Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Ever asked yourself why it's not a casual decision? If you want a tooth out, you go to the dentist. If you want to make yourself "unpregnant", you go to the abortion doc. Right?

Don't be facetious, you cannot compare the two.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

That sounds well, but abortion-by-choice is neither a means of family planning or sexual education.

Nor did the user suggest it was. However there is a common tendency to suggest that pro-choice people are "pro-abortion" with people who are against abortion (like yourself) pretending that they are the ones fighting to have zero abortions.

The reality is different to this. Many, if not most, people who are pro-choice are still anti-abortion. I want heart bypasses to be available to anyone who needs them for example. I ALSO want to do everything possible to reduce the number of people who need one.

The same is true of abortion. Those who want them openly available to anyone who wants to apply ALSO want to increase access to contraception (more widely available, zero VAT status, etc) and increased sex education and more.

So when anyone sees pro-choice speakers being painted as if they are pro-abortion, or painted as if they are not the ones who also want abortions not to happen, then alarm bells should go off that you are being subjected to baseless propaganda.

Alas I get the feeling, though moreso in the US than Ireland, that the people who are against abortion are also the people who are against things like sex education in schools... usually under the ridiculous banner of suggesting that sex education somehow destroys "innocence" and children need to be protected from all knowledge of the subject as if the subject is disgusting and horrific and will scar children for life.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

Ever asked yourself why it's not a casual decision? If you want a tooth out, you go to the dentist. If you want to make yourself "unpregnant", you go to the abortion doc. Right?

because leaving a tooth to rot means you have some bad pain/infection.

continuing an unwanted pregnancy against your will ends up with a child.

two very different outcomes.

Lollipops23

Randy Anders wrote: »

Bit abstract here, but if we are all to be pro-life, should we not condemn the killing of animals for the purpose of food production , or the killing of any animals for any reason?

I think (please correct if I'm wrong pro-lifers), that they put the emphasis on human life being sacred- moreso than animals.

Only I don't believe that a clump of cells constitutes a human being.

yutta

old hippy wrote: »

Don't be facetious, you cannot compare the two.

Why not?

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

Why not?

see my comment above- they have very different results if left untreated.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Why not?

Let's compare your god with old nick, then. I see no difference, can you explain it to me?

Since we're playing the naive straw man bs game now. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

skregs

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I think (please correct if I'm wrong pro-lifers), that they put the emphasis on human life being sacred- moreso than animals.

Only I don't believe that a clump of cells constitutes a human being.

And you obviously don't think a 24 week old foetus that reacts to light, sound and feels pain constitutes a human being either.

Lollipops23

skregs wrote: »

And you obviously don't think a 24 week old foetus that reacts to light, sound and feels pain constitutes a human being either.

I'm actually quite firm in being a non-supporter of late-term abortions- anything over 25 weeks is very murky water indeed.


If they more than likely can't live outside the mother, the mother's choice is paramount.

edit- in 90% of cases there's no need whatsoever for a late term abortion. The vast, vast majority are before 16 weeks.

parrai

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm actually quite firm in being a non-supporter of late-term abortions- anything over 25 weeks is very murky water indeed.


If they more than likely can't live outside the mother, the mother's choice is paramount.

edit- in 90% of cases there's no need whatsoever for a late term abortion. The vast, vast majority are before 16 weeks.

So it's ok if the baby is nearly half way there?

Lollipops23

sure.

iguana

parrai wrote: »

So it's ok if the baby is nearly half way there?

You have your figures wrong. For the first two weeks of a pregnancy, the woman isn't actually pregnant. Conception happens on pregnancy week 3. (I don't know whey they can't calculate from conception as the current methodology is quite confusing.) A foetus at 15 weeks was only conceived 13 weeks before. A 40 week pregnancy is 38 weeks long. So we aren't halfway anywhere with pre 16 week abortions, we're at or below a third.

Which brings me to half way where? What do you mean by "the baby is nearly half way there?" Your own language suggests an implicit understanding of the fact that a "baby" is not a baby at all until it is "there."

nozzferrahhtoo

parrai wrote: »

So it's ok if the baby is nearly half way there?

Different people have different opinions on where the cut off point should be, but the current facts appear to show that nothing in the way of pain is actually felt before the age of 24 weeks and the pre-requisites for human consciousness are also absent.

In fact before certain times not only are the pre-requisites for such things absent, the things that provide them are also absent, leading me often to use the analogy to a radio station: If human consciousness is radio waves, then people worried about the fetus before 20 weeks are not only worried about a point where the broadcasting tower is switched off.... the broadcasting tower has not even been BUILT yet.

As pointed out however, and I add a citation to back up the user just in case they are asked for one, most abortions happen long before 24 weeks. In fact over 60% of them happen before week 9 and by week 12 we are in the region of 90%.

K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

So even if you take the 20 week lower end of that you find that all but 1.5% of abortions in the US are done.

The anti-choice side of the issue will often try and suggest the fetus feels pain LONG before this point however. Alas they do so based on citing faulty and very much out of date opinions (not even science, but opinions) from the 40s-60s and by pointing out things like the fact the fetus can often be seen to recoil from needles and the like when pricked with them.

Important to note however is that such things are automated responses, similar to how your leg hops when you hit the knee with a small mallet, even if the person is unconscious. Even an amoeba will turn and move in the other direction when pricked with a needle.

parrai

iguana wrote: »

You have your figures wrong. For the first two weeks of a pregnancy, the woman isn't actually pregnant. Conception happens on pregnancy week 3. (I don't know whey they can't calculate from conception as the current methodology is quite confusing.) A foetus at 15 weeks was only conceived 13 weeks before. A 40 week pregnancy is 38 weeks long. So we aren't halfway anywhere with pre 16 week abortions, we're at or below a third.

Which brings me to half way where? What do you mean by "the baby is nearly half way there?" Your own language suggests an implicit understanding of the fact that a "baby" is not a baby at all until it is "there."

To my mind, when I hear a woman is having a baby, it's just that, they are having a baby. Now as regards the nearly half way there, I was merely asking what was thought of aborting a baby before 16 weeks. To me, once a woman confirms she is pregnant, it is a baby. It's a life we are talking about, not a turkey that is one third of the way cooked. This is semantics as far as I'm concerned. It IS a child and talking of it as 'a collection of cells' or any other derogatory term anyone wishes to put on it, is nothing more than numbing ones conscience.

Having said all of that, I am not going to interfer in anyones choices as regards whatever the choose to do with their lives. It is and shall remain entirely up to them.

yutta

parrai wrote: »

To my mind, when I hear a woman is having a baby, it's just that, they are having a baby. Now as regards the nearly half way there, I was merely asking what was thought of aborting a baby before 16 weeks. To me, once a woman confirms she is pregnant, it is a baby. It's a life we are talking about, not a turkey that is one third of the way cooked. This is semantics as far as I'm concerned. It IS a child and talking of it as 'a collection of cells' or any other derogatory term anyone wishes to put on it, is nothing more than numbing ones conscience.

Indeed.

And one wonders why pro-abortion people have any sympathy for women who miscarry.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes "one" does. Only one. You. I am not sure anyone else here is that heartless.

Interesting side note: Despite the linguistic propaganda tactics highlighted in this thread around people who use the term "pro-abortion" I see you are only too happy to keep using it. I hope this says as much about you to everyone else on the thread as it does to me.

I repeat for the rest of the readers however, you will find that most pro-choice advocates are just as anti-abortion as I am. While wishing people to have that choice, they also want to do everything in our power to reduce anyone ever needing to make it. The most outspoken of pro-choice speakers are still people who would LIKE to see zero abortions and would work towards such an ideal. They just do not feel that removing that choice from people who require it is the right way to go about it.

mloc

yutta wrote: »

Indeed.

And one wonders why pro-abortion people have any sympathy for women who miscarry.

That's a very inaccurate comparison.

A woman who miscarries is going to be quite upset as she wanted and expected to have a child. Thus the miscarriage is something that is unexpected and brings with it grief and loss. Of course people are going to be sympathetic towards this.

Whilst being resolutely pro-choice, I would also have sympathy for those who undergo an abortion, as it is rarely an easy decision and brings with it its own emotional distress, whatever the situation.

When people are argue a pro-life stance from the position that an early stage pregnancy is "a life" and "a baby", it generally reflects a poor understanding of developmental biology. I'm not saying it invalidates your argument, but it makes it an ideological, moralistic argument and not a evidence based, rational argument.

Ray Palmer

I remember a religion teacher showing us a video of a fetus forming and once it look vaguely human he paused the video. Then declared that "some" people say that is not a person.

The argument I put forward was if you made a puppet look human would that make it human?

He went mental and started telling me how abortion is wrong which my reposnse to all his arguements was "in your opinion". One of the areas in the school where a teacher couldn't over rule you was in religion class.

We are biolgical machines and we are not human by having the potential to become human. I don't like the fact our constitution says unborn babies are people when in a medical sense it is simply not true.

yutta

mloc wrote: »

That's a very inaccurate comparison.

A woman who miscarries is going to be quite upset as she wanted and expected to have a child. Thus the miscarriage is something that is unexpected and brings with it grief and loss. Of course people are going to be sympathetic towards this.

But if it's just a blob of cells, why is she getting upset? After all, it's not a child until it pops it head out of the womb.

mloc wrote: »

Whilst being resolutely pro-choice, I would also have sympathy for those who undergo an abortion, as it is rarely an easy decision and brings with it its own emotional distress, whatever the situation.

Is that so? I wonder why that is? What exactly is emotionally distressing about an aborting one's own baby? Oh wait, it's the fault of "right wing" Christian types who protest outside abortion facilities for making it distressing...

mloc wrote: »

When people are argue a pro-life stance from the position that an early stage pregnancy is "a life" and "a baby", it generally reflects a poor understanding of developmental biology.

Scientific reasoning is one thing. Excluding all other dimensions of reason and logic in favour of the man-made scientific method is quite another. Also, you're not going to win any arguments around here with that pompous attitude.

So, how does developmental biology inform us on the morality of abortion?

mloc wrote: »

I'm not saying it invalidates your argument, but it makes it an ideological, moralistic argument and not a evidence based, rational argument.

Are you trying to say that moral arguments are irrational?

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

But if it's just a blob of cells, why is she getting upset? After all, it's not a child until it pops it head out of the womb.

Your claim, not the claim of many on the thread. The opinions on when the border between calling it a person and not are very much varied. So do not straw man it by pretending the claim above fits what most people here say.

People become heavily emotionally invested in a lot of things. The future, objects, cars, pets, people and much more. A mis-carriage represents a loss for a woman. The clump of cells may not be human, but that does not mean the love a very real human feels for it is any less real, nor the hopes and dreams for the future such a woman may have invested in the pregnancy.

Arguments from emotion are fallacies for a reason. Just because some people can become emotionally invested in a pregnancy and suffer when they lose that pregnancy.... this has no bearing whatsoever on the moral argument of whether abortion in and of itself is morally right or wrong, or whether it should be available as a free choice to all.

parrai

Lemmewinks wrote: »

But seriously - this is not a abortion discussion at all - but more a case of whether it would be logical to assume this? Most liberals I know will argue against any harm to life; the death penalty, animal poaching, animal testing, fox hunting, etc; they they seem fine with aborting babies... It just strikes me an inconsistent.

Excellent observation by the way.

From reading opinions here, it seems to narrow your question to
'what stage in a pregnancy does the egg when fertilized become a life?'

I have stated my opinion already.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your claim, not the claim of many on the thread. The opinions on when the border between calling it a person and not are very much varied. So do not straw man it by pretending the claim above fits what most people here say.

People become heavily emotionally invested in a lot of things. The future, objects, cars, pets, people and much more. A mis-carriage represents a loss for a woman. The clump of cells may not be human, but that does not mean the love a very real human feels for it is any less real, nor the hopes and dreams for the future such a woman may have invested in the pregnancy.

Arguments from emotion are fallacies for a reason. Just because some people can become emotionally invested in a pregnancy and suffer when they lose that pregnancy.... this has no bearing whatsoever on the moral argument of whether abortion in and of itself is morally right or wrong, or whether it should be available as a free choice to all.

Why would someone get upset over a clump of cells that's not human? However, you said it "may not" be human. Surely we should err on the side of caution if a clump of cells may actually be a human person? Roughly, what probability would you put on a clump of 6 week-old cells being human? Please answer these questions.

Also, why would someone "emotionally invest" themselves in a clump of cells? Do men emotionally invest themselves in their sperm? Why don't women have breakdowns at the loss of an egg when they have their period?

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

Why would someone get upset over a clump of cells that's not human?

Why would someone ask a question that has just been answered in the post they just quoted? I will copy and paste what I just wrote and maybe you might actually read it this time:

People become heavily emotionally invested in a lot of things. The future, objects, cars, pets, people and much more. A mis-carriage represents a loss for a woman. The clump of cells may not be human, but that does not mean the love a very real human feels for it is any less real, nor the hopes and dreams for the future such a woman may have invested in the pregnancy.

yutta wrote: »

However, you said it "may not" be human. Surely we should err on the side of caution

I do. The "may not" was nothing to do with that at all. It was to do with the fact that the miscarriage can happen at ANY stage in the pregnancy. Pregnancies terminate both before and after the borders I would consider safe for assigning the term "human" or "person" to the fetus.

In the context of the discussion of abortion and "rights" I would see no reason whatsoever, on any level, of calling a 6 week old clump of cells "human" or a "person" in that context. Nor do I know why you picked "6" to ask me about and not 2, 4, 8, 14, 18, 20, 22. Why 6 specifically?

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why would someone ask a question that has just been answered in the post they just quoted? I will copy and paste what I just wrote and maybe you might actually read it this time:

People become heavily emotionally invested in a lot of things. The future, objects, cars, pets, people and much more. A mis-carriage represents a loss for a woman. The clump of cells may not be human, but that does not mean the love a very real human feels for it is any less real, nor the hopes and dreams for the future such a woman may have invested in the pregnancy.



I do. The "may not" was nothing to do with that at all. It was to do with the fact that the miscarriage can happen at ANY stage in the pregnancy. Pregnancies terminate both before and after the borders I would consider safe for assigning the term "human" or "person" to the fetus.

In the context of the discussion of abortion and "rights" I would see no reason whatsoever, on any level, of calling a 6 week old clump of cells "human" or a "person" in that context. Nor do I know why you picked "6" to ask me about and not 2, 4, 8, 14, 18, 20, 22. Why 6 specifically?

To answer your question, I just wanted to get a feel for where you are coming from. It's always useful to put numbers on things. Here is my position which I hope you'll find useful (seeing as you are unwilling to spell out yours by answering my questions): I believe an unexplained miracle occurs when sperm enters an egg and new life is created (yes, I'm against abortifacients such as the "morning after" pill).

I'm sure you can rattle off a whole litany of scientific observations that occur from the moment of conception, but I challenge you to explain how the life comes to be. Do you accept that something that's unexplainably unique occurs at this point? (or perhaps science simply hasn't gotten to that level of understanding yet...??)

Ray Palmer

yutta wrote: »

But if it's just a blob of cells, why is she getting upset?

You really have a problem if you can't understand why people can have empathy for peoples' emotional states regardless of how they got there. I am guessing you rely on some doctorine to tell you what is right and wrong.

Anyway the OP just simply doesn't understand what a liberal is that was his problem.

yutta

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You really have a problem if you can't understand why people can have empathy for peoples' emotional states regardless of how they got there.

But we are discussing how they got there. If it was morally right to "abort" a child, then there would be no guilt associated with it. And there wouldn't be people outside abortion clinics protesting.

Ghost Buster

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You really have a problem if you can't understand why people can have empathy for peoples' emotional states regardless of how they got there. I am guessing you rely on some doctorine to tell you what is right and wrong.

Anyway the OP just simply doesn't understand what a liberal is that was his problem.

You should check yuttas posts concerning victims of clerical abuse and his/her insistence that they are only in it for the money and should get over them selves. More empathy for unborn than for the born. The usual.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

To answer your question, I just wanted to get a feel for where you are coming from. It's always useful to put numbers on things. Here is my position which I hope you'll find useful (seeing as you are unwilling to spell out yours by answering my questions): I believe an unexplained miracle occurs when sperm enters an egg and new life is created (yes, I'm against abortifacients such as the "morning after" pill).

I'm sure you can rattle off a whole litany of scientific observations that occur from the moment of conception, but I challenge you to explain how the life comes to be. Do you accept that something that's unexplainably unique occurs at this point? (or perhaps science simply hasn't gotten to that level of understanding yet...??)

In one breath you ask how science can explain something, while in the same breath you mock the idea of giving a scientific explanation.

Human conception is nothing unique from the conception of other animals, insects, bacteria etc.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

But we are discussing how they got there. If it was morally right to "abort" a child, then there would be no guilt associated with it. And there wouldn't be people outside abortion clinics protesting.

People often feel guilty when stepping on snails, that doesn't mean that morals tell us that it should be illegal.

And often that 'guilt' comes from others saying that the person in question SHOULD feel guilty. The same way many born into a religious family feel guilty if they lose their virginity outside of marriage (or are even tempted to do so), or the same way many Africans feel guilty when they use contraception to stop the spread of aids.

There is no such thing as objectivity morality - regardless of what your church may think or want.

yutta

Mark200 wrote: »

People often feel guilty when stepping on snails, that doesn't mean that morals tell us that it should be illegal.

Well done.

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

(seeing as you are unwilling to spell out yours by answering my questions)

Let us not descend into lies now. I answered what you asked. You might have wanted a different answer, but that does not mean I did not answer. So the choice you have is either to ignore my answer, or try replying to what I actually said.

yutta wrote: »

I believe an unexplained miracle occurs when sperm enters an egg and new life is created

What do you think is unexplained exactly? I admit I find the process awesome, exciting and complicated, but we very much understand the process. It is certainly not unexplained, and it most certainly does not appear to warrant words with metaphysical baggage like "miracle" considering you have not the shred of evidence to support any of that metaphysical baggage.

However let us pretend for a moment that you are 100% right. A fun fantasy. Let us say the entire thing is unexplained. So what? Something about reproduction not being explained is not synonymous with an argument against abortion, so what is your point?

Not only what is your point, but what has this got to do with the actual point we were discussing, which was why a woman might become emotionally invested in a pregnancy even at points where people like myself would not assign personhood to the fetus?? You appear to be point hoping, a common forum tactic to avoid things that are too difficult to be dealt with.

yutta

Mark200 wrote: »

Human conception is nothing unique from the conception of other animals, insects, bacteria etc.

Where did I claim it was?

I am asking about the precise scientific mechanism that transforms an egg and a sperm into a potential human life. It's a miracle (scientific or otherwise) that human life can spawn from the coming together of two microscopic entities.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Well done.

A concept that was clearly out of your grasp - guilt about something that not make that something a moral "wrong".

Snakeblood

Mark200 wrote: »

A concept that was clearly out of your grasp - guilt about something that not make that something a moral "wrong".

Try 'Survivor's guilt'. Guilt with no messy morals attached.


Survivor, survivor's, or survivors guilt or syndrome is a mental condition that occurs when a person perceives themselves to have done wrong by surviving a traumatic event when others did not. It may be found among survivors of combat, natural disasters, epidemics, among the friends and family of those who have committed suicide, and in non-mortal situations such as among those whose colleagues are laid off. The experience and manifestation of survivor's guilt will depend on an individual's psychological profile. When the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) was published, survivor guilt was removed as a recognized specific diagnosis, and redefined as a significant symptom of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Where did I claim it was?

I am asking about the precise scientific mechanism that transforms an egg and a sperm into a potential human life. It's a miracle (scientific or otherwise) that human life can spawn from the coming together of two microscopic entities.

First of all, I'm pretty sure the process is scientifically documented in quite detail.

Second of all, even if science didn't know - so what? Just because we don't know something does not mean you do.

bronte

yutta wrote: »

It's a miracle (scientific or otherwise) that human life can spawn from the coming together of two microscopic entities.

Why?

Ghost Buster

yutta wrote: »

Where did I claim it was?

I am asking about the precise scientific mechanism that transforms an egg and a sperm into a potential human life. It's a miracle (scientific or otherwise) that human life can spawn from the coming together of two microscopic entities.

No. It really really isnt.
The word you may be looking for is amazing or impressive or fantastic but not miracle. The myth of the virgin birth where a lady got pregnant from a magic cuddle from a holy ghost would be a miracle if it ever happened but the same cannot be said of basic biological conception.
Good auld atheist me and my Wiccan wife managed it and are 3 days over due with the result. I dont think we merit miracles from a catholic god TBH.

yutta

Mark200 wrote: »

A concept that was clearly out of your grasp - guilt about something that not make that something a moral "wrong".

Perhaps you should learn how to construct a sentence before lecturing others on "concepts clearly out of their grasp". You need to crawl before you can walk.

Snakeblood

Ghost Buster wrote: »

No. It really really isnt.
The word you may be looking for is amazing or impressive or fantastic but not miracle. The myth of the virgin birth where a lady got pregnant from a magic cuddle from a holy ghost would be a miracle if it ever happened but the same cannot be said of basic biological conception.
Good auld atheist me and my Wiccan wife managed it and are 3 days over due with the result. I dont think we merit miracles from a catholic god TBH.

Try pineapples, sex and walking. not all at the same time though.

Ghost Buster

yutta wrote: »

Perhaps you should learn how to construct a sentence before lecturing others on "concepts clearly out of their grasp". You need to crawl before you can walk.

OOOhhh you nailed him on his grammar and syntax!!!
YUTTA WINS!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets all go home and have a good pray.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Perhaps you should learn how to construct a sentence before lecturing others on "concepts clearly out of their grasp". You need to crawl before you can walk.

Sorry for typing the wrong word - I guess that makes my whole point wrong. Fair play.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

Perhaps you should learn how to construct a sentence before lecturing others on "concepts clearly out of their grasp". You need to crawl before you can walk.

and you need to stop clutching at straws because people are disagreeing with you.


look, it comes down to this. I support anyone's choice to have an abortion. I wouldn't ever force someone to have one.

However, you and your friends are trying to force people NOT to. How is that fair? If you don't agree with it, don't have one. Simple. I would never take that choice away from you or try and persuade you otherwise. Just do everyone else the same courtesy.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Let us not descend into lies now. I answered what you asked. You might have wanted a different answer, but that does not mean I did not answer. So the choice you have is either to ignore my answer, or try replying to what I actually said.

Here are the questions I politely asked you to answer. You respond with an accusation of lying.

1. Surely we should err on the side of caution if a clump of cells may actually be a human person?
2. Roughly, what probability would you put on a clump of 6 week-old cells being human? Please answer these questions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What do you think is unexplained exactly? I admit I find the process awesome, exciting and complicated, but we very much understand the process. It is certainly not unexplained, and it most certainly does not appear to warrant words with metaphysical baggage like "miracle" considering you have not the shred of evidence to support any of that metaphysical baggage.

So what happens then exactly? I'm saying that something unexplained occurs (science or philosophy or religion can't explain how new life comes to be) and it is therefore rightly called a "miracle". Do you accept that new human life forming is miraculous?

I guess some people will stare down their microscopes all day in the never-ending pursuit of knowledge comforted by the assumption that anything they don't understand will ultimately be explained by Science. I take a different tack - when I look down a microscope, I search for patterns of God's creation that can be used for the greater good of man. When something miraculous occurs (such as a human sperm penetrating an egg, a Big Bang, a newly born deer standing up), this is God's beauty. Not a problem to be cracked.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However let us pretend for a moment that you are 100% right. A fun fantasy. Let us say the entire thing is unexplained. So what? Something about reproduction not being explained is not synonymous with an argument against abortion, so what is your point?

Ok, let's assume that the miracle of life occurs at the moment of conception. That would be a good moral and ethical argument for making abortion illegal. Now if only people could see the obvious instead of being blinded by their own "personal circumstances".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not only what is your point, but what has this got to do with the actual point we were discussing, which was why a woman might become emotionally invested in a pregnancy even at points where people like myself would not assign personhood to the fetus?? You appear to be point hoping, a common forum tactic to avoid things that are too difficult to be dealt with.

Ah yes, personhood. Could you please define what that means?

On investing emotionally in new life. You made the comparison of investing emotionally in things like cars. A sickening comparison. But not surprising given your views on the destruction of human life.

yutta

Lollipops23 wrote: »

and you need to stop clutching at straws because people are disagreeing with you.


look, it comes down to this. I support anyone's choice to have an abortion. I wouldn't ever force someone to have one.

However, you and your friends are trying to force people NOT to. How is that fair? If you don't agree with it, don't have one. Simple. I would never take that choice away from you or try and persuade you otherwise. Just do everyone else the same courtesy.

I don't support anyone's "choice" to destruct human life (what of the "choice" of the father/unborn child). It is perfectly fair to do everything within your democratic power to ensure that people are educated, people aren't fed mis-information and that people are told that what they're doing is wrong - both morally and from a medical ethics perspective.

If you don't like being told that abortion isn't wrong, then tough. Close your ears.

Ghost Buster

Yutta asked:
Ah yes, personhood. Could you please define what that means?


And here in lies the problem. You are not interested in any persons definition. You are not interested in any scientific definition. You will disregard any definition in favour of your gods definition.
There is no point in debating with such a person.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Here are the questions I politely asked you to answer. You respond with an accusation of lying.

1. Surely we should err on the side of caution if a clump of cells may actually be a human person?
2. Roughly, what probability would you put on a clump of 6 week-old cells being human? Please answer these questions.

You're trying to apply objectivity to something that is completely subjective. We, as a society, define what a 'human' is. It's not like scientists will, through experimentation, say "oh, turns out fetuses are human after all".

yutta wrote: »

I guess some people will stare down their microscopes all day in the never-ending pursuit of knowledge comforted by the assumption that anything they don't understand will ultimately be explained by Science. I take a different tack - when I look down a microscope, I search for patterns of God's creation that can be used for the greater good of man. When something miraculous occurs (such as a human sperm penetrating an egg, a Big Bang, a newly born deer standing up), this is God's beauty. Not a problem to be cracked.

You decide the answer, and then find the evidence to suit that answer. It's nice that you admit it, but at the same time scary that you see nothing wrong with it.

yutta

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ah yes, personhood. Could you please define what that means?


And here in lies the problem. You are not interested in any persons definition. wrong You are not interested in any scientific definition. wrong You will disregard any definition in favour of your gods definition wrong.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

There is no point in debating with such a person.wrong

If you're not able to, don't bother so.

yutta

Mark200 wrote: »

You're trying to apply objectivity to something that is completely subjective. We, as a society, define what a 'human' is. It's not like scientists will, through experimentation, say "oh, turns out fetuses are human after all".

Society does not have the power to decide if someone is human or not. One's humanity is an objective thing.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

If you're not able to, don't bother so.

I don't see why you labelled those three statements as 'wrong' when you said yourself that you don't see 'miracles' as problems to be cracked, but simply your god's "beauty".

That clearly illustrates that you don't care about answers.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Society does not have the power to decide if someone is human or not. One's humanity is an objective thing.

What's the objective definition?