Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 121 of 441 (837302)
07-30-2018 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tangle
07-30-2018 9:48 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Tangle writes:
Morality is the rock our civilisation is built on. Do you think our law is devoid of morality.
It certainly should be but unfortunately societal morality too often influences law. That's sad.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 07-30-2018 9:48 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 122 of 441 (837303)
07-30-2018 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
07-30-2018 9:38 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
jar writes:
Morality is a subject that should never be decided by society but rather on an instance basis and only by those people directly involved in that particular instance.
Morality is none of societies business.
I think I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure of all the context you intend. I'll expand a bit and you can see if you agree with my thoughts or not.
I certainly agree that morality is decided "by those people directly involved" in the sense that only those who are affected get to decide (declare?) if what happened was "good" or "bad" to them.
The same action on two different people might be good for one, and bad for the other (decided by each individually.)
But there is another level we all get to judge what everyone else thinks too.
This doesn't change whether or not the action was good or bad for those people... that remains a decision up to those who are affected.
What I'm talking about here is caring about whether or not someone says something is good or bad.
Like if someone likes to receive money - then it's good to give them money.
This is obvious.
But we also get to decide if we care about giving them money.
And at some points we will (like a homeless person just trying to get some food.)
And at some points we won't (like a rich jerk who just wants more money.)
This as well is done on an individual level and we each get to make our own decisions about what morals we're going to care about.
Morality is none of societies business.
On the level of if a particular action is good or bad - I agree. I think this is decided by those who are affected.
On the level of caring about the moral decision - again I agree. I think this is decided by each and every one of us on our own.
However, there is a level where society does get involved in morality.
And that's things like choosing to live with those who's moral tendencies tend to align with each other.
In this sense I think morality is society's business such that the society (and those looking to visit or join that society) should know what's currently expected/understood by that society and be able to explain it to visitors or possible new comers.
This would be on the level of developing justice/police systems so that the society can deal with issues that affect the people making up the society.
But I do agree that society's level is on the descriptive end of things... describing what the individuals who make up that society think.
The prescriptive level is always on the end of individuals in specific circumstances and how we all (individually) feel about what happened.
And when this gets forgotten/abused... that's when things can go downhill in a hurry.
There's lots of human-issues that can cause large messes in morality too:
Something happens... and those involved will identify if it was good or bad to them.
But as the "something" is reported to others... it's generally not reported accurately. Sometimes the inaccuracies are negligible. But other times they can be very large inaccuracies. Large inaccuracies lead to others "caring" about the "something" and forming opinions in a way that isn't attached to the reality of what happened. And then it's a big mess. Add generalizations on top of that - and people start caring about many things they wouldn't if the facts were straight in the first place... or vice versa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 9:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:12 AM Stile has replied
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 10:47 AM Stile has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 123 of 441 (837304)
07-30-2018 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Stile
07-30-2018 10:04 AM


keep morality, law and justice issolated from one another
Stile writes:
In this sense I think morality is society's business such that the society (and those looking to visit or join that society) should know what's currently expected/understood by that society and be able to explain it to visitors or possible new comers.
I don't see that as relevant at all. It would be relevant if you change morality to behavior.
Stile writes:
This would be on the level of developing justice/police systems so that the society can deal with issues that affect the people making up the society.
Again, I do not see how morality enters. Germany between 1933 and 1946 had a functioning justice/police system so that the society dealt with issues that affected the people making up the society.
If we look at societies throughout history we tend to find when "morality" becomes the driving force the general result is oppression.
Edited by jar, : fix dates and sub-title

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 10:04 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 10:22 AM jar has replied
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 11:35 AM jar has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 124 of 441 (837306)
07-30-2018 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
07-30-2018 10:12 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
jar writes:
I don't see that as relevant at all. It would be relevant if you change morality to behavior.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarify that I think "morality" includes bad things as much as it includes good things?
Again, I do not see how morality enters. Germany between 1939 and 1946 had a functioning justice/police system so that the society dealt with issues that affected the people making up the society.
Yeah. And Germany's functioning justice/police system was based on their morality. It was just a morality that I do not care very much for. However, many of the people-in-power at the time did care about such a morality. So much so that they had it strictly enforced.
Again... I don't think I understand what you're attempting to get at.
I can see how "a good-natured" morality doesn't enter into Germany's justice/police system of that time. But their society certainly adhered to a certain morality.
If we look at societies throughout history we tend to find when "morality" becomes the driving force the general result is oppression.
I agree that if we look at all the times oppression happened... then we see that "morality" was usually the driving force.
However:
If we look at all the times where good progress and growth happened... then we see that "morality" was usually the driving force then as well.
Perhaps "morality" is a driving force for many things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:37 AM Stile has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 441 (837307)
07-30-2018 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Stile
07-30-2018 10:22 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Stile writes:
jar writes:
Again, I do not see how morality enters. Germany between 1939 and 1946 had a functioning justice/police system so that the society dealt with issues that affected the people making up the society.
Yeah. And Germany's functioning justice/police system was based on their morality. It was just a morality that I do not care very much for. However, many of the people-in-power at the time did care about such a morality. So much so that they had it strictly enforced.
Again... I don't think I understand what you're attempting to get at.
I can see how "a good-natured" morality doesn't enter into Germany's justice/police system of that time. But their society certainly adhered to a certain morality.
jar writes:
If we look at societies throughout history we tend to find when "morality" becomes the driving force the general result is oppression.
I agree that if we look at all the times oppression happened... then we see that "morality" was usually the driving force.
However:
If we look at all the times where good progress and growth happened... then we see that "morality" was usually the driving force then as well.
Perhaps "morality" is a driving force for many things.
Yes... and no. I agree that sometimes morality can drive good changes in a society but the real advances seem to come from reality/evidence based forces rather than feeling of whether something is moral. Advances in technology, transportation, communication, health care all tend to be driven by reality and actual evidence and can and have happened in societies we consider moral, amoral and downright immoral.
The issue though is laws. And there I think morality really has no place.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 10:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 11:51 AM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 441 (837312)
07-30-2018 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Stile
07-30-2018 10:04 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
You seem to be multiplying complications to no purpose that I can see. Is it a human life or not? If it is then killing it is a moral problem for society just as murder is, and not just for the woman. There may be mitigating circumstances just as there are in the case of any wrongful death, but we have to start with the simple fact that if we kill it we are in fact committing a wrongful death because it is a human life.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 10:04 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 12:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 441 (837314)
07-30-2018 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by NoNukes
07-30-2018 4:37 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
I'm certainly not going to impose it on unbelievers.
You are not in a position to impose anything on anyone.
Forgive me for misspeaking. Let me put it this way: I have no DESIRE to impose it on unbelievers because i see it as concerning Christians in particular, and beyond that I don't have any desire to see anything forced on them either. The implicit context I have in mind is changes to the law concerning these things but abortion in particular.
It is absurd to use common natural interferences as an excuse to kill the fetus
That was not the argument. The argument is that a fetus is not inevitably going to become a human life. It is further along than an unfertilized egg, yes. But that does not make it human. Only potentially so. Murder applies to humans and not to potential humans.
But it IS the argument. We are talking about abortion so if you are arguing the fetus is not inevitably going to become a human being then in this context you are arguing for abortion.
The point is that if it is healthy and other circumstances are favorable and we don't kill it, it will continue to grow based on all the genetic stuff that makes it a human being. Genetically it is a human being from conception, and a very particular human being at that, and developmentally it is recognizably human on the twelve week ultrasound. And NATURAL interferences with its growth are not a moral problem, but intentionally killing it IS a moral problem because it IS a human life at conception, though at different stages of development from that point. I don't see how you can say it's not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 07-30-2018 4:37 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 441 (837316)
07-30-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
07-30-2018 10:12 AM


Re: keep morality, law and justice issolated from one another
You seem to be using the term "morality" in some odd way. Is murder a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the murderer and his victim? Is stealing a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the robber and his victim? Is fraud a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the defrauder and his victim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 11:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 129 of 441 (837323)
07-30-2018 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
07-30-2018 10:37 AM


Laws and Morality
jar writes:
Advances in technology, transportation, communication, health care all tend to be driven by reality and actual evidence and can and have happened in societies we consider moral, amoral and downright immoral.
I think we're talking about the same thing, just using different terms/definitions.
That is, even if a society exists where I consider them 'immoral" or "amoral..." I don't see how that means they have no "morality."
They would still have a system based upon things they think are right. Regardless of myself thinking they're wrong or myself thinking "that's not right or wrong."
I do agree that many people do things that they themselves think are amoral. Like, say, perfectly-objective-science or something like that.
-In which case, I would agree that they are acting without using society's morality.
However, I don't think society can function without an agreed upon code of conduct.
That is, I don't think multiple people can get together and have relationships with each other (something "a society" is forced to do) without having a mutually understood (agreed upon or not) code-of-conduct.
I would call those get-togethers of people "society" (once large enough, anyway.)
And I would call their mutually understood code-of-conduct to be their "morality" at the level of their society... whatever we personally judge it as.
The issue though is laws. And there I think morality really has no place.
Example of a law where I think morality should have a place:
Law: Don't steal from others.
Morality: It is wrong to steal from others because it will cause escalating feelings of hatred and desires of retaliation. Society should agree that they should not steal from each other in their code-of-conduct between each other in order to not negatively affect others with such actions. Those who do not agree should be punished.
Example of a law where I think morality should not have a place:
Law: Drive 80 km/h (55 mph?) on rural two-lane highways.
Morality: None. 80 km/h is chosen because it's enforceable and puts a reasonable limit between speed-of-transportation and utility. "Utility" here is in an amoral sense... like a load on a trailer might spill if the vehicle is going too fast - regardless of whether or not other people are hurt in the spill, roads are for transportation and any spill will slow that transportation as it will require clean-up.
So, although I can see many laws where I agree morality does not have a place... I can also see many laws where I think morality does have a place.
I think a blanket statement like "morality has no place in any laws" is a bit too general.
I would also disagree with a statement like "morality must be considered for all laws." Such a mandate would also be too restrictive in what I think laws should cover.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:37 AM jar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 441 (837324)
07-30-2018 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
07-29-2018 6:26 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Faith writes:
We can't legitimately call it anything but a human life....
And yet we do. The Bible did. Our law does. Evangelical Christians did until recently. Even you don't actually want to treat it as a human being.
That's the topic. You can argue otherwise until the cows come home but unless you change your ideas about how to protect it, how to deal with the "crime" of terminating it, you're not really saying anything.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-29-2018 6:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 441 (837325)
07-30-2018 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
07-30-2018 11:35 AM


Re: keep morality, law and justice issolated from one another
Faith writes:
Is murder a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the murderer and his victim? Is stealing a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the robber and his victim? Is fraud a moral offense? Does it concern society or just the defrauder and his victim?
Murder can be moral or immoral; the same can be said for fraud and stealing.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 11:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 132 of 441 (837327)
07-30-2018 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Heathen
07-30-2018 9:19 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Heathen writes:
What happens at the moment of birth that makes the foetus suddenly Human?
Humanity is something that develops. Hopefully, we are all becoming more human. It is not certain when the process begins.
Our legal system decides arbitrarily when certain aspects of humanity kick in. The right to life generally begins at birth. It can be revoked if you commit a crime or happen to be born in an enemy nation.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Heathen, posted 07-30-2018 9:19 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 133 of 441 (837331)
07-30-2018 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
07-30-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
You seem to be multiplying complications to no purpose that I can see. Is it a human life or not? If it is then killing it is a moral problem for society just as murder is, and not just for the woman.
Yes, it would be a moral problem for society.
The purpose of the multiplying complications is to show that it's not the only moral problem for society on the issue of abortion.
If you're trying to say it is - then how are you dismissing all the other moral problems?
There may be mitigating circumstances just as there are in the case of any wrongful death, but we have to start with the simple fact that if we kill it we are in fact committing a wrongful death because it is a human life.
But there is no fact that it's a human life.
It's clear that at certain stages (after conception, but before full term) it isn't.
It's clear that at certain stages (after conception, but before full term) it is.
You saying it definitely is as soon as conception starts is just as wrong as someone saying it definitely isn't as long as "full term" hasn't occurred.
Where is the line?
Does "a line" actually exist? Or is there only certain stages where we can show it "hasn't gotten close" yet?
Is the line the same for all pregnancies?
My post dealt with the questions after these:
Once a line is developed (if that's even possible...)
What next?
Is this line the be-all-end-all? (It clearly isn't)
How much do we weigh this possible-life vs. the possible life of others (the mother, any care-giver, other possible-lives the mother/other-care-givers could intend to have that this abortion may or may not alter...)
How do you weigh one possible-life over others?
Let's make up a very clear and obvious example.
Let's say we have a woman and a man on a very defined relationship.
They have jobs and events they want to achieve. Then they are planning on 1 additional baby a year from now (and no more). Without external forces stopping them... that baby will happen. This family always sets plans and always goes through with them.
2 months before they start trying to have the planned-baby, the woman gets raped.
The rapist gets trapped by police and kills himself.
The woman gets pregnant due to the rape.
The rapist has a known biological record from previous testing.
All babies from the rapist will have immune system issues and live a horribly painful life until dying at about 3 years of age.
Is it wrong to abort this baby and allow the couple to continue with their planned baby?
Who decides what parts are right and what parts are wrong?
It is my contention that there are many facets:
Whether or not the baby wants to live it's painful 3 years is something only the baby can answer - the rest of us are guessing at it. Unfortunately, we cannot ask future-3-years-from-now baby.
Whether or not the planned-baby wants to live knowing it's parents had an abortion in order to "get to them" is something only the planned-baby can answer - the rest of us are guessing. Unfortunately, we cannot ask future-planned-baby such a question when the abortion would need to happen.
Would the parents be okay raising the rapist's baby? They might have a guess now - but maybe they don't even know the answer at this time.
Will the parents avoid postpartum depression if they have an abortion and attempt to raise the planned-baby? - They might have a guess now - but maybe they don't even know the answer at this time.
Something could be good for the rapist baby, but bad for the planned baby.
Or maybe letting the rapist baby live is bad for everyone involved - the rapist baby dies at age 3, the planned-baby never lives, and both parents commit suicide after the rapist baby dies.
Maybe having the planned baby is bad for the rapist baby (they really wanted to experience those 3 years!) but good for the planned baby - they have an amazing life, but the mother kills herself due to postpartum depression and the father lives a miserable rest-of-his-life.
How do you weigh any of these goods and bads against each other?
If you don't think they matter - I think you're not capable of understanding what a "moral" decision includes.
If you have a method to weigh these (and all the other possible options) against each other - then I want to get lotto numbers from your future-reading abilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 10:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 1:03 PM Stile has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 441 (837333)
07-30-2018 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
07-30-2018 12:20 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
You saying it definitely is as soon as conception starts is just as wrong as someone saying it definitely isn't as long as "full term" hasn't occurred.
GENETICALLY/BIOLOGICALLY it is a human life at conception. Are you disputing that?
DEVELOPMENTALLY it is recognizably human by at least twelve weeks when we can SEE that it is a human baby with all the biological parts, and even in many ways ACTAING like a human baby. Are3 you disputing that?
THESE are the only "lines" I'm drawing. All the others you bring up are situational and to my mind the only circumstance that could justify killing this biologically human being is harm to the mother. If you want to add biological defects I'm not arguing on that level, those things need to be decided case by case, and they don't change the fact that we're talking about a biologically human life. Although I understand the psychological trauma of being pregnant by a rapist, to my mind it's a living innocent human being in the womb and killing it is still morally wrong.
BUT I'm just concerned here to establish that it IS a biologically human life at all stages beginning with conception because that is so often denied. This is the primary moral factor. Again, situational factors can be decided case by case or by law of whatever, but we need to establish this basic fact that we're talking about a human life.
In fact, usually when all those other situational factors are brought up it is because it is being denied that we're talking about a human life, so it all amounts to a distraction from the main concern.
LEGALLY ringo says it's not a human being until birth but we haven't been talking abouit its legal status.
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 133 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 12:20 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 07-30-2018 1:50 PM Faith has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 135 of 441 (837341)
07-30-2018 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
07-30-2018 1:03 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
GENETAICALLY/BIOLOGICALLY it is a human life at conception. Are you disputing that?
Yes.
Conception is when a sperm enters an egg, right?
A separated sperm and egg are not genetically/biologically a human life. They are genetically/biologically a sperm and an egg.
A combined sperm and egg are not genetically/biologically a human life. They are genetically/biologically a sperm and an egg.
DEVELOPMENTALLY it is recognizably human by at least twelve weeks when we can SEE that it is a human baby with all the biological parts, and even in many ways ACTAING like a human baby. Are3 you disputing that?
Yes.
Recognizing a human shape doesn't mean the baby has "all" the biological parts.
If it did, why can't it survive outside the mother on it's own at this point?
If something acts like a human baby in many ways doesn't mean it acts like a human baby in all ways. And therefore quite possible not the important ways.
Which ways are important?
I'm not saying you're wrong here. Maybe you're right. I'm just saying you're not clearly right - and you haven't shown that you're right.
You're certainly not convincing.
All the others you bring up are situational and to my mind the only circumstance that could justify killing this biologically human being is harm to the mother.
What about harm to itself?
What about harm to others who are not the mother?
Why do those not matter?
Aren't you worried about loss of human life?
What about loss of life of someone who's not the mother? How can you say such a thing shouldn't be considered when it can easily be specifically attached to this event?
If you want to add biological defects I'm not arguing on that level, those things need to be decided case by case, and they don't change the fact that we're talking about a biologically human life.
How do you decide if a biological defect means you should kill the baby or not? Why do you not care about the "murder" here?
Remember... I'm not trying to say abortion is right.
I'm just saying that it's not easy to say if it's right or wrong.
If you're going to say abortion on a biological defect is sometimes fine... I'll argue with you on that too. I don't see how any of it is clear ever.
My point is that it should always be taken on a case-by-case basis. With no sweeping generalizations anywhere. It's that important, and that complicated.
Although I understand the psychological trauma of being pregnant by a rapist, to my mind it's a living innocent human being in the womb and killing it is still morally wrong.
And the rape victim is a living innocent human being in the world and giving that person a permanent handicap is morally wrong too. How do you weight them against each other so easily?
Since you've made your desires clear, though... if you are ever raped I will defend your decision to keep the baby even if others want to end your pregnancy.
However, you are not everyone else.
So I will let everyone else make their own decisions on this matter as well.
There doesn't seem to be any reason to take your view as the view everyone should follow for this matter. It seems like a very difficult decision. Your attempts at coming up with "the answer" seem... pitiable at best. I pity your naivete.
BUT I'm just concerned here to establish that it IS a biologically human life at all stages beginning with conception because that is so often denied.
It's denied because it's clearly not true.
There are stages (namely... conception itself) where it's clearly not a human life.
There are stages (namely... birth itself) where it's clearly a human life.
Therefore... somewhere in between it changes.
The change may be the same for each growing baby. It may be different for each growing baby (therefore any "line drawn" is wrong for most babies.)
However, if you're going to claim it's definitely where it's clearly not (at conception) then you'll easily get labelled as silly and your ideas will get lost.
Again, situational factors can be decided case by case or by law of whatever, but we need to establish this basic fact that we're talking about a human life.
But sometimes we're clearly not talking about a human life. Like 2 weeks into the pregnancy.
Edited by Stile, : Adding remainder of post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 1:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 2:11 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024