[iknowexactly]

(06-19-2013 05:57 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Look, I understand the sentiment. But I also think it's a bit shortsighted.

The point is what you think now will never match what you did, and actions speak louder than words. Forever.

To me the issue isn't your opinion on abortion which I believe is sincere and understandable. You also have a right to ASK people "Don't do it, you'll feel really bad, and I think it's wrong."

The issue is you've lost all moral authority to dictate to others they can't do it , because you did it yourself.

Maybe you agree with that, IDK.

[Wadsworth]

(06-19-2013 11:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:54 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:23 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Let's define X (2 week clump of cells) and Y (baby, or even late stage fetus).

Again, what is the difference between these two entities that gives the rights of a human and not the other?

Value.

I don't think a 2 week clump of cells is of equal value to a late stage fetus or a baby. If the self determination of a woman wasn't a factor I'd say both have value and I'd leave it at that.

So does a rich man have the right to murder a poor man, because the rich man is more valuable?

No, because we don't recognize this difference in value as relevant with respect to the murder equation. A rich man is a man just like a poor man is a man, and we've decided that the murder of a man is immoral. In effect a rich man and a poor man can be described by the same variable in the murder equation.

I understand the point you and Athlone are making, you're saying that a 2 week clump of cells is human just like a baby is human and we've decided that the murder of a human is immoral. You're arguing that both can be represented by the same variable in the abortion equation.

I suppose the problem I have with this reasoning is that we don't value a baby as human because it is genetically human, we value it because of its humanity and sentience; because it is existentially human.

With a 2 week clump of cells we are valuing it as human based merely on the fact that its genome is homo sapiens; because it is genetically human.

I think something that has humanity and a human genome requires a different variable in the abortion equation than something that only has the human genome.

[Burdflu]

After a year and a bit deep working in Ado Psych as a nurse, my views on abortion have been affirmed and strengthened. I see parents who are more often than not projecting their own damage (low funds, poor environment, relationship issues) onto their kids; which invariably leads them to being pretty fucked up.

When parents have kids without solidifying their relationships, securing time and monetary resources, facing their own mental health issues, and or/ having a solid understanding of what kind of world they are sending their kids into, we (on our inpatient unit) end up initiating the mental clean up on the kids/teens.

So abort unless those mentioned conditions are met. You may have to face some psychological dilemma, but by having a kid grow up fucked - it affects all those in that child's life.

[Samseau]

(06-20-2013 12:07 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 11:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:54 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:23 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Let's define X (2 week clump of cells) and Y (baby, or even late stage fetus).

Again, what is the difference between these two entities that gives the rights of a human and not the other?

Value.

I don't think a 2 week clump of cells is of equal value to a late stage fetus or a baby. If the self determination of a woman wasn't a factor I'd say both have value and I'd leave it at that.

So does a rich man have the right to murder a poor man, because the rich man is more valuable?

No, because we don't recognize this difference in value as relevant with respect to the murder equation. A rich man is a man just like a poor man is a man, and we've decided that the murder of a man is immoral. In effect a rich man and a poor man can be described by the same variable in the murder equation.

I understand the point you and Athlone are making, you're saying that a 2 week clump of cells is human just like a baby is human and we've decided that the murder of a human is immoral. You're arguing that both can be represented by the same variable in the abortion equation.

I suppose the problem I have with this reasoning is that we don't value a baby as human because it is genetically human, we value it because of its humanity and sentience; because it is existentially human.

With a 2 week clump of cells we are valuing it as human based merely on the fact that its genome is homo sapiens; because it is genetically human.

I think something that has humanity and a human genome requires a different variable in the abortion equation than something that only has the human genome.

Who is "we"? If "we" decided to murder anyone who listened to Rock n' Roll, would it be right? How can "we" determine what is morally right or not? What difference does a majority make?

Furthermore, you avoided the original question - what does value have to do with ethics? You claimed the baby was more valuable than the 2-week zygote, and therefore was justified in killing it. But if value is what gives someone the right to live, then what right does a poor man have? You can't say "we" determined anything, since it is obvious the majority cannot make what is right.

[Wadsworth]

(06-23-2013 01:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 12:07 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 11:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:54 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Again, what is the difference between these two entities that gives the rights of a human and not the other?

Value.

I don't think a 2 week clump of cells is of equal value to a late stage fetus or a baby. If the self determination of a woman wasn't a factor I'd say both have value and I'd leave it at that.

So does a rich man have the right to murder a poor man, because the rich man is more valuable?

No, because we don't recognize this difference in value as relevant with respect to the murder equation. A rich man is a man just like a poor man is a man, and we've decided that the murder of a man is immoral. In effect a rich man and a poor man can be described by the same variable in the murder equation.

I understand the point you and Athlone are making, you're saying that a 2 week clump of cells is human just like a baby is human and we've decided that the murder of a human is immoral. You're arguing that both can be represented by the same variable in the abortion equation.

I suppose the problem I have with this reasoning is that we don't value a baby as human because it is genetically human, we value it because of its humanity and sentience; because it is existentially human.

With a 2 week clump of cells we are valuing it as human based merely on the fact that its genome is homo sapiens; because it is genetically human.

I think something that has humanity and a human genome requires a different variable in the abortion equation than something that only has the human genome.

Who is "we"? If "we" decided to murder anyone who listened to Rock n' Roll, would it be right? How can "we" determine what is morally right or not? What difference does a majority make?

Furthermore, you avoided the original question - what does value have to do with ethics? You claimed the baby was more valuable than the 2-week zygote, and therefore was justified in killing it. But if value is what gives someone the right to live, then what right does a poor man have? You can't say "we" determined anything, since it is obvious the majority cannot make what is right.

Let me answer your question by asking you one. What do you think about self defense using lethal force (guns)?

If you believe it's valid, then my next question will be do you think it's OK to shoot and kill someone who is attacking you even if it isn't clear whether they intend to kill you?

If you believe that's valid, then you've answered your own question. You will be making an ethical judgement based on assigning value. You are saying the life of someone with violent intent does not have as much value as someone's right to protect themselves. You'll be making this argument despite your claim that life is valuable and precious.

This is what I'm doing. I'm saying a 2 week zygote does not have as much value as a woman's bodily autonomy and self determination. I'm saying this in spite of my agreement that life is valuable and precious.

I am not a moral realist, so I can't point to any objective standard to support my judgement. If you believe in self defense, can you point to an objective standard to support yours?

[Samseau]

(06-23-2013 02:04 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 01:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 12:07 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 11:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:54 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Value.

I don't think a 2 week clump of cells is of equal value to a late stage fetus or a baby. If the self determination of a woman wasn't a factor I'd say both have value and I'd leave it at that.

So does a rich man have the right to murder a poor man, because the rich man is more valuable?

No, because we don't recognize this difference in value as relevant with respect to the murder equation. A rich man is a man just like a poor man is a man, and we've decided that the murder of a man is immoral. In effect a rich man and a poor man can be described by the same variable in the murder equation.

I understand the point you and Athlone are making, you're saying that a 2 week clump of cells is human just like a baby is human and we've decided that the murder of a human is immoral. You're arguing that both can be represented by the same variable in the abortion equation.

I suppose the problem I have with this reasoning is that we don't value a baby as human because it is genetically human, we value it because of its humanity and sentience; because it is existentially human.

With a 2 week clump of cells we are valuing it as human based merely on the fact that its genome is homo sapiens; because it is genetically human.

I think something that has humanity and a human genome requires a different variable in the abortion equation than something that only has the human genome.

Who is "we"? If "we" decided to murder anyone who listened to Rock n' Roll, would it be right? How can "we" determine what is morally right or not? What difference does a majority make?

Furthermore, you avoided the original question - what does value have to do with ethics? You claimed the baby was more valuable than the 2-week zygote, and therefore was justified in killing it. But if value is what gives someone the right to live, then what right does a poor man have? You can't say "we" determined anything, since it is obvious the majority cannot make what is right.

Let me answer your question by asking you one. What do you think about self defense using lethal force (guns)?

If you believe it's valid, then my next question will be do you think it's OK to shoot and kill someone who is attacking you even if it isn't clear whether they intend to kill you?

If you believe that's valid, then you've answered your own question. You will be making an ethical judgement based on assigning value. You are saying the life of someone with violent intent does not have as much value as someone's right to protect themselves.

There's no need to assign any value. We can assume both actors have equal value in this scenario, and because one man is acting unethically (by attacking someone else), he forfeits his rights because he is acting unethically which then allows others to be justified in harming him (even if it kills).

And by saying this, I am perfectly consistent with the idea that it's just as wrong to kill a baby as a zygote.

[Wadsworth]

(06-23-2013 02:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 02:04 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 01:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 12:07 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 11:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So does a rich man have the right to murder a poor man, because the rich man is more valuable?

No, because we don't recognize this difference in value as relevant with respect to the murder equation. A rich man is a man just like a poor man is a man, and we've decided that the murder of a man is immoral. In effect a rich man and a poor man can be described by the same variable in the murder equation.

I understand the point you and Athlone are making, you're saying that a 2 week clump of cells is human just like a baby is human and we've decided that the murder of a human is immoral. You're arguing that both can be represented by the same variable in the abortion equation.

I suppose the problem I have with this reasoning is that we don't value a baby as human because it is genetically human, we value it because of its humanity and sentience; because it is existentially human.

With a 2 week clump of cells we are valuing it as human based merely on the fact that its genome is homo sapiens; because it is genetically human.

I think something that has humanity and a human genome requires a different variable in the abortion equation than something that only has the human genome.

Who is "we"? If "we" decided to murder anyone who listened to Rock n' Roll, would it be right? How can "we" determine what is morally right or not? What difference does a majority make?

Furthermore, you avoided the original question - what does value have to do with ethics? You claimed the baby was more valuable than the 2-week zygote, and therefore was justified in killing it. But if value is what gives someone the right to live, then what right does a poor man have? You can't say "we" determined anything, since it is obvious the majority cannot make what is right.

Let me answer your question by asking you one. What do you think about self defense using lethal force (guns)?

If you believe it's valid, then my next question will be do you think it's OK to shoot and kill someone who is attacking you even if it isn't clear whether they intend to kill you?

If you believe that's valid, then you've answered your own question. You will be making an ethical judgement based on assigning value. You are saying the life of someone with violent intent does not have as much value as someone's right to protect themselves.

There's no need to assign any value. We can assume both actors have equal value in this scenario, and because one man is acting unethically (by attacking someone else), he forfeits his rights because he is acting unethically which then allows others to be justified in harming him (even if it kills).

And by saying this, I am perfectly consistent with the idea that it's just as wrong to kill a baby as a zygote.

You're arguing that in this scenario one man's rights (to self defense) be respected, and the other man's rights (even to life) be ignored. You're making an argument that fundamentally assigns different value to their rights, and by extension their lives.

My argument is of exactly the same structure.

You're arguing that a man's right to self preservation trumps another man's right to life under condition X.

I'm arguing that a woman's right to self determination trumps a developing lifeform's right to life under condition Y.

The difference you'll point out is that a right to self determination cannot reasonably be compared to a right to self preservation. I agree. The right to self determination has a lower value.

The difference that I've been trying to point out is that the right to life of a 2 week zygote cannot reasonably be compared to the right to life of a grown man (or for that matter a 7-8 month fetus).

In my opinion, the right to life of a zygote has a lower value under condition Y. As far as I can tell, your objection is that I can't give you an objective standard for why I think this.

But can you give me an objective standard for why a man's right to life has a lower value under condition X?

[Samseau]

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of rights. Let's put it simple: One man's right is another man's liability.

Thus a man's right to life is your liability not to kill or harm him. So automatically, there is no such thing as a "right to self-determination" if it imposes on the liabilities you already have towards others.

My self-determination therefore isn't a right, but a privilege. No one has the right to kill someone else out of self-determination, because the right to life is an liability forbidding that kind of act in the first place.

(This is why there is no such thing as a "right to a job" - whose liability is it to provide a job?)

Thus for a woman to say, "I have a right to abort my baby," all she is really saying is that her baby has a liability to die on behalf of the mother if she so chooses.

Quote:

In my opinion, the right to life of a zygote has a lower value under condition Y. As far as I can tell, your objection is that I can't give you an objective standard for why I think this.

Measuring value is irrelevant, because if the zygote does indeed have rights then no amount of value can trump this liability, upon whom it falls upon the mother to provide and care for.

By the way - if a parent fails to care for her 1 year old child, she will go to jail. But if she aborts 2-week zygote, she is lauded with "empowerment."

Again, what's the difference between a 2-week zygote a 1-year old baby?

[Wadsworth]

(06-23-2013 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of rights. Let's put it simple: One man's right is another man's liability.

Thus a man's right to life is your liability not to kill or harm him. So automatically, there is no such thing as a "right to self-determination" if it imposes on the liabilities you already have towards others.

My self-determination therefore isn't a right, but a privilege. No one has the right to kill someone else out of self-determination, because the right to life is an liability forbidding that kind of act in the first place.

(This is why there is no such thing as a "right to a job" - whose liability is it to provide a job?)

Thus for a woman to say, "I have a right to abort my baby," all she is really saying is that her baby has a liability to die on behalf of the mother if she so chooses.

Quote:

In my opinion, the right to life of a zygote has a lower value under condition Y. As far as I can tell, your objection is that I can't give you an objective standard for why I think this.

Measuring value is irrelevant, because if the zygote does indeed have rights then no amount of value can trump this liability, upon whom it falls upon the mother to provide and care for.

By the way - if a parent fails to care for her 1 year old child, she will go to jail. But if she aborts 2-week zygote, she is lauded with "empowerment."

Again, what's the difference between a 2-week zygote a 1-year old baby?

Even if I accept your definition of rights, if we're going to discuss this without circular reasoning, we need to agree on something. Neither the zygote nor the mother have the rights we're discussing. We are attempting to argue in favor of those respective rights.

I can't make an argument that presupposes that early-term abortion is a right since that's what I'm trying to demonstrate. Similarly, you can't argue that abortion isn't a right because of the zygote's rights or liabilities. The status of the zygote in terms of rights/liabilities is what is under contention.

To answer your question, a 2-week-old zygote is a clump of cells, while a 1-year-old has a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli. This is factually irrefutable.

[Samseau]

(06-23-2013 08:42 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

has a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli. This is factually irrefutable.

Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?

[ghostdog]

I'm disgusted by abortion because I feel like it is doing cleanup for the sexual liberation movement as it continues to break apart the family.
Poor women should be far more scared and careful with their sexual choices, but abortion puts them more at ease.
Career women getting abortions just makes me angry. To abort a healthy kid that you have the money to provide for, and then have one later at 38 that has higher odds of being deformed is just insane. It disrupts the healthy patterns of nature.

[Wadsworth]

(06-24-2013 03:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 08:42 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

has a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli. This is factually irrefutable.

Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?

Cnidaria are multicellular. Should we give rights to Cnidaria?

[Samseau]

(06-24-2013 11:48 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 03:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 08:42 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

has a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli. This is factually irrefutable.

Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?

Cnidaria are multicellular. Should we give rights to Cnidaria?

No, because I don't ascribe humanity to merely having cells.

[Therapsid]

(06-24-2013 07:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:48 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 03:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 08:42 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

has a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli. This is factually irrefutable.

Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?

Cnidaria are multicellular. Should we give rights to Cnidaria?

No, because I don't ascribe humanity to merely having cells.

Would you be in favor of infanticide? Newborns may not be more cognitively developed than pigs conceivably. They're definitely less intelligent than apes. Should it be legal for mothers to expose their infants to death as in ancient Rome?

[Wadsworth]

(06-24-2013 07:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:48 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 03:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 08:42 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

has a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli. This is factually irrefutable.

Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?

Cnidaria are multicellular. Should we give rights to Cnidaria?

No, because I don't ascribe humanity to merely having cells.

And I don't ascribe humanity to piglets.

[Samseau]

(06-24-2013 09:27 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 07:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:48 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 03:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 08:42 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

has a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli. This is factually irrefutable.

Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?

Cnidaria are multicellular. Should we give rights to Cnidaria?

No, because I don't ascribe humanity to merely having cells.

And I don't ascribe humanity to piglets.

Yet the only difference you could name between a 1-year old baby and a 2-week zygote is what is common to all mammals. And we wouldn't give the same rights to a human as we would a pig. Therefore, having "a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli," is not sufficient for giving rights to something.

So we're back to the original question. Can you name a difference between a 2-week zygote and 1-year old baby that can give rights to one but deny it to the other?

[Wadsworth]

(06-24-2013 10:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 09:27 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 07:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:48 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 03:50 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Piglets also have all of those things. Should we give rights to piglets?

Cnidaria are multicellular. Should we give rights to Cnidaria?

No, because I don't ascribe humanity to merely having cells.

And I don't ascribe humanity to piglets.

Yet the only difference you could name between a 1-year old baby and a 2-week zygote is what is common to all mammals. And we wouldn't give the same rights to a human as we would a pig. Therefore, having "a developed CNS, can feel pain, is self aware, has highly developed organs, can survive independently from the mother's body (if even it requires constant care and attention), and can respond to stimuli," is not sufficient for giving rights to something.

So we're back to the original question. Can you name a difference between a 2-week zygote and 1-year old baby that can give rights to one but deny it to the other?

The differences I stated earlier still stand in my opinion.

Development is the criterion I'm basing my argument on. Humanity is the criterion you're basing your argument on. You believe humanity is sufficient for rights, I think it's one of two necessary conditions, along with development.

Notably, in the case of self defense, you concede that humanity is one of two necessary conditions for rights, along with lawful behavior.

The piglet/cnidaria example merely proves that we don't value life uniquely based on development. Humanity is necessary.

The reason is that our compassion for other humans leads to our desire to guarantee them fundamental rights.

Thus, instead of looking at it in terms of rights, let's examine it in terms of compassion.

A 2-week zygote can't feel pain, and has no consciousness; it is merely a clump of cells. Showing respect for it is worthy, but because it can't feel pain or manifest comprehension, it isn't as worthy of compassion as a woman who has mistakenly found herself pregnant, and either a) isn't ready to become a parent or b) is incapable of becoming a parent.

By those same criteria, I think a 7 or 8 month fetus that is manifesting some degree of consciousness is more worthy of compassion than a stupid Western female who can't wrap her mind around the concept of taking responsibility (unless her life is in danger).

We're agreed on humanity being a necessary condition. I agree with everyone here that late-term abortion is immoral because the fetus at that stage closely resembles a baby in many ways. I disagree with those claiming early-term abortion is immoral simply because the zygote at that stage can't be said to resemble a baby in anything but genome.

[Samseau]

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

[Therapsid]

(06-24-2013 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

What's your line? Post-birth? Why? Is a premature infant worthy of the right to life that a more developed full-term infant is not?

Or is infanticide acceptable? If not, why not?

Pro-choice people ascribe a magical quality to birth that's really no more scientific or ethical than the thorough-going pro-life position that human life begins at conception.

[Samseau]

(06-24-2013 11:36 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

What's your line? Post-birth? Why? Is a premature infant worthy of the right to life that a more developed full-term infant is not?

Or is infanticide acceptable? If not, why not?

Pro-choice people ascribe a magical quality to birth that's really no more scientific or ethical than the thorough-going pro-life position that human life begins at conception.

I am not pro-choice. I am questioning Wadsworth's pro-choice stance with Socratic questioning.

My stance is that abortion, at any stage, is wrong. Even the morning after pill has disturbing implications (but I've had plenty of girls use it because of me.)

[Wadsworth]

(06-24-2013 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

That is a good question, and I don't have an answer for it. Frankly, I think it's going to be arbitrary. Jezebel et al were complaining about the GOP talking about 20 weeks. I don't have a problem with 20 weeks. I'd be OK with less than 20 weeks.

There is no objective standard I can give you to support my argument in this regard. There is no obvious objective point during a pregnancy where we must start respecting the developing lifeform. People can base the cutoff around some objective level of development, but that standard is still going to be a subjective one.

[Samseau]

(06-24-2013 11:47 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

That is a good question, and I don't have an answer for it. Frankly, I think it's going to be arbitrary. Jezebel et al were complaining about the GOP talking about 20 weeks. I don't have a problem with 20 weeks. I'd be OK with less than 20 weeks.

There is no objective standard I can give you to support my argument in this regard. There is no obvious objective point during a pregnancy where we must start respecting the developing lifeform. People can base the cutoff around some objective level of development, but that standard is still going to be a subjective one.

So how can you claim that development makes a difference if you do not know when it does? That is a contradiction.

[Wadsworth]

(06-24-2013 11:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:47 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

That is a good question, and I don't have an answer for it. Frankly, I think it's going to be arbitrary. Jezebel et al were complaining about the GOP talking about 20 weeks. I don't have a problem with 20 weeks. I'd be OK with less than 20 weeks.

There is no objective standard I can give you to support my argument in this regard. There is no obvious objective point during a pregnancy where we must start respecting the developing lifeform. People can base the cutoff around some objective level of development, but that standard is still going to be a subjective one.

So how can you claim that development makes a difference if you do not know when it does? That is a contradiction.

I understand your point, but I'm not convinced it's a contradiction. I merely examine the morality at both extremes.

I claim the nature of the development at each extreme is sufficiently different to merit an individual moral judgement in each case. If you follow those extremes to their limits (single cell and baby), you can clearly see the difference.

Where those limits start converging things get muddy, precluding the possibility of an easy line being drawn, and I don't deny that.

But deciding where to make that cut off seems to me an entirely separate judgement.

It would be a bit like a discussion on alcohol consumption. Drinking in moderation can be beneficial. Drinking excessively can be detrimental. Both extremes merit separate medical discussions. Trying to figure out where the line is seems like an entirely separate discussion.

[Bolthouse]

(06-24-2013 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

This whole argument the last couple of pages has been a slippery slope. It started with there being no difference between a 2 week old baby and a 2 week old fetus that's a clump of cells. Then it went to whether that 2 week old clump of cells was capable of being sentient.

That line of argument if continued can conclude that pulling out constitutes abortion, because in ejaculating on her face you're allowing a clump of cells to die when they could've evolved into something capable of being sentient had you ejactulated in her vagina.

So where do you draw the line?

[Therapsid]

(06-25-2013 12:15 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 11:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So let's go with the development line. What day does a fetus become untouchable? 6 months and 5 days? 6 months and 4 days? 5 months and 29 days? What's the line?

This whole argument the last couple of pages has been a slippery slope. It started with there being no difference between a 2 week old baby and a 2 week old fetus that's a clump of cells. Then it went to whether that 2 week old clump of cells was capable of being sentient.

That line of argument if continued can conclude that pulling out constitutes abortion, because in ejaculating on her face you're allowing a clump of cells to die when they could've evolved into something capable of being sentient had you ejactulated in her vagina.

So where do you draw the line?

It goes in the other direction as well. You could eventually argue that smothering a two year old in his cradle is simply a belated pregnancy termination. After all, it's just a clump of cells without the cognitive ability and self-consciousness of an adult, and the mother should have the right to choose.