Will Trump win again???

[jw3600]

I'm pro-choice but this is a nonsense argument. People put to death committed a horrible crime. Fetuses haven't.

Yes and they also aren’t sentient and aren’t a distinct life form.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nimbus]

What about the child's body, will, and decision?

You have to do illogical mental gymnastics to say that a baby isn't a person because a baby is a part of the mother's body even though the genetic information is completely different and unique, that a baby is not life until birth despite the presence of a beating heart and functioning brain and nervous system, and that a child born at 26 weeks gestation is more of a human and with more personhood than a healthy fetus at 41 weeks because the location of a person is the prime determinant of personhood instead of the innate natural characteristics of life shared by all humans.


Maybe we could all agree on moral principles as a society, and let that lead us all into a common understanding of what the law should be, instead of deciding a want and perverting ethics to fit that desire.

The point is we don’t all agree on what is moral. I prefer not to impose my will on on people I disagree with whenever possible.


I acknowledge that the fetus becomes a person at some point in utero. No mental gymnastics there. This is my opinion but the mother’s will trumps the fetus’ because she is the host and she is really the only one of the the two that has will or can actually make a decision. Even after the child is born, this is true. Lucky for those little buggers that murder is illegal.

 

[nimbus]

I'm pro-choice but this is a nonsense argument. People put to death committed a horrible crime. Fetuses haven't.

Doesn’t the Bible still teach that regardless of the crime, human life is sacred and everyone has the possibility of redemption?

 

[vector2]

I'm pro-choice but this is a nonsense argument. People put to death committed a horrible crime. Fetuses haven't.

What's nonsense are the number of mental hoops you have to jump through to assign personhood to a ball of cells, but the second an actual living, breathing person exists they apparently become expendable for what, quintessentially, are arbitrary reasons devised by imperfect beings.

 

[nimbus]

That's interesting, sounds like a gray area where CPS and the law could get involved.

I think a decent argument could be made that intentionally killing a healthy child at 41 weeks gestational age should result in criminal charges against the mother.

1. CPS does get notified and involved if the mother delivers in a hospital.

2. That is an extreme example. I would personally consider that infanticide, but still legal as far as I know.

 

[nimbus]

The male has to pay for 18 years if he ejaculates inside a pro-life woman. Are you opposed to child support based on the man’s autonomy?

Just don’t ejaculate into pro-life women.

 

[nimbus]

A braindead adult is naturally progressing on their way to death, a human being still in utero but prior brain development is an appropriately developing life. No justification to murder humans just because they haven’t been born yet

We are all progressing on our journey to death.

Hopefully the pro-lifers are also as concerned for Muslim and Central American refugees who face threats to their life in their own countries and seek refuge in ours.

 

[Matty44]

I am worried we are already leaving the realm of honesty. By saying that abortion of a 39 1/2 week fetus is acceptable is in no way saying that I have "no desire to place any value" on a 39.5 week fetus. This isn't even close to the same thing. In fact, now that I think about more, this seems dishonest already.

I will try to continue (this post only...as I don't want to derail this thread into an abortion thread...and I am going to make a dedicated thread in the sociopolitical forum later).

I will expand my response, since that is likely what you are actually looking for and careful debate appears unlikely to happen.

Your question regarding abortion of a 39.5 week fetus is a hypothetical question and I have given a hypothetical answer.

It is not difficult to envision a hypothetical medical case in which, using general anesthesia (removing any consciousness, pain, suffering), the termination of the life of the fetus could be performed to save the life of the mother (who may be asymptomatic prior to the delivery or termination but would hypothetically certainly die during delivery or postpartum, in a manner filled with suffering and consciousness). Of course, this would only be acceptable if this was the mother's wish. Similarly, termination would be unacceptable if the mother wanted to deliver and choose to suffer and die during delivery or postpartum.

That said, I don't think such a hypothetical case of abortion at 39.5 weeks is that revealing or enlightening. Rather, a discussion about abortion as it is currently performed or even could be performed is much more useful....but since you posed the question honestly, I have now given an honest answer.

May honest discussion continue in the SPF.

HH

I’m sorry, I fail to see how I was being dishonest at all. I thought we were going to have a discussion and I was trying to get at what value you place on the unborn fetus. And I think it’s a fairly honest assessment if in our hypothetical situation of a healthy baby and a healthy mom, so a purely elective situation, you would have no moral or ethical qualms about aborting at 39 1/2 weeks. If that is your stance (which you said it was right?), it seems a pretty fair assessment to say that not much value is placed on the fetus at that point. Yes, it is hypothetical case because I doubt there’s been many, if any, cases of elective abortion at 39 1/2 weeks. However, I’m trying to understand where you are coming from and I think it establishes your values, which is crucial for honest discussion.


What am I missing?


I really would like to discuss with you. And if you want to redirect to a different thread that’s fine, or I’m happy to continue here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

I guess I wasn’t being clear enough for you. I don’t care what word you want to use for an unborn fetus. If you want to refer to a fetus as “little miracles” from here on out, it would not change a thing. Playing a semantic game is weak because it disregards science.

My personal feelings on abortion are also irrelevant to the abortion discussion, in my opinion. All of the above are superseded by the fact that a person has domain over his or her body and what goes into it or grows inside of it. I also hold the doctor-patient relationship in the highest regard. No one should violate that trust...neither the government or anyone else.

I hope that cleared up the confusion for you and I am sorry you felt like you were being personally attacked. I will no longer answer or respond to questions about what word you want to use for an unborn fetus.

I don’t personally care what word is used that much. Hamhock was the one that brought wording you the forefront and made it a big deal. But listen, there’s never gonna be any productive discussion about this topic when one side (yours) states that it’s a matter of the mothers body and hence the mothers decision, and the other side says it’s the babies body and not the mothers. Until there are agreed upon terms as to when the fetus becomes its own person, it’s just futile arguing with both sides using there own terms.

That’s why I’m so insistent that people define when there are two lives involved and not just one. Cause if you can’t define when that occurs, there’s about 0.000% chance of having any productive conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Doesn’t the Bible still teach that regardless of the crime, human life is sacred and everyone has the possibility of redemption?

Who said anything about the Bible?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

What's nonsense are the number of mental hoops you have to jump through to assign personhood to a ball of cells, but the second an actual living, breathing person exists they apparently become expendable for what, quintessentially, are arbitrary reasons devised by imperfect beings.

Not at all. Personhood has nothing to do with the death penalty.

 

[nimbus]

Who said anything about the Bible?

Glad you’re not using the Bible as a basis for public policy. Sadly many pro-lifers do.

 

[GravelRider]

I'm pro-choice but this is a nonsense argument. People put to death committed a horrible crime. Fetuses haven't.

In theory. The assumption there is that we have a perfect judicial system.

 

[deleted480308]

Just so that we are clear, you think all abortion should be illegal? So let’s say a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant decides she no longer wants this pregnancy. The reason or who knocked her up is irrelevant right now. So now it’s illegal for her to terminate this pregnancy in your ideal world. She is expected to carry this unwanted fetus for another 20 weeks while the pregnancy changes her physiology and puts her at risk for any number of pregnancy-related complications. She is also subjected to the cost of prenatal and postnatal care. Now we are at 40 weeks and it’s time to deliver and she is expected to go through the pain of childbirth or potentially be subjected to a major abdominal surgery with recovery afterwards. She is also at risk for peripartum complications, which can be life threatening. All for a fetus that was growing inside of her that she did not want. So, the moment that sperm entered her vagina, she was agreeing to reducing herself to nothing but a growth medium for a fetus? She was giving up her autonomy the moment a male ejaculated inside of her?

i think elective abortions should be illegal.

How many of you ardent pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty?

I’m prolife in regards to a human in utero

I’m very high standards for conviction for the death penalty

 

[GravelRider]

I don’t personally care what word is used that much. Hamhock was the one that brought wording you the forefront and made it a big deal. But listen, there’s never gonna be any productive discussion about this topic when one side (yours) states that it’s a matter of the mothers body and hence the mothers decision, and the other side says it’s the babies body and not the mothers. Until there are agreed upon terms as to when the fetus becomes its own person, it’s just futile arguing with both sides using there own terms.

That’s why I’m so insistent that people define when there are two lives involved and not just one. Cause if you can’t define when that occurs, there’s about 0.000% chance of having any productive conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page Not Found

m.acog.org

“Late term abortion” is a political term and not a clinical term. Your insistence about talking about late term abortions is weird because it’s a rare event and when it does happen it is usually because of a health related reason for the mother and/or fetus. Your silly idea that women are pregnant for 39 weeks and then deciding to get an abortion as a form of birth control is ridiculous nonsense and frankly stupid. That’s why I won’t talk about it.

Viability of a fetus cannot be reliably determined based on gestational age, so setting an arbitrary limit on when an abortion can occur or when a fetus achieves personhood is not based on any sort of science.

 

[GravelRider]

i think elective abortions should be illegal.

I’m prolife in regards to a human in utero

I’m very high standards for conviction for the death penalty

So say it, a woman gives up her autonomy and ability to do with her body what she wants the moment a sperm enters her vagina. Don’t just say elective abortions should be illegal. That’s a cop out.

 

[AMEHigh]

Page Not Found

m.acog.org

“Late term abortion” is a political term and not a clinical term. Your insistence about talking about late term abortions is weird because it’s a rare event and when it does happen it is usually because of a health related reason for the mother and/or fetus. Your silly idea that women are pregnant for 39 weeks and then deciding to get an abortion as a form of birth control is ridiculous nonsense and frankly stupid. That’s why I won’t talk about it.

Viability of a fetus cannot be reliably determined based on gestational age, so setting an arbitrary limit on when an abortion can occur or when a fetus achieves personhood is not based on any sort of science.

Also, some fetuses will never be viable.
From a philosophical standpoint I certainly find it interesting to discuss the definition of life and what happens in death, etc.
However, that is certainly not a conversation I'm going to have in an online forum with ardent radical pro-life supporters that are going to call me a baby killer.
Such conversations I'll have in the company of my friends.
In the meantime, abortion is legal (although limited in many places) and is an important part of healthcare that I'll always support for patients and doctors to make the best choice in each circumstance.

 

[Matty44]

Page Not Found

m.acog.org

“Late term abortion” is a political term and not a clinical term. Your insistence about talking about late term abortions is weird because it’s a rare event and when it does happen it is usually because of a health related reason for the mother and/or fetus. Your silly idea that women are pregnant for 39 weeks and then deciding to get an abortion as a form of birth control is ridiculous nonsense and frankly stupid. That’s why I won’t talk about it.

Viability of a fetus cannot be reliably determined based on gestational age, so setting an arbitrary limit on when an abortion can occur or when a fetus achieves personhood is not based on any sort of science.

Are you not reading my posts? I’ve said repeatedly now that I’m not alleging people are having a bunch of elective abortions at 39 wks. I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time understanding that the reason I even bring it up is to establish values. If we can’t agree how a 39 wk fetus should be treated or valued, then how can we ever hope to have any agreement anywhere in the middle of the spectrum. You can keep claiming that I’m saying things I’m not, or you can listen to what I’m actually saying and realize the merits in thinking about certain things in order to establish boundaries of thoughts and values in relation to this discussion. It’s up to you.

Tell me this, do you believe any elective abortion should be illegal? It’s a simple question. And if yes, what are the parameters that you would use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted480308]

So say it, a woman gives up her autonomy and ability to do with her body what she wants the moment a sperm enters her vagina. Don’t just say elective abortions should be illegal. That’s a cop out.

I’ve been quite clear that autonomy is exercised with the decision to have sex which covers >95% of all elective abortions

 

[deleted50478]

We are all progressing on our journey to death.

Hopefully the pro-lifers are also as concerned for Muslim and Central American refugees who face threats to their life in their own countries and seek refuge in ours.

They don’t seek refuge here. The first guy sent to a third safe country instead of the US (Guatemala?) chose to go back to Honduras instead. Shows how dangerous it was for him. It’s abuse of refugee status, not legitimate sanctuary.

 

[nimbus]

I’ve been quite clear that autonomy is exercised with the decision to have sex which covers >95% of all elective abortions

You are making some assumptions.

Sexual coercion | Office on Women's Health

www.womenshealth.gov

Domestic Violence Statistics

Our years of experience offering 24/7 support for people in abusive relationships has been informed by these domestic violence statistics.

www.thehotline.org

 

[deleted480308]

You are making some assumptions.

Sexual coercion | Office on Women's Health

www.womenshealth.gov

Domestic Violence Statistics

Our years of experience offering 24/7 support for people in abusive relationships has been informed by these domestic violence statistics.

www.thehotline.org

My number came from planned parenthood the last time I researched it. Not assumptions

 

[nimbus]

My number came from planned parenthood the last time I researched it. Not assumptions

The assumption I was referring to is that women always have sex because they want to. It’s not always their “decision”.

 

[deleted480308]

The assumption I was referring to is that women always have sex because they want to. It’s not always their “decision”.

And my number came from planned parenthood saying less than 5% were rape/incest. Per the people doing the abortions, the vast majority were from consensual sex

 

[AMEHigh]

The assumption I was referring to is that women always have sex because they want to. It’s not always their “decision”.

I'm sure someone is going to chime in saying they don't believe in sexism and sexual coercion, similar to the conversations that we had many pages ago. Eye roll. Unfortunately, some people only see rape as the stranger that breaks in to your home and forces themselves on another person.
I guess I do respect the people that stick by their values and are against IVF and abortion no matter what. But with all these conversations about what-ifs it's always a slippery slope. Therefore we need to keep abortion access safe and legal. No one is going to force you to have an abortion if you don't want one. Stay out of other people's healthcare decisions.

And lastly, for everyone that is so pro-child I hope they are supporting candidates that endorse things like universal pre-k, mandatory maternity leave, higher wages for low-income workers, funding for education and kids with special needs, access to free healthcare, clean water, etc. So that people that do have kids and especially kids with special needs have the supports that they need to raise these children. That doesn't always seem to be the case from what I've seen and discussed with people.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm sure someone is going to chime in saying they don't believe in sexism and sexual coercion, similar to the conversations that we had many pages ago. Eye roll. Unfortunately, some people only see rape as the stranger that breaks in to your home and forces themselves on another person.
I guess I do respect the people that stick by their values and are against IVF and abortion no matter what. But with all these conversations about what-ifs it's always a slippery slope. Therefore we need to keep abortion access safe and legal. No one is going to force you to have an abortion if you don't want one. Stay out of other people's healthcare decisions.

And lastly, for everyone that is so pro-child I hope they are supporting candidates that endorse things like universal pre-k, mandatory maternity leave, higher wages for low-income workers, funding for education and kids with special needs, access to free healthcare, clean water, etc. So that people that do have kids and especially kids with special needs have the supports that they need to raise these children. That doesn't always seem to be the case from what I've seen and discussed with people.

Those things are a parent’s responsibility. Not wanting a parent to murder their offspring in the womb doesn’t mean I should have to pay the parent for the next 18yrs. That’s not how that works

 

[Lawpy]

Page Not Found

m.acog.org

“Late term abortion” is a political term and not a clinical term. Your insistence about talking about late term abortions is weird because it’s a rare event and when it does happen it is usually because of a health related reason for the mother and/or fetus. Your silly idea that women are pregnant for 39 weeks and then deciding to get an abortion as a form of birth control is ridiculous nonsense and frankly stupid. That’s why I won’t talk about it.

Viability of a fetus cannot be reliably determined based on gestational age, so setting an arbitrary limit on when an abortion can occur or when a fetus achieves personhood is not based on any sort of science.

Also, some fetuses will never be viable.
From a philosophical standpoint I certainly find it interesting to discuss the definition of life and what happens in death, etc.
However, that is certainly not a conversation I'm going to have in an online forum with ardent radical pro-life supporters that are going to call me a baby killer.
Such conversations I'll have in the company of my friends.
In the meantime, abortion is legal (although limited in many places) and is an important part of healthcare that I'll always support for patients and doctors to make the best choice in each circumstance.

That's why i think it's important to learn about these procedures from a clinical perspective, especially when they're a hot topic in society and susceptible to misinformation.

 

[Mikkel]

Viability of a fetus cannot be reliably determined based on gestational age, so setting an arbitrary limit on when an abortion can occur or when a fetus achieves personhood is not based on any sort of science.

Did you read what you just wrote?

You made either an argument that abortion should be illegal in all cases because it is killing of a human with personhood.

Or, you made an argument that infanticide should be legalized because there's no scientific consensus for when an infant is viable outside the womb and there's no scientific consensus for personhood.



Which is it?

The logical conclusion that most reasonable adults is your first argument. If you can't arbitrarily define personhood by gestational age, the only physical and scientific basis for personhood is conception.

 

[Mikkel]

The point is we don’t all agree on what is moral. I prefer not to impose my will on on people I disagree with whenever possible.


I acknowledge that the fetus becomes a person at some point in utero. No mental gymnastics there. This is my opinion but the mother’s will trumps the fetus’ because she is the host and she is really the only one of the the two that has will or can actually make a decision. Even after the child is born, this is true. Lucky for those little buggers that murder is illegal.

Why not just give up the child for adoption? That seems like the most moral outcome that doesn't involve death.

 

[Matty44]

Did you read what you just wrote?

You made either an argument that abortion should be illegal in all cases because it is killing of a human with personhood.

Or, you made an argument that infanticide should be legalized because there's no scientific consensus for when an infant is viable outside the womb and there's no scientific consensus for personhood.



Which is it?

The logical conclusion that most reasonable adults is your first argument. If you can't arbitrarily define personhood by gestational age, the only physical and scientific basis for personhood is conception.

This is the problem I feel for most pro-choice people. They can't really define what they believe or what even logically makes sense, so they default to "not my body, not my decision." And they have an incredibly hard time defining when personhood is established, because if they did, they would have to wrestle with the question of what to do when its NOT only the mother's body that's in question, but the baby's body, and its life, and its personhood. And that's why I keep pushing for people to verbalize (or write out) their actual position on if any abortion is not ok. But as you can see, no one will respond. Except Hamhock, who clearly stated that all elective abortion is ok. And while I disagree, at least he has put his actually opinion out there and its intellectually honest.

 

[Matty44]

The point is we don’t all agree on what is moral. I prefer not to impose my will on on people I disagree with whenever possible.


I acknowledge that the fetus becomes a person at some point in utero. No mental gymnastics there. This is my opinion but the mother’s will trumps the fetus’ because she is the host and she is really the only one of the the two that has will or can actually make a decision. Even after the child is born, this is true. Lucky for those little buggers that murder is illegal.

So you acknowledge that at some point in time the fetus becomes a person, and even after that point in time, you are still ok ending the life of said person due to the fact that the mother is the 'host' and is the only one capable of making decisions. Yet you go on to mention that those conditions hold true even after birth but acknowledge ending the life at that point is murder and illegal. So where is the distinction between the illegality/murder of ending the life of the baby outside of the womb and inside the womb (after that point in time where it becomes a person)? You have all the same criteria in both situations, the only distinction seems to be location?

 

[nimbus]

So you acknowledge that at some point in time the fetus becomes a person, and even after that point in time, you are still ok ending the life of said person due to the fact that the mother is the 'host' and is the only one capable of making decisions. Yet you go on to mention that those conditions hold true even after birth but acknowledge ending the life at that point is murder and illegal. So where is the distinction between the illegality/murder of ending the life of the baby outside of the womb and inside the womb (after that point in time where it becomes a person)? You have all the same criteria in both situations, the only distinction seems to be location?

Yes

 

[Matty44]

Yes

So 36 wk baby A born prematurely should be protected legally, but a 36 wk baby B in utero deserves no similar protection?

 

[AMEHigh]

Why not just give up the child for adoption? That seems like the most moral outcome that doesn't involve death.

Because life is not black and white.
Pregnancy isn’t benign.
Going to prenatal visits aren’t always free and typically always take time away from work.
Setting up an adoption isn’t always straight forward and takes time away from work.
Not all fetuses will survive to be adopted.
No one is going to adopt a child that is going to survive for 1 month.
Not all mothers will survive if forced to carry a pregnancy.
Some mothers will have worsening of chronic conditions if they continue a pregnancy.
Some mothers will choose to have their cancer treated instead of continuing with their pregnancy and they should be able to make that choice.

I know you’re going to come back and say well it doesn’t matter, life is precious etc, but the above situations that happen on a daily basis are some reasons why adoption is not always the best answer for everyone. It is not black and white. You can certainly disagree thus no one is forcing you to have an abortion.

 

[jw3600]

This is the problem I feel for most pro-choice people. They can't really define what they believe or what even logically makes sense, so they default to "not my body, not my decision." And they have an incredibly hard time defining when personhood is established, because if they did, they would have to wrestle with the question of what to do when its NOT only the mother's body that's in question, but the baby's body, and its life, and its personhood. And that's why I keep pushing for people to verbalize (or write out) their actual position on if any abortion is not ok. But as you can see, no one will respond. Except Hamhock, who clearly stated that all elective abortion is ok. And while I disagree, at least he has put his actually opinion out there and its intellectually honest.

Can’t tell you what is life. Can tell you what’s not. And that’s any fetus 13 weeks or less. So first trimester abortion makes sense to me as a reasonable bar for elective abortion.

 

[Matty44]

Can’t tell you what is life. Can tell you what’s not. And that’s any fetus 13 weeks or less. So first trimester abortion makes sense to me as a reasonable bar for elective abortion.

I must have missed that chapter in the text books. Where are you getting this definitive answer from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawpy]

Because life is not black and white.
Pregnancy isn’t benign.
Going to prenatal visits aren’t always free and typically always take time away from work.
Setting up an adoption isn’t always straight forward and takes time away from work.
Not all fetuses will survive to be adopted.
No one is going to adopt a child that is going to survive for 1 month.
Not all mothers will survive if forced to carry a pregnancy.
Some mothers will have worsening of chronic conditions if they continue a pregnancy.
Some mothers will choose to have their cancer treated instead of continuing with their pregnancy and they should be able to make that choice.

I know you’re going to come back and say well it doesn’t matter, life is precious etc, but the above situations that happen on a daily basis are some reasons why adoption is not always the best answer for everyone. It is not black and white. You can certainly disagree thus no one is forcing you to have an abortion.

That's why the decisions should be made strictly between the physician and patients, because it is completely inappropriate for governments and politicians to interfere in very personal and sensitive matters. I know critics want the government to interfere to satisfy their socially conservative beliefs that abortion = murder, but that is sidestepping the issue with alarming slippery slope consequences. Just leave this between the physicians and patients and remove the governments from it.

 

[Goro]

I'm pro-choice but this is a nonsense argument. People put to death committed a horrible crime. Fetuses haven't.

I think vector is trying to make the distinction between pro-birth and pro-life, which are two very different things.

 

[jw3600]

I must have missed that chapter in the text books. Where are you getting this definitive answer from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

13 week fetus can’t survive. At that point it’s potentional for life inside of a person. With rights.

 

[Lawpy]

I think vector is trying to make the distinction between pro-birth and pro-life, which are two very different things.

The thread also draws a false opposition between pro-life and pro-choice, and use that to justify government interference in personally sensitive matters. Which is a bit strange, given that the government and politicians aren't exactly informed on science and medicine!

Also i have zero idea why the thread got derailed into abortion arguments, but i saw a great ACOG resource posted here that caught my interest, since i want to learn mainly from the experts.

 

[nimbus]

Also i have zero idea why the thread got derailed into abortion arguments, but i saw a great ACOG resource posted here that caught my interest, since i want to learn mainly from the experts.

Pro-lifers are much more likely to support Trump. It’s one of the key dividing issues in the American culture war.

 

[Lawpy]

Pro-lifers are much more likely to support Trump. It’s one of the key dividing issues in the American culture war.

But that's known since 1970s when Nixon flipped the parties, such that social conservatives (and pro-lifers) would support Republicans. So this is no different. Really the only benefit i got from the discussion is the ACOG resource and some clinical perspectives on the matter.

 

[Matty44]

13 week fetus can’t survive. At that point it’s potentional for life inside of a person. With rights.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the distinction you're making. Are you saying at 13 weeks all of a sudden the fetus now has the potential for life, but not before? And how is 13 weeks different than 15 weeks? or 11?

 

[nimbus]

But that's known since 1970s when Nixon flipped the parties, such that social conservatives (and pro-lifers) would support Republicans. So this is no different. Really the only benefit i got from the discussion is the ACOG resource and some clinical perspectives on the matter.

You’re right. It’s not a productive discussion. Most of this thread is not.


Back on topic it looks like Trump has a very good chance of re-election.

 

[vector2]

Not at all. Personhood has nothing to do with the death penalty.

Personhood has everything to do with the death penalty. The last two pages have essentially been entirely about the definition of personhood and what benefits having "personhood" status entails. Pro-life proponents (especially the most logically consistent ones who make no exception for rape or incest) are making the argument that there is something intrinsic to achieving said status which designates some kind of protection. They would say: If you are a human being, you have a right to life. Fetuses are human beings. Ergo, abortion is immoral.

Do human beings have an unconditional right to life or no? Clearly the answer is no if in some circumstances one believes human beings have the necessary judgement to decide that killing another human being is ethical.

At this point, I suspect a prolifer/pro death penalty'er would quibble and point out that a fetus is "innocent" and a death row inmate is "guilty." I would argue that this is 100% irrelevant as to whether a human being has a right to life or not given the myriad, infinite vagaries involved in deciding the definitions, meanings, and significance of "innocent, guilty, justice, punishment" etc. More simply, what many of you are saying is "a human being has a right to life***" .....and the *** is whatever you want to it to be.

What you guys need to get is that if you are going to employ a ***, don't be shocked when others employ a *** with a totally contrarian, yet equally morally defensible ideology in mind. Unfortunately, the only ones in this game who have total logical consistency are those who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and pacifistic.

 

[jw3600]

I'm sorry, I fail to see the distinction you're making. Are you saying at 13 weeks all of a sudden the fetus now has the potential for life, but not before? And how is 13 weeks different than 15 weeks? or 11?

As in the cutoff for an ethical attempt to resuscitate a premature delivery currently sits around 23 weeks. Give or take.

 

[Matty44]

As in the cutoff for an ethical attempt to resuscitate a premature delivery currently sits around 23 weeks. Give or take.

Are you talking 13 weeks or 23?

 

[Matty44]

Personhood has everything to do with the death penalty. The last two pages have essentially been entirely about the definition of personhood and what benefits having "personhood" status entails. Pro-life proponents (especially the most logically consistent ones who make no exception for rape or incest) are making the argument that there is something intrinsic to achieving said status which designates some kind of protection. They would say: If you are a human being, you have a right to life. Fetuses are human beings. Ergo, abortion is immoral.

Do human beings have an unconditional right to life or no? Clearly the answer is no if in some circumstances one believes human beings have the necessary judgement to decide that killing another human being is ethical.

At this point, I suspect a prolifer/pro death penalty'er would quibble and point out that a fetus is "innocent" and a death row inmate is "guilty." I would argue that this is 100% irrelevant as to whether a human being has a right to life or not given the myriad, infinite vagaries involved in deciding the definitions, meanings, and significance of "innocent, guilty, justice, punishment" etc. More simply, what many of you are saying is "a human being has a right to life***" .....and the *** is whatever you want to it to be.

What you guys need to get is that if you are going to employ a ***, don't be shocked when others employ a *** with a totally contrarian, yet equally morally defensible ideology in mind. Unfortunately, the only ones in this game who have total logical consistency are those who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and pacifistic.

I'm sorry, but trying to draw any equivalence between these two topics is silliness. Are you next gonna argue that a pro-lifer is a hypocrite if they shoot and kill an armed robber who breaks into their house?

Its like someone saying "everyone has a right to a good education" and then calling that person a hypocrite when they are fine with someone being kicked out of school for selling drugs and physically abusing other students.

Just stop. The comparison falls quite flat.

 

[vector2]

I'm sorry, but trying to draw any equivalence between these two topics is silliness. Are you next gonna argue that a pro-lifer is a hypocrite if they shoot and kill an armed robber who breaks into their house?

Its like someone saying "everyone has a right to a good education" and then calling that person a hypocrite when they are fine with someone being kicked out of school for selling drugs and physically abusing other students.

Just stop. The comparison falls quite flat.

Obviously my post was meant for people not quite as simple as you, because presumably it's facile to understand that if you are pro-life then self-defense of your own life is still a moral virtue.

 

[Matty44]

Obviously my post was meant for people not quite as simple as you, because presumably it's facile to understand that if you are pro-life then self-defense of your own life is still a moral virtue.

Yeah, and people who are put on death row are murders who put the general public at danger. So you are being pro-life for the general populace, if you wanna use your silly conflation of the term pro-life.

Also, do you feel insulting people relentlessly makes your argument stronger or makes you sound smarter? Or does it just give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside?