Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion

Yes. I've explained why it is, perhaps you could say why it isn't a harm to end a potential life. Yes I know. There's really no need to keep repeating this. All our laws are based on harms and the feelings we have about them. There is no objective way of calculating the punishment for *any* harm, but we manage to work it out. Ditto above. I *know* it's a harm and I've explained why. But more importantly society as a whole also has. Again, if there wasn't a problem here, we wouldn't be talking about it. So is it ok for an individual to terminate a pregnancy one day before her expected due date? Now you're just being deliberately daft. Read the sentence again. Improvements in our societies are developmental. Enslaving people is another obvious harm that we eventually grew up enough to overturn.

No, it's obviously not a human being, but it *is* a potential human being. We don't consider harm to be something inflicted just on people. Torturing a dog is a recognised harm, throwing a brick through a window is a harm. Killing a baby just before birth - even in a medical emergency - is a harm but it's one we justify. Sure, swotting mosquitos is a harm, it's just one that we don't feel matters. Unless you're a Janeist. I don't have any better information? No one has any better information, or ever will. But at least the moment of conception is definitive. How do I want it decided?

So help me out, what's wrong with the way I'm using the word? There is, it's in our laws. Only up to a semi-arbitrary date. Correct. And also pointless.

Yes and that's why killing a baby is called murder and killing a foetus before a semi-arbitrary date is not. So long, of course, that it's done legally. A sperm or an egg can not develop into a human being. Only a fertilised egg has the potential to do that. So no, contraception that prevents the egg and sperm meeting can not be a harm using this definition.

The absent additional steps are critical. Without them there are only two independent cells with no more potential to create a fullgrown human than a skin cell and of no more importance if one is killed

I deliberately picked conception as the beginning of a potential human life because it is definitive and is the point when a potential goal new life physically starts. Cells do not start dividing and differentiating when people say hello. No harm, no damages or punishment. Some laws are based on potential harm - speeding, conspiracy etc. Most harms are not controversial. I’m talking of all law in democratic countries. More or less the laws of the country are based on the moral values of their society - how the majority feel about a harm. That explains Texas. Like it or not. I think that if you asked those in death row in Texas whether what they face is reality or not you’ll get a very clear answer. You are confusing science with society and individual behaviour. We have to make decisions on inadequate data. I’ve put an unecessary comma into the sentence, does that help?But this if human life we're talking about with all its messiness, not, as I say, mathematics, and moral decisions are based on feelings. In democracies it gives us the best answers our institutions are capable of at the time. We *do* make moral progress despite many false steps. It’s developmental. You’re hoping for objective, scientific answers in systems that can’t provide them. That’s futility.

Ok But on it's own the sperm can not become a baby. It only has a lottery ticket. Only a fertilised egg can become a baby. Conception is the only point in the process where you can say that a baby will be born if all goes perfectly. They do not because the ‘harms’ you describe of non-implantation, sperm not finding eggs etc are natural occurrences. It’s only when we intervene by destroying the embryo that harm occurs.Catholics take the view that any unnatural interventions between egg and sperm is harm. But they are inconsistent in recognising withdrawal and sex outside fertile periods as allowabl birth control. This is muddled thinking. If the intention is to prevent birth then by their definition, those are harms, though they plainly are not. And that is exactly my case. I say that the harm involved in preventing the fertised egg developing is on a continuum, from almost negligeable (use of IUD) to murder (killing a foetus an hour before birth). There are also valid arguments for killing the foetus to save the mother's life or to prevent th birth of deformed and damaged children. But these are very hard decisions.My original point was that abortion at any stage is a harm that we should recognise and be honest with ourselves about. That there are often good reasons for what we do does not let us off the moral hook.

My case is that it is the *only* stage in the process that we can recognise that a new life will begin if all goes to plan. Neither a sperm nor an egg can mak a baby on their own. The distinction is made above. Such as? My case is that it is impossible to calculate objectively the things we are discussing. You are looking for objectivity where none can exist. Nevertheless we, as a society form conclusions about them that turn into public policy whether on abortion or capital punishment. Those conclusions are based on the feelings of people overall. You can't blame the government for enacting the will of the people - blame the people. It's very, very relevant and it's a point you are consistently missing. Public policy on these matters is reality. That it is based on feelings rather than science is something you have to accept or you'll continue to misunderstand. These are matters that are based on people's feeling and that IS a reality. Ok, so I'll ask you again. Should a woman be able to abort her foetus one hour before its birth? How would you improve on all this? You are totally wrong on this. Just looking at violence in society.
Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence | TED Talk I'm reading your posts. Now where did all that come from? But at least you're now accepting that policy is based on feelings not objectivity. In this case the feelings are, *in our view* very bad ones. But it seems that the majority don't share our values. This too will pass.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yup. That's your claim.My claim is that preventing conception is not harm, but preventing a foetus developing from a fertilised egg is. I also claim that there is a continuum of the degree of harm as the foetus develops from negligeable to outright murder. How kind of you to say so! One might, but one would have no real reason for doing so other than to invoke a rationalisation. Additionally, as medical science progresses, viability will slip backwards towards the point of conception. I've said this many times too. My position is not that abortion should not be available but that we should be more honest about the fact that this is not a neutral thing like taking a asprin to cure a headache.

Pragmatism and common sense demands that we do no such thing otherwise we're heading right back to the big bang. No. The IUD works by preventing the fertised egg implanting. It's a very, very early abortion. Yes, yes, I know this. I've said this. I keep saying to you that there is no objective criteria but we still must decide. Is there another way I can say this that will get through? The point of conception is definitive. Aaaaarghh. I know!!! I keep telling you this. Feelings are what we use to make moral decisions. I can't recognise that as a harm as nothing has been harmed. Neither sperm nor eggs are capable of developing into anything if they don't meet. This is not a problem. A man produces 525 billion sperm cells during his lifetime and less than a handful with find an egg. There you go again. Wanting objective answers were no objective answers are possible. Quit blaming governments. They only do the will of the people.And, I note, for the third time you have refused to answer my question about whether a woman should be allowed to abort her foetus one day before its due date.

And I have rebutted his rebuttal. Conception is the first stage at which a baby will be born if no further interventions are made - either by man or nature. There is no earlier point that you can know this. So you'll be able to answer the question I asked of you which was to give a few example of laws that don't either seek to remedy or prevent harm. That is not an answer and you know it. This is not a theoretical excercise, we - society - have to decide. It's your vote, is it yes or no? If you can but notice, that's precisely what I'm not doing. And have not been doing it for dozens of posts. Nevertheless, real life and death decisions have to be made on the knowledge we have. What is your vote? Well it's the human condition and we do make progress. It's also a 2 thick book and I commend it to you. You said you were pessimistic about our future and that we have learned nothing. Pinker's *objective* analysis says otherwise as you would know had you either read the book or watched the video. Do try not to be an arse, we might make more progress. Ffs. Yes I know. Please try to both keeping to the point and assuming a little intelligence on my side. Slavery and many other horrors are still with us but they are no longer universal. People are still human, it's only when we develop our institutions that we begin to regulate their behaviours. Many parts of the world lag behind the West but change is happening. The point of conception is definitive. Scientifically and objectively difinitive. Ok?Whether we say abortion is ok is not is not difinitive, it is based on our feelings. ok? And it did pass. And they got a homeland. And good triumphed over evil. But it was a horror and it likely will happen again. But gradually things are getting better. Well that's just your subjective feelings talking...

Ok I've now repeated myself too many times to hope that more repetition will get through to you. Let's cut to the chase.My position, like yours, is that there is no objective point when life can be declared as life. The conception point is a red herring - it's the definitive start of the development of a human being but that doesn't help us with the decision we have to make.You say that it's the woman's choice, that the government has no role to play. I ask you whether the woman can terminate her pregnancy a day before term. You refuse to answer because you lack information.But life is not like that. We have to have an answer. What is it? There is no ‘don't know’ here, a policy is required. The options are no abortion, woman's choice or some regulated methodology.Edge cases matter because they help us get to the nub of the problem.For what it's worth, because it *is* an obvious harm to abort a foetus - particularly late stage foetuses - I believe it needs to be regulated and I do not believe that a woman has an absolute right to do what she likes with the foetus within her.As to the point at which a termination should not be allowed (without medical necessity) I’ll bow to scientific advice as to when that date should be.

I'll ask you the same question. Is it ok for a woman to terminate the foetus she is carrying 1 day, before term?

Really?Ok, how about 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after?

Wow, equivocation. Ok, let's lose the word abortion then. I hope I don't have to ask if you would allow the mother to kill the newborn baby? But 1/10th of a second earlier you suddenly have no opinion. Liar, liar, pants on fire.