"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[LKmommy]

That doesn't make it "immoral" or anything else you think I'm trying to pin on you.

I think it is wrong and immoral to kill unborn babies. Can you accept I do not agree with you or your line of thinking? I do not think it should be legal. Today, IMO society thinks it is all about them/individual rights. Who will speak for those who can not speak, the truly innnocent ones. I will.

My "oh well attitude" is your assumption. It was many years ago, I went through all 5 grief stages and sat at anger for some years. I am in a better spiritual and mental place now.

The March of Dimes provided many services to both of my babies while they were in the NICU and also services to me. March of Dimes DOES do research, but even they are not able to identify all the variable factors that cause "spontaneous miscarriages". They can certainly point out high risk factors. You can google March of Dimes miscarriage and you can find many things they have discovered regarding that issue. The issue I am speaking of is abortion, the choice of killing a baby, not a naturally occurring miscarriage.

Having an abortion can make one high risk for future "spontaneous miscarriage" due to damage incurred to the uterus or cervix. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/449.full This is a long read AND it discusses other studies done and the possibility of flaws in other "research samples".

 

[mighty_duck]

My apologies. I view a lot of the more generic pro-choice arguments fallacious in this regard, not your arguments specifically.

You may view your position as a reasonable standard. However, that is something you undoubtedly have in common with every person with an opinion on the matter.

I wasn't implying that you are being unreasonable

I was explaining my methodology - and contrasting it to one where one might choose an impregnable universal rule, and stick by it thick or thin (and for which "special pleading" would be a legitimate objection)

Yes, I too feel that I am using a reasonable standard. My standard preserves the life and liberty of both parties. When the party not responsible is killed, how can that said to be "balancing" anything especially in regard to an equitable search of justice? :idunno:

When one "party" is a cell, and has never had a thought, let alone feeling pain or happiness, it's "weight" in the equation is lower. When one "party" fully relies on the other's body, then it requires a very strong consent for using it.

Why is the loss greater? You may not accept the comparison, but I don't see a loss lesser or greater when a woman miscarries compared to when a child is stillborn.

To whom? To the mother, you are usually correct. Unless it is a zygote that doesn't implant, and she will never know.

To the unborn? There is a great difference between an unthinking, unfeeling clump of cells that fail to implant, and a fetus with a developed nervous system who has begun hearing its mother, began perceiving its environment and itself, and ultimately feels the intuitive terror of losing its life.

Would you support legislation outlawing abortion after the 13th week?

If abortion were illegal, I'd see it as a huge improvement - taking care of over 90% of cases.
Not unlike how you feel about the morning after pill.

All humans have a fundamental right to life. It should be an easy statement to find agreement.

As you define it, we don't agree. It is only when you remove your definition and cloak yourself in ambiguity, do you find agreement.

That is counterproductive to your stated mission.

It's naive to assume there is a "we" in the collective sense. That is one of the points I have repeated. There is no collective in this regard. That is why attempting to establish "personhood" objectively is a fool's errand.

It is hard to formally define, but easy to understand. We all know a person when we see one. We don't need a microscope or a dictionary to do it.

Most concepts are like that.

They'll agree that all humans have a right to life but as soon as you assert that this includes the unborn, the rationalizations begin.

Or perhaps when they say "humans have a right to life" they really mean "people have a right to life"?

Humans and people are used interchangeably in most contexts - and you are unwittingly using this ambiguity.

There is a real issue here that goes beyond your cynical "rationalization for abortion". We don't think cells should have rights. It is very intuitive. I would argue it takes a lot more rationalization and philosophy to come up with an opposite conclusion.

What is the "real issue" if not what rationalizations sound good enough to justify abortion?

What rationalizations sound good to deny women their basic rights?

The issue is that we don't agree that zygotes should have the same rights as you or I. This isn't just in the case of abortion, it also holds for in-vitro fertilization or stem cell research, for example.

 

[Stripe]

choose an impregnable universal rule, and stick by it thick or thin

Conception. At conception what we have is a newly made human being.

(and for which "special pleading" would be a legitimate objection)

Science and plain old common sense. No special pleading, sorry.

Any other delineation of what denotes personhood is an arbitrary line drawn for one ultimate reason - that is to justify killing those who are the wrong side of it.

In argument, pro-aborts run from one emotional argument to the next logical fallacy, but they can never hold their ground at any point. It's always "blurry" or "grey". There are always exceptions. At no point, even when they concede personhood, will they stand up and declare what is murder to be murder.

They can't. That would require them to confess personhood. And how can they do that when they have no standard?

 

[alwight]

In the case of murder your argument falls flat.

Again "murder" is only your opinion LH, nobody intends to murder anyone or indeed person here. Doing what is considered to be for the best in each individual case rather takes precedence for me over your dogmatic blanket beliefs about conception.
I suspect that you don't actually care a fig about individual cases at all, you simply want that there to be a "soul" created somehow magically at conception that needs to be "saved", right?

 

[alwight]

Ditched, no, but they were under the law and a theocracy, Christianity is not a theocracy, and salvation is available to all.

Tell me what my chances are of sharing the gospel with the dead?

Also show one example where christians are ordered to kill non beleivers in the New Testament.

You do know what New Testament means also don't you?

Then ditch the OT. Ditch Original Sin and that sinful souls are created at conception that only your doctrine and religion can save them from. lain:

 

[alwight]

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 don’t think I’m the one being non sequitur here if only because I’m pro-choice, if it happens to you then you choose not me but don’t tell me what I can choose.

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. lain:

Well to be clear, I am for (hopefully) a rational and reasonable choice given the individual facts, while if abortion is similarly that choice for others then I am fine with that. I oppose any blanket prohibition while I’m for the woman’s right to choose not to be pregnant as and when she finds out. When that choice is made then afaic different rules apply.

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’ve already disagreed that a zygote imo is not “a” human although of human origin, yes, like a piece of my skin. A human being is what I’m concerned with and that includes there also being a person within which to my mind first requires a reasonably developed central nervous system.

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.

I think conclusions should be more based around the individual case, but the law already gives rights to the foetus from a given point which I think is reasonable. I don’t see why a complete ban, like a blunt instrument, would be particularly helpful from that point.

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?

Yes of course depending on all the specific facts.

I am open to hearing your situations where it could be versus where it is not.

Good that would be a start if we always considered each case on its own merits rather than imposing a total ban regardless in advance.

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 some perhaps are, while some may also be doing good instead while you seem want a single law to cover it all.

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’m not in favour of later term abortions unless for good medical reasons. However I wouldn’t object to any woman’s (considered) choice to abort any unwanted pregnancy from the heads up. She at least should have a say in what will happen to her body but please don’t tell me she made that choice by having sex.
But it is good that you accept some considered reasoning about some of the more dire ways to become pregnant, but should you really be drawing a line there at all, why exactly would you think that, if you nevertheless think an innocent child is killed in aborting such a zygote (say)?

I was surprised to learn that the US had abortion on demand.

What wrong with that?

Just surprised really, but simply turning up and expecting an abortion on demand doesn’t seem to relate to any proper consideration of an abortion or in considering of other options, yes adoption, maybe financial or physical support. I don’t think abortion should be used as a contraception alternative despite my comments above about any unwanted pregnancy.

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.

So we should never interfere even when experience and medical science says otherwise?
I don’t think that fear of the fact that we will get it wrong sometimes should outweigh honest human attempts at getting it right more often than not.

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.

But hopefully you would nevertheless balance it with the lives and wishes of already extant human persons?

 

[WizardofOz]

In a nutshell:
Humans beings tend to instinctively value undeniable persons over Petri dishes full of zygotes.

And value a helpless baby over an elderly person or a woman with a zygote in her belly over a woman identical in every way save the pregnancy.

You seem to think that this makes a larger point but it really doesn't.

A person might grab a bag full of a million dollars rather than the bag full of $999,999. Therefore the second bag is worthless and should be discarded?

You're equivocating 'value' here. The hypothetical expresses instictive and perceptible moral worth....not tangible worth.

I didn't even use the term 'value' so, despite your declaration, equivocation of the term isn't possible.

They are both human beings. The pro-life crowd proclaims (quite loudly) that both sets here are unequivocally equal. Obviously they are not. It's a failed point of pro-life ideology.

You keep beating this straw man down, quip. It's like you're not even reading my replies. Have I made this argument?

I even argued the opposite when I stated that humans value an infant over an old man.

Respond to my words and not some generalized pro-life straw man caricature.

It really has nothing to do with abortion or defining the value of a zygote/embryo/fetus.

The perception of value for the zygote differs than that of the infant. Even you confessed to this obvious fact. So why you keep asserting otherwise just leaves me confused. :dead:

And here you acknowledge that I do not argue the straw man you just took down. I am not asserting otherwise. You're confused because you're bouncing back and forth responding to what I have actually said and what you think I may say due to my being pro-life.

You stated: "I am not stating that a zygote is necessarily equal to a newborn as far as worth, just as I would save a child before I would save an old man, even one with less physical ability."

Where did you gather that value judgment? intuition? common-sense? All I'm saying is that the hypothetical mirrors this exact judgment.

Should the old man be able to be killed arbitrarily? This, again, is why the hypothetical fails in the context of the thread.

If you want to use it to attack someone who asserts that a zygote and an infant are equal in subjective worth then find someone who is making that argument.

I haven't.

You're still fishing. I told you if i could only save one I'd save the one based on external circumstances. you didn't like that answer so apparently I was wrong. :mmph:

You cannot be wrong because you still have not answered. I'll try again. The only external circumstance is that one is pregnant with a zygote, the other is not.

Who do you save and why?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Then ditch the OT. Ditch Original Sin and that sinful souls are created at conception that only your doctrine and religion can save them from. lain:

The purpose of the law is to declare us all guilty before God, in a way that we can see our own sinfulness and recognize our need for a savior.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Then ditch the OT. Ditch Original Sin and that sinful souls are created at conception that only your doctrine and religion can save them from. lain:

Youre confusing me with catholics.

 

[quip]

And value a helpless baby over an elderly person or a woman with a zygote in her belly over a woman identical in every way save the pregnancy.

You seem to think that this makes a larger point but it really doesn't.

Yes, it's very large point. One that you're obfuscating.
Ok, since you agree that a zygote has less value than it's host, the mother, (and since 'value' is apparently non factor for you.) please explain your objection as to why she must not abort this zygote if she so chooses.

I didn't even use the term 'value' so, despite your declaration, equivocation of the term isn't possible.

Please, stop the quibbling :doh: We've used and referred to the term 'value' for several posts now...the actual term you used was "worthless" which implies value. Such tactics only make you appear dodgy. And yes, you're equivocating here. The 'value' implications are not the same and you know it...hence your quibbling.

You keep beating this straw man down, quip. It's like you're not even reading my replies. Have I made this argument?

I even argued the opposite when I stated that humans value an infant over an old man.

It's not a straw-man if you conceded to it...it's simply fact. You're analogies simply illustrate my point concerning the relative views concerning human value. (My Point: Absolute statements such as "All life is sacred" are noble yet, idealistic and naive.)

Respond to my words and not some generalized pro-life straw man caricature.

And here you acknowledge that I do not argue the straw man you just took down. I am not asserting otherwise. You're confused because you're bouncing back and forth responding to what I have actually said and what you think I may say due to my being pro-life.

You're reading too much into the hypothetical. Get beyond your defensive posture so we may move on with the discussion.

Should the old man be able to be killed arbitrarily? This, again, is why the hypothetical fails in the context of the thread.

This is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. No rights are being violated by the existence of the old man; the old man is not subsisting within or upon another human-being; his relative value is useless to the larger abortion picture. I reiterate that from the perspective of legal rights, pregnancy is a wholly unique situation. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?

If you want to use it to attack someone who asserts that a zygote and an infant are equal in subjective worth then find someone who is making that argument.
I haven't

Then move on...state your case.

You cannot be wrong because you still have not answered. I'll try again. The only external circumstance is that one is pregnant with a zygote, the other is not.

Who do you save and why?

You're still attempting this useless fishing expedition? If there's no external circumstance (exception pregnancy)..then what need is there to save one of the women. [and how am I to know one is in the early stages of pregnancy?] :sherlock: You can't have it both ways.

 

[alwight]

Youre confusing me with catholics.

OK but last time I checked Catholics are nevertheless still Christians which is was what my original point was about, while also, in my experience, even many non Catholic Christians will cite the OT and original sin as the supposed point of Jesus' death on the cross. Many here on TOL believe in Noah's flood, tower of Babel and a young Earth because the OT tells them so.
So well done for being somewhat more free thinking than they are.

 

[Angel4Truth]

OK but last time I checked Catholics are nevertheless still Christians which is was what my original point was about, while also, in my experience, even many non Catholic Christians will cite the OT and original sin as the supposed point of Jesus' death on the cross. Many here on TOL believe in Noah's flood, tower of Babel and a young Earth because the OT tells them so.
So well done for being somewhat more free thinking than they are.

We are responsible for our own sin, not someone elses.

If you have done any of these you have sinned:

1.

You shall have no other gods before me.

2.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

3.

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

4.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

5.

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

6.

You shall not murder.

7.

You shall not commit adultery.

8.

You shall not steal.

9.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.

 

[mighty_duck]

You're still attempting this useless fishing expedition? If there's no external circumstance (exception pregnancy)..then what need is there to save one of the women. [and how am I to know one is in the early stages of pregnancy?] :sherlock: You can't have it both ways.

Good job on the rest of your answer, but on this point, I'm with WoO - it looks like you are trying very hard not to answer.

Two identical twins are stuck in two sides of an identically symmetric burning building, they are an identical distance from you and are in identical risk. The only difference is that you are told one of them is a couple of weeks pregnant.
You can only save one. Who would you save and why?
1. Pregnant twin.
2. Non-pregnant twin.
3. Choose one at random.

 

[Alate_One]

You cannot be wrong because you still have not answered. I'll try again. The only external circumstance is that one is pregnant with a zygote, the other is not.

Who do you save and why?

Just a quick correction here. A woman can't actually be pregnant with a zygote. Pregnancy begins at implantation and zygotes don't implant, blastocysts do (about 10 days after the zygote forms). It would also be impossible for a woman to know if she had a fertilized zygote inside of her. Even if she'd undergone IVF, they transfer blastocysts ready to implant, not zygotes. It could certainly be impossible for someone else to tell by looking.

 

[Stripe]

Pregnancy begins at implantation

Nope. Pregnancy begins at conception. What we have at conception is a brand new human being, complete with his own gender and DNA. He is not a part of his mother or a part of his father as there was both a moment before. When those two pieces unite, that is the only logical point at which a new person is created.

Anything else is just an arbitrary line in the sand drawn in order to justify killing those on the wrong side.

 

[quip]

Good job on the rest of your answer, but on this point, I'm with WoO - it looks like you are trying very hard not to answer.

Two identical twins are stuck in two sides of an identically symmetric burning building, they are an identical distance from you and are in identical risk. The only difference is that you are told one of them is a couple of weeks pregnant.
You can only save one. Who would you save and why?
1. Pregnant twin.
2. Non-pregnant twin.
3. Choose one at random.

Calling me out ehhh?! :Clete:

Well, the parameters are so tightly contrived here, to choose is redundant...and Oz knows this. I never stated that the zygote was useless (to the contrary actually.) So, I'm not sure what he's grasping for.

From what I can tell Oz wants me to affirm that 2>1 or in this case perhaps 1.3>1. It's a parody of the initial hypothetical...with no higher parabolic moral. I'm simply too stubborn to jump through his hoops of fire ......for lack of necessity.

[I believe option 3 is beside Oz's point. Which was, more or less, my initial choice.]

 

[mighty_duck]

Calling me out ehhh?! :Clete:

Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed. Or something to that effect

Well, the parameters are so tightly contrived here, to choose is redundant...and Oz knows this. I never stated that the zygote was useless (to the contrary actually.) So, I'm not sure what he's grasping for.

Which is why I was prodding you (ever so gently)... This looks like a dead end, but I'm curious to see where he's going.

I found the burning building with the zygote dish and the variable entity useful. For example, I would easily save a puppy or hamster rather than the zygote. I Would have mixed feelings about saving a lizard or a fish over the zygote. I'd choose the zygote over an ant farm.

I never did get an answer from WoO regarding that...

 

[Alate_One]

Nope. Pregnancy begins at conception. What we have at conception is a brand new human being, complete with his own gender and DNA. He is not a part of his mother or a part of his father as there was both a moment before. When those two pieces unite, that is the only logical point at which a new person is created.

Anything else is just an arbitrary line in the sand drawn in order to justify killing those on the wrong side.

Tell that to the British and American Medical Associations. An "established pregnancy" is defined by both as one that has implanted. This definition has the side effect of often (though not always) being detectable by pregnancy test.

A zygote has no attachment to the mother, as has been stated many times, only around 40% of all zygotes actually implant. If that's true you're defining the vast majority of "pregnancies" as ending in spontaneous abortion (a FAR higher level than induced abortion). Implantation is the only logical point at which to start "pregnancy", regardless of what you feel about the status of a fertilized egg.

 

[Stripe]

Tell that to the British and American Medical Associations. An "established pregnancy" is defined by both as one that has implanted. This definition has the side effect of often (though not always) being detectable by pregnancy test.

Sorry, but "established" pregnancy doesn't negate the fact that at conception a new person is created.

A zygote has no attachment to the mother, as has been stated many times, only around 40% of all zygotes actually implant. If that's true you're defining the vast majority of "pregnancies" as ending in spontaneous abortion (a FAR higher level than induced abortion). Implantation is the only logical point at which to start "pregnancy", regardless of what you feel about the status of a fertilized egg.

Arguments from consequence are irrational no matter how often you use them.

By the way, at implantation, what is a mother pregnant with?

 

[Alate_One]

Sorry, but "established" pregnancy doesn't negate the fact that at conception a new person is created.

They're separate issues is what I'm saying.

By the way, at implantation, what is a mother pregnant with?

Specifically? A blastocyst.

FYI it's only the inner cell mass (ICM) that will eventually form a baby.