Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-30-2020, 06:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Then the pro-lifer doesn't have much left to say. If a pro-choicer says, "Fetus personhood or not, if a woman wants to abort, she should have the right to abort," what rebuttal do you give to that? The pro-choicer has just acknowledged the full length and depth of the pro-lifer's argument and still dismissed it.
.
The rebuttal is then- Ok you just committed murder and you are going to prison.


Which is already trying to be law in some states.
  #52  
Old 01-30-2020, 06:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Have you not heard of twins?

Anyway, I suspect the point was that declaring a fertilized egg to be a human makes about as much sense as declaring an individual sperm to be a human.
Exactly. Or a un-fertilized egg, making it a law that a woman must get pregnant instead of losing her egg.

This is why the definition of personhood is the whole argument.
  #53  
Old 01-30-2020, 06:31 PM
Qadgop the Mercotan's Avatar
Qadgop the Mercotan is offline
zymolosely polydactile
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 27,762
While I have not performed therapeutic abortions, I have managed spontaneous ones circa eight to fifteen weeks or so. And having dealt with the expelled products of conception, I cannot feel that those tiny bits represent a person. A potential person, yeah I can buy into that. For sure. But to me a potential person's rights don't trump the rights of the person carrying the potential person.

I have also managed miscarriages/stillbirths. Those do seem to me to be more like the loss of a person, moreso the more advanced they are.

So where do I personally draw the line between potential person and person? Not sure. But it is sometime after the first trimester, in my opinion.
  #54  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:05 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
We execute condemned criminals. I dont like it, but we do.
My country doesn't, but that's not the only scenario where a person can be legally killed.

Quote:
But if it is scenario B, then abortion doesnt kill persons.
This is a non-sequitur; at birth, abortion becomes moot, and it doesn't clarify the difference between the proposed scenarios A and B. Is there a practical difference between assigning the label personhood at conception versus assigning it at birth and if so, what is it?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #55  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:08 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
This is a non-sequitur; at birth, abortion becomes moot, and it doesn't clarify the difference between the proposed scenarios A and B. Is there a practical difference between assigning the label personhood at conception versus assigning it at birth and if so, what is it?
Are you serious?
  #56  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:15 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Are you serious?
Are you serious? I'm asking DrDeth to expand on his post 21 in which he asserts:

Quote:
"At what time is a fetus a "person"?

That's the relevant question.
I asked Velocity the same and his reply in 35 suggests he thinks pro-lifers would be defeated or thwarted or at least significantly silenced, which I find to be wildly absurdly optimistic. I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on why pro-lifers want to attach the label personhood to a fetus, but Velocity's proposal that pro-choicers should just concede the matter is unconvincing at best.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #57  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:23 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Are you serious? I'm asking DrDeth to expand on his post 21 in which he asserts:



I asked Velocity the same and his reply in 35 suggests he thinks pro-lifers would be defeated or thwarted or at least significantly silenced, which I find to be wildly absurdly optimistic. I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on why pro-lifers want to attach the label personhood to a fetus, but Velocity's proposal that pro-choicers should just concede the matter is unconvincing at best.
It seemed pretty clear to me that DrDeth was saying that abortions don't kill people if we don't consider fetuses people. The fact that abortions are only done to fetuses prior to birth goes without saying. The fact that their status as a person or not is different is the difference between scenarios A and B goes without saying. The fact that the resulting lack of events that might be called murders is a practical difference between scenario A and B goes without saying.

The fact that you seem to be questioning a lot of things that go without saying confuses me.

Last edited by begbert2; 01-30-2020 at 07:24 PM.
  #58  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:24 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Exactly. Or a un-fertilized egg, making it a law that a woman must get pregnant instead of losing her egg.

This is why the definition of personhood is the whole argument.
I'm not getting it, I admit. In practice, isn't declaring a fetus to be a person at some stage X in its development done solely as a prelude to telling the mother that she can no longer can choose to abort? What other effect does it have or could it have?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #59  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:33 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The fact that the resulting lack of events that might be called murders is a practical difference between scenario A and B goes without saying.
Fine, you recognize this outcome and I recognize this outcome but I don't know if DrDeth recognizes this outcome and Velocity certainly doesn't recognize this outcome, or least didn't in post 35. It's really the obvious answer to the original question:

Q: Why don't pro-choicers just recognize fetuses as persons?

A: Because pro-choicers don't want to extend to pro-lifers an invitation to call pro-choicers murderers because that would follow and not, as the OP suggests, disarm pro-life arguments.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 01-30-2020 at 07:34 PM.
  #60  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
While I have not performed therapeutic abortions, I have managed spontaneous ones circa eight to fifteen weeks or so. And having dealt with the expelled products of conception, I cannot feel that those tiny bits represent a person. A potential person, yeah I can buy into that. For sure. But to me a potential person's rights don't trump the rights of the person carrying the potential person.

I have also managed miscarriages/stillbirths. Those do seem to me to be more like the loss of a person, moreso the more advanced they are.

So where do I personally draw the line between potential person and person? Not sure. But it is sometime after the first trimester, in my opinion.
Thank you Doc, your insight here is valuable.

Yes, certainly, I'd have no problem with banning 3rd trimester abortions unless the mothers lives was in danger or other special circumstances.
  #61  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Are you serious? I'm asking DrDeth to expand on his post 21 in which he asserts:


.
I think the Doc just gave a pretty good response, one i am in agreement with.

The idea that two cells are a "person" is laughable.
  #62  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:49 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'm not getting it, I admit. In practice, isn't declaring a fetus to be a person at some stage X in its development done solely as a prelude to telling the mother that she can no longer can choose to abort? What other effect does it have or could it have?
It could lead to charges of murder.

But indeed, the whole definition of personhood is critical to the abortion debate. if a baby one day from birth a person? Most would say yes.


Are the two cells which occur right after the sperm hits the egg and it divides a "person"? Is a Egg a person? is a Sperm a person? Most would say No to all three.

where do you draw the line?
  #63  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:50 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Fine, you recognize this outcome and I recognize this outcome but I don't know if DrDeth recognizes this outcome and Velocity certainly doesn't recognize this outcome, or least didn't in post 35. It's really the obvious answer to the original question:

Q: Why don't pro-choicers just recognize fetuses as persons?

A: Because pro-choicers don't want to extend to pro-lifers an invitation to call pro-choicers murderers because that would follow and not, as the OP suggests, disarm pro-life arguments.
Actually, for me it's
A: Because it's not true in any rational sense.

Being the incorrigible pedant I am, I'm concerned about accuracy before results. To the extent that if somebody came up with a reasonable argument for "fetuses after point X can rationally be described as persons", then I would be willing to condition post-X abortions on there being a more pressing need than "I don't wanna have a kid". Hate me if you want but that's where I stand.

And I see that DrDeth is asking a similar question.

Last edited by begbert2; 01-30-2020 at 07:51 PM.
  #64  
Old 01-30-2020, 07:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Fine, you recognize this outcome and I recognize this outcome but I don't know if DrDeth recognizes this outcome and Velocity certainly doesn't recognize this outcome, or least didn't in post 35. It's really the obvious answer to the original question:

Q: Why don't pro-choicers just recognize fetuses as persons?

A: Because pro-choicers don't want to extend to pro-lifers an invitation to call pro-choicers murderers because that would follow and not, as the OP suggests, disarm pro-life arguments.
Which is more or less what I said. But also there are moral arguments. As the Good Doctor said, a zygote before the end of the first trimester doesnt resemble a "person" at all.

In no way would simply admitting a newly fertilized egg is a person would disarm Pro-lifers arguments. Unless the idea is to disarm their arguments by simply giving in entirely and letting them have their way, even if they allowed the baby would come to term would kill the mother or if the baby to be is the result of a rape. If to them, a two celled spot is a person, then why isnt a egg a person? It's one step removed. Why draw the line at conception? See- even the anti-abortionists (they arent "pro-life" at all*) draw the line. So since both sides agree a line must be drawn, why not compromise?

* America, due to the lack of Planner Parenthood and similar clinics has a much higher rate of baby death and mother death. This is directly the fault of the anti-abortionist, who are thus killing many babies and mothers.
  #65  
Old 01-30-2020, 08:01 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It could lead to charges of murder.

But indeed, the whole definition of personhood is critical to the abortion debate. if a baby one day from birth a person? Most would say yes.


Are the two cells which occur right after the sperm hits the egg and it divides a "person"? Is a Egg a person? is a Sperm a person? Most would say No to all three.

where do you draw the line?
I don't, personally, but let's say I did - it's not necessary to invoke personhood in order to draw a line, just pick some stage of development and have that be the benchmark, i.e. hypothetically, four months in or upon the detectibility by ultrasound of some physical feature, elective abortion is no longer an option. Why does personhood have to come into it unless there are plans to bring in murder charges at some stage, and I am very confident that this is exactly what pro-lifers would like to do, and "personhood" is a slippy unscientific label that can be moved arbitrary to anywhere in the process, whereas physical development cannot. So somewhere between two-cells and a day before birth is where you want a cutoff? Fine, pick something empirical and argue that should be the cutoff and stick with it.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #66  
Old 01-30-2020, 08:09 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Actually, for me it's
A: Because it's not true in any rational sense.
That's all well and good, but language by its nature is entirely arbitrary and this issue in particular is not processed with universal or even broad rationality. If it was, I'd see no problem with it and indeed I have asked: okay, so a pro-lifer conceded a fetus is a person - what is the pro-lifer's response? Velocity says the pro-lifer's arguments would be blunted. I find this to be ridiculously improbable and anticipate pro-lifers quickly accusing pro-choicers of murdering people, and the reason I anticipate this is that I do not expect rationality from pro-lifers.

If I could expect rationality from pro-lifers, the calculus would be somewhat different.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #67  
Old 01-30-2020, 08:14 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It wouldn't necessarily change minds - abortion is one of the most intractable and dug-in issues that there is - but it would shift the debate towards more favorable turf for the pro-choice side. Because right now, the pro-choice side has been playing this tortured definition-logic game of whether a fetus is a person or not, or when it becomes one (is it at 2 weeks? 4 weeks? 6 weeks?) etc.

By saying, "Fetus personhood doesn't matter, abortion should be legal no matter what," the pro-choice side would suddenly have itself a much simpler and clearer stance, and the pro-life side would suddenly have to scramble for a new defense/approach, because much of what the pro-life side has been based on - the argument that a fetus is a person - would suddenly no longer matter in the debate.
Why on earth do you think that announcing that blastocysts, or even eight-week fetuses, are people would strengthen the pro-choice side?

Having only one reason to object to legislation instead of multiple arguments might make the argument simpler. But it doesn't strengthen the argument against legislation to remove some of its components; it makes it weaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It's really the obvious answer to the original question:

Q: Why don't pro-choicers just recognize fetuses as persons?

A: Because pro-choicers don't want to extend to pro-lifers an invitation to call pro-choicers murderers because that would follow and not, as the OP suggests, disarm pro-life arguments.
It's only one of the answers.

Another answer is because not all pro-choicers believe fetuses are persons; and, as has been previously pointed out in this thread, don't feel like lying about it.

I'll also add in here that the anti-choice side is, these days, often claiming not only that fetuses at all stages (and there's a huge difference between an eight-week fetus and a 38-week, or even a 22-week, fetus) are persons, but that embryos and even blastocytes and single-cell fertilized eggs are persons.

And I'm going to repeat that the word "person" has not only a common-usage meaning, but also a legal meaning. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, granting the use of that word for fetuses, embryos, blastocysts can have legal consequences. It's not just 'fine, have it your way, the dress is pink not purple'.
  #68  
Old 01-30-2020, 08:21 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,160
Above all the other reasons, why would I argue something that (I believe) isn't true? For 20+ weeks, the fetus lacks a brain, the bare minimum for it to be a person, since it's the minimum for it to be an entity in its own right. And, even then, it's not like it's going to suddenly have a thought of self. Without a self, it is not a person. By the time it could possibly be thought of as a person, it has become viable, and then it makes more sense for viability to be the standard. There's no point in focusing on personhood.

The argument I would make is the same one Cecil made in his two articles. Because they are what convinced me to begin to switch from pro-life to pro-choice.
  #69  
Old 01-30-2020, 09:36 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
A fetus or embryo is simultaneously alive and human and
...not a person.
  #70  
Old 01-30-2020, 09:44 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 882
Hint: He doesn't really think it will strengthen the pro-choice side.
  #71  
Old 01-30-2020, 09:55 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Hint: He doesn't really think it will strengthen the pro-choice side.
Heh. Like or plus one or thumbs up or whatever.
  #72  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:17 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Because right now, the pro-choice side has been playing this tortured definition-logic game of whether a fetus is a person or not, or when it becomes one (is it at 2 weeks? 4 weeks? 6 weeks?) etc.
It's not "tortured definition-logic": it's acknowledging the complexity of reality.

There is no objectively logical reason to declare a fertilized ovum, invisible to the naked eye, to be a fully human person with the same right to life that a born human person has. If you hold some kind of supernatural belief in "personhood" as a quality conferred by some divine being at the moment of conception, then okay, you consider a fertilized ovum a person. But that's not a reason for anybody who doesn't share your beliefs to consider it a person.

Biologically, human beings continuously develop during gestation from invisible nonsentient clumps of cells to very high-functioning infants. There is no objectively obvious point in that development where "becoming a person" happens, because all of the characteristics and abilities that we associate with personhood are constantly changing in a continuous process.

So it's up to us as members of a society to decide where we think we should draw the line between "not sufficiently a person to have a protected right to life" and "sufficiently a person to have a protected right to life".

If you really imagine that all people, even pro-choice advocates, secretly agree with you in drawing that line at the moment of conception but the pro-choice advocates are just refusing to admit it, you're deluding yourself.
  #73  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:19 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It's germane in the sense that it is the primary opposition raised to abortion - you have abortion-opponents arguing that abortion is the killing of a person. So when countering one's opponents, the pro-choice crowd has to address their arguments and counter them - so it is germane.
But that crucial part of the debate, ISTM, would be of recent vintage save on religious grounds perhaps. Historically, IIRC, the Unborn Are Not Persons for purposes of the civil Law. Even when abortion was penalized it was not the crime of murder, it was an offense in its own. And in the end, it's the definition for purposes of law that we have to talk about, since as mentioned neither biology nor Deep Philosophy can give us an answer.


(The civil code in my jurisdiction of birth, when distinguishing Personhood between Natural and Legal, defines that natural persons are such human beings as live removed from the mother's womb, and their personhood is conferred by that fact.)

So, if Person is a social and civil-legal, and also philosophical, condition, not one derived from genome and cell division, then there is no need to "just grant it's a person". Is the embryo alive? Yes. Does this organism have a unique genome corresponding to species H. sapiens? Yes. Does that mean perforce it's a person? Not necessarily.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 01-30-2020 at 10:24 PM.
  #74  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:03 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Velocity, we know exactly what happens when fetuses are declared persons. In fact, pro-lifers are pushing personhood bills as we speak. The result is legal jeopardy for women who have miscarriages, or who aren't careful enough while pregnant, or who get in the way of a bullet heading towards their uterus.

So, you tell me -- why should pro-choicers adopt this language?

A person is different than a human -- a human with no brain is no longer considered a person, for example. I wouldn't argue that a blastocyst, fetus, etc., isn't human tissue -- of course it's human tissue. It's just not a person for legal purposes -- personhood brings all kinds of rights that fetuses, embryos, etc., shouldn't get in my opinion.
it's not just a legal question, it's also a moral question. And I don't think a 4 week embryo has the same moral claim on the rest of us that a baby, or an 8 month fetus has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
While I have not performed therapeutic abortions, I have managed spontaneous ones circa eight to fifteen weeks or so. And having dealt with the expelled products of conception, I cannot feel that those tiny bits represent a person. A potential person, yeah I can buy into that. For sure. But to me a potential person's rights don't trump the rights of the person carrying the potential person.

I have also managed miscarriages/stillbirths. Those do seem to me to be more like the loss of a person, moreso the more advanced they are.

So where do I personally draw the line between potential person and person? Not sure. But it is sometime after the first trimester, in my opinion.
yes, I have Jess personal experience, but have come to the same conclusion. I am comfortable that a first trimester pregnancy is not a person. A potential person, human life, but not yet a person.

Five months? That's hard. I'm really glad I never carried a fetus with a major birth defect and had to make a decision that hinged on the exact line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Thank you Doc, your insight here is valuable.

Yes, certainly, I'd have no problem with banning 3rd trimester abortions unless the mothers lives was in danger or other special circumstances.
I think most states do ban late abortions, except when the mother is at risk from the pregnancy.
  #75  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:13 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
..

I think most states do ban late abortions, except when the mother is at risk from the pregnancy.
Yes, and that's good, but some states ban them even if the mother is at risk. Or they are trying to do so.
  #76  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:52 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, and that's good, but some states ban them even if the mother is at risk. Or they are trying to do so.
But... but.... if we admitted the fetus is a person, they wouldn't do that! Velocity said so!
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #77  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:53 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Not to get off-topic, but Hitler was hardly a Christian, he was involved in the occult.
No, it was Himmler who was into the occult. Hitler thought it was nonsense.
  #78  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, it was Himmler who was into the occult. Hitler thought it was nonsense.
Well, he listened to astrologers, but yeah, Himmler was a nut on the subject. But yeah Hitler wasnt a Christian.



http://www.astrology.co.uk/news/worldwar2.htm
  #79  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:45 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think both sides of the abortion debate are slowly coming to a consensus on what a fetus is - the pro-life side because they've always held that a fetus is a person, and the pro-choice side because it is - first of all, irrelevant to them, as you point out - and secondly, because the notion that a fetus is just a clump of tissue like an appendix has always been absurd. An appendix has no potential to grow up to go to school, college, work a job, have a family, vote, use Facebook, drive a car, etc.
I'm pro-choice and in my opinion it is absurd to claim a fetus is "just a clump of tissue like an appendix". But it's also absurd to claim a fetus is a human being. It is neither. Instead, it's as you said in your OP: "a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else."

I would say a fetus is not analogous to a person or an appendix. I think almost everyone on both sides would agree that it's at least a potential person but to me that's not the same as a person. Yet considering that a fetus has the potential to become a human being I think it's deliberately inflammatory to equate it to an appendix.

As to the key phrase introduced by the the OP, I can't agree with it as-is because "person" is too loaded a term for this situation. I think a better phrase (that still acknowledges the termination of an existence) is:


"Yes, abortion ends the existence of a special group of cells, but it's a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else."
  #80  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:09 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,880
OP seems to focus on turning a fuzzy word into a word with crisp delineation. A hurricane is different from a gentle breeze, but when does a breeze become a gale? When does a gale become a storm? Language (and especially law) require that firm distinctions be made, but to draw some absolute moral conclusion from the happenstance of the Beaufort scale is a hobgoblin.

Similarly, intent peering at Webster's entry for {per·​son noun \ ˈpər-sᵊn\} is not a path to "moral truth" (although it may be a path lawyers are forced to follow when a statute is written ambiguously).

IIUC, next of kin may be allowed to "pull the plug" on a "person" kept alive by that plug. A fetus's mother may be allowed to "pull the plug" on a "person" kept alive via her umbilical cord. Are these things clearly right or clearly wrong? Life and morality aren't that simple. What's the chance that a comatose plugged-in guy might recover? Is a third-trimester abortion the moral equivalent of a morning-after pill? I don't know. But I shan't seek the answer by peering at a dictionary definition of "person."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
... For the record, I'm pro-life ...
FWIW, after reading the preceding paragraphs of your post, this comment becomes redundant. If you had a sincere desire to develop the pro-choice argument of thread title, those paragraphs would have been phrased quite differently.

Quote:
Because if the pro-choice side ever did use such an argument, it would essentially shut up most pro-life arguments in one fell swoop.
"Shut them up"? Really?? There's been a lot of whoooshing lately and, assuming this was a joke, you should have inserted an emoticon.
  #81  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:06 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
...
I think almost everyone on both sides would agree that it's at least a potential person

Both sides would NOT agree, unless you also define 'at least a potential person' to include adults. You made a good strawman here though, which leads one to take t down while not addressing the argument:

Quote:
but to me that's not the same as a person. Yet considering that a fetus has the potential to become a human being I think it's deliberately inflammatory to equate it to an appendix

The thing is to one side it is a person, not a potential person. And the phrasing potential person is wishy washy nonsense.
  #82  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:10 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
There is no objectively logical reason to declare a fertilized ovum, invisible to the naked eye, to be a fully human person ...
I snipped this because just this alone one could may a case for a fertilized ovum to be fully human. But your next part...



Quote:
...to be a fully human person with the same right to life that a born human person has...
With this addition I agree that the rights are different due to circumstances of environment and sovereignty. Add to that children don't have the same rights as adults , and there is no reason to expect equal rights. But we might talk about universal rights and what they may be. I still think the fetus loses it's life under universal rights.

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-31-2020 at 07:12 AM.
  #83  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:26 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Above all the other reasons, why would I argue something that (I believe) isn't true? For 20+ weeks, the fetus lacks a brain, the bare minimum for it to be a person, since it's the minimum for it to be an entity in its own right....
While I respect this I also disagree with this. My belief is that the human entity can be defined as a soul, the brain is the interface to interpret the senses of the body and do some processing and storage. Though without the brain the soul would not be interfaced to its body in that respect.

I also consider the heart the physical seat of the soul (the heart is not the soul, but it is the physical manifestation from the soul), so there would be understanding of 'home' and 'Love', which I would say qualifies it with the basic wiring for humanity and death of the fetus's body severs this connection.

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-31-2020 at 07:27 AM.
  #84  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:06 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Both sides would NOT agree, unless you also define 'at least a potential person' to include adults. You made a good strawman here though, which leads one to take t down while not addressing the argument:




The thing is to one side it is a person, not a potential person. And the phrasing potential person is wishy washy nonsense.
How is it a strawman? And who in general would disagree that a fetus is a potential person? OK, sure. You can find some nutty malcontent who will insist a human fetus is a actually a potential elephant but I'm afraid that doesn't count.

Wishy-washy nonsense? How so? Do you assert that a fetus is not a potential person?

BTW, 'potential persons' do not include adult humans as they are actual extant persons not merely potential persons.



ETA: I've now read your other posts, kanic, and I think I understand now. You're playing the 'soul card'.

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 01-31-2020 at 08:10 AM.
  #85  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:00 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
While I respect this I also disagree with this. My belief is that the human entity can be defined as a soul, the brain is the interface to interpret the senses of the body and do some processing and storage. Though without the brain the soul would not be interfaced to its body in that respect.

I also consider the heart the physical seat of the soul (the heart is not the soul, but it is the physical manifestation from the soul), so there would be understanding of 'home' and 'Love', which I would say qualifies it with the basic wiring for humanity and death of the fetus's body severs this connection.
At what stage of the developing fetus does the soul enter the body/heart/brain? Where does it come from? Where does it go if the fetus is not carried to term?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #86  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:14 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
At what stage of the developing fetus does the soul enter the body/heart/brain? Where does it come from? Where does it go if the fetus is not carried to term?
-My own belief the soul 'solidifies' itself inside the body at first breath. This is the end of the time in the womb which is biblically not the same as a uterus. While in the womb the fetus is basically not really yet part of our world.

- The soul is a aspect of God and was created a long time ago, or eternal.

- If the fetus is not carried to term it goes back to God pain and death free mostly, however by a free will decision of the fetus, it also can chose death (which is just another path, though less peasant but will eventually end up the same place as we all will )

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-31-2020 at 09:15 AM.
  #87  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:17 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
How is it a strawman? And who in general would disagree that a fetus is a potential person? OK, sure. You can find some nutty malcontent who will insist a human fetus is a actually a potential elephant but I'm afraid that doesn't count.

Wishy-washy nonsense? How so? Do you assert that a fetus is not a potential person?

BTW, 'potential persons' do not include adult humans as they are actual extant persons not merely potential persons.



ETA: I've now read your other posts, kanic, and I think I understand now. You're playing the 'soul card'.
No soul card on this one.

Your strawman is that both sides would agree that a fetus is a potential person. That is incorrect, many would consider a fetus a full person. That is the contention of the right to life side.

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-31-2020 at 09:18 AM.
  #88  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:25 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
-My own belief the soul 'solidifies' itself inside the body at first breath. This is the end of the time in the womb which is biblically not the same as a uterus. While in the womb the fetus is basically not really yet part of our world.

- The soul is a aspect of God and was created a long time ago, or eternal.

- If the fetus is not carried to term it goes back to God pain and death free mostly, however by a free will decision of the fetus, it also can chose death (which is just another path, though less peasant but will eventually end up the same place as we all will )
I realize you can't provide evidence for the above but it's interesting that you side with pro-choice positions despite the obvious complications created by your beliefs.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #89  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:32 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
The rah-rah Christians tell pregnant women that God chose them to be the mother of that baby, so he gave it permission to use her body. Right, God chooses woman to get pregnant via rape, even though he could stop it.

And anti-abortion minister Randy Alcorn states "It is reasonable to expect a person to go through a temporary inconvenience if the only alternative is the death of another person." Yes, pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience. Of course, every time Alcorn mentions adoption, it's always to straight married Christian couples.

Last edited by Annie-Xmas; 01-31-2020 at 09:33 AM.
  #90  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:35 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
How is it a strawman? And who in general would disagree that a fetus is a potential person? OK, sure. You can find some nutty malcontent who will insist a human fetus is a actually a potential elephant but I'm afraid that doesn't count.

Wishy-washy nonsense? How so? Do you assert that a fetus is not a potential person?

BTW, 'potential persons' do not include adult humans as they are actual extant persons not merely potential persons.



ETA: I've now read your other posts, kanic, and I think I understand now. You're playing the 'soul card'.
Going more into this. A potential person would be sperm + egg not combined to many pro-lifers. Once combined it is a person in a certain stage of development, no different then caterpillar/butterfly or tadpole/frog. It's a different development stage and a different environment, but still human and thus still worthy of human respect.
  #91  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:44 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I realize you can't provide evidence for the above but it's interesting that you side with pro-choice positions despite the obvious complications created by your beliefs.
I used to be very religiously pro life, and have argued that point many times on this board. Since then I believe God has revealed what life is for a fetus, what abortion is like for a fetus (generally nothing more then daddy picking you up from daycare) and also has shown me in scripture what God says about this subject, which is revealed, I believe very clearly, by researching what is the 'womb' biblically. A womb is not biblically what we think it is.

The short of it is with all the hub bub we make about abortion, God is sadly laughing as we have nothing at all to do with it, we can't take a fetal person's life, God didn't give us that ability.

The hard part was to realize what a rat-bastard I was, speaking so arrogantly on a topic I didn't understand. That part was ok it itself, however the part which was really difficult was that what I spoke hurt and condemned women, I even had one in tears repent of murder of her unborn due to the words I spoke.

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-31-2020 at 09:44 AM.
  #92  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:47 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Once combined it is a person in a certain stage of development
So you're saying that one person can turn into two separate people (in the case of identical twins)?
  #93  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:51 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I used to be very religiously pro life, and have argued that point many times on this board. Since then I believe God has revealed what life is for a fetus, what abortion is like for a fetus (generally nothing more then daddy picking you up from daycare) and also has shown me in scripture what God says about this subject, which is revealed, I believe very clearly, by researching what is the 'womb' biblically. A womb is not biblically what we think it is.

The short of it is with all the hub bub we make about abortion, God is sadly laughing as we have nothing at all to do with it, we can't take a fetal person's life, God didn't give us that ability.

The hard part was to realize what a rat-bastard I was, speaking so arrogantly on a topic I didn't understand. That part was ok it itself, however the part which was really difficult was that what I spoke hurt and condemned women, I even had one in tears repent of murder of her unborn due to the words I spoke.
I reject your entire belief system. But if you say that you no longer judge and condemn women for the choices they make about their bodies, I consider that a positive evolution in your behavior/attitude towards women.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #94  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:57 AM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Because if the pro-choice side ever did use such an argument, it would essentially shut up most pro-life arguments in one fell swoop. It would be acknowledging the pro-life argument (that a fetus is a person) while also brushing it aside at the same time. The pro-life side would then have a hard time making much further argument.
Why are we spending so much space on discussing an OP that has this nugget of "logic" in it?
  #95  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:15 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
Why are we spending so much space on discussing an OP that has this nugget of "logic" in it?
Habit, mostly. Somebody is wrong on the internet.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #96  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:32 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
I imagine maybe they don't because that could also be used to justify capital punishment, and a lot of pro-choicers are anti-capital punishment. An argument about abortion really shouldn't lead into an argument about capital punishment, but you know it inevitably will.
  #97  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:36 AM
Dark Sponge's Avatar
Dark Sponge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 52
It would take away the pro-life argument that the pro-choice side is being unscientific, but it ultimately changes nothing.

The vast majority of pro-lifers are not trying to oppress women but rather find abortion as appealing as modern day slavery and are just as likely to vote for it.

Last edited by Dark Sponge; 01-31-2020 at 10:37 AM.
  #98  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:43 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
It's not "tortured definition-logic": it's acknowledging the complexity of reality.

There is no objectively logical reason to declare a fertilized ovum, invisible to the naked eye, to be a fully human person with the same right to life that a born human person has. If you hold some kind of supernatural belief in "personhood" as a quality conferred by some divine being at the moment of conception, then okay, you consider a fertilized ovum a person. But that's not a reason for anybody who doesn't share your beliefs to consider it a person.

Biologically, human beings continuously develop during gestation from invisible nonsentient clumps of cells to very high-functioning infants. There is no objectively obvious point in that development where "becoming a person" happens, because all of the characteristics and abilities that we associate with personhood are constantly changing in a continuous process.

So it's up to us as members of a society to decide where we think we should draw the line between "not sufficiently a person to have a protected right to life" and "sufficiently a person to have a protected right to life".

If you really imagine that all people, even pro-choice advocates, secretly agree with you in drawing that line at the moment of conception but the pro-choice advocates are just refusing to admit it, you're deluding yourself.
We don't really know where that line, though. Scientists make a guess based on how we tend to define a person, but we really don't know. Pro-lifers prefer to air on the side of caution and say, "since we don't know, it's best not to guess." Pro-choicers draw a line in the sand. Both sides make sense. But choicers are branded as baby killers, while lifers are branded as women-haters

I'd like to know what pro-choicers feel about the violent death of a wanted fetus. Say a pregnant woman is mugged, and being hit in the stomach resulted in the fetus dying. How should the mugger be charged? I'd personally like to see them charged with at least manslaughter. But since that fetus isn't legally deemed a person, how can they? What is the physical difference between a fetus that is wanted and a fetus that isn't?
  #99  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:44 AM
ZPG Zealot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Wasn't it uncovered that Margaret Sanger wanted abortion because it would get rid of black babies?
No, that's a lie the anti-abortion movement tries to spread by quoting one of her letters out of context.

Last edited by ZPG Zealot; 01-31-2020 at 10:45 AM.
  #100  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:48 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
So you're saying that one person can turn into two separate people (in the case of identical twins)?

Looking at the cellular level of development: I would say that the fertilized egg was both one and the other person at the same time, so both would share a common origin. So just fall into another state of human development.

Looking at the soul level: I would say IDK, but could speculate about it. In the Bible God made a person out of the side (or rib) of another, so it seems possible to split a person into 2 people.


I can see it going either way, one soul which contained enough to divide into 2, or 2 to begin with. I have not really thought about that.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017