Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Abortion thread: (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Theoretically for full gestation. We used an artificial uterus for a sheep a few years ago.
Edit: that was from prematurity to full gestation. But we have definitely done two weeks with human embryos and been fine - there’s a bioethics rule against more than two weeks right now though.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
But never for humans. Seems important to be in a human host then. How about the definition of “human life” as conception when done naturally, or when artificially performed, a viable embryo successfully placed inside of a living human host? IVF only accounts for 1-2% of annual births a year.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Again, do you mean implantation? Why is that determinative if what you believe is that life begins at DNA combination?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Like, is the DNA different if it isn’t done “naturally”? What’s the relevant difference?
Can I guess that it’s because it doesn’t feel to you like it’s a baby?
Can I guess that it’s because it doesn’t feel to you like it’s a baby?
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Some 4 year old boy walks up to me and attaches himself to my leg without me giving him any indication I'm okay with it, and somehow you think it's questionable whether or not I have the right to detach him from me?
He has every right to life, but he doesn't have the right to be attached to me. In fact, it could be viewed as assault.
My right to be unattached from him is not taking away his right to live. Any likelihood of him dying after being unattached doesn't change that either, unless you think duty to rescue should become part of common law.
You seem to be conflating moral duty and legal rights in order to make the issue even questionable.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
I don't agree with you on this issue. I recognize that you care and are passionate about your views. So, I appreciate that you take a reasonable and understanding approach versus an inflammatory and purposefully confrontational one. Thank you
My question was when does human life begin, if not at conception. Don't recall mentioning anything about the Bible.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
As I’ve said, I’m less concerned with “human life” than I am with “a human” or “personhood.” That is, a viable separate being.
Most arguments for or against abortion I’ve encountered that are actually based around when “life begins” tend to be disingenuous on one level or another. If “life begins” is shorthand for “personhood begins” I would say that a functioning cerebral cortex or actual viability would be when I would say that personhood starts to enter the picture.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
gianmarco
Footballguy
Something I just read that really gets to how complex this issue is and why these new laws are disastrous:
I first wrote this several years ago. I thought at the time that some of the examples were hyperbolic, but the recent spate of laws from state legislatures seemingly in a contest to see who can be the most imaginatively cruel suggests otherwise. Even if you personally are opposed to abortion and would never have one, these laws could still affect you or someone you love. Please consider these questions about what should happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned:
-If a woman is hospitalized for complications of an illegal abortion, should the physicians caring for her be mandated to report her actions to the police? Should she remain in state custody (i.e. guarded and shackled) during her hospitalization?
-If a person comes to the hospital with symptoms of a miscarriage or uterine infection, should a police investigation be opened to determine whether those symptoms are the result of an illegal abortion, or are simply an accident of nature? If an investigation remains underway when they are medically ready for discharge, should they remain in state custody until the investigation is complete?
-How long should a person go to jail for seeking an abortion?
-How long should the father go to jail for helping the mother seek an abortion? Or parents who helped a minor child seek an abortion?
-If a woman is arrested for seeking or obtaining an abortion, should Child Protective Services investigate the welfare of her children? If she is convicted, should her children be placed in state custody? If she is jailed, who should care for her children? Will they be returned to her custody upon her release?
-If a person’s health is jeopardized by a pregnancy, who makes the determination that an abortion is necessary? The treating physician? A committee of doctors? The ethics board of a hospital? The courts?
-If a pregnant person dies while waiting for such a determination to be made, who is liable for their death?
-If a request for a medically necessary abortion is denied, what is the appeals process, and again, who is liable for any death or disability that result from a delay or a denial?
-Should the people charged with determining whether an abortion is medically necessary be required to have advanced understanding of medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology? Why or why not?
-Should the people writing laws regulating abortion be required to have the same understanding of medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology? Why or why not? Show your work.
-If a woman has a chronic medical condition that makes pregnancy especially risky, but her life is not immediately in danger, should she be allowed to obtain an abortion? What risk of death or disability should she be mandated to tolerate? 20%? 50%? 80%?
-When should a person’s life be considered in danger? When they are hospitalized? In intensive care? Receiving CPR?
-If a person has a medical condition requiring treatment that increases the risk of birth defects, miscarriage, or pregnancy complications, should they be allowed to obtain an abortion? Should they be forced to discontinue medical treatment that increases the risk of fetal demise?
-Do you support laws that would provide paid medical leave for complications of pregnancy? Fear of losing a job or income, and needing to provide for existing children is a common reason for considering abortion.
-If a fetus has anomalies that would result in significant morbidity and mortality after birth, should abortion be allowed?
-If abortions for severe birth defects are banned, do you support providing public funds for the medical care of these children?
-If birth defects are likely to result in a stillbirth, should abortion be allowed? Or should women be forced to deliver a dead baby if that is not what they would prefer?
-If birth defects both carry a poor postnatal prognosis and make vaginal delivery dangerous, should abortion be allowed? Or should women be forced to undergo cesarean section (raising the risk of all future pregnancies) for a non-viable infant?
-Are you pro-rape exceptions? Why? A fetus conceived by rape is no different than one conceived consensually. Are you sure you're not just pro-punishing people for having sex you don't approve of?
-If you support rape exceptions because you feel that bearing a rapist’s child is a second violation compounding the rape, would any other types of reproductive coercion would be similarly unacceptable? A partner sabotaging birth control pills? Saying they would wear a condom and then damaging or removing it? Is reproductive coercion permissible from a legislative body but not an intimate partner? Why or why not?
-If you're pro-rape exceptions because you feel that the psychological damage of carrying a rape pregnancy is significant enough to justify abortion, would any other psychological distress also qualify? Suicidal ideation? The distress of being pregnant in an abusive relationship? Gender dysphoria? Being unable to financially provide for existing children?
-Women in abusive relationships are at higher risk of being murdered during pregnancy. If a woman in an abusive relationship seeks an abortion exception, and is denied, who is liable for her death if she is murdered?
-Most women who have abortions are already mothers. If a woman is worried she can't provide for another child, do you support adequate public funds for food, housing, and education for these children?
If your reaction to any of these questions is that these decisions are difficult and complex, and the best course of action will depend on the individual situation, consider that such a view is actually pro-choice.
No one has an abortion for fun. Given the opportunity, anyone would have preferred to avoid an unplanned pregnancy or complications of pregnancy in the first place (which of course is not always possible). This is why the single most effective way to improve maternal and infant health and decrease abortion is by making reproductive healthcare, including all forms of contraception, accessible and affordable to everyone who needs them. The fact that these same abortion-banning states fought against the contraception coverage mandate and Medicaid expansion, which would improve pregnancy outcomes and decrease the abortion rate more effectively than any ban, should tell you all you need to know.
I first wrote this several years ago. I thought at the time that some of the examples were hyperbolic, but the recent spate of laws from state legislatures seemingly in a contest to see who can be the most imaginatively cruel suggests otherwise. Even if you personally are opposed to abortion and would never have one, these laws could still affect you or someone you love. Please consider these questions about what should happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned:
-If a woman is hospitalized for complications of an illegal abortion, should the physicians caring for her be mandated to report her actions to the police? Should she remain in state custody (i.e. guarded and shackled) during her hospitalization?
-If a person comes to the hospital with symptoms of a miscarriage or uterine infection, should a police investigation be opened to determine whether those symptoms are the result of an illegal abortion, or are simply an accident of nature? If an investigation remains underway when they are medically ready for discharge, should they remain in state custody until the investigation is complete?
-How long should a person go to jail for seeking an abortion?
-How long should the father go to jail for helping the mother seek an abortion? Or parents who helped a minor child seek an abortion?
-If a woman is arrested for seeking or obtaining an abortion, should Child Protective Services investigate the welfare of her children? If she is convicted, should her children be placed in state custody? If she is jailed, who should care for her children? Will they be returned to her custody upon her release?
-If a person’s health is jeopardized by a pregnancy, who makes the determination that an abortion is necessary? The treating physician? A committee of doctors? The ethics board of a hospital? The courts?
-If a pregnant person dies while waiting for such a determination to be made, who is liable for their death?
-If a request for a medically necessary abortion is denied, what is the appeals process, and again, who is liable for any death or disability that result from a delay or a denial?
-Should the people charged with determining whether an abortion is medically necessary be required to have advanced understanding of medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology? Why or why not?
-Should the people writing laws regulating abortion be required to have the same understanding of medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology? Why or why not? Show your work.
-If a woman has a chronic medical condition that makes pregnancy especially risky, but her life is not immediately in danger, should she be allowed to obtain an abortion? What risk of death or disability should she be mandated to tolerate? 20%? 50%? 80%?
-When should a person’s life be considered in danger? When they are hospitalized? In intensive care? Receiving CPR?
-If a person has a medical condition requiring treatment that increases the risk of birth defects, miscarriage, or pregnancy complications, should they be allowed to obtain an abortion? Should they be forced to discontinue medical treatment that increases the risk of fetal demise?
-Do you support laws that would provide paid medical leave for complications of pregnancy? Fear of losing a job or income, and needing to provide for existing children is a common reason for considering abortion.
-If a fetus has anomalies that would result in significant morbidity and mortality after birth, should abortion be allowed?
-If abortions for severe birth defects are banned, do you support providing public funds for the medical care of these children?
-If birth defects are likely to result in a stillbirth, should abortion be allowed? Or should women be forced to deliver a dead baby if that is not what they would prefer?
-If birth defects both carry a poor postnatal prognosis and make vaginal delivery dangerous, should abortion be allowed? Or should women be forced to undergo cesarean section (raising the risk of all future pregnancies) for a non-viable infant?
-Are you pro-rape exceptions? Why? A fetus conceived by rape is no different than one conceived consensually. Are you sure you're not just pro-punishing people for having sex you don't approve of?
-If you support rape exceptions because you feel that bearing a rapist’s child is a second violation compounding the rape, would any other types of reproductive coercion would be similarly unacceptable? A partner sabotaging birth control pills? Saying they would wear a condom and then damaging or removing it? Is reproductive coercion permissible from a legislative body but not an intimate partner? Why or why not?
-If you're pro-rape exceptions because you feel that the psychological damage of carrying a rape pregnancy is significant enough to justify abortion, would any other psychological distress also qualify? Suicidal ideation? The distress of being pregnant in an abusive relationship? Gender dysphoria? Being unable to financially provide for existing children?
-Women in abusive relationships are at higher risk of being murdered during pregnancy. If a woman in an abusive relationship seeks an abortion exception, and is denied, who is liable for her death if she is murdered?
-Most women who have abortions are already mothers. If a woman is worried she can't provide for another child, do you support adequate public funds for food, housing, and education for these children?
If your reaction to any of these questions is that these decisions are difficult and complex, and the best course of action will depend on the individual situation, consider that such a view is actually pro-choice.
No one has an abortion for fun. Given the opportunity, anyone would have preferred to avoid an unplanned pregnancy or complications of pregnancy in the first place (which of course is not always possible). This is why the single most effective way to improve maternal and infant health and decrease abortion is by making reproductive healthcare, including all forms of contraception, accessible and affordable to everyone who needs them. The fact that these same abortion-banning states fought against the contraception coverage mandate and Medicaid expansion, which would improve pregnancy outcomes and decrease the abortion rate more effectively than any ban, should tell you all you need to know.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
This is a really great post. I dont know how somebody can read that and not have second thoughts about the alabama law even if they supported it.
matttyl
Footballguy
That wasn’t the question asked, though. He didn’t seem to be interested in what you’re concerned with, he asked (and I’d be curious to know) when you think “human life” begins.
I’ve told you my thoughts on it (which I may get into more detail on when I have time - busy weekend) and others have as well in this thread and others. I feel that life begins at conception (when natural), and still getting some facts to form an honest opinion when “artificial”/not natural, which as far as I can see is the exception (less than 1% of pregnancies). Maybe the definition should be “when a human female is pregnant, there is another human life inside of her. I’ve also said that I feel it should be her decision on what to do with that life. It she chooses to end that life, it is what it is - the ending of a human life. I’ll call it what it is, and (depending on the circumstances) feel sad about it.
so, when do you believe life starts, not “personhood”.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Ignoring the concern results in an answer to the question without context. Answers without context cause more confusion than solution.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
That’s not a single question. If you want to know my answer you have to tell me what you mean by human life.
In all likelihood I believe it starts with a functioning cerebral cortex. But life has a lot of definitions. I was trying not to make it a huge question but rather explain my actual position regarding abortion.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I agree with this, as if we ignore context, then pulling the plug on someone with no brain activity is killing a human life. OMG! OMG! OMG!
The decision that is made in that scenario is very much dependent on the context of human life.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Right. If we reduce it to its core “living and has human dna” then a sperm cell fits the definition. If we say “a differentiated organism capable of living independently” we are talking about viability. If we mean something capable of feeling individuated human responses we mean development of a cerebral cortex. When it begins depends on what you mean. It could mean conception but that kind of “human life” definition is just going to be a tautology.
Human life started at least a few hundred thousand years ago.
That’s not a snarky answer. It’s the real answer.
An egg cell is alive. Many egg cells are present at the birth of their female host. The cycle of life is continuous. There is no point between generations marked by non-life. There is therefore no point at which non-life becomes life — i.e., there is no point at which life begins. It’s all life all the time, all the way back. It began a few hundred thousand years ago (or more, depending on where you draw the line between protohuman and human).
For hundreds of thousands of years, human cells have been dividing and dividing and dividing, and they’ve all been alive.
That’s why talking about the beginning of life is misguided. What’s relevant is the beginning of personhood.
That’s not a snarky answer. It’s the real answer.
An egg cell is alive. Many egg cells are present at the birth of their female host. The cycle of life is continuous. There is no point between generations marked by non-life. There is therefore no point at which non-life becomes life — i.e., there is no point at which life begins. It’s all life all the time, all the way back. It began a few hundred thousand years ago (or more, depending on where you draw the line between protohuman and human).
For hundreds of thousands of years, human cells have been dividing and dividing and dividing, and they’ve all been alive.
That’s why talking about the beginning of life is misguided. What’s relevant is the beginning of personhood.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
I'm atheist. But this is where a pure "science" view to me is hard to reconcile. Yah, the stomach virus living inside me is alive and individual cells within me are alive. I can't use those as a point of comparison to a fertilized egg. The fertilized egg if supported and allowed to continue on will become a human (thats how we all got here). Any other living cell in my body not the case.
Understand I am not saying no abortions after conception (I elaborated in the other abortion thread), I support abortion post conception. But I think the only reason I say that is because its just not viable in our society, unfortunately.
timschochet
Footballguy
In fairness to the writers of that law, I doubt they ever considered its actual enactment or the consequences. From all reporting, their primary purpose was to come up with a law that the Supreme Court would consider, in order to overturn Roe vs Wade. A strong secondary purpose was to satisfy a religious base that had been complaining for years that Republican officials were not moving on this issue.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
The scientific word for this is "potential".
And it's not "will become a human"". It's "sometimes becomes a human". Miscarriages can be a sign of failure to support, but can happen for other reasons as well.
Same with an unfertilized egg. The unfertilized egg needs spare parts from a sperm in order to start dividing, but a fertilized egg needs spare parts from its mother’s blood cells to start (and to continue) dividing. Neither is viable on its own; both need inputs from their environment.
The difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg is pretty tiny compared to the differences between other stages of development. To pick fertilization or conception as THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE-MAKING POINT is pretty arbitrary.
There is no single step that is different-in-kind from all the others. It’s just continuous tiny steps all the way back, uninterrupted, to the dawn of humanity.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
I get it. Its why I started out by saying I'm aethiest...because even though I don't believe in God and look to scripture to form my opinions, conception is still a dividing line to me. My own religion I guess.
The science as you describe it is still a tad too blurry for me. All cells need support for life. Unfertilized eggs, Fertilized eggs, the cells in my fingertips today. So they all need support or spare parts to survive. The fact that they are all part of this life continuum from the dawn of history...I'm not sure how that helps inform my thinking of when it is ok to stop supporting s specific cell or cells. So although an unfertilized egg, a fertilized egg and the cells that comprise my toe nail may have many structural similarities I can't lump them all together in the way you can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I think that's MT's point. If you are looking for a point where a cell or cells have crossed some distinct line, then you won't find one, as all the points are arbitrary (until you get to brain development).
And even if you do find some line well before brain development, then how did the brain dead person's cells cross that line backwards that we don't consider taking him (his living human life) off life support to be murder?
That conundrum doesn't exist in defining what the beginning (and ending) of personhood is.
I’m not saying that there are no differences between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg. I’m saying that whatever the difference is, it’s not the difference between non-life and life.
From an egg to an infant, there are many stages of development, each of which may have varying emotional or practical effects. It’s a big deal when a woman finds out that she’s pregnant. The news may be welcome or unwelcome, but either way, it’s important, and the importance has a lot to do with conception because that’s the event that is least taken for granted. Before that stage, she already knew that she had a bunch of living, unfertilized eggs inside her. Big whoop. And after conception, while nothing can be completely taken for granted (because miscarriages and other abnormalities do occur), the normal expectation is that, without intervention, the pregnancy will result in a live birth.
So I’m not downplaying the emotional or practical effects of conception. I’m just saying that when we consider those emotional or practical effects, we are not considering the beginning of life (which was the question people were asking). We are instead considering something more like the beginning of an emotional attachment, or the beginning of something we greatly value ... but not the beginning of life (because life preceded conception by a lot).
And when discussing the beginning of what we greatly value, that’s subjective, which is why discussions about abortion don’t tend to converge on widespread agreement. Different people value different things. For me, if we’re talking about a wanted pregnancy, I greatly value it right from conception. If we’re talking about an unwanted pregnancy, I no longer value it for the sake of the mother. I value it only for the sake of the fetus, and I don’t think it makes sense to value anything for the sake of the fetus until, at the very earliest, the fetus is capable of subjective experience. Synapses form in decent numbers in about the 17th week after conception, and then grow much more quickly starting in about the 28th week. Somewhere in there, I’m guessing, is when subjective experience might begin.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
I agree it is arbitrary. Is the point at which cells have crossed the line to form "brain development" not arbitrary? How "developed" does the brain need to be, who decides that arbitrary point. My arbitrary is more arbitrary than yours, sure ok.
Regarding the brain dead person, if there is a reasonable chance (and for this purpose lets say reasonable = the likelihood that fertilized egg develops a functioning brain) their brain cells would become alive again then I would say taking him off life support would be murder.
And I thought a short while ago you said I wasnt a person life experience has taught you is worth discussing this with, why are you discussing it with me.
djmich
Footballguy
I understand and largely agree. I value the life of a fetus that is capable of subjective experience more than a fertilized egg. I value a fertilized egg more than an unfertilized egg. I value a fertlized egg to a greater extent than you do. The practical effects of conception mean more to me than to you. Its all subjective in the end, but for purposes of law I would side closer to your "date" than mine, for pragmatic reasons around consequences to the mother and society mostly.
Last edited by a moderator:
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
No, not nothing.
Once again" Christians" who claim that the bible is the word of God don't follow it's teaching. Sadly nothing shocking about this.
I agree with this. But I think a big consideration is that this dead person has already invested a lot in his life, has already formed friendships, etc., and taking all of that away is worse for him, and for those close to him, than taking away the life of an unwanted fetus is for anybody.
(By aborting a fetus, we are preventing the development and life of an additional person. But if that’s bad, it isn’t so much an argument for protecting any specific fetus in particular so much as it’s an argument for having more children generally [since fetuses are kind of fungible before they develop individual personalities]. But while having as many children as we can manage might be morally good, I don’t think it should be legally required. And also, given that overpopulation seems to be more of a problem than underpopulation, generally speaking, I’m not persuaded that having as many children as we can manage is necessarily morally good.)
Last edited by a moderator:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Isn't this an argument in favor of first-term abortion?
"It's OK to abort an laboratory embryo because it's not viable on its own, and we're preventing it from experiencing an environment which would allow the cells to grow"
"It's OK to abort a first term fetus because it's not viable on its own, and we're preventing it from experiencing an environment which would allow the cells to grow"
Politician Spock
Footballguy
While the beginning and ending of personhood is arbitrary, personhood has both beginnings and an endings that we can observe, unlike human life, which as MT explained began well before we could observe its beginning, and will end our ability to observe it when it ends. Now again, what we interpret from our observations of personhood to define when it begins and ends is arbitrary, but there is at least no confusion with the personhood of an individual existing before and after the beginning and ending of their individual life, like there is with human life. So MT isn't suggesting he has the answer that outweighs all other interpretations of when personhood begins and ends. He's saying using personhood is a better way of discussing the issue than using "human life".
As for not discussing with you... you seem open minded to the topic of when human life/personhood begins and ends. You however seem very closed minded to discussing the issue of most pro-lifers not support social services. So no, I have no desire to discuss that topic with you.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
The bolded is exactly what birth control does. A zygote could form in a woman on the pill, but the pill prevents that zygote from experiencing an environment which would allow the cells to grow.
Are women on the pill committing murder?
Last edited by a moderator:
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
In one sense, it has to mean that in order to make sense.
In the context of the abortion debate, when people ask when life begins and I say billions of years ago, or when they ask when human life begins and I say a few hundred thousand years ago, I'm not really answering the question they think they're trying to ask.
What they're trying to ask is something more like, "I mean, when did my life begin, or when did your life begin -- at conception or what?"
In other words, they're not asking about when life in general began; they're asking about when the life of a particular person began. It should be self-evident, though, that the life of a particular person couldn't have begun until the personhood of that particular person had begun, because before that point, by definition, there was no person. There can't be a live person until there's a person. That's just basic set theory.
So in the context of the abortion debate, when people ask about the beginning of life and they don't like the "billions of years ago" answer, they must really be asking about the beginning of personhood. The problem arises when, given an answer about personhood, they insist that, no, they really mean life. And then the conversation goes in circles.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's actually an interesting question -- would overturning Roe also mean overturning Griswold? If the substantive-due-process right-to-privacy framework is rejected wholesale, it would mean that.
Last edited by a moderator:
tri-man 47
Footballguy
simey
Footballguy
This law was voted on by 25 republican men. I think if men were the ones who got pregnant, this law would never even be created. I also think men would be getting abortions left and right if they were the ones who got pregnant.
H Jass
Footballguy
I hear ya sister. Men are such selfish jerks that live to kill. Their bloodlust knows no bounds and their taste of flesh and gore shall never be satiated. Preach it.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
Your statement was very generic, it’s hard to know who you mean by “pro-lifers” and what specific “social services”. Particularly as it pertains to social services for the children of unwanted pregnancies.
it seemed like you were trying to make a broader point about social programs and people who are pro life...you had a bigger agenda. Maybe I was wrong?
But in either case saying you were generalizing is hardly a reason to go all “I can’t discuss with you” and paint me as unreasonable
djmich
Footballguy
This may take the discussion to far off the tracks, but:
If a person is not a person until there is a functioning cerebral cortex, and it is agreed that its is entirely a woman’s right to choose if that collection of cells gets to graduate to become a person. It seems to be completely unreasonable to force the guy, who wants nothing to do with the yet to be person, to be forced to support that person post birth.
Where is that flawed?
If a person is not a person until there is a functioning cerebral cortex, and it is agreed that its is entirely a woman’s right to choose if that collection of cells gets to graduate to become a person. It seems to be completely unreasonable to force the guy, who wants nothing to do with the yet to be person, to be forced to support that person post birth.
Where is that flawed?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yeah, that’s kind of what I’m saying, too. And Ivan was as well, I think. It’s not that abortion is a tough issue, it’s just tough to get people to speak about it honestly.In one sense, it has to mean that in order to make sense.
In the context of the abortion debate, when people ask when life begins and I say billions of years ago, or when they ask when human life begins and I say a few hundred thousand years ago, I'm not really answering the question they think they're trying to ask.
What they're trying to ask is something more like, "I mean, when did my life begin, or when did your life begin -- at conception or what?"
In other words, they're not asking about when life in general began; they're asking about when the life of a particular person began. It should be self-evident, though, that the life of a particular person couldn't have begun until the personhood of that particular person had begun, because before that point, by definition, there was no person. There can't be a live person until there's a person. That's just basic set theory.
So in the context of the abortion debate, when people ask about the beginning of life and they don't like the "billions of years ago" answer, they must really be asking about the beginning of personhood. The problem arises when, given an answer about personhood, they insist that, no, they really mean life. And then the conversation goes in circles.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You’re comparing body autonomy with financial responsibility. It’s just not comparable.
It’s “you don’t get to control your own body as a person” vs “hey, I shouldn’t have to pay for that!”
Also, the financial responsibility bit is after the child is born and has rights.
From a legal standpoint, the best interests of the child are paramount in those financial matters.
“That’s not fair” isn’t really a reasonable comparison to “wait, you don’t get to hold me in bondage for nine months, change my entire body, and possibly kill me all against my will.”
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Similar threads
