I disagree since I think what I said does follow. If contraception failed then the intent was nevertheless not become pregnant. If you had your way then no remedial action after such an unwanted conception could then be allowed, effectively imo adding to a possibly routine sex act a perceived layer of unwarranted worries and extra risk, but anyway the real point is, if it is not immoral to use contraception then afaic it is not immoral to take action if and when it fails, belt and braces so to speak.
I don't oppose condoms (contraceptive). If a condom breaks and the woman gets pregnant I must accept abortion because I accept condom use?
Big non-sequiter there, I'm afraid.
I think you are simply making more consequences than there need be.
I am not really "making any consequences". Pregnancy is the consequence of having sex. The consequence already exists. Not to mention, you are in favor of the same laws I am, I am simply interested in sliding the timescale.
You support
and oppose abortion. I am simply more consistent in my opposition.
You seem to miss the point that it isn’t a switch that just turns on, it’s hard to know and we may all disagree exactly when, but my point was that there is no “person” just after conception, can we agree that much?
Define "person". I am avoiding the term for reasons already given. Mainly, if I disagree with your definition we're not going to progress this aspect of the discussion as you will likely be just as hesitant to accept mine.
A zygote/embryo/fetus is a
living human. That is really an indisputable scientific fact.
As I mentioned in my response to Alate, even a zygote is a living organism and that organism is classified as human.
I would rather stick with what is factually/scientifically indisputable.
I never said that, I was simply saying that before a proto-CNS we, or maybe only I, could feel safe.
There is no conclusion that can be taken from your view
after the development of the CNS? If not, there is no point in suggesting it be used as a marker of any kind even as one for yourself alone.
Mainly I don’t agree that a polarised law is actually helpful when dealing with each specific case with its own particular circumstances.
In other words, an abortion
after the 24th week could be justifiable in some cases but not others?
I am open to hearing your situations where it could be versus where it is not.
I don’t generally disagree with your principles here while medical ethics dictates that first they must do no harm (Primum non nocere). In practice that doesn’t always work very well particularly in surgery where some harm is pretty much inevitable. Arguably however unnecessarily prolonging life is sometimes doing harm too, so again there is some scope for a range of very different honest opinions afaic, depending on each case.
Elective abortion
is doing harm, needlessly to boot.
Yes but this doesn’t actually help us with trying to solve the problem of what is the best course of action for each case, you seem rather less keen to find ways to make an honest human choice based on all the facts than you are to have a fixed penalty in place for those who find themselves pregnant when they didn’t want to be.
If the pregnancy is not the result of rape, incest or life of the mother, how can an abortion be the best course of action?
Especially over, say, adoption? :think:
I was surprised to learn that the US had abortion on demand.
What wrong with that?
When it is a living human person, no I can’t exactly define when that is.
No one can, that's the problem. Or, no two people can collectively.
Because the definition is largely philosophical in nature.
I think zygotes at least are expendable, while later on at some point I will probably conclude otherwise. Do you not have an opinion yourself?
Obviously, I don't think they should be viewed as expendable.
