theprof00 said:
badgenome said:
theprof00 said:
1. ? Seriously? You quoted my post. Said "no" and then called it kneejerk idiocy. That was a kneejerk reaction to my post was it not? Kasz said it was two different arguments saying fetus rights vs mother rights, when my first post wasn't addressing that. I didn't feel his reply sufficiently addressed what I was saying, so I said "from my point of view, it's one argument with a couple facets".
2. Yes, it IS arbitrary, because nothing in science agrees with that assessment, and neither does anything in the Bible. It is a position taken specifically because it avoids talk of abortion altogether It circumvents the science. Then you say 'it's more philosophical' after countering by saying it's more scientific?
3. Yes sorry, semantics. fetus not egg.
4. Yes, I know it's pro-life, but more importantly, it's pro-sanity. It is a good middle ground, a compromise, where each can have rights. I don't believe that a mother should simply terminate at any point, but three months seems a lengthy amount of time to make that decision, and I even provide that the woman's rights still come first afterwards. If the fetus endangers her life or well being, she can terminate at any time.
|
1. No, I didn't. I said that basically every discussion about abortion boils down to people talking past each other and spewing talking points, and that's kind of sad because philosophically it's a very fascinating subject. I didn't accuse you of doing it. At worst, you're only guilty of not understanding what the terms pro-life and pro-choice mean.
2. That isn't arbitrary at all. Biology holds that from the moment of conception, a new life begins. It's merely at a low level of development. The only reason I can imagine anyone even arguing against this is for political reasons, and it isn't from the pro-life side. And that is anti-science.
It may be an arbitrary point at which to bestow personhood, though.
4. Right, but there's a spectrum of beliefs on the pro-life side, from no abortion period to abortion only in the case of rape to no abortion after a certain stage of development. There really isn't much of one on the pro-choice side, except for when it comes to late term abortion. As per Richard's thread, pro-life doesn't really mean pro-life, full stop. It's shorthand for supporting restrictions on elective abortion. Likewise, pro-choice means being in favor of no restrictions on elective abortion. So most people are somewhere in between the two extremes, but those positions are all variations of pro-life, which is why polls always show that the pro-life side has been gaining ground since the '70s.
|
1Apologies, I was assuming that since you said that within your response to me, and was kind of vague that you were talking about me. Sorry.
2 A living organism requires homeostasis, a fetus or embryo is not capable of that. "Life begins" is possibly simply an easier way of saying the process of creating life has begun. All organic life is defined by this element of homeostasis, and embryo's/fetus's are incapable. (as an aside to our "egg" discussion earlier, it is also against church rules to donate eggs, also birthcontrol via egg-regulation, and egg extraction.)
3I think we are arguing semantics at this point. Thank you for acknowledging the terminology of "personhood" though.
4Hmmm, perhaps, but this guy above isn't pro-life is he? He's anti-abortion. So there are 3 sides here, anti abortion, pro-life, and pro-choice, right?
|
