No, after reading this thread, I realized that most pro-choicers are stupid and incapable of using (non-faulty) logic. At any rate, I tend to back my assertions with evidence. It’s better that way. Perhaps you should go back through the thread? To see who is and isn’t backing up their claims. And just because you don’t like the not-so-hypothetical discussion, doesn’t mean it’s untrue. I mean, look at that cosmosdan fellow. We’re following the script to a tee. I’m just waiting for him/her to get around to explaining to me what consciousness has to do with anything.
A pro-choicer talking about self-evident statements? In this thread? REALLY??? lol, again, I back all of my claims, whereas in this thread you’ve got pro-choicers making self-evident statements galore or flat out disregarding those things which do not work in their favor.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No I did not.
[/quote]
Yes, you did.
Abortion was de facto legal in some provinces on account of not being restricted, not because it was allowed by law. The two are completely different.
Again, no I didn’t. You’re really barking up the wrong tree if you’re going to try to “school” me in abortion laws in the U.S., for real.
See, ladies and gentlemen, this really is a straw man. As I pointed out to Bryan (and no I’m not ignoring your post) prior to Roe v. Wade there was no distinction between person and human. That distinction only arose after Roe v. Wade. Why would they view an embryo or a zygote as a human non-person, a concept which was 100 years after their time?
No worries. We’ll sedate them first. Then it’ll be okay!
Please explain to this biochemist the problem you have with Cosmodan’s statement. Are you defining human beings and person’s as distinguishable entities? Which entity does a human embryo or fetus fall under? Can you explain why a human embryo has more of a right to develop into a human person than a born human person has to her own body. Also, can you explain why this right is not extended to born human persons (ie. people cannot be forced to donate blood or other tissues to save a person’s life).
The argument is more than mere consciousness. Coma patients may lack full consciousness but a person in a persistent vegetative state in which the cortex is lacking, has neither sapience or sentience. A fetus would be like the latter.
Regardless, there has never been a movement of goalposts. If personhood is part of a pro-choice person’s argument, then when they say human being, they mean person. When a pro-choice person discusses consciousness, some are referring to sentience but some sapience. It depends on their philosophy. Some pro-choice people do not regard personhood important because they do not think extra rights should be afforded to a fetus that is not afforded to people who are born (ie. forcing someone else to donate tissue for them).
Your ‘evidence’ is solely your opinion. Besides that, you have spend most of your time harping on the fine distinctions in the concept of personhood, and have done nothing to address the numerous other facets of the debate. Say you get your wish and abortion is suddenly completely verboten. Do you allow abortions in the case of rape or incest? Do you think it’s fine that the incidence of dangerous illegal abortions will undoubtedly skyrocket? Does it bother you that countless women will be forced to sacrifice their career, education, and even the security of their existing children to carry pregnancies that they don’t want? Does it bother you that pregnancy carries risks and can be fatal (does describing it as an ‘inconvenience’ really convince you that it is)?
Do you think everyone should be legally bound to donate blood or organs to their family members when they need them, regardless of the risks to the donor? If not, why is that not a logical extension of your stance?
You said ‘abortion was prohibited for thousands of years’. Now you say it was actually de facto legal in places. And you want to paint yourself as an expert on the history of abortion?
The point is and remains, you made some claim that science tells protestors that a zygote and/or an embryo is a human being. Science does no such thing, in the sense that matters for the abortion question. Science simply doesn’t address at all, the issue of what is just and moral concerning abortion rights. So claiming protestors are backed by science is simply incorrect, and a semantic argument that fails when we address the nits and bolts.
You are wrong and I’m wondering if you’ll admit it. Making the claim “It was legal until 1867” does not include the word everywhere. You read something into that wasn’t there and avoided the larger more relevant point in the process.
Stop taking offense when people say you are showing ignorance. You are. This post is proof of it. There is a yawing immense difference between ignorant and stupid.
You are ignorant of some facts. Why not be open to learning more facts? Admitting ignorance is fair. Denying ignorance is just plain…stupid.
You’re still wrong and it would be swell if you’d just admit it. Actually you do admit it, and then try to qualify it so it’s not really an admission.
Here’s trhe admission that demonstrates the statement you repeatedly called false, was in fact correct.
Here’s the failed attempt at qualifying your admission.
The more relevant point is that abortion was practiced and the general public knew it and accepted it, until different groups for different reasons other than the inherent value of a human life, began to lobby to have the laws changed. This spanned a period of a decades. Why is it relevant? To demonstrate that society as a whole has not embraced the moral argument you are making and society has regularly not judged a zygote or embryo to be a human being.
If you know about them that’s better. If you have something to refute what’s in the link I provided I’ll be glad to look at it. The relevant point to me is that the moral view that a zygote or embryo is a human being, and woman and society are morally obligated in some way to do all they can to bring every pregnancy to term, out of some idea about the inherent value of human life, simply has not been the consistent view of society. It also appears to me that many of the laws passed that restricted abortion, were not motivated by that moral view.
Maybe I’m missing the point you’re trying to make. Mine is that if abortion was practiced and somewhat accepted by our society in the early years, it’s only reasonable that people did not view an embryo , the same as a person.
Why, thank you. However, much of the polling information you’ve provided, particularly from Polling Report, still seems to support that those in favor of abortion and those not in favor of abortion in most or all cases are neck and neck with those who feel it should sometimes or always be illegal. I’m assuming “most cases” aren’t limited to those factors you listed earlier.
What I found particularly interesting in your links, though, was the LA Times story, which indicated that most people realize that outlawing abortions would not reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States. What’s your take on that? If outlawing abortions isn’t expected to lower the rate of abortions, why do it? Is it just a symbolic act to you? Or does the woman not deserve to live or have medical care if she’s willing to have an abortion?
Would you please go back to #1359 and take a look at the scenarios presented there?
One more time: It is NOT as simple as you make it out to be. Yes, you are oversimplifying a complex situation.
At least she decided not to abort her Downs baby. I know fully well it is Down Syndrome I was typing my response quickly and left the word syndrome out. I don’t need a link I am fully aware of that it is:rolleyes:
What is your problem? Now you’re just nitpicking. Any normal person would understand that Downs means down syndrome FFS.
It’s also called TRISOMY 21. I respect her for continuing on with her pregnancy.
You’ve got nothing else in your head but hot air so I forgive you for the incredibly rude post:rolleyes:
Not that your attitude dignifies a response but I will explain it to you so read very carefully mkay?
Sentience is to be self-aware. Many people on this thread have stated that it is an integral part of being a person. They argue that the fetus is not sentient and therefore not a person. As a consequence the fetus does not have the same right as a person.
A newborn is not sentient. Therefore it deos not have the same right either so you must then support infanticide. A mother has a choice to kill her newborn then. Do you realize how stupid that is?Got it?:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
It’s a legitimate question which you can’t answer. It has a better chance of as YOU say “developing into a person” if the mother doesn’t abort it. I still say it is a person though.
How very sly of you. You want me to explain the difference between a human being and a human person when you’ve yet to define what a human person, since you brought it up, is and why a human person differs from a human being? No, I don’t think so. That burden would be on you, thanks. This is precisely what I mean by pro-choicers treating their arguments as self-evident.
See, if that’s the best you can do, then you might as well just stop arguing, because you’re already behind the 8-ball.
So that’s it? That’s your grand argument? I was expecting something a bit more thought out. But oh well. It is what it is.
The above goes to show how little you know. A coma is worse than a vegetative state. Individuals in a vegetative state have a high level of arousal, but no awareness, while individuals in a coma have neither any awareness nor arousal. In fact, since we’re on the topic, did you know that people who are asleep or are under the influence of anaesthesia are similar to comatose patients in both arousal and awareness? And since it’s pretty impossible to be either sentient or sapient without being aware, then I guess that means people in said states aren’t really persons. Go figure!
(Really. Am I, like, the only one who looks crap up?)
So first the pro-choicer starts off by asserting that the unborn aren’t humans. When the pro-lifer points out that science says the pro-choicer is wrong, the pro-choicer then claims that (s)he was really talking about personhood. When the pro-lifer points out that if person and human are synonymous, and that science defines what it is to be a human and that science defines the unborn at all gestational ages as humans, that this must mean that the unborn are persons as well, the pro-choicer claims that person and human are not similar, meaning (s)he was engaging in a willful conflation of topics-- a fallacy. Of course, I went over this already in my not-so-hypothetical conversation between a pro-lifer and pro-choicer which to which all the pro-choicers screamed straw man, so no need to rehash it.
So now your argument has devolved into one of personal beliefs regarding personhood? Hah, really? Fine. So you agree that everyone is entitled to their own definition of personhood, yes?
[QUOTE=Meyer6]
Your ‘evidence’ is solely your opinion.
[/quote]
No, it’s based on the dialogue in this thread.
No, actually, most of my time has been spent pointing out that the arguments pro-choicers use are either not logically consistent, or they lead to some rather strange and unnerving conclusions. Plus, I can’t say I too much of care about those “other” facets of the debate, since most of them don’t address the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion. If abortion is wrong, very few of those things matter (and the things which do matter account for, like, 6% of all abortions).
No one has to qualify anything.
Okay. So it’s clearly evident you didn’t quite grasp what I said. Do you not know what it means to be de facto legal? De facto means that something occurs without explicitly being allowed, or even disallowed, by the law. So yes, abortions were done in the 19th century, but it wasn’t until 1967 when Colorado amended its laws did they become legal in the U.S.
Okay. So your argument has gone from “abortion was legal and personal in this country until around 1867” (which is 100%, factually incorrect) to something about quickening, the 19th century, how society viewed the early fetus and that the real reason for wanting to restrict abortion to say nothing about protecting the unborn or respecting fetal life? Is that so? Taken from the Roe v. Wade:
…Oh, but that’s probably nothing but religious dogma, right?
Are you insinuating that if something is practiced that it means it’s accepted by society? I can think of numerous things which are done in our society that are looked down upon (i.e., having an extra marital affair, and even being brash enough to advertise it in the newspaper).
[QUOTE=overlyverbose]
Why, thank you. However, much of the polling information you’ve provided, particularly from Polling Report, still seems to support that those in favor of abortion and those not in favor of abortion in most or all cases are neck and neck with those who feel it should sometimes or always be illegal. I’m assuming “most cases” aren’t limited to those factors you listed earlier.
[/quote]
How about you do this, then? Why don’t you go and find some source which shows that the majority would allow favor an abortion for cases outside of rape, incest, maternal health and fetal defects. Good luck with that.
If legalizing abortion caused the abortion rate to increase, why would making abortion illegal not cause the abortion rate to decrease?
The part he’s commenting on is saying “into a frog?”. If you have an argument, lay it out logically, not with flippant little statements that make you look foolish. Plus, I addressed it in my post, right above his, I believe.
Happily, most people I surround myself with aren’t, so it doesn’t come up. However, on occasion my kids will talk to me that way, and yes, I will point out that they are being flippant and they seem to comprehend its meaning just fine.
Again, person was synonymous with human. They were denied the rights of citizens.
In the text of Roe v. Wade:
I’m perfectly willing to say let’s ban abortion and get all the details worked out over the next one hundred years.
Oh, I get that you’re indifferent to the realities. In this case, though, the killing of someone is contingent on a woman choosing not to continue a pregnancy. It doesn’t really matter if she’s wealthy (and could support the child if she wanted to) or there were numerous people standing by to adopt. It’s her choice, I figure. Taking away that choice has certain costs, both to her and society, for benefits of dubious value.
[/quote]
It’s her choice to do what? Kill another entity because it’s in her convenience to do so? Ehhh, no. Choice is a misnomer. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. No one has free choice to choose to do anything they want irrespective of the effects it has on another. If anything, as far as pregnancy goes, choice comes before the fact, not after it (sex).
Yes. Surely, you wouldn’t argue otherwise. I don’t think you’ve really thought the entire thing through if you think that being responsible for a situation means being able to resolve that situation any way you see fit.
A moral blackhole is a situation in which people argue that morality is entirely dependent on the individual engaging in an action.
