Hermit
Cantankerous grump
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.
Sure. But ‘at conception’ is just one of many possible viability lines; It’s in no way special, or more (or less) reasonable than quickening, first heartbeat, ovulation, implantation, ejaculation, first cell division, or any of the myriad boundary conditions that we could dream up.The viability line, is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too(the editorial you, not actually you), in that its a convenient way to deny killing someone because there was nobody there.
I dunno, I tend to consider the question of personhood to hinge on whether someone is doing the bare minimum necessary to coexist with the people.
The entire question of ‘personhood’ is a red herring. The fact is that nobody can morally demand the use of someone else’s body - not even to save the lives of dozens of fully functioning and uniquely individual human beings, and certainly not to save just one.
I don't agree. Fertilization, implantation, quickening, viability are all different stages of fetal development. Each stage offers its own chances of survival, which increase as the fetus develops. Many fertilized eggs never implant. Many embryos do not make it to 6 or 12 weeks, and spontaneously abort, without the woman having any idea of its existence. Spontaneous abortion later in pregnancy is more complicated, more difficult, more emotionally fraught and more dangerous (although still less dangerous than giving birth).Sure. But ‘at conception’ is just one of many possible viability lines; It’s in no way special, or more (or less) reasonable than quickening, first heartbeat, ovulation, implantation, ejaculation, first cell division, or any of the myriad boundary conditions that we could dream up.The viability line, is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too(the editorial you, not actually you), in that its a convenient way to deny killing someone because there was nobody there.
You could make just as good an argument for ‘life begins at ovulation’, as for ‘life begins at conception’. Perhaps we should require all women to be inseminated continuously to ensure that no potential life is murdered by being denied access to spermatozoa.
Of course, that’s beyond stupid. But as I said, it’s just as good an argument. Horseshit is just as good as bullshit.
The entire question of ‘personhood’ is a red herring. The fact is that nobody can morally demand the use of someone else’s body - not even to save the lives of dozens of fully functioning and uniquely individual human beings, and certainly not to save just one.
Yeah, that whole viability line means to me that there's a responsibility at the very least not maim the thing, and it is simply not a right to kill something others can and will take off your hands at that point, at the point where they first have the right and power to honestly take over on providing such love and mercy.I don't agree. After the point of viability, then I think there is an obligation to do what is best for the fetus--so long as it does not threaten the health or life of the mother. Sometimes, very sadly, that includes terminating the pregnancy because the fetus has so many abnormalities or abnormality so severe that it is incompatible with life or life without extreme pain. Or sometimes in order to save the life of the mother. Or to save the life of the other twin.Sure. But ‘at conception’ is just one of many possible viability lines; It’s in no way special, or more (or less) reasonable than quickening, first heartbeat, ovulation, implantation, ejaculation, first cell division, or any of the myriad boundary conditions that we could dream up.The viability line, is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too(the editorial you, not actually you), in that its a convenient way to deny killing someone because there was nobody there.
You could make just as good an argument for ‘life begins at ovulation’, as for ‘life begins at conception’. Perhaps we should require all women to be inseminated continuously to ensure that no potential life is murdered by being denied access to spermatozoa.
Of course, that’s beyond stupid. But as I said, it’s just as good an argument. Horseshit is just as good as bullshit.
The entire question of ‘personhood’ is a red herring. The fact is that nobody can morally demand the use of someone else’s body - not even to save the lives of dozens of fully functioning and uniquely individual human beings, and certainly not to save just one.
No one can morally demand the use of another person's body--this is true. But there are limits upon the mother as well. And there are limits upon what one can expect from the medical community. Most balk hard at the idea of aborting a viable fetus without exceptionally good medical reason.
Just posting because I was updating/editing my quoted post while you were composing yours.Yeah, that whole viability line means to me that there's a responsibility at the very least not maim the thing, and it is simply not a right to kill something others can and will take off your hands at that point, at the point where they first have the right and power to honestly take over on providing such love and mercy.I don't agree. After the point of viability, then I think there is an obligation to do what is best for the fetus--so long as it does not threaten the health or life of the mother. Sometimes, very sadly, that includes terminating the pregnancy because the fetus has so many abnormalities or abnormality so severe that it is incompatible with life or life without extreme pain. Or sometimes in order to save the life of the mother. Or to save the life of the other twin.Sure. But ‘at conception’ is just one of many possible viability lines; It’s in no way special, or more (or less) reasonable than quickening, first heartbeat, ovulation, implantation, ejaculation, first cell division, or any of the myriad boundary conditions that we could dream up.The viability line, is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too(the editorial you, not actually you), in that its a convenient way to deny killing someone because there was nobody there.
You could make just as good an argument for ‘life begins at ovulation’, as for ‘life begins at conception’. Perhaps we should require all women to be inseminated continuously to ensure that no potential life is murdered by being denied access to spermatozoa.
Of course, that’s beyond stupid. But as I said, it’s just as good an argument. Horseshit is just as good as bullshit.
The entire question of ‘personhood’ is a red herring. The fact is that nobody can morally demand the use of someone else’s body - not even to save the lives of dozens of fully functioning and uniquely individual human beings, and certainly not to save just one.
No one can morally demand the use of another person's body--this is true. But there are limits upon the mother as well. And there are limits upon what one can expect from the medical community. Most balk hard at the idea of aborting a viable fetus without exceptionally good medical reason.
I see fundamentally that THIS is the relationship most people are trying to come to an understanding of when they ask "why do we not allow abortion after this point?".
So powerful is this right to not be maimed, so powerful this right to offer mercy and to recieve it when it is offered!
It is verily the right to be free from evil, the right to participate in goodness.
Bullshit. “Life Cycle of a primate” is just a clump of words, and spouting them isn’t “science” by any measure.Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science
In this case, I don't think it has much to do with a desire to control women's bodies as it does a total disregard for the woman's rights or life.Bullshit. “Life Cycle of a primate” is just a clump of words, and spouting them isn’t “science” by any measure.Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science
Why did you capitalize “Life Cycle”?
Your religious slip is showing.
If I say “life cycle of a planet” and point out that all your precious zygotes are going to die, with 100% certainty, I have trumped your “science” with my “science”.
In fact it’s just another cheap rhetorical trick to rationalize your desire to control women’s bodies.
If conception had not occurred, would the zygote or the fetus exist?
So, when is it okay to kill someone?
IMO it is never OK to kill somone except in self-defense.
Note that the meaning of “someone” is a person. A zygote, an embryo and a first-trimenster fetus are not “persons” under any reasonable defintion of the word.
I argue self-defense and assisted suicide of the terminally ill in great pain, as well, still apply against the zygote.If conception had not occurred, would the zygote or the fetus exist?
So, when is it okay to kill someone?
IMO it is never OK to kill somone except in self-defense.
Note that the meaning of “someone” is a person. A zygote, an embryo and a first-trimenster fetus are not “persons” under any reasonable defintion of the word.
How is this relevant to the point?
You asked when it was OK to kill someone. I replied that, imo, it is never OK except in cases of self-defense (or perhaps assissted suicide for the terminally ill in great pain. There could be a few other exceptions). But I pointed out that a zygote, an embryo and a first-trimester fetus is not a “someone”if we accept the perfectly reasonable definition of “someone” as a person. So abortion is not killing “someone.”.
The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water”
You should invest in a mirror.The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water”
Your authority can not explain what "water" means.
But somehow, they're a moral authority. They can explain life.
At least to your satisfaction.
You should invest in a mirror.The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water”
Your authority can not explain what "water" means.
But somehow, they're a moral authority. They can explain life.
At least to your satisfaction.
The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water”
Your authority can not explain what "water" means.
But somehow, they're a moral authority. They can explain life.
At least to your satisfaction.
No, you are more often than not just posting one line quips, comparing people to slaveholders and YEC'ers, and insisting that "science" backs up your position (which hasn't actually been fully stated as of yet).You should invest in a mirror.The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water”
Your authority can not explain what "water" means.
But somehow, they're a moral authority. They can explain life.
At least to your satisfaction.
I'm not the one claiming that NASA is relevant here in this thread.
Tom
They are not trying to explain what life is.
No, you are more often than not just posting one line quips, comparing people to slaveholders and YEC'ers, and insisting that "science" backs up your position (which hasn't actually been fully stated as of yet).
But it was you who didn't bother to read pood's post or the cited article, and laughingly dismiss it despite you clearly not understanding the point.No, you are more often than not just posting one line quips, comparing people to slaveholders and YEC'ers, and insisting that "science" backs up your position (which hasn't actually been fully stated as of yet).
I don't think it was me who explained that NASA doesn't understand water!
Tom
You are correct.But it was you who didn't bother to read pood's post or the cited article, and laughingly dismiss it despite you clearly not understanding the point