"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[mighty_duck]

It's an emotional subject. There's no way I can state my belief that abortion is murder without bringing an emotional element to the discussion. However, I do not invent arbitrary "rights" and absurd hypotheticals in order to generate an emotional setting.

Don't be coy. You call a single celled zygote a "baby", and a mother who does not wish her body to be used against her will a "baby murderer". Your entire case is assertion and emotional baggage.

I've provided reasoning.

You've asserted your position. When asked to defend it, you've asserted it again. Are we about done here?

You seem to be talking in non sequiturs. And I don't advocate a system where people cannot make medical decisions about their own bodies.

But that is EXACTLY what you are advocating in this special case, even if you don't advocate that in general.

Sometimes the law requires a person to put up with inconvenience in order that justice be served. The right to life of the unborn supersedes any other right you care to invent.

Inconvenience is having to break in a new pair of dress shoes while watching Kathy Griffin perform stand up.

Having your body's most private parts used against your will for nine months, ending with a baby going through your vagina is not a mere inconvenience.

I've asked you to show me where the law would force a person to have their body's most private parts used against their will. Instead you backtrack, only to make the same claim again.

When does a cerebral cortex start working? Is personhood a thing that grows with the cortex? Do people with a larger or better cortex have greater personhood? If your cortex is damaged, is your personhood damaged?

The cortex grows as all bodily functions grow. It first becomes functional around the 24th week.
Greater personhood doesn't make any sense.
If the cortex is damaged, such as the case of brain death, you stop being a person and start being a bag of organs. That's not me being harsh, that's how we justify organ donations from brain dead patients.

I do not believe personhood can be defined, yet I can tell a person from a poodle.

Based on what?
What is a person?
What is a poodle?

Do you have a definition in mind?

Well your definition of personhood doesn't include "dependence". But it seems clear you justify the murder of those you believe to be people because of their dependence upon a mother.

Personhood does not depend on dependence. If you became dependant on me my blood or bone marrow, you would still be a person. I would still be in my right to deny you access to my body, even if it means your death.

But you will advocate the death of someone because of his dependence upon his mother.

No. I advocate that it is the mother's decision whether to continue providing access to her body. Not mine. Not yours.

So your definition of personhood is meaningless. You do not believe in a right to life made equal for all people. You think some should forfeit that right for the convenience of a mother who does not want her baby.

A. if they aren't people, they don't get equal rights - therefore the definition is not meaningless.
B. I think it is the mother's decision on whether her body can be used.

 

[Stripe]

Don't be coy. You call a single celled zygote a "baby", and a mother who does not wish her body to be used against her will a "baby murderer". Your entire case is assertion and emotional baggage.

Nope. I've given reasons for what I believe. And if my assertions are true then my characterisations, emotional as they are, remain accurate.

You've asserted your position. When asked to defend it, you've asserted it again. Are we about done here?

You're done, it seems.

But that is EXACTLY what you are advocating in this special case, even if you don't advocate that in general.

Which is just you taking a wide detour around the basis of the objection.

Inconvenience is having to break in a new pair of dress shoes while watching Kathy Griffin perform stand up. Having your body's most private parts used against your will for nine months, ending with a baby going through your vagina is not a mere inconvenience.

It's called childbearing and it's the most wondrous thing that could happen to a man, let alone the mother.

I've asked you to show me where the law would force a person to have their body's most private parts used against their will. Instead you backtrack, only to make the same claim again.

I have no idea why I would need to show you such a law.

Greater personhood doesn't make any sense.

It sure doesn't. Hard to see how it is related to the growth of a body part then

Based on what?What is a person?What is a poodle?

A person is a member of the human race. A poodle is a dog. :idunno:

Desperate for me to state a definition, aren't you? I won't. I don't have one. I believe there is none. I think peso hood is conferred by God, not defined by men looking at body parts or skin colour.

Do you have a definition in mind?

Nope.

No. I advocate that it is the mother's decision whether to continue providing access to her body. Not mine. Not yours.

Of course it is her decision. Being able to choose does not make the action right.

A. if they aren't people, they don't get equal rights - therefore the definition is not meaningless.

Your definition is meaningless regardless. You advocate for a mother being allowed to kill what you consider to be a person.

B. I think it is the mother's decision on whether her body can be used.

Of course you do. You think mothers should be allowed to murder their unborn children. You do not care that they are people in the womb.

 

[Stripe]

Still not seeing a right to life.

As you are determined not to.

No, that was done long before Darwin. The Bible was used as justification.

The difference being that the bible did not deny personhood to anyone on skin colour or nationality. Nor even for servants.

I don't want to justify anything.

Sure, you do. You couldn't conceive without help so you decided to take matters into your own hands. When presented with two babies you chose to keep one and discard the other.

It doesn't say anything about a right to life.

Well I'm sure a Christian would be able to point to the verses that indicate the right to life. Psalms, however, clearly establishes personhood, an individual, made within his mother.

You don't know anything about that having never been in the situation. I do. Why do you think you're qualified to tell me what I should feel?

What are you ranting about? I'm judging you, not telling you how to feel.

Quit being a monumental idiot.

So you're clearly a total waste of my time.

Feel free to leave. :wave2:

I'm saying they never got to the point of BEING persons.

Assuming the truth of your idea is no way to make your case.

is a cell that has no possibility of every becoming even a fetus, a person?

And if he already is a person, does the fact that he will die negate his personhood?

Hello? You don't even know if it was a "child" even by your definition. *I* don't want to cast anything aside, I would have gladly taken two instead of one. However, as you may be unaware, women don't generally have control over that.

If there was no baby, why are you using this?

However, I'm not willing to tell other women what to do before a certain point I'd consider personhood. You are and are willing to stoop as low as possible to attack your opponent.

Personhood is a complete non-issue for you. It factors not at all in your opinion formation.

 

[Alate_One]

As you are determined not to.

The difference being that the bible did not deny personhood to anyone on skin colour or nationality. Nor even for servants.

I agree with you there. however, the fact remains scripture was used to justify denying personhood to people of African ancestry. I don't blame the Bible, I blame the people misusing it. But the point remains human beings will misuse anything available for their own ends.

Sure, you do. You couldn't conceive without help so you decided to take matters into your own hands. When presented with two babies you chose to keep one and discard the other.

:chuckle: You really don't have a clue how human reproduction or assistive technology works. Let me give you a clue.

There are many levels of reproductive technology. I used the most basic which simply uses fertility medication (clomid) to increase the number of eggs produced per cycle. Unlike the "super drugs" which our doctor referred to as "rocket fuel" you get only one or two extra eggs per cycle. I think the "risk" of twins is around 5% with clomid. We were also able to monitor the maturation of said eggs via ultrasound (which wasn't particularly cheap). This is NOT in vitro-fertilization. Other than monitoring the eggs (which allowed us to know there were two) and knowing when they were released, everything else was natural.

I had no way of knowing, much less controlling, which if any of the eggs would be fertilized and implant. We hoped for twins, but got only one. I've no idea what happened to the other egg, and there's really no way of knowing other than it clearly didn't implant.

Now, even in the case of IVF, which again I didn't use (it's extremely expensive, something like 10K a cycle and unnecessary in most cases - I already have one child). People generally only discard embryos if they've produced a lot of extras. Two certainly isn't extra. I believe normally you transfer up to three for one cycle, more than one is best to increase the odds of getting *any* to implant.

Well I'm sure a Christian would be able to point to the verses that indicate the right to life. Psalms, however, clearly establishes personhood, an individual, made within his mother.

It does describe the pre-natal existence of a person, which again, I don't disagree with. What it doesn't tell you is that a zygote is a person. Jewish law doesn't punish the killing of a fetus with death as it does the killing of an adult human being (the mother).

Exodus 21:22-25

What are you ranting about? I'm judging you, not telling you how to feel.

Ahh at least you're honest about being judgemental.

Personhood is a complete non-issue for you. It factors not at all in your opinion formation.

Sure it is. I just define it differently from you. Really we are not actually all that different in position. You're simply on the "my way or the highway mentality". I realize life is actually not simple and there are shades of grey, you want everything to be black and white.

 

[Lighthouse]

I’ve seen no reasoning based on physical evidence from you or others to suggest that it could be otherwise.
I’ve already explained before LH that a person we can know, react with and learn from, whose body exists, is mentally no longer extant if their central nervous system stops functioning. We also know that if the nervous system is damaged, that person is affected directly corresponding to the physical damage. Since I don’t know of any physical place other than the central nervous system for a “person” to exist in, then my conclusions must relate only to that and the physical body as its sole, not soul (nota bene), container.
But what if I’m wrong and perhaps a “person” exists in some other way or realm maybe beyond the physical?
So what? Abortion is a physical event of this natural world, what harm would it do there?

Those like me who are pro-choice are usually not pro-abortion imo but simply pro the right to choose what is often the least worst option, given the specific facts of each case. I think you should perhaps try to be a bit more reasonable in that “murder” is as much to do with the intent as the deed itself. Nobody intends to murder anyone here.

:nightall:

Because nobody can even take DNA from your body (let alone more vital parts.) without your consent. You simply have rights against such invasion.

What vital parts are being taken?

If not to save the unborn's life then what's your motivation for preventing abortion?

:doh:

Use the brain you claim to have and figure it out; it's not that hard.

 

[mighty_duck]

Nope. I've given reasons for what I believe. And if my assertions are true then my characterisations, emotional as they are, remain accurate.

I see you're using "assertions" and "reasons" interchangeably. That's as close to an admission of the weakness of your argument as we're likely to see.

You're done, it seems.

Don't be modest, it was a collective effort. In fact, your rapid repetition of the same bald assertions are the prime reason we're done. Take a a bow! :chuckle:

Stipe says:I don't advocate a system where people cannot make medical decisions about their own bodies.
MD replies:But that is EXACTLY what you are advocating in this special case, even if you don't advocate that in general.

Which is just you taking a wide detour around the basis of the objection.

What detour? What has gotten you so confused?
You are advocating that women should not be allowed to make a decision about their private parts in this case. Yes/no
You are claiming that you don't advocate a system where people can't make decisions about their their own bodies.Yes/No

It's called childbearing and it's the most wondrous thing that could happen to a man, let alone the mother.

It would be truly miraculous if it happened to a man. And it will surely get you on Opera, so there are also fringe benefits.

But the experience changes dramatically when it is forced on you, rather than when it is freely given.

A person is a member of the human race. A poodle is a dog. :idunno:

Them looks like the beginning of definitions to me, partner.

Of course it is her decision. Being able to choose does not make the action right.

I never said anything about it being "right" - just that it must remain legal.

Like adultery - it is in no way "right", but I don't want the government getting involved. I also don't want the government dictating to women who can access their own body.

 

[alwight]

I’ve seen no reasoning based on physical evidence from you or others to suggest that it could be otherwise.
I’ve already explained before LH that a person we can know, react with and learn from, whose body exists, is mentally no longer extant if their central nervous system stops functioning. We also know that if the nervous system is damaged, that person is affected directly corresponding to the physical damage. Since I don’t know of any physical place other than the central nervous system for a “person” to exist in, then my conclusions must relate only to that and the physical body as its sole, not soul (nota bene), container.
But what if I’m wrong and perhaps a “person” exists in some other way or realm maybe beyond the physical?
So what? Abortion is a physical event of this natural world, what harm would it do there?


Those like me who are pro-choice are usually not pro-abortion imo but simply pro the right to choose what is often the least worst option, given the specific facts of each case. I think you should perhaps try to be a bit more reasonable in that “murder” is as much to do with the intent as the deed itself. Nobody intends to murder anyone here.

:nightall:

Nothing to say is probably about as sensible as you ever get LH, imo.

 

[Stripe]

I agree with you there. however, the fact remains scripture was used to justify denying personhood to people of African ancestry. I don't blame the Bible, I blame the people misusing it. But the point remains human beings will misuse anything available for their own ends.

Yip. Which puts to an end your silly attempt at a rebuttal to the fact that evolutionists use physical traits to define people with the motivation to justify exterminating those that don't qualify.

You really don't have a clue how human reproduction or assistive technology works. Let me give you a clue.

So you can pretend my ignorance justifies your reasoning? Nope.

There are many levels of reproductive technology. I used the most basic which simply uses fertility medication (clomid) to increase the number of eggs produced per cycle.

Well, that's encouraging. :up:

It does describe the pre-natal existence of a person, which again, I don't disagree with. What it doesn't tell you is that a zygote is a person. Jewish law doesn't punish the killing of a fetus with death as it does the killing of an adult human being (the mother). Exodus 21:22-25

Hard of reading, aren't you?

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine . “But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, “burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.​

(Exodus 21:22-25 NKJV)

Looks like punishment for causing harm to the unborn is standard with that for harming the born.

Ahh at least you're honest about being judgemental.

Now if only you could be. Honest, that is.

Sure it is.

Nope. You advocate for a woman's supposed right to terminate her child even after you concede the baby is a person.

I just define it differently from you.

Nope. You actively support a woman's right to choose over the life of the person you concede exists.

Really we are not actually all that different in position.

You're talking numbers. You only want to see a limited number of babies murdered, say a million a year worldwide. I want to see none.

You're simply on the "my way or the highway mentality".

God's way or death, actually. I don't have any power to enforce policy. Now perhaps you might want to stop whining about non-issues and have a rational discussion. :up:

I realize life is actually not simple and there are shades of grey, you want everything to be black and white.

People are either people or they are not people. There can never be an indeterminate state. People are either alive or dead. There is no indeterminate state. And don't start on the appeal to ignorance as if that changes the definitions of "dead" and "personhood".

I see you're using "assertions" and "reasons" interchangeably.

Nope. That's just wishful reading on your part.

Don't be modest, it was a collective effort. In fact, your rapid repetition of the same bald assertions are the prime reason we're done. Take a a bow! :chuckle:

:wave2:

You are advocating that women should not be allowed to make a decision about their private parts in this case. Yes/no

Nope.

You are claiming that you don't advocate a system where people can't make decisions about their their own bodies.Yes/No

:dizzy:

But the experience changes dramatically when it is forced on you, rather than when it is freely given.

Still a baby. Still murder you advocate. And this is just more evidence you do not care about personhood. You'd see inconvenient babies killed even though they qualify as people under your regime.

Them looks like the beginning of definitions to me, partner.

So? :idunno:

Do you not believe me when I say I will never use a physical or other trait to define personhood? Do you not believe me when I say God confers personhood at conception?

I never said anything about it being "right" - just that it must remain legal.

OK, you're a fruit-loop. :kookoo:

I also don't want the government dictating to women who can access their own body.

In other words, personhood means nothing to you.

 

[mighty_duck]

:wave2:

Since you're not even trying anymore, I'll bid you adieu.
:wave2:

 

[Stripe]

Since you're not even trying anymore, I'll bid you adieu.
:wave2:

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out. :up:

 

[Alate_One]

Yip. Which puts to an end your silly attempt at a rebuttal to the fact that evolutionists use physical traits to define people with the motivation to justify exterminating those that don't qualify.

And you're using physical traits as well, human DNA and a physiological state in your case. You can claim there's a soul there, but there's no biblical support for it.

Well, that's encouraging. :up:

So perhaps you'd care to apologize for accusing me of "discarding" even embryos?

Hard of reading, aren't you?

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine . “But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, “burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.​

(Exodus 21:22-25 NKJV)

Looks like punishment for causing harm to the unborn is standard with that for harming the born.

Read it again and actually think for once. Why would there be a fine if the translation is "gives birth prematurely" (assuming survival and health)? If there's no harm to the child or the mother, why have a fine at all? Why bring punishment or judges for what you're saying is essentially "nothing happened" other than giving birth early? There's also the issue of if a pregnant woman is hit and gives birth, the odds of the survival of the child are very low, especially given the almost non-existence of medical care at the time of writing. This means assuming survival of the child, really makes no sense given the context.

The "if harm follows" is clearly directed towards the woman, since the first part is also translated miscarriage, literally "her fruit departs".

Nope. You advocate for a woman's supposed right to terminate her child even after you concede the baby is a person.

I advocate for not having the state FORCE a woman to bear a child.

You're talking numbers. You only want to see a limited number of babies murdered, say a million a year worldwide. I want to see none.

You're never going to see none, and you know it. Research has shown that even making abortion illegal doesn't do much for the abortion rate.

People are either people or they are not people. There can never be an indeterminate state. People are either alive or dead. There is no indeterminate state. And don't start on the appeal to ignorance as if that changes the definitions of "dead" and "personhood".

And that's clearly not true. A newborn baby doesn't have all the rights of personhood that we bestow on adults or certain ages of children. If someone is "brain dead" they may or may not be considered a person anymore. Biology makes for many shades of grey, stamping your feet and insisting that's not so, won't make the ambiguity go away.

 

[mighty_duck]

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out. :up:

Your concern for my butt is noted. :chuckle:

 

[Lighthouse]

Nothing to say is probably about as sensible as you ever get LH, imo.

I did say something; yet, as usual, you are unaware of the obvious.

 

[alwight]

I did say something; yet, as usual, you are unaware of the obvious.

No, I just checked, a smiley doesn't amount to saying anything.

 

[Stripe]

And you're using physical traits as well, human DNA and a physiological state in your case. You can claim there's a soul there, but there's no biblical support for it.

Nope. Try reading. :up:

And, by the way, tu quote is still an irrational way to worm your way out of an argument you're losing.

So perhaps you'd care to apologize for accusing me of "discarding" even embryos?

Nope. You still endorse such behaviour.

Read it again and actually think for once. Why would there be a fine if the translation is "gives birth prematurely" (assuming survival and health)? If there's no harm to the child or the mother, why have a fine at all? Why bring punishment or judges for what you're saying is essentially "nothing happened" other than giving birth early?

Take it up with God. He wrote those laws. :up:

There's also the issue of if a pregnant woman is hit and gives birth, the odds of the survival of the child are very low, especially given the almost non-existence of medical care at the time of writing. This means assuming survival of the child, really makes no sense given the context.

The odds you imaging have no relevance.

The "if harm follows" is clearly directed towards the woman, since the first part is also translated miscarriage, literally "her fruit departs".

Nope. It's directed toward the baby.

I advocate for not having the state FORCE a woman to bear a child.

We know. Personhood is irrelevant to you.

You're never going to see none, and you know it.

Irrelevant.

Research has shown that even making abortion illegal doesn't do much for the abortion rate.

"Reasearch" shows a lot of things. And we're you planning on giving a rational reason why I should not believe as I do?

And that's clearly not true. A newborn baby doesn't have all the rights of personhood that we bestow on adults or certain ages of children.

The so-called "rights" people may bestow are irrelevant next to the God given right to life.

If someone is "brain dead" they may or may not be considered a person anymore.

What people "consider" is not necessarily true.

Biology makes for many shades of grey, stamping your feet and insisting that's not so, won't make the ambiguity go away.

Nope. Biologically speaking, people are either dead or alive. Our ignorance of that state does not change the fact that it must be one or the other.

Congratulations upon getting nothing right for an entire post. :thumb:

 

[alwight]

And, by the way, tu quote is still an irrational way to worm your way out of an argument you're losing.

But, you do it! atrol:

 

[quip]

The so-called "rights" people may bestow are irrelevant next to the God given right to life.

Not if man's self-evident gift of freewill has anything to say about it!

 

[WizardofOz]

We can certainly expect it, teach it, and work to make it the norm. But forcing them to do so is not fostering responsibility.

Depends on how you look at it. They will be responsible for the embryo/fetus/baby until it is delivered. After that, they can continue to be responsible if they so choose. Otherwise, adoption.

It may not foster responsibility but they will be responsible, nonetheless. As they should be.

Because it is not a matter of one principle universally trumping another. That is a very unnuanced way to view justice. It is a matter of choosing between two evils, and the circumstances are important.

What two evils are we being forced to choose between? I certainly don't see a woman not being allowed to kill her embryo/fetus as evil. The law should protect the liberty of all humans, born or not.

Why shouldn't the law protect the liberty of all humans?

I think convenience is misnomer.

I can certainly provide statistics. Why do you think most abortions happen? It's not because of rape, incest or life of the mother.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 820,151 legal induced abortions in the US in 2005. About 1% is due to incest or rape and about 3% due to mothers health.

The CDC puts the number at 4% total.

It is inconvenient to sit on a hard wooden chair for two hours opposite your mother in law.

:chuckle:
Would you be willing to outlaw abortion in all cases other than rape, incest or life of the mother or am I wasting my time chasing a red herring?

Going through 9 months of pregancy and then having a child move through your vagina is something else entirely. Kudos to all mothers who are willing to do so for their children - but I will not force a woman to do so against her will. I will also not diminish the ordeal by calling it a mere inconvenience.

You may not feel comfortable with the use or the word "convenience" for the other 96%+/-, but let's not get bogged down with semantics.

The most intrusive period of pregnancy is after the woman cannot legally abort. If a woman who is 25+ weeks pregnant just cannot stand having a baby grow inside of her for another minute wants to abort, would you support her choice then?

You're a lot more practical than many in your camp, who would prefer to see millions of a abortions if it meant whitewashing a select few for the time being.

I am looking for any concession on behalf of pro-lifers. Honestly, I never see much. Looking at it from a legislative point of view, I realize that outlawing all abortion will most likely never happen.

96% of abortion are for reasons other than rape, incest or life of the mother; let's focus on that 96%. Pro-choice camps are always so quick to point to the exception as grounds for creating the rule and looks where it has gotten us, 1.2+/- million per year.

It's clearly being abused but no one on the pro-life side wants to acknowledge the abuse. They quickly jump on the cases where exemptions must be made without conceding that more should be done to limit elective abortions for reasons other than the pro-choice core 3.

But my question is different. What if the morning after pill was already banned, and it came down to your vote on whether an exception can be made for rape victims. How would you vote?

If that was the only issue presented, I would oppose it. However, I would be willing to concede the point as part of a larger negotiation. I admit, it's a tough situation. It is such a small percentage of abortions, however.

I can openly admit that a rape victim will never be prevented from taking a morning after pill. I concede that point freely. Pro-life groups object based on the principle and I get that, but with no desire to negotiate they will keep spinning their wheels and pro-choice groups will keep pointing to this issue as a "gotcha".

If you want to understand where your opponent is coming from, you will need to understand this term, even if you ultimately don't accept it.

I avoid the philosophical as a whole. I am not here to find agreement on what constitutes "personhood" or "personship" or even "person" for that matter. It's all largely subjective, ambiguous and really has little to do with the issue, scientifically speaking.

It almost seems like you are looking for mathematical proof to settle this debate. You won't find it on either side of the aisle.

We can really only discuss what we agree on. The pro-life and pro-choice camps will obviously never agree on these terms. Since they are inherently philosophical terms, it's necessarily a diversion in the first place to attempt to find common ground on these terms.

Who defines them? Everyone, individually.

A lot of people feel as I do. Seeing as close to 50% of your countrymen support abortion, it is not wise to merely wave off their way of thinking.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion. If 50% of the population wants to kills puppies that doesn't mean we should do it.

I understand that 50% of the population thinks differently than I do. That's why I am here.

I don't want to rehash what alwight is saying vis-a-vis his toe nail clippings, since you two are going down this exact path.

I don't value another person merely because they have human DNA (if you discovered one of your friends had non-human DNA, would you still consider them a person? Of course you would. Human DNA is neither necessary nor a sufficient cause for personhood).
And while having the potential to one day become a unique person makes a zygote important, it does not make them a person today.

You're back down the road of the philosophical. I am not here to get any pro-choice individual to agree with me on what constitutes a "person" or "personhood".

I value all human life from beginning to end. Human life starts when?

My apologies for the delays in responses. I have been extremely busy with work and home and honestly, my interest in this site is waning under the new regime.

Always good to chat with you though! :e4e:

 

[WizardofOz]

DNA from any human cells could potentially be used to create a human person but you want to talk about retaining the legality of abortion, OK but you asked for it:

I personally think it would often be mind numbingly cruel and heartless to force say a raped woman to gestate and give birth to a rapist’s child, particularly so if she had to put her own plans for a family on hold or marriage at risk with the man of her choice.

Would you be OK with outlawing all abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or life peril of mother? Otherwise, it's a red herring to bring up rape as a way to justify the exceptions establishing the rule.

If, in the general opinion of society based on sound medical science, that up to a certain point there is no actual human “person” involved anyway, despite those who apparently believe in a magic-moment at conception, then what right or physical reason does the state have to deny an early abortion at least, even one based solely on convenience? None imo, any more than birth control should be illegal.

Because the liberty of all human life should be protected by law. To bring up philosophical rabbit holes like the definition of "person" is deflective and irrelevant.

Can medical science tell us when a human becomes a person? No. It's philosophy and etymology.

Later abortions imo should perhaps remain moot but not automatically illegal and based on the specific facts of the case, not someone else’s perhaps lay pre-conclusions or belief-led dogma.

Can you rationalize the need of a legal abortion at eight months of pregnancy? You actually find the current laws on abortion too restrictive?

If so, there is honestly not much point in us continuing this conversation. You'd be as stubborn as the person who pickets Planned Parenthood. I am trying to figure out what concession each side may be willing to make. If you find current laws too restrictive...:shut:

However I think such factors regarding the status of the foetus, not simply a belief in a supposed magic-moment at conception, are what law makers are actually interested in when deciding. Practical and physical things rather than spiritual.

Scientifically speaking, the fetus is a living human. This fact has nothing necessarily to do with religion or spirituality. This is not a religious versus a humanist topic. Plenty of pro-life atheists are floating around.

Yes, I don’t agree that a human zygote is a person which is simply what I think you are trying to say without actually saying it.

Then you're not paying attention. I am avoiding meaningless semantic debates. That's a big part of my larger point.

Are you concerned enough for your unknown girl to allow her an abortion if she doesn’t want to be forced to gestate a rapist’s offspring for him, who may have wanted her chosen partner to be pregnant by instead but who now can’t by law? Do you care for that potential child albeit without the magic-moment part?

Of course I care. If I didn't I wouldn't be discussing the topic at hand. I have already conceded that victims of rape will never be forced to carry the rapists child.

It's uncanny how often present the fringe cases as a platform for establishing the rule. If only 4% of abortion involves rape, incest or life of mother, let's focus on the 96% which are elective.

Would you support the ban of all abortions other than the 4% named above?

I think you are perhaps rather too precious about zygotes than you are about actual people with extant lives to lead, but yet strangely don’t seem to worry too much for the two in three I gather that fail quite naturally. Zygotes don’t worry me, people however do.

Why would I worry about the zygotes that fail to implant naturally? Is there something that can be done about this? Really, where are you going with this argument? It's silly.

Try to stop using ambiguous terms like "people", "person", "personhood" and present the same argument again.

Zygotes are human. The life of human liberty should have legal protection.

Yes “personship” is a contrivance that I’ve seen and used elsewhere, why not?

See above

You say “kill” but is preventing zygotes with birth control free from such blame, why shouldn’t all pregnancies be wanted in this overcrowded world? After all that potential life requires the complete cooperation of that very same extant woman anti-abortionists would deny that choice to, perhaps after suffering a traumatic rape or more simply only a failed contraception.
Those who believe in that magic-moment at conception can of course instead choose not to abort in such circumstances; imo that is their choice to make as a human being, not others.

I'll tackle this once you respond to my 96% question.

My prediction, you're stuffed full of red herrings.

 

[WizardofOz]

Well, scientifically speaking, you could conceivably turn (not a toenail clipping, since toenails are pure protein rather than cells) but a small piece of skin into another human being.

Are you arguing for the legal protection of toe nail clippings? I will repeat, a zygote is a human body, albeit at its earliest stage of development.

A toenail clipping is not a human body, what amazing things science could conceivably* do notwithstanding.

*See what I did there?

I don't see how a zygote, a single undifferentiated human cell is in any way a "human body". It's a potential human, under the right circumstances and treatment, but so is a single cell in the piece of skin . . .

A cell body at that stage is the human body at the earliest stage(s) of development. And, it is human, this is scientifically undeniable. It's not a "potential human", it is (a) human (verb or noun, doesn't matter)!

Both have 46 chromosomes and all of the information necessary to create another human being.

The skin would create someone genetically identical to someone already around but, we already have those people. They're called identical twins and we don't discount someone's life because they happen to be genetically identical to someone else.

The only difference between the two cells, is one is in a different physiological state than the other. And very soon the technology will exist to change that physiological state (we've already done so in many other organisms). So the argument becomes more complicated. And if we're willing to define single cells as "human bodies" it makes everything into quite a mess.

It's a scientific fact. The human body begins as a single cell, correct. At that state, the entire human body is a single cell. It's all there, it simply has not developed yet.

When a human life begins is a question of science. The ethicist Peter Singer of Princeton University is famous, or notorious, for his advocacy of selective infanticide for babies who are born and then found to be defective in a way that makes them unwanted. Most people will find that argument morally abhorrent. But Singer is right about one thing. As he has said on many occasions, he and the pope are in complete agreement on when human life begins. The debate in our society and others is not over when human life begins but is over at what point and for what reasons do we have an obligation to respect and protect that life. Before we can get to that argument, however, we need to clear the smog surrounding the question of when human life begins.

For your edification

Further:

From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion is uniquely ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the zygote does from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent further binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the zygote itself. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism. Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it will not regenerate an entire human body in culture. Although embryogenesis begins with a single-cell zygote, the complex, integrated process of embryogenesis is the activity of an organism, not the activity of a cell. Based on a scientific description of fertilization, fusion of sperm and egg in the “moment of conception” generates a new human cell, the zygote, with composition and behavior distinct from that of either gamete. Moreover, this cell is not merely a unique human cell, but a cell with all the properties of a fully complete (albeit immature) human organism; it is “an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”

I would be happy to debate the science and not the philosophy behind the above.

The thing you should recognize is that the obvious "human body" of the embryo develops very rapidly, within about 8-9 weeks. So, i think you can make a strong argument for restricting abortion after a certain point, without asserting full humanity at conception. If you do that, you end up with a real mess in terms of the line between contraception and abortion as well as the issues with technology going forward.

I feel this has been addressed above. Restate if you do not feel it has. :e4e:
I am not sure what you mean by "full humanity". It sounds to me like more philosophical and largely undefinable terms.