Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[Lighthouse]

Don't you think threatening atheists with hell is a bit of a rhetorical failure of imagination on your part, Lighthouse?

:crackup:

It's not a threat, it's a warning.

I don't want to go to anywhere I don't think exists.

Keep telling yourself that, sparky.

 

[gcthomas]

Meaningless philosophical semantics. A fetus is an extant human. This indisputable fact should suffice.

A fetus is a human not of a human. A fetus is a genetically unique individual human.

That's a post hoc determination. Would you exclude foetuses that were not genetically unique? Identical twins or cloned individuals, for example? If yes, why?

A fetus is as of a human (or a male/female human pairing) as any other already born human is.

The pre birth / post birth line is arbitrary, so that is why I didn't suggest it. :up:

Ambiguous, philosophical semantics. What a person is is a wholly philosophical meandering and not a provable biological fact either way.

I say a fetus is you say it isn't. It's a pointless, subjective debate to engage in.

First indisputable fact, then pointless subjective debate? Wrong both times. Do you really think that persuading the civil authorities of the personhood of a foetus is pointless? Or entirely subjective?

 

[WizardofOz]

That's a post hoc determination.

How so?

Would you exclude foetuses that were not genetically unique? Identical twins or cloned individuals, for example? If yes, why?

My position is not one of exclusion but one of inclusion. You want to exclude certain humans from being considered persons.

I consider twins, clones etc as people but what a "person" is is a purely subjective philosophical topic. I can assert that human X is a person and you can assert that they are not but what does our subjective assertion prove?

First indisputable fact, then pointless subjective debate? Wrong both times. Do you really think that persuading the civil authorities of the personhood of a foetus is pointless? Or entirely subjective?

Entirely subjective. See above.

You're confusing what I said is indisputable fact and what is a pointless subjective debate.

A fetus is an extant human. This indisputable fact should suffice.

 

[alwight]

I consider twins, clones etc as people but what a "person" is is a purely subjective philosophical topic. I can assert that human X is a person and you can assert that they are not but what does our subjective assertion prove?

Do you think a zygote is a person? :think:

 

[gcthomas]

Meaningless philosophical semantics. A fetus is an extant human. This indisputable fact should suffice.

Suffice for what, exactly?

How so?

This ...

My position is not one of exclusion but one of inclusion. You want to exclude certain humans from being considered persons.

Your objective is to give foetuses human rights, so you select a definition that seems to require that. Argument happened after decision. Post hoc.

I consider twins, clones etc as people but what a "person" is is a purely subjective philosophical topic. I can assert that human X is a person and you can assert that they are not but what does our subjective assertion prove?

You said that DNA uniqueness was a factor. Isn't it then after all?

 

[WizardofOz]

Do you think a zygote is a person? :think:

That's the point. I find the question and any wholly subjective answer I could ponder and offer largely irrelevant and deflective from the biological facts.

A zygote is an individual living human, distinct from its mother and father. These facts are sufficient for me to find it of worth and worthy of legal protection. I believe in liberty for all humans whether born on not yet born. :thumb:

 

[WizardofOz]

A fetus is an extant human. This indisputable fact should suffice.

Suffice for what, exactly?

Suffice for them to be given legal protection against being aborted.

Your objective is to give foetuses human rights,

Because a fetus is objectively a human.

so you select a definition that seems to require that. Argument happened after decision. Post hoc.

What definition have I selected? A fetus is a human, is it not? "My" definition is biological fact and not a philosophical opinion.

There is nothing post hoc about my argument and/or I don't think you understand what post hoc means.

You said that DNA uniqueness was a factor. Isn't it then after all?

I said that a fetus is a genetically unique individual human. This was in reference and to differentiate them from their parents. Simply, a fetus is a new individual human, distinct from their parents.

 

[alwight]

That's the point. I find the question and any wholly subjective answer I could ponder and offer largely irrelevant and deflective from the biological facts.

A zygote is an individual living human, distinct from its mother and father. These facts are sufficient for me to find it of worth and worthy of legal protection. I believe in liberty for all humans whether born on not yet born. :thumb:

Wouldn't it be more useful however for you to try to arrive at a more positive conclusion?
To my mind it must be a good idea to sometimes make brave, honest, reasonable and hopefully useful human choices based on some reasonable criteria, rather than ducking out in case there just might be some kind of un-evidenced associated presumably spiritual element?
Why shouldn't a zygote just be what it appears to be, an expendable human cell with an original DNA, and nothing more than biological information for a possible human person yet to be assembled?

 

[WizardofOz]

Wouldn't it be more useful however for you to try to arrive at a more positive conclusion?

I don't really think that a more positive conclusion is necessary or really even possible, objectively speaking. All humans should have legal protections. A fetus is a human. A fetus should have legal protections.

What humans do you feel should not have legal protections and why shouldn't they?

To my mind it must be a good idea to sometimes make brave, honest, reasonable and hopefully useful human choices based on some reasonable criteria, rather than ducking out in case there just might be some kind of un-evidenced associated presumably spiritual element?

:liberals:

My argument is a biological one not a spiritual one. Although, I don't feel having an abortion is going to do anyone's psyche any good. I also don't feel that having an abortion is honest, reasonable nor useful. Perhaps you can explain how it could be any of these things and would be the best course of action in any situation for all parties involved (which would include the unborn party).

Otherwise, what reasonable criteria are you alluding to?

Why shouldn't a zygote just be what it appears to be, an expendable human cell with an original DNA, and nothing more than biological information for a possible human person yet to be assembled?

How do zygotes "appear" expendable? :idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

All humans should have legal protections.
A fetus is a human.
A fetus should have legal protections.

I don't agree with this attempt at logic. Human rights were invented for post birth functioning humans, but you extend it to pre-birth ones without reasoning. Just simple assertion.

Yet you would extend human rights to a small cluster of cells. A zygote is potentially a functioning human, but not yet one.

What harm are you trying to prevent by doing so? What is the ethical justification here?

 

[alwight]

I don't really think that a more positive conclusion is necessary or really even possible, objectively speaking. All humans should have legal protections. A fetus is a human. A fetus should have legal protections.

I really can't see why a human cell (zygote) albeit with unique DNA qualifies as anything other than a package of information about how to build a potential human person.

What humans do you feel should not have legal protections and why shouldn't they?

That isn't really the point imo, the point is that an extant woman clearly does have rights afaic that might be required to be trumped in favour of something presumed by certain third parties and activists to have rights. At what point in a foetus' development should legal rights be given to it that supersede an extant woman's own rights and opinions is really the point here.

My argument is a biological one not a spiritual one. Although, I don't feel having an abortion is going to do anyone's psyche any good. I also don't feel that having an abortion is honest, reasonable nor useful. Perhaps you can explain how it could be any of these things and would be the best course of action in any situation for all parties involved (which would include the unborn party).

I have no problem with you making up your mind about any aspect here and what you would do if you were directly involved in the specific circumstances so long as you don't try to impose it on those who see it differently.
That said I think there should be legal restrictions on abortions, much as they already are, based on rational medical opinions and the general consensus (society should have a say too). Also that abortion should not be used as a form of contraception, but the important thing for me is that the woman must have a reasonable chance to choose not to pregnant if that was never her intention.

Otherwise, what reasonable criteria are you alluding to?

My own basic criteria of acceptable choice would initially be whether any kind of functioning central nervous existed. I would have no problem with any freely made considered choice to abort up to that point for whatever reason. After that then I too might begin to feel uncomfortable without a rather good rational reason.

How do zygotes "appear" expendable? :idunno:

Fact is that two thirds fail naturally, they at least were all expendable it seems to me, would a successful one be intrinsically any different?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I could not vote because my option was not on the list.

My vote is: Abortion should never be a legal option. I cannot think of one viable reason to kill an innocent child.

And regarding the "life of the mother" option: Frankly, any woman who would kill her own child to save her own life is a despicable excuse for a human being.

 

[alwight]

And regarding the "life of the mother" option: Frankly, any woman who would kill her own child to save her own life is a despicable excuse for a human being.

So an extant woman, perhaps with other children, a husband, parents, siblings, potentially the mother of future children has no value compared to the foetus inside her which may well die anyway?
Have you really thought this through? :think:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I could not vote because my option was not on the list.

My vote is: Abortion should never be a legal option. I cannot think of one viable reason to kill an innocent child.

And regarding the "life of the mother" option: Frankly, any woman who would kill her own child to save her own life is a despicable excuse for a human being.

So an extant woman, perhaps with other children, a husband, parents, siblings, potentially the mother of future children has no value compared to the foetus inside her which may well die anyway?
Have you really thought this through? :think:

Are you a parent? Would you kill your own kid to save your sorry hide?

Your problem stems from the fact that you do not recognize the child in the womb as being a human being. If you did then you'd agree with me

 

[alwight]

Are you a parent? Would you kill your own kid to save your sorry hide?

Your problem stems from the fact that you do not recognize the child in the womb as being a human being. If you did then you'd agree with me

To be honest I would choose my wife over a potential unknown offspring in a heartbeat. lain:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

To be honest I would choose my wife over a potential unknown offspring in a heartbeat. lain:

Wow. And there you see it ladies and germs, a parent who would kill his own kid to save a parent. How disgusting.

Welcome to my ignore list you immoral pig.

 

[alwight]

Wow. And there you see it ladies and germs, a parent who would kill his own kid to save a parent. How disgusting.

Welcome to my ignore list you immoral pig.

Can't say I'll miss the insults. :wave2:

 

[WizardofOz]

I don't agree with this attempt at logic.

It's not an attempt. What is invalid or unsound about my argument? By all means....

Human rights were invented for post birth functioning humans, but you extend it to pre-birth ones without reasoning. Just simple assertion.

So do you.

You voted in the poll for: "For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy."

You too seem to be willing to extend post-birth human rights to pre-birth humans. Why should abortion be limited after a certain point in pregnancy? Is your logic without reasoning? Is your logic a simple assertion? Let's hear your logic and reasoning as to why abortion should be limited after your arbitrary point of development.

You use pro-life logic as well, I am simply consistent in my logic. Whereas, your logic changes completely from one end of the spectrum to the exact opposite dependent on...who knows what. :idunno:

Yet you would extend human rights to a small cluster of cells. A zygote is potentially a functioning human, but not yet one.

A zygote is a human and functions the exact way it is supposed to function.

You would extend human rights to a fetus beyond X weeks. Is it a functioning human then? What functions are required in order to be considered human?

What harm are you trying to prevent by doing so? What is the ethical justification here?

Limiting legal protection based on factors other than being human can only be at best ambiguous and arbitrary. I prefer more consistent logic and feel all humans should have their lives protected regardless of age or state of development.

 

[alwight]

"When should abortion be a legal option?"
My choice in not listed I haven't voted.:think:

"Anytime for any reason"
No, I don't really like that option there should be some restrictions imo.

"Anytime, but only in cases of rape, incest or life risk to mother"
Surely with rape and incest it would be done promptly not anytime, no, there has to be a choice not to be pregnant if it was not intended.

"Anytime, but only if the mothers life is at risk"
I'd only favour a reasonable time to choose not to be pregnant but anytime if there was a risk to the mother, no.

"For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy"
No, if the mother's life was at risk then anytime.

"Only in cases of rape or incest and only up to a certain period during pregnancy"
Nearly but anytime if the mother was at risk, no.

My option would be:
Anytime with sound medical reasoning but any reason at all (free choice) up to a point if being pregnant was not intended..

 

[WizardofOz]

I really can't see why a human cell (zygote) albeit with unique DNA qualifies as anything other than a package of information about how to build a potential human person.

What is a "human person"? No one can objectively define this. A zygote is decidedly a human. This is an objective biological fact. No need to debate philosophical semantics.

That isn't really the point imo, the point is that an extant woman clearly does have rights afaic that might be required to be trumped in favour of something presumed by certain third parties and activists to have rights. At what point in a foetus' development should legal rights be given to it that supersede an extant woman's own rights and opinions is really the point here.

Agreed.

I have no problem with you making up your mind about any aspect here and what you would do if you were directly involved in the specific circumstances so long as you don't try to impose it on those who see it differently.

Hold that thought....

That said I think there should be legal restrictions on abortions, much as they already are, based on rational medical opinions and the general consensus (society should have a say too). Also that abortion should not be used as a form of contraception, but the important thing for me is that the woman must have a reasonable chance to choose not to pregnant if that was never her intention.

You would like to impose your view on those who see it differently and are perhaps more pro-choice than you are.

Why is it OK when you do it?

My own basic criteria of acceptable choice would initially be whether any kind of functioning central nervous existed. I would have no problem with any freely made considered choice to abort up to that point for whatever reason. After that then I too might begin to feel uncomfortable without a rather good rational reason.

That's fine but at least concede that your biological values are completely arbitrary. When I say give all humans (born or not yet born) legal protection there is nothing ambiguous about it.

Fact is that two thirds fail naturally, they at least were all expendable it seems to me, would a successful one be intrinsically any different?

You bring this up a lot as if it carries any weight as an argument. A lot of senior citizens die of heart disease. Does this have any bearing on a senior citizen that does not have heart disease?

Nope.

If 2/3rds of humans die before reaching age X does this biological fact impact the value of those who are successful past that age?

I would stop using that particular argument.