I’m pretty sure they would.
…Also, on a side note, I just noticed curlcoat is from California. That would explain his/her abysmal display of scientific knowledge.
Oh, look at the pro-choicers trying to speak around us pro-lifers. How cute.
Yes. Don’t you love how they talk about us as if we aren’t in the room?
How** flippant **of them LOL
It’s funny how they can call us anti-choice instead of pro-life and we don’t go all crazy. Yet if you call them pro-you know what they flip out.
Just got back from a day of cherry-picking:D
I wouldn’t call it flippant. More of an attempt to not have to defend the indefensible.
I just find it funny how they all ran away. Apparently, facts are anathema to being pro-choice. Such a shame, too, because there were many things I wanted an answer to which have gone ignored for quite some time (though they seem to have no qualms about demanding you answer their questions!).
Trying to justify the killing of another life under the guise of women’s rights is just beyond comprehension.
Pro-abortion is not accurate. I couldn’t care less if another abortion ever was conducted because no one ever wanted or need one. I couldn’t care less if anyone was against abortion and chose to never have one again. As I’ve explained a multitude of times, pro-choice means exactly that- that we stand for the right to choose the right path for ourselves. Whether you agree with that path or not, that is what the platform of the pro-choice movement means. It’s a definition, not an opinion.
Anti-choice, while agree was born from political rhetoric and basically as a reaction to the term pro-life, is fundamentally an accurate statement. Anti-choicers want to eliminate abortion as a viable choice.
It seems willfully obtuse to keep overlooking these definitions when making your arguments.
I see you decided to pass on the thinking before you post. No, this
was not a legitimate question. The fairly obvious meaning was that not all zygotes get to develop , even without considering abortion.
I’m restating 3 pro-choice arguments since strawmen fly all over the place. Note these are not all the arguments.
-
Since science does NOT define a person and rational argument does not lead to a consensus (although most biologists would laugh at the notion of an embryo being a baby; there are precise definitions for a reason), the government should not interfere with a woman’s choice.
-
Since government cannot be involved on a case-by-case basis regarding the health of the mother or severity of congenital defects, government should not interfere with a woman’s choice based on consultation with her doctor.
-
Since the government already does NOT interfere with other people’s bodies even to save someone’s lives, government should not interfere with a woman’s choice.
Now on to OMG’s confusing posts. I think this will be the last because he has the same inability to see the whole argument as classy.
This is your problem I was not being ‘sly’. You were the one accusing Cosmosdan of ‘conflating’ human beings and persons, after Cosmosdan carefully spelled out the types of human entities in the argument and what science defines. Perhaps you don’t understand what conflate means but your sentence suggests that Cosmosdan wrongly used human being and person interchangebly. I was asking if you think there are separate definitions as your post suggests.
There are grades of coma and some people can be in a minimally conscious state (MCS) while the brain (or other serious trauma) repairs. The persistent vegetative state (PVS), not merely vegetative state, is defined by a lack of awareness due to a severe and irreversible loss of the cerebral cortex. They appear to be awake but they do not perceive their environment. Last time I read, doctors would wait for a certain period of time (a year?) before they would diagnose it as persistent. The patients can have some movement and have facial expressions but their body is driven by the brain stem. Terri Schiavo’s autopsy showed that her brain had deteriorated so bad, she was essentially blind demonstrating that when her eyes ‘followed’ a balloon, they were not seeing anything. Cerebral cortex development doesn’t start extensively until late second trimester. That’s why I suggested that a fetus prior to that would have some similarities to someone in a PVS.
No, you completely misunderstood my post as you seem to misunderstand everyone else’s. When a pro-choice is using personhood in their argument, they are interchanging the terms human/human being/person. They have not changed their stance. It is clear that they mean person by the context of their argument. Their definition of a person may vary and several people in this thread nicely spelled it out the logic behind their definition of person which you chose to ignore in your strawman (which, BTW, is why people called your post a strawman). Please go back and read the thread if you’re really interested. Cosmosdan and others have spelled out how science does NOT give a definition of a person but it provides a framework for some people’s definition of a person.
If one’s definition of a person is an embryo, that definition must be based on the presence of human DNA and the potential to develop into a baby. This is not a scientific definition of a person because there is none. The argument of the pro-choice person is that it is a deficient definition of a person because it involves potential or future possibilities as opposed to what it is at the moment (which is scientifically a human embryo). This is why pro-choice people think their argument is more secure because it doesn’t require future developments. Then the pro-choice person addresses what would make for a person.
With regards to some pro-choice definitions of a person, they may use some kind of sentience to define personhood. This may occur some time late 2nd trimester. Why do they think a level of brain function is important? Because that’s what makes humans (and probably other apes) unique. Other people, like me, don’t even bother with definitions of personhood (although I understand them) because I’m more interested in minimizing suffering in making my personal moral choices. Therefore, I have mixed feelings about 3rd trimester abortions but have no problem with 2nd and 3rd. However, I would never impose my personal views on another woman.
Other pro-choice people use developmental milestones to identify rights, such as viability or simply birth. These people may not find a difficult personhood argument compelling because they don’t want to give a fetus rights (the right to hijack someone’s body) that other people don’t even have. It was stated to you plainly in several posts that a “right to life” simply does not exist if it encroaches on the right of someone else to their own bodily integrity.
This is why you look foolish with your pro-choice strawman argument. They are varied and require context. They cannot be pinned down to black and white arguments, like most of reality. This is why these people are pro-choice.
heatmiserfl: what an eloquent and well thought out post! Seriously- that was so well written! Kudos, man.
I’d be delighted if abortion was no longer necessary. I would be very happy if every woman who was pregnant wanted that pregnancy, and if it didn’t pose problems for her. It would be fantastic if every pregnancy was a cause of joy, instead of a cause of anguish.
Let me know when and where that happens, please.
I don’t need the help. That wasn’t what I was commenting on. I actually don’t mind a flippant if I’m given some indication that the poster actually grasped what I was saying. That didn’t happen.
Yes, put me on that alert as well.
OK- sorry. Misunderstood your intent.
double-post weirdness
He was a close friend of John Paul II and a devout Catholic, too. I wouldn’t expect you to accept a Planned Parenthood cite, especially for something as axiomatic as a definition of something that literally cannot be measured.
Also, count me another one who’d be just as happy if society and science advanced to a point whereby abortion were never necessary. Call THAT pro-abortion.
Like I said to OMG’s ridiculous strawman about pro-choicers not thinking babies brought happiness, I am pro-choice, and I chose my six-month-old, who at this point should be made illegal because her cuteness could stop an entire regiment.
As many have pointed out to you already, you do not know what sentience means if you think it requires self awareness. It just means the ability to perceive sensation. And it has nothing to do with newborns or your desire to conflate the issue of abortion with the non sequitur of infanticide. A fetus is not a person, a newborn is. It is much more involved than just “fetus isn’t sentient, let’s kill it”. Your slippery slope garbage that then concludes that we must all support infanticide is juvenile and ignorant. And you’re quite the fucking hypocrite to be criticizing people for their rudeness, bitch.
So what if she was raped or was the victim of incest? What if she’s using several forms of birth control and still gets pregnant?
You do realize that even scientists can disagree about things, right?
You know, lemons into lemonade and all that.
You’re still wrong although I guess this answers the question of whether you’ll admit it.
Whether it was de facto legal or specifically ruled upon is irrelevant to my statement being factually correct and you continuing to claim otherwise.
What I thought was most interesting was the, er, unique interpretation of science… 