Abortion

[Schlauch Mann]

.
8 pages before Godwin's Law takes effect. Not too bad.

So, it's my fault that the Nazi's are a well known example that legality != morality?

Legality is different from morality, but it's enormously important in real life.

"Important in life" doesn't equate to "holds much weight in this discussion".

But in any case, your analogy is specious. As I noted, we have proper and legal ways to change our laws if you believe they are corrupt.

Irrelevant to whether or not abortion is moral.

Our country is not yet a totalitarian dictatorship. Though I keep in mind The Handmaid's Tale scenario--ideological zealots who would impose authoritarian restrictions on women's reproductive lives.

I also like to keep in mind idealogical zealots who would impose authoritarian control over the unborn, allowing their disposal as garbage at will.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I also like to keep in mind idealogical zealots who would impose authoritarian control over the unborn, allowing their disposal as garbage at will.

If there are no persons, then there is no authoritarian control.

Demonstrate that zygotes are persons, and we'll discuss.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

If there are no persons, then there is no authoritarian control.
Demonstrate that zygotes are persons, and we'll discuss.

Once again, you haven't demonstrated that they aren't beyond a certainty of "maybe". I think human life is valuable enough to warrant assurance better than "maybe".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Once again, you haven't demonstrated that they aren't beyond a certainty of "maybe". I think human life is valuable enough to warrant assurance better than "maybe".

I've given you criteria. If you have evidence of something else, it's on you to demonstrate. Speaking of maybes, I am under no obligation to consider your imaginary concepts of spirit and soul.

Provide evidence or you are the one being authoritarian, imposing your will on those that disagree with you.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

I've given you criteria.

Which, once again, amounts to nothing more than "maybe".

I am under no obligation to consider your imaginary concepts of spirit and soul.

Oh, so you have proof it's just "imaginary" then? Otherwise, I'm under no obligation to consider your opinion.

Provide evidence or you are the one being authoritarian, imposing your will on those that disagree with you.

I'm not imposing my will on anyone. Where was anyone forced to accept my view? I don't see that happening anywhere.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Which, once again, amounts to nothing more than "maybe".


Oh, so you have proof it's just "imaginary" then? Otherwise, I'm under no obligation to consider your opinion.


I'm not imposing my will on anyone. Where was anyone forced to accept my view? I don't see that happening anywhere.

If you are voting to restrict abortion rights, you are. If not, well good for you.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

If you are voting to restrict abortion rights, you are. If not, well good for you.

So, forcing more of an anti-abortion rule on society is authoritarian; while forcing more of a pro-abortion rule on society would not be authoritarian.

Riiiiiight.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, forcing more of an anti-abortion rule on society is authoritarian; while forcing more of a pro-abortion rule on society would not be authoritarian.

Riiiiiight.

Restricting person's rights on the basis of religion is authoritarian. However, legal and libertarian abortion laws might be nobody (in the west) is forced to have one.

Another's freedom has nothing to do with yours.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

Restricting person's rights on the basis of religion is authoritarian.

No it isn't. Any such law is made by popular vote. No one is forced to vote a particular way, and no one is prohibited from attempts to challenge or change laws. That's not authoritarian.

Another's freedom has nothing to do with yours.

Yet under many cases, you & many others would use your own freedom to deny the freedom of the unborn.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No it isn't. Any such law is made by popular vote. No one is forced to vote a particular way, and no one is prohibited from attempts to challenge or change laws. That's not authoritarian.


Yet under many cases, you & many others would use your own freedom to deny the freedom of the unborn.

There are no persons among the unborn. You are free to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

A blastocyst may be human, but it's not a person.

Is it just me?
Or does that not make sense?
Might be time to regroup?
M-Bob

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it just me?
Or does that not make sense?
Might be time to regroup?
M-Bob

I've provided criteria that I think is a means to understanding. But, consider: is a skin cell human? Yes. Is it a person? No.

 

[coffee4u]

A brain dead body on life-support is not a person.

Is that how you would refer to your mother, brother or best friend on life support? As 'that human' and not 'my mother/brother/friend'? I doubt it. A person on life support with no brain function is still a person as well as still human, this is why the decision to not resuscitate is such a hard one

What makes a person a person?

What makes a person a person is their spirit and soul.

When does the brain develop? Can one be a person without a brain? More importantly, when does consciousness develop?

The brain begins to develop at 23 days gestation and all organs are in place by 8 weeks. The foetus can hear at 18 weeks and by 24 weeks shows a response to people they hear regularly such as the father's voice.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

There are no persons among the unborn.

Once again, a claim that you can't demonstrate as true beyond a certainty of "maybe". So apparently you just don't value human life high enough to warrant assurance beyond "maybe".

But, consider: is a skin cell human? Yes. Is it a person? No.

Is a skin cell a human being? Nope. Are the unborn? Yep. After conception, there is no point in development before which science can say, "this is not a human being," but merely a human being at different stages of development.

 

[NxNW]

Personhood is an ongoing process our whole lives. The zygote has yet to develop its brain but the genetic part of its personality is already there waiting to develop.

But until it develops, you don't have a human being.

 

[NxNW]

Is a skin cell a human being? Nope. Are the unborn? Yep. After conception, there is no point in development before which science can say, "this is not a human being," but merely a human being at different stages of development.

I've already made that claim and defended it. When do the lives of identical twins and triplets begin? It can't be at conception, because human beings are distinct and quantifiable. At conception, you can't differentiate between a zygote that will result in one birth vs twins vs triplets. The lack of quantifiability at conception means means you don't have human being(s) at that moment.

Once you establish that much, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. The best place to draw the line for me is when you have uniquely-human brain activity, which is around 5 months. Note that muscular electrical activity (which starts earlier) does not count.

 

[coffee4u]

But until it develops, you don't have a human being.

According to you. According to me, it is from conception.

Since I don't see 'World leader' or God in your bio, guess what, I have as much right to my opinion as you do to yours.

 

[Tinker Grey]

According to you. According to me, it is from conception.

Since I don't see 'World leader' or God in your bio, guess what, I have as much right to my opinion as you do to yours.

Right. And you don't get to restrict people's freedoms based on your opinion. Our opinion, at least, impinges on no person. If you think otherwise it is incumbent on you to come up with something better than opinion.

 

[NxNW]

According to you. According to me, it is from conception.

I've already explained several times why you're wrong.

 

[coffee4u]

Right. And you don't get to restrict people's freedoms based on your opinion. Our opinion, at least, impinges on no person. If you think otherwise it is incumbent on you to come up with something better than opinion.

But you are infringing on a person's right, the baby's rights to its life.