Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[IMJerusha]

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.

Amen! Amen! Amen and Amen!

 

[IMJerusha]

:sigh:



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.

I thought that was for the first few pages.

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.

For me, that was the moment I realized what I had done; the moment I stepped off of the abortion table. HaSatan has a tendency to use rape to his advantage. He certainly has no care for the child and uses your violation to drag you to a whole new level of unworthiness in your mind. Then he uses the abortion itself to drag you to his level. In Yeshua, though, in confession and repentance, we have hope and redemption and untold worth.

A potential what?

A potential adult human being as opposed to a child in it's developmental state.

 

[quip]

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.

The moral implications of this so-called "differentiation" is no less subjective/arbitrary than the personage "differentiation" you so blithely dismiss. Why the double standard...perhaps because of the obvious absurdities involved in claiming a blastocyst equal to a person?

 

[Granite]

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.

I'd say it would often be a gradual process, not a 180.

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.

Well, that strikes me as kinda anecdotal. Would you say the opposite could also be true?

A potential what?

Potential person.

 

[WizardofOz]

The moral implications of this so-called "differentiation" is no less subjective/arbitrary than the personage "differentiation" you so blithely dismiss.

"So called"? Sorry quip but a toenail is not a human. A sperm is not a human. A fetus is a human. It matters little if you're up to acknowledging the fact.

I have not dismissed anything.

If we're going to discuss moral implications; under what circumstances is it moral to intentionally kill a human?

Why the double standard...perhaps because of the obvious absurdities involved in claiming a blastocyst equal to a person?

The "personage differentiation" is likely different for nearly every pro-choice individual out there. Your personal definition is relevant, how?

 

[quip]

"So called"? Sorry quip but a toenail is not a human. A sperm is not a human. A fetus is a human. It matters little if you're up to acknowledging the fact.

I have not dismissed anything.

If we're going to discuss moral implications; under what circumstances is it moral to intentionally kill a human?

Moral implications Oz! In other words, why are you making this differentiation between a toenail and a blastocyst? You're moral interpretation here is no more/less subjective then the person argument you're (hypocritically) dismissing.

The "personage differentiation" is likely different for nearly every pro-choice individual out there. Your personal definition is relevant, how?

Because its a legal designation not simply a personal one.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'd say it would often be a gradual process, not a 180.

But, that's not the way the law works. Either any given abortion is legal or it is not. The 180 exists even if only legally, which is ultimately the most important opinion on the matter.

If a pro-choice individual is going to say "abortion should be legal up until", they obviously must make a determination and make that 180 switch.

Well, that strikes me as kinda anecdotal. Would you say the opposite could also be true?

:liberals:
When is a pro-life individual pro-choice?

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

A potential what?

Potential person.

If a fetus is one thing and a blastocyst is a potential person, what is a fetus?

 

[WizardofOz]

"So called"? Sorry quip but a toenail is not a human. A sperm is not a human. A fetus is a human. It matters little if you're up to acknowledging the fact.

I have not dismissed anything.

If we're going to discuss moral implications; under what circumstances is it moral to intentionally kill a human?

Moral implications Oz! In other words, why are you making this differentiation between a toenail and a blastocyst?

Because one is a human and one is a part of a human. It is important to accurately describe and differentiate between the subject matter at hand.

As far as moral implications, it is amoral to kill (clip) a toenail. It is immoral to kill a human unless that human is putting the life of another in direct and immediate peril or if they have been convicted of a capital crime (the DP is another can of worms but the point is worth making). If you disagree with the above by all means answer the question you avoided in my last post to you.

I am making the differentiation because a human toenail does not need legal protections while a human does.

You're moral interpretation here is no more/less subjective then the person argument you're (hypocritically) dismissing.

It's not hypocritical other than your assertion that it is. I am calling the argument what it is, wholly philosophical and interpretive.

My argument is biologically and objectively factual. Otherwise, why not go back and actually answer the question you avoided?

Under what circumstances is it moral to intentionally kill a human?

By calling it what it is (a human) other than what it may or may not be interpreted to be (a person) we can actually progress the conversation at hand as a fetus being a human is really indisputable.

We could go on and on about what is and what isn't a "person". Since it is a subjective judgement call, it is largely a exercise in futility.

Because its a legal designation not simply a personal one.

Citation?

 

[gcthomas]

It's not hypocritical other than your assertion that it is. I am calling the argument what it is, wholly philosophical and interpretive.

My argument is biologically and objectively factual. Otherwise, why not go back and actually answer the question you avoided?

It seems to be a rather feeble rhetorical technique to cast the judgement of opponents as interpretive and your own as purely factual, when yours in no different.

You think it is obvious that a blastocyst is a human, rather than of a human. But instead of offering reasoned argument you continue to repeat the assertion. Quip's question, WHY do you differentiate between one part of a human and the blastocyst, is important, and probably central to the discussion.

So, why do you differentiate? What is the biological reason? Spotting an observable difference (ie unique DNA) isn't good unless that observation always indicates the moral difference. I don't believe it does.

 

[IMJerusha]

But, that's not the way the law works. Either any given abortion is legal or it is not. The 180 exists even if only legally, which is ultimately the most important opinion on the matter.

If a pro-choice individual is going to say "abortion should be legal up until", they obviously must make a determination and make that 180 switch.

I'm living proof that the 180 exists in the smoking gun so to speak. Just as the strongest supporters of non-smoking laws are the reformed smokers, the strongest supporters of anti-abortion laws are those who have fallen under the legal "it's okay" bus and found out, quite literally, that it's not okay. It takes one cold and empty-hearted woman to ignore what happens to her following an abortion. It's indescribable and no one can prepare you for it. The fact is, no one tries because it's big business for the dealers of death. What I wouldn't give to shut them all down!

When is a pro-life individual pro-choice?

When they do not understand the COST of the action regardless of the reason.

 

[quip]

Because one is a human and one is a part of a human. It is important to accurately describe and differentiate between the subject matter at hand.

Why is this important (to you)?

As far as moral implications, it is amoral to kill (clip) a toenail. It is immoral to kill a human

You're illustrating my point here Oz. You're morally lumping blastocysts with person/humans and proclaiming it immoral to kill them. The subjective assertion "You can't kill a human." does not necessarily nor simply follow if you include blastocysts into that group....you've provided no evidence as why we should morally include blastocysts, you just gave everyone your subjective opinion. :idunno:

I am making the differentiation because a human toenail does not need legal protections while a human does.

Not if one doesn't accept your presuppositions. read above.

It's not hypocritical other than your assertion that it is. I am calling the argument what it is, wholly philosophical and interpretive.

Of course it is...it's just a personal proclamation masquerading as some declarative law.
My argument is biologically and objectively factual. Otherwise, why not go back and actually answer the question you avoided?

Under what circumstances is it moral to intentionally kill a human?

By calling it what it is (a human) other than what it may or may not be interpreted to be (a person) we can actually progress the conversation at hand as a fetus being a human is really indisputable.

We could go on and on about what is and what isn't a "person". Since it is a subjective judgement call, it is largely a exercise in futility.

Supra

Citation?

Huh?

Does the US Constitution/Bill of Rights hold no influence with you?

 

[WizardofOz]

First, I responded with a rather detailed post to you and several of my points and questions are going unaddressed.

I hope that you will take the time to go back and do so.

It seems to be a rather feeble rhetorical technique to cast the judgement of opponents as interpretive and your own as purely factual, when yours in no different.

What a person is is entirely interpretive. Do you disagree?
What a human is is objectively precise and provable.

So yeah, mine is different and based on factual, objective evidence as well as human biological knowledge.

I engaging in debate and am no more casting judgement than you are regarding my position.

You think it is obvious that a blastocyst is a human, rather than of a human.

You disagree? That's fine. But tell me, when does human development first begin?

But instead of offering reasoned argument you continue to repeat the assertion.

I am not repeating assertion, I am offering biological fact.

Quip's question, WHY do you differentiate between one part of a human and the blastocyst, is important, and probably central to the discussion.

Because a blastocyst is a human, albeit at an early stage of development. Rather than counter with incredulity, offer a counter argument accompanied with evidence or citation.

So, why do you differentiate? What is the biological reason? Spotting an observable difference (ie unique DNA) isn't good unless that observation always indicates the moral difference. I don't believe it does.

I believe we can progress this vein once you address some of my earlier points and questions. Such as:
- Why should a human without an integrated nervous system be allowed to be killed sans absolute medical necessity?

- Can you clearly state at all under what circumstance(s) you feel an abortion should absolutely be illegal?

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

 

[WizardofOz]

Why is this important (to you)?

Because I believe that the life and liberty of all humans should be protected by law regardless of developmental state.

You're illustrating my point here Oz. You're morally lumping blastocysts with person/humans

Because a blastocyst is a human

and proclaiming it immoral to kill them.

When is it moral to kill a human?

The subjective assertion "You can't kill a human." does not necessarily nor simply follow if you include blastocysts into that group....you've provided no evidence as why we should include blastocysts, you just gave everyone your subjective opinion. :idunno:

It is wrong to unnecessarily kill a human
A blastocyst is a human
It is wrong to unnecessarily kill a blastocyst

Where is my logic unsound or invalid? Are either of my premises false?

Not if one doesn't accept your presuppositions. read above.

If you don't then answer the above question, under what circumstance is it OK (i.e. moral) to kill a human?

Of course it is...it's just a personal proclamation masquerading as some declarative law.

I am offering my opinion just as you are offering yours. Bring some something to the table rather than rejection without counter-argument.

The "personage differentiation" is likely different for nearly every pro-choice individual out there. Your personal definition is relevant, how?

Because its a legal designation not simply a personal one.

Citation

Does the US Constitution/Bill of Rights hold no influence with you?

:doh:
Sorry, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights objectively defines "personage differentiation". Can you offer a citation that objectively does?

 

[alwight]

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.

Acorns are not oak trees.
Couldn’t you relax your views just slightly so that an extant woman might not be deprived of the right to control what happens to her own body?

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.

No the state has that honour, my role in it is negligible, I have no official capacity or access to all the specific details of the pregnancy, and it’s basically none of my business. However as an individual if asked I may well hold an opinion that at some point it is too late to then decide not to be pregnant, and if society concurs then I have no problem with any such perceived inconvenience to the woman at that point.

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?

Me? Probably yes since the foetus may well be viable independently anyway, it doesn’t even seem a borderline case. I at least don’t see a reason to dogmatically cling to one view which must then be applied throughout all pregnancies regardless; individual specific circumstances should always be considered imo.

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?

I never claimed it would be easy only that an opportunity not to gestate an unwanted pregnancy would typically be available even if you can suppose atypical scenarios such as above. Society’s rules aren’t always perfect and shouldn’t always be dogmatically applied without considering all the specific facts.

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 would expect a raped woman to consider a possible pregnancy as a matter of urgency. She may even want to take action simply ensure that she is not pregnant, whether it is known or not. Would you oppose that since she might after all be pregnant by the rapist?
The statuary law should be adequate in most cases and if it isn’t then it can be changed as people see it isn’t working. As things stand society seems to want to give rights to the foetus at 24 weeks. I don’t see any good biological reason for making it 0 weeks.

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?

I don’t have any great fears for the unborn here, only that it seems a rather extravagant misuse of medical facilities or a sign of incompetence by the woman. There must be simpler and safer ways of her preventing pregnancy.

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:

The CNS could define it for you if the possibility of when a person is capable of existing seemed as reasonable a position to you as it does for me. I would discuss that if you agreed that without a CNS there really isn’t anything more than a potential human (being?) and a morally far superior window of opportunity for a woman to choose not to be pregnant than after say 24 weeks.

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.

No it isn’t, the point is that people as a rule live before they die, that is the expected norm while it is more normal that zygotes will die, most just are expendable. Are we now allowed to talk about people (persons) now it suits you?

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.

I think if you check seeds generally come along after fertilisation.

 

[quip]

Because I believe that the life and liberty of all humans should be protected by law regardless of developmental state.

That's fine as far as it goes...which is only as far as you, your opinion.

Because a blastocyst is a human

And this implies that a blastocyst is the moral human equivalent of you or I...ie.. other persons. So, where's your evidence in support of this implication?

When is it moral to kill a human?

Abortions, executions, war, defense of yourself and others.

It is wrong to unnecessarily kill a human
A blastocyst is a human
It is wrong to unnecessarily kill a blastocyst

Where is my logic unsound or invalid? Are either of my premises false?

Premise 2 is weak, (morally) ambiguous and (morally) unsupported.

If you don't then answer the above question, under what circumstance is it OK (i.e. moral) to kill a human?

I answered that already but I'll give you a relevant answer: During a legal abortion procedure.

I am offering my opinion just as you are offering yours.

Exactly. So stop giving us defacto moral proclamations regarding the moral status of blastocysts.

Bring some something to the table rather than rejection without counter-argument.

The onus is on you to show us why blastocysts are the moral equivalent to you or I.

:doh:
Sorry, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights objectively defines "personage differentiation". Can you offer a citation that objectively does?

Never said it did.
What is does do is guarantee persons certain rights and protections..that's why you simply can't out-of-hand dismiss the term... as you're wont to do.

 

[WizardofOz]

Acorns are not oak trees.

And a human fetus is not an adult human.

Couldn’t you relax your views just slightly so that an extant woman might not be deprived of the right to control what happens to her own body?

The problem is, it's not just her body anymore. Once she has another body growing inside of her both should be given legal consideration.

Society’s rules aren’t always perfect and shouldn’t always be dogmatically applied without considering all the specific facts.

That's just not the way the law works. Either a fetus is fair game based on age or it isn't. The law isn't going to make exceptions based on other circumstance.

I would expect a raped woman to consider a possible pregnancy as a matter of urgency.

I can't pretend to know what to expect a rape victim to do. She might be in shock or denial etc and may not muster the courage to seek medical attention until after 26 weeks.

She may even want to take action simply ensure that she is not pregnant, whether it is known or not. Would you oppose that since she might after all be pregnant by the rapist?

I oppose abortion regardless of circumstance.

I don’t have any great fears for the unborn here, only that it seems a rather extravagant misuse of medical facilities or a sign of incompetence by the woman. There must be simpler and safer ways of her preventing pregnancy.

Other than your first statement I agree with everything else you said. Further, if her 7th abortion was a misuse and sign of incompetence, the 1st must be as well, even if to a lesser degree of incompetence.

The CNS could define it for you if the possibility of when a person is capable of existing seemed as reasonable a position to you as it does for me. I would discuss that if you agreed that without a CNS there really isn’t anything more than a potential human (being?) and a morally far superior window of opportunity for a woman to choose not to be pregnant than after say 24 weeks.

As I said, the CNS is not my standard and really, neither is personhood. I do, however, understand the rationalization behind them but at the end of the day rationalizations are all they are.

Of course if a woman is going to abort, society views earlier as preferable but the end result is the same, is it not? What we are talking about is the deliberate killing of a human. Whatever rationalizations that can be mentioned does not change what abortion aims to accomplish.

No it isn’t, the point is that people as a rule live before they die, that is the expected norm while it is more normal that zygotes will die, most just are expendable.

I don't feel they are expendable. A lot of people in their 80s die but that doesn't make them expendable, does it? It doesn't follow that a naturally high mortality rate equates expendability.

Regardless, try to differentiate between natural death and purposeful killing.

Are we now allowed to talk about people (persons) now it suits you?

What did you specifically have in mind?

 

[quip]

The problem is, it's not just her body anymore. Once she has another body growing inside of her both should be given legal consideration.

The problem with this is that it's not about the fetus nor the mother per se..rather its about the nature of pregnancy...to which, of course, the mother holds the default advantages legally, physically and morally. Any controversy regarding the nature of pregnancy - rape, incest, danger to the mother - always falls in favor of the mother's choice. The body growing in side of her does not and should not get (full) legal consideration. Otherwise, you'll only persist in creating moral and legal contradiction.

 

[alwight]

Acorns are not oak trees.

And a human fetus is not an adult human.

A zygote is not a foetus.

Couldn’t you relax your views just slightly so that an extant woman might not be deprived of the right to control what happens to her own body?

The problem is, it's not just her body anymore. Once she has another body growing inside of her both should be given legal consideration.

That would be a “no” then.

Society’s rules aren’t always perfect and shouldn’t always be dogmatically applied without considering all the specific facts.

That's just not the way the law works. Either a fetus is fair game based on age or it isn't. The law isn't going to make exceptions based on other circumstance.

In practice I think the spirit of the law is often good enough for a judge. If all the individual and unique circumstances are not explicitly catered for in law then a judge might decide what is reasonable.

I would expect a raped woman to consider a possible pregnancy as a matter of urgency.

I can't pretend to know what to expect a rape victim to do. She might be in shock or denial etc and may not muster the courage to seek medical attention until after 26 weeks.

Only that isn’t an argument for not allowing a more prompt abortion.

She may even want to take action simply ensure that she is not pregnant, whether it is known or not. Would you oppose that since she might after all be pregnant by the rapist?

I oppose abortion regardless of circumstance.

Yes your opinions of it may be good enough for you and yours but imo not good enough to deny at least some scope for choice when others don’t agree.

I don’t have any great fears for the unborn here, only that it seems a rather extravagant misuse of medical facilities or a sign of incompetence by the woman. There must be simpler and safer ways of her preventing pregnancy.

Other than your first statement I agree with everything else you said. Further, if her 7th abortion was a misuse and sign of incompetence, the 1st must be as well, even if to a lesser degree of incompetence.

Except that isn’t an argument to prevent a non-cynical use of abortion.

The CNS could define it for you if the possibility of when a person is capable of existing seemed as reasonable a position to you as it does for me. I would discuss that if you agreed that without a CNS there really isn’t anything more than a potential human (being?) and a morally far superior window of opportunity for a woman to choose not to be pregnant than after say 24 weeks.

As I said, the CNS is not my standard and really, neither is personhood. I do, however, understand the rationalization behind them but at the end of the day rationalizations are all they are.

Of course if a woman is going to abort, society views earlier as preferable but the end result is the same, is it not? What we are talking about is the deliberate killing of a human. Whatever rationalizations that can be mentioned does not change what abortion aims to accomplish.

All I argue for is that there is reasonable opportunity for a reasonable woman to choose abortion if she didn’t intend to be pregnant and still doesn’t want to be. If there is no CNS at the time then I can’t see any greater morality issue in principle to less controversial means of preventing babies.

No it isn’t, the point is that people as a rule live before they die, that is the expected norm while it is more normal that zygotes will die, most just are expendable.

I don't feel they are expendable. A lot of people in their 80s die but that doesn't make them expendable, does it? It doesn't follow that a naturally high mortality rate equates expendability.

Regardless, try to differentiate between natural death and purposeful killing.

Perhaps you should try to accept that zygotes are in the main expendable instead of imbuing them with the status of “person”, which imo could only be a form of spiritual presumption rather than anything supportable by biology. That every lost zygote is not a lost person, that lost zygotes are normal and to be expected.

Are we now allowed to talk about people (persons) now it suits you?

What did you specifically have in mind?

I’ll let you know.

 

[Granite]

Sorry, knee-jerk.

Drop the "knee" part and you'll get a better idea how you're behaving.

I am caught 'by surprise' how far your sentiments away from us are, if that helps.

I've been here for how long?

Can you see why "Did he ever think like us or share a commonality?" would pop into one's head quite readily?

Don't really care. And word to the wise: Don't try to hijack threads with insults my way, I don't care how much you dislike me. It's bush league, a waste of time, and just rude to the participants on the thread.

 

[Granite]

But, that's not the way the law works. Either any given abortion is legal or it is not.

State by state this couldn't be any more untrue.

If a pro-choice individual is going to say "abortion should be legal up until", they obviously must make a determination and make that 180 switch.

:rotfl:

A 180 degree switch implies a complete change of mind, not the ability to differentiate nuance. Yeeeeesh.

When is a pro-life individual pro-choice?

You misunderstood what I said.

If a fetus is one thing and a blastocyst is a potential person, what is a fetus?

Scientifically and medically a blastocyst and fetus aren't the same thing. I think you're smart enough to know that. If not, do a little reading.