Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

Huh? You are using the word human here as an adjective not a noun. Human blastocyst uses the word in the same sense as a human leg. Of a human, not A human.

No. I am using it as a noun. A blastocyst is a human, albeit in the earliest stages of development. It is not a part of a human, it is the underdeveloped whole and will become whole if nature is allowed to progress.

Your use of 'human' is slippery.

See above. It is biological fact. What is slippery about it? It is a human whether you want to acknowledge it, give it rights or allow it to be killed. What we do and what laws we write does not change what it is.

But as I have already said, I don't believe early foetuses are people, so do not require special protections.

"People" is the truly slippery word at play, that's why pro-choicers keep reverting to it. It is wholly philosophical and subjective so no one can prove that your belief is objectively wrong.

It is important to note that you do believe that a fetus with a CNS is worthy of legal protection so you've only proved that what you consider to be a person is largely irrelevant anyway. :think:

I'm interested: why, if foetuses are fully human do you only want to give them ONE right instead of ALL human rights? Seems like you are treating them as less than human by denying all but one human right.

What are human rights? I simply said I am only concerned (as in the context of this thread) with one right. If you are not willing to grant them a right to life, the others are not really worth discussing.

Not to mention, they're too young to vote

So, what other rights do you feel I should be focusing on?

That is a verifiable medical science question. I don't know when the nervous system has sufficient function, but it cannot be before twenty weeks as the parts are not integrated into one nervous system.

Why should a human without an integrated nervous system be allowed to be killed sans absolute medical necessity?

That would require a court to decide. For late pregnancies, as I've indicated already, I am not convinced as to the personhood of the foetus, so I am content to let others decide that one. That is an area with significant lack of firm knowledge. I will not decide black and white when there is really grey.

So even your CNS argument is irrelevant. Can you clearly state at all under what circumstance(s) you feel an abortion should absolutely be illegal?

As I have repeated before, the twenty weeks line is the earliest that the foetus could be thought to be functioning in a way consistent with judgenements accepted for the end of life.

But not sufficient enough to grant it legal protections. See above.

Vary under different circumstances? Of course. Unless you have a dogmatically unmovable black and white preconception, you will recognise the lack of certainty as to WHEN exactly a smooth change from non- to actual human can be considered to happen. This leaves room for the balancing of interests.

From fertilization, when are we dealing with a human? When are we dealing with a person? When should this being be given legal protection?

Once you answer the third question, you cannot change the marker based on whether the pregnancy was a result of rape or the mother is just too poor to raise a child or the child may have defects, et al.

Either the being is worthy of legal protection from being killed or it isn't.

Well done. This is not contested, is it? An acorn may become a mighty oak, but while I may campaign to stop the felling of a two hundred year old oak, I will not fight the squirrels for the acorns.

Irrelevant to human biology and criminal justice. If a pig farmer aborts a pig fetus I won't cry foul. I am concerned about human life not oaks or pigs.

Do you value a human fetus more than a two hundred year old oak tree?

Implying nothing. Human zygotes have none of the functional properties I expect of a human, so they are not humans (human people).

Biologically false, your incredulity aside. Back an individual's human development up to its beginning. When did that human begin to form and function?

A comatose patient has none of the functional properties I expect of a human, so I should be able to snuff them out, right?

Your individual expectations do not biologically define the subject matter.

Are you opposed to abortion when it is medically unnecessary? What is objectively logical and/or necessary about abortion, especially elective abortion?

No, within the limits I have indicated. And who are you to judge the necessity involved in an elective abortion.

You brought up logic and necessity. Please explain the logic and/or necessity behind an elective abortion.

You feel you are in a position to judge elective abortion, assuming the unborn fits your subjective criteria of what constitutes a human or a person. Who are you to judge them then? Why should any elective abortion be prohibited by law?

Yet your choice here is thoroughly arbitrary. It would be more inclusive to include as yet unfertilised eggs and sperm

Eggs and sperm on their own are not humans, they are part of humans. A fertilized egg is a human, albeit in the earliest stage of development. Again, this is biologically and objectively factual.

and the elderly brain dead

I advocate letting nature take its course. An elderly brain dead person will naturally die and a fetus will naturally live. Don't keep the elderly alive artificially if it is against the wishes of them or their family. Don't artificially kill a human fetus for the sake of convenience.

There is distinction that must be acknowledged between allowing a human to live or die as opposed to forcing a human to live or die. Your comparisons are blurring this distinction.

 

[Granite]

I've never understood this obsession with insisting that blastocysts are persons.

 

[WizardofOz]

I've never understood this obsession with insisting that blastocysts are persons.

Who is doing that? :idunno:

 

[Granite]

Who is doing that? :idunno:

I see, so you want to keep splitting hairs. So they're not persons, in your book. Just human. Do you agree with gcthomas, or not? I don't deny a blastocyst is human, but I do deny its personhood (as would anyone else with a pulse, in a perfect world). You really strike me as more interested in being contrary than anything else.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I've never understood this obsession with insisting that blastocysts are persons.

A human is a human despite the stage of development they are in: Infant, Toddler, Child, Teenager, Adult, Senor Citizen.... ....Fetus, Zygote.... who are you to say which can live and which can die.

If you can't understand something as simple than that then, frankly, you're a moron.

 

[Granite]

A human is a human despite the stage of development they are in: Infant, Toddler, Child, Teenager, Adult, Senor Citizen.... ....Fetus, Zygote.... who are you to say which can live and which can die.

If you can't understand something as simple than that then, frankly, you're a moron.

And you're a waste of time who so far does next to nothing else here but throw insults and names around. I have zero interest in what some virgin worshipper thinks of me. Go try to play with someone else.:yawn:

 

[Lon]

? I don't deny a blastocyst is human, but I do deny its personhood (as would anyone else with a pulse, in a perfect world). You really strike me as more interested in being contrary than anything else.

Wow. Propoganda.

No wonder you are an atheist. You are playing your own god. How could you possibly have thought you were a christian at one time? 1 John 2:19

 

[IMJerusha]

I would have an abortion myself if I became pregnant as a result of rape and would be unapologetic about it.

Really? How do you know? Have you already had an abortion?

 

[WizardofOz]

You however, somewhat dogmatically imo, apparently don’t want to allow any time period at all for any such free choice, based only on an assumption that there simply never is a period from conception when a human person can be supposed not to yet exist.

Because from conception a new human does exist, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

I otoh think that clearly there is and that denying such a choice would be being unnecessarily restrictive and dictatorial over the rights of an extant woman who may well have her own opinions.

If a woman is 7 months pregnant and wants to abort are you not being dogmatically and unnecessarily restrictive and dictatorial over her rights then? After all, she might have her own opinions.

Clearly society sets such restrictions not me, but after 8 months I can assume she has already had ample chances to choose and has imo made her own choice to go through with it.

What if she sincerely didn't know she was pregnant? It happens. You would see her forced to give birth with having ample time to make that choice?

The consensus of society has already made that choice in advance which I could have previously sought to change had I not agreed. This specific foetus has rights too.

Should it have rights and why should it; based on what criteria?

It’s really no good presenting me with a specific situation here when what I want all along is that each case should be considered on the individual specific facts not simply some dogmatic catch-all covering every stage in human reproduction after conception.

But that is not how law works. An abortion cannot be illegal based on age of the fetus but then legal because the mother to be was really poor or changed her mind or was raped, etc. Either that particular unborn human has rights or it does not.

I don’t agree with using abortion as a form of contraception

But if a woman is in PP for her 7th elective abortion, you have no problem with that as long as she's doing it early? You may not personally agree but beyond that your personal judgement should carry no weight?

The CNS does not poof into existence. It is a period of development. So, let's test your standard.

At 40 days, brain waves are recordable. Should all abortion after 40 days be illegal?

At 13 to 16 weeks pain sensors are operative. Should abortion be illegal after 12 weeks or after 16?

What state of CNS development is required before you feel that the being possessing them should no longer be arbitrarily killed?

Yes but this has now moved beyond my initial argument. If you can now accept that there is even a small window of opportunity when it is reasonable to assume that an abortion need not affect an extant human person, then we can and should move on, but I suspect that is not the case.

The CNS is not my standard and does not define the subject matter. I posed those questions to you because it is at least a portion of your standard. Feel free to address them if you care to. :idunno:

You asked me why I thought zygotes were expendable; I didn’t want to go back to my hobby horse because I thought it was understood. Clearly imo zygotes routinely fail,

And people routinely die. Does that make the ones that do not expendable? Your argument is a non sequitur.

there seems to be no point in worrying or being sentimental over the seeds of life

Sperm and egg are the "seeds of life". Once they combine we are dealing with a new human life.

 

[Granite]

Wow. Propoganda.

No wonder you are an atheist. You are playing your own god. How could you possibly have thought you were a christian at one time? 1 John 2:19

Your presumption, ignorance, arrogance, and generally unpleasant attitude are as always much appreciated.

 

[WizardofOz]

I see, so you want to keep splitting hairs.

Don't accuse me of splitting hairs when you have obviously invested no time in the thread or in understanding my position.

I am in no way splitting hairs. Who is insisting that blastocysts are persons? That was the observation made in your post.

So they're not persons, in your book. Just human.

Who defines what a person is? What is person is is a completely philosophical and subjective judgement. There is no point in debating it because neither side can objectively prove their judgement is the correct one. It's a rabbit hole.

A fetus (or blystocyst or fertilized egg) is decidedly and objectively a human, albeit at the earliest stage(s) of development.

Let's stick with objective fact and not philosophical gobble-gook.

Do you agree with gcthomas, or not?

About what?

I don't deny a blastocyst is human,

Further, a blastocyst is a human. It is a (noun) human and not simply (adjective) human.

but I do deny its personhood

Philosophical and subjective/individual value judgement, which is largely irrelevant.

(as would anyone else with a pulse, in a perfect world).

Bandwagon fallacy/argumentum ad populum fallacy (unless of course you are including a fetus with a pulse that isn't yet old enough to not be aborted in your appeal) :think:

You really strike me as more interested in being contrary than anything else.

I am interested in intelligent and sincere debate on the topic. But yes, pro-life individuals are contrary to the position of pro-choice individuals and vice-versa. Does this for some reason strike you as surprising? :idunno:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I've never understood this obsession with insisting that blastocysts are persons.

A human is a human despite the stage of development they are in: Infant, Toddler, Child, Teenager, Adult, Senor Citizen.... ....Fetus, Zygote.... who are you to say which can live and which can die.

If you can't understand something as simple than that then, frankly, you're a moron.

And you're a waste of time who so far does next to nothing else here but throw insults and names around..........

I am pretty sure my last post made an important point.

But I don't want to disappoint, so here's another insult: Bite me, pinhead.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The big problem with this discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, scientifically they were human beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.

And one other thing: It is also a fact that the DNA of the child in the womb is unique and different from the mother's DNA, which b1ows out of the water the argument that "I can do what I want with my body", because its not the woman's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life.

 

[WizardofOz]

The big problem with this discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, scientifically they were human beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.

And one other thing: It is also a fact that the DNA of the child in the womb is unique and different from the mother's DNA, which b1ows out of the water the argument that "I can do what I want with my body", because its not the woman's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life.

:first: Well said. Nothing can really be said that objectively counters any of your points, either.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

:first: Well said. Nothing can really be said that objectively counters any of your points, either.

Thank you.

They did not have DNA science when Roe v Wade was decided.

 

[Granite]

Don't accuse me of splitting hairs when you have obviously invested no time in the thread or in understanding my position.

You have zero idea how much time I spent on the thread before commenting.

Who is insisting that blastocysts are persons? That was the observation made in your post.

Many others on TOL have. I'm trying to figure out if you're one of them.

Who defines what a person is? What is person is is a completely philosophical and subjective judgement. There is no point in debating it because neither side can objectively prove their judgement is the correct one. It's a rabbit hole.

So you don't think that's a discussion even worth having?

A fetus (or blystocyst or fertilized egg) is decidedly and objectively a human, albeit at the earliest stage(s) of development.

I haven't denied as much. It's human matter. Gcthomas has said the same thing. If you're trying to disagree with us it's a gigantic waste of time.

Bandwagon fallacy/argumentum ad populum fallacy (unless of course you are including a fetus with a pulse that isn't yet old enough to not be aborted in your appeal) :think:

Despairing the silliness of the species, more than anything.

 

[WizardofOz]

You have zero idea how much time I spent on the thread before commenting.

Many others on TOL have. I'm trying to figure out if you're one of them. So provide a straight answer, or not.

I do not necessarily have a problem answering although my answer is irrelevant to the topic, a point I have made repeatedly in this thread.

I can tell that you have not paid attention to this thread, otherwise you wouldn't even bother asking me the question in the first place.

The second point is that no one in the thread has insisted that blastocysts are persons. That you would offer a simplistic drive-by post pondering why so many do this, is further evidence of your general lack of knowledge and/or interest in this particular thread. The first time the term "blastocysts" was used in this thread was by gcthomas...yesterday.

So yes, I have been given a pretty good indication of how much time you've spent in this thread before commenting.

So you don't think that's a discussion even worth having?

It would be like you telling me that vanilla is better than chocolate and us having a debate about it. What a person is is not objectively definable. We would offer our personal opinion on the matter and it would settle nothing.

It is a wholly philosophical discussion.

I haven't denied as much. It's human matter. Gcthomas has said the same thing. If you're trying to disagree with us it's a gigantic waste of time.

I don't recall gcthomas making that point but I won't split hairs on that particular claim. A toenail is human matter. Sperm is human matter. There is a differentiation to be made between what is human matter and what is a human. A fetus (fertilized egg, blastocysts etc) is a human, albeit at the earliest stage(s) of development.

 

[Granite]

I can tell that you have not paid attention to this thread, otherwise you wouldn't even bother asking me the question in the first place.

This is known as "seeing where the other guy is coming from," last time I checked. With all due respect to your psychic abilities you could've given me the courtesy of a straight answer as opposed to acting like a snotty pedant.

The second point is that no one in the thread has insisted that blastocysts are persons.

Which is why I specifically said that others on TOL have. I was trying to see if you were one of them. As I already said. Unravel your underwear any time.

It would be like you telling me that vanilla is better than chocolate and us having a debate about it. What a person is is not objectively definable. We would offer our personal opinion on the matter and it would settle nothing.

Seems like a good way to bow out of a discussion to avoid ever having it. Your loss.

There is a differentiation to be made between what is human matter and what is a human. A fetus (fertilized egg, blastocysts etc) is a human, albeit at the earliest stage(s) of development.

A fetus is one thing. A blastocyst is something else. A blastocyst is potential, at best.

 

[Lon]

Your presumption, ignorance, arrogance, and generally unpleasant attitude are as always much appreciated.

Sorry, knee-jerk.

I am caught 'by surprise' how far your sentiments away from us are, if that helps. Can you see why "Did he ever think like us or share a commonality?" would pop into one's head quite readily?

 

[WizardofOz]

With all due respect to your psychic abilities you could've given me the courtesy of a straight answer as opposed to acting like a snotty pedant.

Unravel your underwear any time.

:sigh:

Seems like a good way to bow out of a discussion to avoid ever having it. Your loss.

The original intent of this thread is to determine where those who consider themselves pro-choice make that 180 degree flip and become pro-life.

Nearly everyone who considers themselves to be pro-choice has that point of absolute reversal, that is during the course of any one pregnancy they are pro-choice before changing to being pro-life dependent on various factors.

I had another thread here about "what is a "person"?", if you're sincere about having that discussion. Obviously I am not trying to bow out of it. Otherwise, I never would have created that particular thread.

A fetus is one thing. A blastocyst is something else. A blastocyst is potential, at best.

A potential what?