Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

Silent Hunter · Mar 18, 2011

Samstarrett said:
Show me where I appealed to feelings. I appealed to intuition(doesn't this seem wrong to you?), not emotion(doesn't this make you upset?).

. . . LOL, because you "just know abortion is wrong" isn't a valid "argument" . . . it's a fallacy . . . see here and here (got my fallacies mixed up . . . oops).

In the meantime, I'll maintain my stance. I assumed that everyone agreed we could not legitimately abort persons, and that we were only arguing about what 'persons' are.

I agree . . . IF you can present a reasoned argument (not an "intuitive" argument) for WHEN a fetus is a "person" I will consider it.

Duck claimed, however, that to viability supporters, personhood is a non-issue, strongly implying that abortion would be OK based on a perceived violation of the mother's rights even if the fetus were deemed a person. That is what the discussion was about.

. . . which he is free to hold . . . because one "person" cannot hold another "person" hostage (which is what the "fetal person" would be doing in the case of pregnancy).

Whereas you...

. . . have cited science (for a medical opinion) AND scripture (the Bible, for a theological opinion) and you have presented in rebuttal . . . ( . . . crickets . . . chirping . . . ).

Samstarrett said:
Yes, yes, and the Constitution, and the Bible. We know you're sure you're more familiar with everything than am I. This surety is largely baseless, however.

. . . one must wonder why you feel so obligated to confirm said conclusion with each and every post . . . (I'm an arrogant b**t**d . . . sue me

.)

Samstarrett · Mar 18, 2011

Silent Hunter said:
. . . LOL, because you "just know abortion is wrong" isn't a valid "argument" . . . it's a fallacy . . . see here and here (got my fallacies mixed up . . . oops).

I don't believe I ever said 'you just know abortion is wrong'. I appealed to the intuition that what is a person here is a person there. If no appeal to intuition is valid, as your own link points out, we are in danger of an infinite regress. Can you establish the right to life for anyone without an appeal to intuition(absent revelation, of course, which you reject)?

Silent Hunter said:
I agree . . . IF you can present a reasoned argument (not an "intuitive" argument) for WHEN a fetus is a "person" I will consider it.

Fine. You agree. But according to mighty_duck, those who use viability as a metric do not agree that the question of the morality of abortion is dependent solely on the fetus's personhood or lack thereof.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . which he is free to hold . . . because one "person" cannot hold another "person" hostage (which is what the "fetal person" would be doing in the case of pregnancy).

I thought you said above that the personhood question should be determining. Now you say it's not, because even if the fetus is a person, he is holding the mother hostage. Which is it?

Silent Hunter said:
. . . have cited science (for a medical opinion)

Whose 'medical opinion' is it that a fetus becomes a person when he breathes?

Silent Hunter said:
AND scripture (the Bible, for a theological opinion) and you have presented in rebuttal . . . ( . . . crickets . . . chirping . . . ).

Wrong again. I presented reasoned arguments for a different interpretation of the Scripture you cited, as well as Scriptural evidence for my view. The fact that you are not convinced does not mean I have been silent.

By the way, the conversation to which Silent Hunter is referring was in a different thread, for those who may only be following this one.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . one must wonder why you feel so obligated to confirm said conclusion with each and every post . . .

More baseless insults and unnecessary ellipses.

Silent Hunter said:
(I'm an arrogant b**t**d . . . sue me .)

Well, at least you have the integrity to admit it.

Silent Hunter · Mar 18, 2011

Samstarrett said:
I don't believe I ever said 'you just know abortion is wrong'. I appealed to the intuition that what is a person here is a person there.

:doh: . . . "you just know a fetus is a person because a person is x, y, z" (or whatever your experience "says").

If no appeal to intuition is valid, as your own link points out, we are in danger of an infinite regress. Can you establish the right to life for anyone without an appeal to intuition(absent revelation, of course, which you reject)?

Unfortunately, no, I don't think we can (if you read the link you should understand my reasoning why).

Fine. You agree.

. . . common ground is a good thing . . . just don't step where my toes are . . . :chuckle:.

But according to mighty_duck, those who use viability as a metric do not agree that the question of the morality of abortion is dependent solely on the fetus's personhood or lack thereof.

. . . because I'm not sure md sees morality (as such) is a factor.

I thought you said above that the personhood question should be determining. Now you say it's not, because even if the fetus is a person, he is holding the mother hostage. Which is it?

. . . black-and-white thinking . . . cannot both be factors? Doesn't my right to swing my fist end where your nose begins?

Whose 'medical opinion' is it that a fetus becomes a person when he breathes?

. . . you obviously didn't read the article if you are compelled to ask a question irrelevant to medical knowledge and since I have never argued "breath" as such.

Wrong again. I presented reasoned arguments for a different interpretation of the Scripture you cited, as well as Scriptural evidence for my view. The fact that you are not convinced does not mean I have been silent.

. . . which was extremely weak . . . on the basis of TWO verses . . . contradicted by other scripture and Jewish rabbinical writings.

More baseless insults and unnecessary ellipses.

. . . you've earned them . . . and . . . I like ellipses (would you prefer commas or semicolons).

Well, at least you have the integrity to admit it.

Samstarrett · Mar 18, 2011

Silent Hunter said:
:doh: . . . "you just know a fetus is a person because a person is x, y, z" (or whatever your experience "says").

Once again, you misrepresent my argument. All I said was that if a fetus is a person in New York, he should also be one in Baghdad. Do you think this is a fallacy?

Silent Hunter said:
Unfortunately, no, I don't think we can (if you read the link you should understand my reasoning why).

In that case, I think I'll just kill you and sidestep the whole debate.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . because I'm not sure md sees morality (as such) is a factor.

If morality is not a factor, we can just say 'it's legal' and go home, no?

Silent Hunter said:
. . . black-and-white thinking . . . cannot both be factors? Doesn't my right to swing my fist end where your nose begins?

They could be, except you said above that you agreed we could not abort persons, and were only debating what a 'person' was.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . you obviously didn't read the article if you are compelled to ask a question irrelevant to medical knowledge and since I have never argued "breath" as such.

I did read the article. Stupidly, I did not realize that was what you meant by citing medical opinion. My stupid oversight is mitigated by two facts:

1. The article draws no real conclusion about what is and is not a person.
2. Your previously stated criterion of breath is not found anywhere in the article.

And yes, you have argued 'breath' as such. Why else did you bother citing Gen 2:7 and harping on the 'breath of life' into the 'nostrils'?

Silent Hunter said:
. . . which was extremely weak . . . on the basis of TWO verses . . . contradicted by other scripture and Jewish rabbinical writings.

Contradicted by other scripture only under your interpretation, and as for Jewish rabbinical writings, they, while interesting, are not in themselves authoritative, especially as they were compiled after Christ and thus after whatever authority the rabbis could claim over a Christian had ended.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . you've earned them . . . and . . . I like ellipses (would you prefer commas or semicolons).

I would prefer whatever standard English usage demands in the situation.

mighty_duck · Mar 18, 2011

Samstarrett said:
But this definition is based on what a thing can do without giving a circumstance. No 'given' circumstance is provided, that's the problem. Because of that, a thing that is a person here and now might not be a person if it is in a third-world country tomorrow. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

In the same way that you are person now, but if I were to instantaneously bring all of you molecules to absolute zero (only circumstances), you would cease to be a person.

I understand your concern though, and I agree it seems counter-intuitive to our understanding of personhood.

Samstarrett said:
Well, the fetus's innocence is a factor inasmuch as it's ordinarily not considered moral or legal to kill an innocent person.

It is rare for an innocent person to intrude upon another person's will and body. We have to resort to outlandish analogies to do so.

But the claim of "innocence" carries with it an implication that the fetus is being punished. It isn't.

Samstarrett said:
This comparison seems problematic to me.

You need to explain how it is problematic.

Samstarrett said:
Tell me, if a woman's child has already been born, and no source of food for the child is available other than her own breast milk for a period of time, is she entitled to kill her child rather than allow it access to her body?

By accepting guardianship of the child, the woman has explicitly accepted taking care of them.

For the same reason, I believe that after a certain point in the pregnancy where it is reasonable for the woman to know about it and would have had time to abort if she so wanted - there is an implicit and conscious acceptance that she will take care of the fetus.

Samstarrett said:
If you'd read mighty_duck's original post, you would see that the question under consideration was whether the moment of personhood(whatever that might be) ought to be the moment that abortion is no longer legal. Mighty_duck seemed to hold the position that it ought not; that even if a fetus is a person, it is still intruding on the mother's rights and thus abortion is legit.

I'm not personally a viability=person proponent. I was expressing what some of those proponents might feel.

I see this whole issue as a scale of justice. On one side is the woman's right to control what happens in her own body. On the other is the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus.

At conception, the weight of the mother's right is heavier (At best, she conceded only to sex) while the fetus has very few qualities that we would consider in a person (life and human DNA).
As the pregnancy progresses, the mother becomes aware of it, and if she chooses not to abort, she makes an implicit choice to support it (especially if the law makes this point clear). Meanwhile, the fetus's weight on the scale increases - he gains more and more of the properties we value in a person.
At some point the scale tips in favor of the fetus. IMO this happens around the 24th week, but I'm willing to err a bit in favor of life and take the 20th week as a tipping point.

Personhood doesn't happen in an instant. It is a process. To make law workable we need to choose a cut off point though.

WeirdChick · Mar 18, 2011

I'm alive today because my mom was pro-choice.

I think abortion should be lawful for women to choose at any time, for their personal reason.

Personally, I would not have a late term abortion unless it was deemed my life was in danger if the pregnancy was to continue to term or as close to. Though I'd research and have more than one opinion as to why in third trimester, what I would consider late term, as to why the fetus couldn't be delivered early so as to save my life and theirs.

But if absolutely necessary I'd go through with it, but I'd want to be totally out so I was totally unaware I had no other choice while the procedure was happening.
I think the option, no abortion ever for no reason, flies smack in the face of a pro-life platform. If one is pro-life then that, which is not truly afforded as any other option but for both mother and fetus/baby to die, is illogical and hypocritical to the platform of preservation and sanctity of life.

I don't believe anyone else has a right to dictate an individual woman's personal sovereignty and force her to remain pregnant by law, against her will.
I think those that disagree with that, would bless this world a thousand fold if they'd invest as much time in adopting the born unwanted, that are stationed in orphanages and foster care, so as to set the example that when they are pro-life they are proactive for quality of life.

If someone thinks they have the right to tell me, or any woman, we must abide by their moral precepts as it relates to our personal reproductive system, then we have every right to expect that person to be forced to adopt or foster all those unwanted babies that were brought into the world so as to example a mother was in keeping with giving life, but was short on insuring she would choose to raise the life she bore into the world.

I don't accept the argument that seeks to revoke the individual woman's choice;it is God's will to give life and thus all abortion is murder and against the will of God.

Spontaneous abortions, miscarriage, is God's will too. That would make God the universal abortionist. Forced pregnancy by law Legislation then is a matter of forcing a woman, expecting her, to attain a higher moral standard by law than that what God holds in giving life, and then ripping it away from the womb of the woman that so wanted it to bear.

Pro-choice is exactly that. Proactive right of choice for the individual. It's not pro-abortion. It's not absolute without exception. Pro-life is, in that the platform commands forced pregnancy by law. With exceptions denoted as within the parameters of that what is set by others, who feel they have a right to judge how much choice a free woman is entitled to exercise and then enforce that opinion by law.

When freedom dictates what in itself is common sense, in the name of personal liberty. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If one doesn't ever want a woman to be forced to choose, get a vasectomy and commit the male reproductive system to the same dictates as the male pro-life activist thinks they're entitled to force a free woman to commit her own.

Silent Hunter · Mar 18, 2011

Samstarrett said:
Once again, you misrepresent my argument. All I said was that if a fetus is a person in New York, he should also be one in Baghdad. Do you think this is a fallacy?

. . . oh, now I see what you mean . . . no, such a position is not a fallacy . . . you want consistency . . . which has nothing to do with intuition that I am aware.

In that case, I think I'll just kill you and sidestep the whole debate.

Which would make you a murderer since by every legal standard in the US I AM a person . . . and a jerk (on occasion).

If morality is not a factor, we can just say 'it's legal' and go home, no?

Exactly . . . since the "absolute" morality of abortion is not, has never been, and should never be a considering factor in a secular society.

They could be, except you said above that you agreed we could not abort persons, and were only debating what a 'person' was.

. . . totally out of context . . . "I agree . . . IF you can present a reasoned argument (not an "intuitive" argument) for WHEN a fetus is a "person" I will consider it," . . . so far ( . . . crickets . . . chirping . . . )

I did read the article. Stupidly, I did not realize that was what you meant by citing medical opinion. My stupid oversight is mitigated by two facts:

1. The article draws no real conclusion about what is and is not a person.

. . . no, it doesn't . . . in a medical sense . . . which is the point.

2. Your previously stated criterion of breath is not found anywhere in the article.

. . . and not relevant to the "medical argument." However, I did use "breath" from OT scripture and rabbinical writings as a "theological argument."

And yes, you have argued 'breath' as such. Why else did you bother citing Gen 2:7 and harping on the 'breath of life' into the 'nostrils'?

Certainly . . . as a theological argument . . . never as a medical argument.

Contradicted by other scripture only under your interpretation, and as for Jewish rabbinical writings, they, while interesting, are not in themselves authoritative, especially as they were compiled after Christ and thus after whatever authority the rabbis could claim over a Christian had ended.

. . . obviously not under my sole interpretation since the Jews held a similar opinion of "breath" as a criterion for "life."

Was Mary a Christian? No? . . . aw . . . shucks.

I would prefer whatever standard English usage demands in the situation.

. . . then I'll continue this way . . . since it seems to annoy you . . .

Nathon Detroit · Mar 18, 2011

WeirdChick said:
I'm alive today because my mom was pro-choice.

I think abortion should be lawful for women to choose at any time, for their personal reason.

Personally, I would not have a late term abortion unless it was deemed my life was in danger if the pregnancy was to continue to term or as close to. Though I'd research and have more than one opinion as to why in third trimester, what I would consider late term, as to why the fetus couldn't be delivered early so as to save my life and theirs.

But if absolutely necessary I'd go through with it, but I'd want to be totally out so I was totally unaware I had no other choice while the procedure was happening.
I think the option, no abortion ever for no reason, flies smack in the face of a pro-life platform. If one is pro-life then that, which is not truly afforded as any other option but for both mother and fetus/baby to die, is illogical and hypocritical to the platform of preservation and sanctity of life.

I don't believe anyone else has a right to dictate an individual woman's personal sovereignty and force her to remain pregnant by law, against her will.
I think those that disagree with that, would bless this world a thousand fold if they'd invest as much time in adopting the born unwanted, that are stationed in orphanages and foster care, so as to set the example that when they are pro-life they are proactive for quality of life.

If someone thinks they have the right to tell me, or any woman, we must abide by their moral precepts as it relates to our personal reproductive system, then we have every right to expect that person to be forced to adopt or foster all those unwanted babies that were brought into the world so as to example a mother was in keeping with giving life, but was short on insuring she would choose to raise the life she bore into the world.

I don't accept the argument that seeks to revoke the individual woman's choice;it is God's will to give life and thus all abortion is murder and against the will of God.

Spontaneous abortions, miscarriage, is God's will too. That would make God the universal abortionist. Forced pregnancy by law Legislation then is a matter of forcing a woman, expecting her, to attain a higher moral standard by law than that what God holds in giving life, and then ripping it away from the womb of the woman that so wanted it to bear.

Pro-choice is exactly that. Proactive right of choice for the individual. It's not pro-abortion. It's not absolute without exception. Pro-life is, in that the platform commands forced pregnancy by law. With exceptions denoted as within the parameters of that what is set by others, who feel they have a right to judge how much choice a free woman is entitled to exercise and then enforce that opinion by law.

When freedom dictates what in itself is common sense, in the name of personal liberty. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If one doesn't ever want a woman to be forced to choose, get a vasectomy and commit the male reproductive system to the same dictates as the male pro-life activist thinks they're entitled to force a free woman to commit her own.

The only appropriate response...

Silent Hunter · Mar 18, 2011

WeirdChick said:
I'm alive today because my mom was pro-choice.

I think abortion should be lawful for women to choose at any time, for their personal reason.

Personally, I would not have a late term abortion unless it was deemed my life was in danger if the pregnancy was to continue to term or as close to. Though I'd research and have more than one opinion as to why in third trimester, what I would consider late term, as to why the fetus couldn't be delivered early so as to save my life and theirs.

But if absolutely necessary I'd go through with it, but I'd want to be totally out so I was totally unaware I had no other choice while the procedure was happening.
I think the option, no abortion ever for no reason, flies smack in the face of a pro-life platform. If one is pro-life then that, which is not truly afforded as any other option but for both mother and fetus/baby to die, is illogical and hypocritical to the platform of preservation and sanctity of life.

I don't believe anyone else has a right to dictate an individual woman's personal sovereignty and force her to remain pregnant by law, against her will.
I think those that disagree with that, would bless this world a thousand fold if they'd invest as much time in adopting the born unwanted, that are stationed in orphanages and foster care, so as to set the example that when they are pro-life they are proactive for quality of life.

If someone thinks they have the right to tell me, or any woman, we must abide by their moral precepts as it relates to our personal reproductive system, then we have every right to expect that person to be forced to adopt or foster all those unwanted babies that were brought into the world so as to example a mother was in keeping with giving life, but was short on insuring she would choose to raise the life she bore into the world.

I don't accept the argument that seeks to revoke the individual woman's choice;it is God's will to give life and thus all abortion is murder and against the will of God.

Spontaneous abortions, miscarriage, is God's will too. That would make God the universal abortionist. Forced pregnancy by law Legislation then is a matter of forcing a woman, expecting her, to attain a higher moral standard by law than that what God holds in giving life, and then ripping it away from the womb of the woman that so wanted it to bear.

Pro-choice is exactly that. Proactive right of choice for the individual. It's not pro-abortion. It's not absolute without exception. Pro-life is, in that the platform commands forced pregnancy by law. With exceptions denoted as within the parameters of that what is set by others, who feel they have a right to judge how much choice a free woman is entitled to exercise and then enforce that opinion by law.

When freedom dictates what in itself is common sense, in the name of personal liberty. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If one doesn't ever want a woman to be forced to choose, get a vasectomy and commit the male reproductive system to the same dictates as the male pro-life activist thinks they're entitled to force a free woman to commit her own.

Excellent post . . . but I think you're kind of . . . strange.

WeirdChick · Mar 18, 2011

Knight said:
The only appropriate response...

I would pray for you. As I can not be insulted. However, you can certainly succeed in insulting yourself by resorting to methods such as that, when you have not the intellect to respond otherwise.

WeirdChick · Mar 18, 2011

Silent Hunter said:
Excellent post . . .

Why thank you.

but I think you're kind of . . . strange.

Hey pal, *wags finger* read the screen name. Weird. :kookoo: Not strange chick. Weird Chick. Which of course incorporates strange, without being a new screen name. Wouldn't want to confuZel management now would we. Noooo. :thumb:

Samstarrett · Mar 18, 2011

WeirdChick said:
I would pray for you. As I can not be insulted. However, you can certainly succeed in insulting yourself by resorting to methods such as that, when you have not the intellect to respond otherwise.

Lemon chartreuse waggle nickelback.

Refute that with logic or you're stupid!

WeirdChick · Mar 18, 2011

Samstarrett said:
Lemon chartreuse waggle nickelback.

Refute that with logic or you're stupid!

:think: refute with logic, pashaw! Simply make mine a double and I'll toast ya!:cheers: Double slipknot winky doingdong, holla!

Samstarrett · Mar 18, 2011

WeirdChick said:
:think: refute with logic, pashaw! Simply make mine a double and I'll toast ya!:cheers: Double slipknot winky doingdong, holla!

You took the words out of my mouth.

lain:

Delmar · Mar 19, 2011

Samstarrett said:
You're not the only one. May I ask why? I certainly have no problem being called anti-abortion.

I don't even have a problem being called anti choice, when the choice is kill the baby or don't kill the baby!

Samstarrett · Mar 19, 2011

Silent Hunter said:
. . . oh, now I see what you mean . . . no, such a position is not a fallacy . . . you want consistency . . . which has nothing to do with intuition that I am aware.

Well, it's only my intuition that tells me personhood cannot be lost by moving. If viability=person, however, then personhood can be lost by moving.

Silent Hunter said:
Which would make you a murderer since by every legal standard in the US I AM a person . . . and a jerk (on occasion).

Indeed, in a legal sense. But in a moral sense you can't establish that you have a right to life, so...

Silent Hunter said:
Exactly . . . since the "absolute" morality of abortion is not, has never been, and should never be a considering factor in a secular society.

Unfortunately, that's true. Hence why I'm against secular society.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . totally out of context . . . "I agree . . . IF you can present a reasoned argument (not an "intuitive" argument) for WHEN a fetus is a "person" I will consider it," . . . so far ( . . . crickets . . . chirping . . . )

So, do you or do you not agree that IF a fetus is a person, THEN abortion is murder, regardless of whether the fetus is 'wanted' or 'unwanted'?

Silent Hunter said:
. . . no, it doesn't . . . in a medical sense . . . which is the point.

In other words, it tells us nothing of value.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . and not relevant to the "medical argument." However, I did use "breath" from OT scripture and rabbinical writings as a "theological argument."

Why were you using a theological argument to support a position you yourself do not hold or at least are not arguing for? Tell me, Silent Hunter, if you ruled the world, when would a woman's right to kill her child end? At the formation of the cerebral cortex? At birth? At age six months? When?

Silent Hunter said:
Certainly . . . as a theological argument . . . never as a medical argument.

Which contradicts your statement 'I have never argued for breath as such.' Were you arguing for one standard theologically and another medically? Also, see my question above.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . obviously not under my sole interpretation since the Jews held a similar opinion of "breath" as a criterion for "life."

True.

Silent Hunter said:
Was Mary a Christian? No? . . . aw . . . shucks.

Mary didn't have access to the Talmud either. If you can show abortion was allowed by the Jewish authorities of her time, then you might have a better argument, but even then, I'm not sure I should take the word of Jewish theologians over the theologians of my own tradition.

Silent Hunter said:
. . . then I'll continue this way . . . since it seems to annoy you . . .

Good. It'll give me an excuse to put you on ignore when I finally go the way of Town Heretic as regards you.

Samstarrett · Mar 19, 2011

mighty_duck said:
In the same way that you are person now, but if I were to instantaneously bring all of you molecules to absolute zero (only circumstances), you would cease to be a person.

Nope. That's an ontological change in what I am because my cells have ceased to function. Not at all comparable to a mere shift in location and surroundings.

mighty_duck said:
It is rare for an innocent person to intrude upon another person's will and body. We have to resort to outlandish analogies to do so.

But the claim of "innocence" carries with it an implication that the fetus is being punished. It isn't.

No, the claim of innocence carries an implication that the fetus has rights and those rights must be respected because it has done nothing to forfeit them.

mighty_duck said:
You need to explain how it is problematic.

Well, for one thing, it treats an unwanted pregnancy as essentially the same thing as rape, which I think is hard to justify. A man assaulting a woman and forcing her to have sex with him is a little different from a child merely being born, I think, especially if the child is the result of consensual sex and thus at the very least the product of the mother's irresponsibility.

Can I shoot a guest I invited into my home if I ask him to leave and he is incapable of doing so with the speed that I would like?

mighty_duck said:
By accepting guardianship of the child, the woman has explicitly accepted taking care of them.

Can we then justify infanticide in a situation where abortion is not available?

mighty_duck said:
For the same reason, I believe that after a certain point in the pregnancy where it is reasonable for the woman to know about it and would have had time to abort if she so wanted - there is an implicit and conscious acceptance that she will take care of the fetus.

But with whom is this agreement made? Can you have a binding agreement with a non-person?

mighty_duck said:
I'm not personally a viability=person proponent. I was expressing what some of those proponents might feel.

I know. Looking at my post, I failed to make that clear, and I apologize.

mighty_duck said:
I see this whole issue as a scale of justice. On one side is the woman's right to control what happens in her own body. On the other is the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus.

At conception, the weight of the mother's right is heavier (At best, she conceded only to sex) while the fetus has very few qualities that we would consider in a person (life and human DNA).
As the pregnancy progresses, the mother becomes aware of it, and if she chooses not to abort, she makes an implicit choice to support it (especially if the law makes this point clear).

But if the fetus is not a person, why should she be bound by such a choice?

mighty_duck said:
Meanwhile, the fetus's weight on the scale increases - he gains more and more of the properties we value in a person.
At some point the scale tips in favor of the fetus. IMO this happens around the 24th week, but I'm willing to err a bit in favor of life and take the 20th week as a tipping point.

Would you say that the scale tips in favor of the fetus at some point even if abortion is not available, thus making infanticide murder even if the child is unwanted?

mighty_duck said:
Personhood doesn't happen in an instant. It is a process. To make law workable we need to choose a cut off point though.

Well, I happen to believe that personhood does happen in an instant, but I'm unlikely to convince you here. You would agree, though, would you not, that we must set that point early enough to encompass anything that could be reasonably called a person, so as to err on the side of life?

Rusha · Mar 19, 2011

Delmar said:
I don't even have a problem being called anti choice, when the choice is kill the baby or don't kill the baby!

I have a HUGE problem with the intentional misuse of the word *choice*.

There is no other situation that includes a human being being allowed to INTENTIONALLY snuff out the life of an innocent human being (including those who are unborn) that we refer to as a "choice".

The word *choice* makes it sound as though abortion should be a valid alternative. For me, it gives the impression that the pro-abortion advocates opinion is worthy of consideration and respect.

IMO, the best description to clarify one's position is anti-abortion and pro-abortion.

vegascowboy · Mar 19, 2011

Rusha said:
I have a HUGE problem with the intentional misuse of the word *choice*.

There is no other situation that includes a human being being allowed to INTENTIONALLY snuff out the life of an innocent human being (including those who are unborn) that we refer to as a "choice".

The word *choice* makes it sound as though abortion should be a valid alternative. For me, it gives the impression that the pro-abortion advocates opinion is worthy of consideration and respect.

IMO, the best description to clarify one's position is anti-abortion and pro-abortion.

How true. As with many things in life, if you control the language, you control the situation.

Saying "pro-choice" takes the negative murderous overtones out of the act. Pro-aborts love to say that it isn't at all about the death of the baby, it's about the choice of the woman. This is a disingenuous and incredibly harmful way to play with language and to justify the loss of innocent babies.

It is similar to saying "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal alien." Just as calling them undocumented doesn't take the criminal out of the equation, calling a person pro-choice doesn't take the murderous intent away either.

WizardofOz · Aug 27, 2013

Poll Results

For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy
Greenrage, Paulos, pqmomba8, quip, rexlunae, The Horn

quip - have you changed your position? You've more recently said that abortion should be legal at any point of pregnancy...:think:

Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

Anytime for any reason

Anytime, but only in cases of rape, incest or life risk to mother

Anytime, but only if the mothers life is at risk

For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy

Only in cases of rape or incest and only up to a certain period during pregnancy

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

LIFETIME MEMBER

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Patron Saint of SMACK

New member

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

New member