Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2018 12:30 AM
119 online now:
edge, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 116 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,487 Year: 17,310/29,783 Month: 1,298/1,956 Week: 295/506 Day: 0/100 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
27282930Next
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Percy
Member
Posts: 17888
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 376 of 441 (838041)
08-12-2018 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by NoNukes
08-12-2018 1:46 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:

It isn't a term with any objective definition.

That is not correct. You have just given an objective definition.

*I* gave an objective definition? I said it had a lot of ambiguity, that it's dependent upon "the technological sophistication of available technology at any given birth facility." The point of viability in a primitive tribe in the Amazonian basin would be much different than in a modern hospital. Maybe you're right that "variable" is a better adjective, but I think everyone knew what I meant.

I do find agree with Tangle and Faith on one point. I don't understand the reluctance to acknowledge that an unborn child, a few seconds before birth, is a human life. And in fact, it is only in an extreme situation where anyone would consider an abortion in that situation.

The argument has been framed several different ways. First there was a continuum of increasing harm, then potential human life, then different uses of the word "alive", now human life. The term I preferred was personhood, and jurisdictions vary as to whether and at what point and by how much they extend personhood to a fetus. If you ask me if I *know* the right answer then no, I don't, and I don't think anyone else does, either.

About an abortion just a few seconds before birth, I've commented a couple times that that doesn't seem possible to me. I'm no expert on obstetrics, but after about six or seven months I would think that inducement is almost always all that is possible, which results in birth. After it is born a baby has the basic rights of personhood. Abortion within just a few seconds of birth has always been a red herring. The real uncertainty is back before six or seven months.

Tangle also asked the question a different way, whether a woman can kill her fetus shortly before birth ("If a woman stuck a knitting needle through her cervix and skewered her baby moments before it was born..."). This gets back to the question of whether the fetus has personhood. I don't know.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2018 1:46 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2018 9:20 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17888
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 377 of 441 (838042)
08-12-2018 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Tangle
08-12-2018 3:06 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

But it's still obvious that the fertilised egg marks the start of process in the development of a human being and that the foetus a moment before birth *is* a fully formed human. I really don't understand the objection to that.

Well, it sounds innocuous enough, and normally I would have no objection, but not given where we began combined with the discussion's history where you called fertilization definitive and the beginning of a continuum where termination brings increasing harm that everyone knows must be true. If what you just said implies this then naturally I do not agree.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Tangle, posted 08-12-2018 3:06 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2018 3:47 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 378 of 441 (838043)
08-12-2018 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Percy
08-12-2018 8:18 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Maybe you're right that "variable" is a better adjective, but I think everyone knew what I meant.

I am not going to apologize for insisting on another term. I think the distinction between variable and subjective is important.

About an abortion just a few seconds before birth, I've commented a couple times that that doesn't seem possible to me.

Nor to me either. But a more reasonable circumstance might be a medical procedure other than an abortion that endangers the unborn's life in order to give the mother a better chance at life.

The question instead is whether an unborn child at that point is a human life and not whether you would perform an abortion. In lots of cases, the choice of a child's actual birthday is not determined completely by nature. For example, my daughter's birthday began with labor being induced the morning of her "due date". I doubt she would have arrived that day without an artificial aid.

Tangle also asked the question a different way, whether a woman can kill her fetus shortly before birth ("If a woman stuck a knitting needle through her cervix and skewered her baby moments before it was born..."). This gets back to the question of whether the fetus has personhood. I don't know

Well under US law an unborn baby is not a person. That means that she would have to be charged with something other than homicide. If you mean something else by personhood, you'll need to tell me what you mean.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Percy, posted 08-12-2018 8:18 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Percy, posted 08-14-2018 8:15 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 379 of 441 (838044)
08-12-2018 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
08-12-2018 2:12 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
It is not at all "completely clear," as evidenced by the fact that science as described in the article disagrees with you.

Quote me some science from the article that says that a fertilized egg is a human life prior to attachment in the uterus.

ABE:
I think I set the standard too high. Instead, quote me some science from that article that casts doubt on the idea a fertilized egg is not a human being prior to attachment in the uterus. Here is a hint: quickening is not an indication of being a human life.

Edited by NoNukes, : Loosen up my requirements.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 08-12-2018 2:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 08-13-2018 3:42 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30079
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 380 of 441 (838050)
08-13-2018 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by NoNukes
08-12-2018 9:28 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
It is not at all "completely clear," as evidenced by the fact that science as described in the article disagrees with you.

Quote me some science from the article that says that a fertilized egg is a human life prior to attachment in the uterus.

I quoted all that there is in the article on the subject which says only that conception inaugurates the continuous process toward full humanness.

Wikipedia writes:

Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted.

Implantation is part of the normal process "if uninterrupted" so that too is not a stage that differentiates between human and nonhuman. If the fertilized egg fails to implant that is a spontaneous abortion, but spontaneous abortion can also occur any time after that as well. So again, there is no meaningful dividing line at attachment or any other point along the way from conception to birth, it is a continuous biological process as stated in the article.

ABE:
I think I set the standard too high. Instead, quote me some science from that article that casts doubt on the idea a fertilized egg is not a human being prior to attachment in the uterus. Here is a hint: quickening is not an indication of being a human life.

In the article "quickening" is identified as the point beyond which the medical profession, before we had knowledge of what happens at conception, considered it wrong to abort it, which is the same as calling it a human life at that point. When we had that knowledge of the biology of conception, quickening was understood to be a meaningless indicator. This is all quite clear in what I quoted.

So for those who still want to determine a point along the developmental line before which abortion is justifiable but not afterward, it has to be on some other basis than biology/genetics which shows that humanness begins at conception.

Perhaps a point at which particular functions are acquired.

Perhaps a point where the fetus appears human according to some clear definition.

Perhaps something to do with the legal status of the fetus.

Perhaps the point of viability as identified in the Roe v Wade decision. I mentioned in a recent post that viability as made possible by all available medical helps would be my most liberal cutting-off point. I'd still have a problem well before that, however, since the twelve weeks' fetus is so clearly human in form and activity.

'

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2018 9:28 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 10:41 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6264
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 381 of 441 (838051)
08-13-2018 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Percy
08-12-2018 8:45 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

Well, it sounds innocuous enough, and normally I would have no objection

Ok

but not given where we began combined with the discussion's history where you called fertilization definitive and the beginning of a continuum...

Biologically speaking, this can't be denied

...where termination brings increasing harm that everyone knows must be true. If what you just said implies this then naturally I do not agree.

Our point of difference is in harm or no harm in abortion and whether there is a continuum of increasing harm. As I understand you, you can not accept any harm towards an foetus at any point in the developmental process. You say that harm can only involve a born baby. You say that this is because you don't know whether a foetus is alive or not.

I tried various ways to persuade you that harm may be involved here, from pointing out that harm can involve the non-living - like smashing a window - or the non-human, like kicking a dog.

In order to try to get to the bottom of the harm and alive issue I asked you the theoretical question of whether it would be morally ok for a mother to kill the unborn baby just before birth.

The point of this question being that the foetus just before birth is a fully formed baby capable of life outside the woman. I don't think you've ever properly addressed this. I'm not suggesting that this is a real life or practical question requiring practical answers, it's purely a theoretical question intended to see where these 'alive' and 'harm' ideas begin and end.

I note that you have changed your 'alive' requirement to a 'person' requirement. I don't feel that this changes anything except in a technical, legal sense. You point to Roe

quote:
the unborn have never been recognized ... as persons in the whole sense", and thus, the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So, rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.

I say that the phrase 'compelling interest in protecting potential life at the point of viability', accepts that there is a harm involved in killing a foetus at some point before birth and we therefore have a moral duty to protect the foetus from this harm. I note too that this is 'simply declared' not objectively proven, but declared as a moral position. And you say you agree with this. So you leave me confused about your refusal to accept what seems to me to be a very obvious point that harm can and does exist before birth.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Percy, posted 08-12-2018 8:45 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Percy, posted 08-14-2018 9:07 AM Tangle has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 382 of 441 (838061)
08-13-2018 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
08-13-2018 3:42 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
I quoted all that there is in the article on the subject which says only that conception inaugurates the continuous process toward full humanness

Of course that is correct. We know that conception is the first step that occurs on the way to a baby being born. But that does not contradict my statement that a fertilized egg, which is not attached to the uterus is not a human life. At all. Your claim is that there was some science in the article that suggests that we cannot know that. You were wrong.

mplantation is part of the normal process "if uninterrupted" so that too is not a stage that differentiates between human and nonhuman.

No, Faith. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Just because we have a start to a process does not mean that we cannot distinguish portions of the process from the conclusion.

In the article "quickening" is identified as the point beyond which the medical profession, before we had knowledge of what happens at conception,

That statement is idiotic. As described in the article, doctors used the concept of quickening because it was adopted by nonscientists who had the power to punish them criminally. It occurred pretty far down the line. Nothing has been discovered about conception that raises it to the level that a fertilized egg is a human life. And certainly, the article does not describe anything like that. You are just making stuff up.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 08-13-2018 3:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 08-13-2018 8:45 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30079
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 383 of 441 (838091)
08-13-2018 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by NoNukes
08-13-2018 10:41 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
You simply cannot read, and you are indulging in the usual hairsplitting sophistry. Biologically/genetically we have a human being from conception to birth. And the article says very simply that when this was recognized by the medical profession they had to give up the previous definition of human life beginning at quickening. Period.

You may distinguish stages all you like, but none of them contradict the overall humanness from conception to birth. If you want to distinguish stages from each other it has to be on some other basis than biological humanness.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 10:41 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 8:49 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 441 (838092)
08-13-2018 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
08-13-2018 8:45 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Biologically/genetically we have a human being from conception to birth. And the article says very simply that when this was recognized by the medical profession they had to give up the previous definition of human life beginning at quickening. Period.

No, Faith. That is not what the articles says. There is nothing in the article that defines human life as occurring at conception, no matter how much you want to pretend that it does. There is certainly no science in the article that supports that either.

hairsplitting sophistry

Since we are talking about what the science says, I am necessarily being precise. I've explained why the parts you have quoted don't meet your requirement. If you have something else, I'd be happy to discuss that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 08-13-2018 8:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 08-13-2018 8:56 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30079
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 385 of 441 (838094)
08-13-2018 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by NoNukes
08-13-2018 8:49 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
You are wrong and you are being duplicitous.

Wikipedia writes:

Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted. Moreover, quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. Many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 8:49 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 9:19 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 441 (838098)
08-13-2018 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
08-13-2018 8:56 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Let's examine your quote in a couple of chunks.

quote:
Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted.

All that is certain about this statement is that the process produces a human being. This does not say that we have a human being at the start of the process. And in fact, the statement is an inescapable denial that such a thing is true. It does not say that the process is the development of a human being, it says that the process produces a human being at some point along the way.

Moreover, quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. Many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.

The quoted statement's conclusion is not about science but about physicians following what society dictated and not about science, exactly as I said before. Further, quickening occurs well after attachment to the uterus, so it is not relevant to my own position.

...you are being duplicitous.

Now if you actually have some rebuttal other than gratuitous namecalling, I'd appreciate hearing that argument. But we both know that you are incapable of any kind of honest debate or discussion, so here is one more chance lie about me.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 08-13-2018 8:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 08-14-2018 10:45 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17888
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 387 of 441 (838114)
08-14-2018 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by NoNukes
08-12-2018 9:20 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:

Maybe you're right that "variable" is a better adjective, but I think everyone knew what I meant.

I am not going to apologize for insisting on another term.

Why would anyone expect you to?

I think the distinction between variable and subjective is important.

I think your complaint's a red herring distracting from the real issue, that the point of viability cannot be objectively established.

The question instead is whether an unborn child at that point is a human life and not whether you would perform an abortion.

I've said many times that I don't *know*. Naturally I have my own personal feelings and opinions, but I would never foist them on others nor think them worth discussing since they have no basis in fact. Anyone who thinks they *know* when life begins can only build a case upon feelings and opinion.

Tangle also asked the question a different way, whether a woman can kill her fetus shortly before birth ("If a woman stuck a knitting needle through her cervix and skewered her baby moments before it was born..."). This gets back to the question of whether the fetus has personhood. I don't know

Well under US law an unborn baby is not a person. That means that she would have to be charged with something other than homicide. If you mean something else by personhood, you'll need to tell me what you mean.

Is US law based upon fact or upon feelings and opinions?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2018 9:20 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by NoNukes, posted 08-14-2018 12:35 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17888
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 388 of 441 (838115)
08-14-2018 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Tangle
08-13-2018 3:47 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

but not given where we began combined with the discussion's history where you called fertilization definitive and the beginning of a continuum...

Biologically speaking, this can't be denied.

Most certainly, but I wasn't saying anything so obvious. You just made it look that way because of where you split my sentence that summarized what you believe. You split it right before the qualifying phrase that the continuum has increasing harm with termination.

...where termination brings increasing harm that everyone knows must be true. If what you just said implies this then naturally I do not agree.

Our point of difference is in harm or no harm in abortion and whether there is a continuum of increasing harm. As I understand you, you can not accept any harm towards an foetus at any point in the developmental process. You say that harm can only involve a born baby. You say that this is because you don't know whether a foetus is alive or not.

I tried various ways to persuade you that harm may be involved here, from pointing out that harm can involve the non-living - like smashing a window - or the non-human, like kicking a dog.

Mill's principle doesn't extend to effects unrelated to people. If you smash someone's window then you are depriving someone of property, and that is a harm. Or if you kick someone's dog and they have to go to the vet then you are also depriving someone of property (there's the vet bill, and then if it's a working dog there's deprivation of services). But if you legally kill a deer in the woods that is not a harm since you have not harmed any person with regard to person or property.

In order to try to get to the bottom of the harm and alive issue I asked you the theoretical question of whether it would be morally ok for a mother to kill the unborn baby just before birth.

I said I don't know.

The point of this question being that the foetus just before birth is a fully formed baby capable of life outside the woman. I don't think you've ever properly addressed this. I'm not suggesting that this is a real life or practical question requiring practical answers, it's purely a theoretical question intended to see where these 'alive' and 'harm' ideas begin and end.

Is the fetus, capable of life outside the womb, a person with a right to life? Support your answer with facts.

I note that you have changed your 'alive' requirement to a 'person' requirement.

My 'alive' requirement? The 'alive' requirement was yours, eschewed because you were slipping back and forth between different senses of the word 'alive'.

I don't feel that this changes anything except in a technical, legal sense.

If removes the ambiguity and takes the discussion to the heart of the matter. Is the fetus a person, and if so what rights does it have? Support your answer with facts.

You point to Roe:

quote:
the unborn have never been recognized ... as persons in the whole sense", and thus, the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So, rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.

I say that the phrase 'compelling interest in protecting potential life at the point of viability', accepts that there is a harm involved in killing a foetus at some point before birth and we therefore have a moral duty to protect the foetus from this harm.

You conclusion about a moral duty to protect the fetus is your own view and is nowhere found in Roe v. Wade.

I note too that this is 'simply declared' not objectively proven, but declared as a moral position.

You are correct that it is "simply declared that the State a 'compelling interest'", but that isn't equivalent to declaring it a moral position.

And you say you agree with this.

No, I don't agree with this.

So you leave me confused about your refusal to accept what seems to me to be a very obvious point that harm can and does exist before birth.

That's because you assume true your own chain of rationalizations, ones you already know I don't accept and have rebutted.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2018 3:47 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2018 12:08 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30079
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 389 of 441 (838120)
08-14-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by NoNukes
08-13-2018 9:19 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NN writes:

Let's examine your quote in a couple of chunks.

Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted.

All that is certain about this statement is that the process produces a human being. This does not say that we have a human being at the start of the process.

This is what I mean by sophistry. There is no way the process to becoming a human being could be inaugurated except by something that had all the stuff for making a human being already present. What is conception but the formation of a cell that immediately begins to divide and multiply and soon differentiate into limbs and organs and functions that ultimately becomes a recognizable human being.

It is never at any point something OTHER than a human being, it is always the same biological stuff at different stages of development, having from the start the whole genetic program of a human being. It is biologically/genetically human. It could not eventually produce a recognizable human being if it were not.

And I read that paragraph to be saying that once conception was scientifically recognized this fact was also recognized, that there is no point at which it is not a human being: that is why the medical profession drew the conclusion that it is "just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening," quickening being the former subjective standard at which human life was judged to begin. If it was not in the same sense human at conception as it is at quickening they would not have come to this conclusion.

And in fact, the statement is an inescapable denial that such a thing is true. It does not say that the process is the development of a human being, it says that the process produces a human being at some point along the way.

This is sophistry, a mere play on words to deny the obvious facts I laid out above. At all stages biologically speaking it is the exact same stuff in different stages of development.

NN writes:

Wikipedia writes:

Moreover, quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. Many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.

The quoted statement's conclusion is not about science but about physicians following what society dictated and not about science, exactly as I said before.

This is more sophistry and duplicitousness. The only mention of science is to say science is what showed what happens when an egg is fertilized and how that is the true beginning of life that will inevitably produce a human being if uninterrupted. From this one scientific fact the rest follows: quickening is exposed as a mere subjective standard now that it is known that objectively life begins at conception, and therefore, based on this new knowledge it is clear that if it was considered wrong to terminate a pregnancy after quickening it is now clearly wrong to terminate it before quickening since life begins well before quickening. That is the point of the scientific fact, NN, it's all the science mentioned in the paragraph and the entire basis for the judgment that follows.

Further, quickening occurs well after attachment to the uterus, so it is not relevant to my own position.

Attachment is just as artificial a dividing point as is any other biologically speaking. It is just as human biologically or genetically speaking before attachment as it is after attachment. Biologically nothing changes in the developing embryo at attachment.

You are clearly looking for some stage before which you would support abortion but not after and my point has been that you can do that but you can't do it on the basis of humanness. I believe it is clear that biologically speaking it is always a human life from conception, so that whatever stage is chosen necessarily must interrupt the development of a human being.

Nevertheless it is true that the developing fetus has historically been granted lesser rights than born human beings and that there are certainly stages at which it does not look human and has not yet developed important functions that we identify as human. It is going to have to be on the basis of this sort of fact that you choose your dividing line, it cannot be on the basis of its humanness because from conception it is clearly BIOLOGICALLY/GENETICALLY and inexorably human.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 9:19 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by ringo, posted 08-14-2018 11:46 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 392 by Stile, posted 08-14-2018 12:13 PM Faith has responded
 Message 394 by NoNukes, posted 08-14-2018 12:37 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 390 of 441 (838124)
08-14-2018 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
08-14-2018 10:45 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Faith writes:

It is never at any point something OTHER than a human being....


I'll point out once again, just for completeness, not out of any hope that you will ever understand: That idea has NOT been accepted by ANYBODY until quite recently. The Jews didn't believe it. The early Christians didn't believe it. Evangelical Christians didn't believe it.

It only became fashionable in some circles when abortions became safe and available.

I'm not saying that abortions suddenly became right or wrong. I'm just saying that the idea that the fetus is human is NOT the logic, it is NOT the science and it is NOT the theology.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 08-14-2018 10:45 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
27282930Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018