact science, which is why we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt.

*snip*

Ev: If you view this 24-week fetus as a "person", on what moral basis can you justify a decision to ...

--Force it from the womb.

--Place it on life support.

...instead of allowing it to develop properly, as God intended?

DCY: Excuse me, but what are you talking about?

I am talking about a decision which you told me you would make.

Why even bring this into the conversation, Ev?

Because when you wrote this...

DCY: If it comes down to the life or death of the child, yes.

...I thought you were serious. But now you're having second thoughts?

And, besides that, why wouldn't we use the technology that is available to us

*snip*

Irrelevant. I never argued that we shouldn't use the technology that is available to us in this situation. I was debating the morality of the situation itself.