I don’t regard any organism as “human” unless it possesses at least some level of consciousness and capacity for thought. The exact point of development at which an organism makes the transformation to “human” is impossible to pinpoint exactly, but the lack of an adequately developed brain to allow the capacity for consciousness to exist qualifies as “not yet human” from my perspective.
Can you do better than just your opinion? JThunder offered medical cites that point to a new unique human life at conception. I provided a cite that essentially does the same thing. Can you provide non pro-choice, medically based cites that stipulate that the organism created at conception is NOT human?
…with whom I am pleased and thankful to agree about many things, but not this one.
Beagledave’s response to the questions you asked seems pretty good to me. In Beagledave and JustinH, I think I have found a couple of other folks with whom I am pleased and thankful to agree about many things, including this one.
I guess there are two things that it’s hard for me to accept, with regard to the pro-choice position and the present state of affairs:
First, that the difference between me and a blastula is actually one of kind. It occurs to me that I was once a blastula – and later a fetus – but I cannot make sense of the notion that I was once actually something other than human. “Blastula”, and “fetus” are just words we use to describe humans at a very early stage of development, just as “infant” and “teenager” are words we use to describe humans in later stages of development. It seems to me that many folks who are pro-choice use terms like “blastula” and “fetus” as if they were as different from humans as pigeons or oranges. I can’t get on board with that.
I know that you and I don’t necessarily disagree on this one, but everyone else keeps giving their explanations of this kind of stuff, so I figure I’ll do the same. Plus, you cannot possibly understand how much I enjoy hearing myself talk. 
Second, I don’t accept that the present public policy about abortion represents a reasonable middle ground on the question. I guess this is where you and I do disagree. It seems to me that opposition to abortion is meaningless, if it doesn’t actually say something about how things ought to be done in the practical world. What the present state of affairs, re abortion policy says to those of us who oppose abortion is: “Look, this is a really sensitive question, where answers that are acceptable to everyone are darn near impossible to come by, so, what we’re going to do is make abortion on demand universally legal, in all states, at all times, and we’re going to assert that it is a fundamental human right.” In practice, that represents the adoption of an absolute stance on all of the ‘really sensitive questions’. Simply telling people who don’t like abortions that they shouldn’t have one doesn’t really accomplish much.
The closest thing that I can imagine right now to finding a middle ground would be to allow individual states or counties or municipalities to make their own laws about abortion. At least this course of action would grant a modicum of self determination to folks on both sides of the question. After all – under a federalist paradigm like the one I have described – if I happen to be pro-life and live in an area that is pro-choice, I could always move. Or, I could try to get elected and persuade folks to change. Whatever I choose, I wouldn’t be forced to live in an area where someone else’s views of morality has been legislated on me, or enforced by judicial fiat.
How’s that?
–B
I’m guessing that pro choice folks would consider the “right to choose” to be something of such great importance, as to be FEDERALLY protected (much like civil rights for African Americans, or girls in sports or…)
I have a hard time believing very many pro choice folks would sign on to such a plan.
Either would I…I think that the right to life is more important than the right to vote…or to have girls play in school sports…or other federally mandated rights.
i hate this. Everyone seems to agree to some degree. I don’t think I have seen that in many threads. Its no fun anymore.
Actually I do wonder what this says about a society that allows such killing. Does it devalue life and weaken our moral fibre? I guess thats the topic for another thread. but how to start it without getting into a pro-life vs. pro-abortion argument?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by beagledave *
**
Well, I gave it a shot. Certainly – as you have pointed out – there’s not much philosophical common ground on this one. But we do still have to find a way to live together, in spite of our differences.
I agree with you about the logical primacy of the right to life. But I think we have to be brutally honest about where we find ourselves right now. As things are presently configured, the primacy of the right to life can never be anything more than logical. Abortion is – de jure – a constitutionally mandated way of life.
I just figured that by converting to a federalist paradigm on abortion, we would at least be taking a step in the right direction. Sometimes, you have to take a half a loaf where you can get it, and then come back for more later. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that – if we adopted my proposal – those abortions that took place would suddenly become morally acceptable. But, democracy is a very messy sort of thing, and change can be a long time coming. I was just trying to work within the system, which is flawed, but better than the options.
You are probably right that lots of pro-choicers wouldn’t be terribly enthusiastic about my idea. They already have the whole loaf. Why would they want to give any of it up? I hadn’t thought that far into it. But if nothing else, their refusal would at least serve to demonstrate how many directions traffic travels in on the street that’s called “KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION”.
–B
Very true…which makes me wince even more at AHunter’s cavalier (I think) attitude about teenage sex…I would hope that the prevention side of the equation would be a point of agreement for the 2 camps. That, and refining adoption laws (with, I hope, more groups like One Church One Child stepping up to the plate to encourage more adoption of special needs or minority kids) are 2 ways to reduce the need for abortion.
true again…
I would suspect that some pro choicers would object to a federalist approach for economic reasons as well…stipulating that poor women would be harmed the most by more difficult (read farther away) access to abortion.
The federalist approach is what we sort of had before Roe v Wade anyway…it was the pro choice camp that pushed for nationwide “choice” through Roe…I would suspect that, like you said, they already have a full loaf…why would they settle for half?