Abortion

[Hermit]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

 

[bilby]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

...

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 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.

If they utterly cannot do that, they are not symbiotic people but parasitic. When there is only one possible host, only that one possible host gets a say on whether it is a parasitic thing or a wanted recipient of love and mercy.

While we can and often do, and for our own sakes, take pity and mercy on such parasites and help them learn to coexist, it is not a requirement.

Otherwise having mercy would not be "good".

We do not have a responsibility to be good, we have a responsibility to not be evil.

 

[Toni]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 as they would balk hard at the idea of amputating a perfectly good arm or leg at the person's request.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[Toni]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Just posting because I was updating/editing my quoted post while you were composing yours.

 

[Elixir]

Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science

Bullshit. “Life Cycle of a primate” is just a clump of words, and spouting them isn’t “science” by any measure.
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.

 

[Toni]

Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science

Bullshit. “Life Cycle of a primate” is just a clump of words, and spouting them isn’t “science” by any measure.
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.

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.

 

[pood]

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.

If conception had not occurred, would the zygote or the fetus exist?

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.”.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

If conception had not occurred, would the zygote or the fetus exist?

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.”.

I argue self-defense and assisted suicide of the terminally ill in great pain, as well, still apply against the zygote.

Though the suicide in question is closely related to "suicide by cop"

 

[pood]

In this thread, TomC has characterized all those who disagree with his position in favor of forcing women to bear children against their will as moral monsters, equivalent to Vladimir Putin and genocidal slaveholders and other worthies.

As I noted earlier, TomC might have a valid point if those of us who are pro-choice agreed with him that a one-year-old or a one-month-old post-natal child was exactly the same as a first-trimester zygote, embryo or fetus. However, we don’t think that this is true, for the simple reason that it isn’t true. There are no such thing as “fetal children.” Because we don’t agree with Tom on this point, he might at least have the good grace to acknowledge this and stop slandering us as moral monsters. But that is evidently beyond TomC.

TomC claims to have renounced Catholicism, which holds that humans are “ensouled” at conception. He pretends to have found a different reason to hold that fetuses (and presumably embryos and zygotes) are human children. What is that reason? Science! You betcha!

TomC doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Science does NOT offer a one-size fits all, handy-dandy definition of “life” and “being alive,” as he seems to think — and even if it did, it would be far from supporting his claim that there exist “fetal children.”

See here, for example. Note the section beginning, What is Life? As the article explains, in 1994 a panel of experts convened by NASA decided that life is a “chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”

But note that the article goes on to explain why this seemingly reasonable definition is already problematic. For one thing, it excludes individual rabbits (and also individual humans) as examples of “life.” They may be alive, but cannot be examples of life. Why? Because individual organisms are not capable of Darwinian evolution. Only populations evolve, never individuals. The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water” in a complete way, still less life. As the article notes: “Many efforts to define ‘life’ fall afoul of the fact that no non-trivial term can be defined to philosophical completeness.” So much for TomC’s false claim that “science” has a univocal position on the definition of life (or even water)!

In fact, the boundaries between living and nonliving are not nearly so clearcut as TomC professes to believe. The biologist P.Z. Myers has characterized biology as “baroque chemistry.” Incidentally, NASA’s definition of “life” would include viruses, and the majority of biologists do not believe that viruses are alive.

So TomC is full of shit. But unlike his behavior toward us, we can be charitable toward his position. We can stipulate for the sake of argument, even without the support of science, that zygotes, embryos and fetuses constitute life (even though by NASA’s position they do not, though they may still be alive). That is not the question. The question really is, are these entities human beings? Are they persons?

No, they are not — not by any remotely reasonable definition of “human being” or “person.”

The real point is that people like TomC — who are in favor of forcing women to have children they do not wish to bear — really believe that abortion is even more than “killing” so-called fetal children, even though fetuses are not children and are not examples of life at all, according to the NASA panel. They think that abortion is murder, much stronger than mere killing. Only murder can justify that heinous epithets that TomC has hurled our way.

The Catholic Church thinks that killing even a zygote is murder, because, wait for it, at conception the zygote is ensouled. Funnily enough, lots of zygotes later miscarry, no decision by the woman required. Does God enjoy murdering zygotes or embryos or fetuses that he has ensouled?

TomC claims to have renounced Catholicism. Rest assured that his position on abortion is utterly unsupported by science but is fully supported by the Catholic Church.

 

[TomC]

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.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[TomC]

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.

I'm not the one claiming that NASA is relevant here in this thread.
Tom

 

[pood]

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.

Ermm?

No, that was the point. They are not trying to explain what life is. They are offering up a certain definition of life, from a 1994 NASA panel, and then showing the problems with it.

Were you gong to respond to anything else I wrote? Are zygotes human persons, in your view? Yes or no?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I'm not the one claiming that NASA is relevant here in this thread.
Tom

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).

All that said, you are more than welcome to having the choice to believe it, but you've yet explained why every pregnant woman in the US needs to be beholden to your chosen opinion.

 

[TomC]

They are not trying to explain what life is.

Why are they even being used as an authority in this thread?

Science doesn't matter in and of itself.

From YEC to feticide rights, science only matters when it supports your world view. When science interferes, suddenly, concepts like water become too difficult to explain or understand.
You said that.
Tom

 

[TomC]

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

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.

 

[TomC]

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

You are correct.
Pood based his moral argument on an authority claiming that water cannot be defined.

I didn't bother to go into his authority.

Frankly, I think Pood is somewhere between lying and ignorant. I have got solid evidence on that. I read the post about me.
Tom