Abortion Debate

[Nessa]

[abelcainsbrother]

I have said before that abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Project Veritas went undercover as they do and exposed the fact that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts of aborted fetuses.These people are evil!
Here check out this news article.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... flesh.html

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I have said before that abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Project Veritas went undercover as they do and exposed the fact that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts of aborted fetuses.These people are evil!
Here check out this news article.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... flesh.html

Is it just the woman's right to choose though? Shouldn't the man also have a say?

[PaulSacramento]

When you make the taking of a life about choice, then where do you stop?

At best, the taking of a life MUST be justified.
It will never be right, BUT it can be justified.

Thing is, the majority of people on both sides ( minus the extremists of course), would agree with abortion under certain select circumstances ( typically, rape, the life of the mother being in danger).

[Nessa]

In this debate, the abortionist said person hood starts at birth. If the unborn is not a person it's ok..

Killing a human being is ok because you can kill without murdering.... You can call the police but they won't arrest him...

So it's all ok

[PaulSacramento]

In this debate, the abortionist said person hood starts at birth. If the unborn is not a person it's ok..

Killing a human being is ok because you can kill without murdering.... You can call the police but they won't arrest him...

So it's all ok

Person hood is irrelevant since that is subjective ( how does one define person and who decides on that definition?)
That it is a live is not subjective.

[Kurieuo]

Unless they're an abortionist, then it never starts. So you know, it's ok.

As an aside, I wonder where this invisible attribute called "personhood" exists in the body.

I'm always amazed by the inconsistency of people to their worldviews.

[Nils]

In this debate, the abortionist said person hood starts at birth. If the unborn is not a person it's ok..

Killing a human being is ok because you can kill without murdering.... You can call the police but they won't arrest him...

So it's all ok

Some say, and I agree, that personhood starts when the fetus gets cognitive capabilities including consciousness. This happen around the 25th week so, using a margin, fetus are not persons until the the 22nd week. I found dr Parker a bit unclear but he talked about viability as a criteria for personhood and that also starts around the 25th week.
NIls

[Nils]

In this debate, the abortionist said person hood starts at birth. If the unborn is not a person it's ok..

Killing a human being is ok because you can kill without murdering.... You can call the police but they won't arrest him...

So it's all ok

Person hood is irrelevant since that is subjective ( how does one define person and who decides on that definition?)
That it is a live is not subjective.

All definitions are more or less arbitrary and subjective, so that isn't an argument.
Who decides on a definition are those that want to use the word. Personhood is used to discriminate the properties of an embryo from that of an adult person. So it is useful for persons like me that think that the embryo and young fetus should have different human rights.
Nils

[Kurieuo]

See what I mean, inconsistent worldview.

To test consistency further, I wonder what your thoughts are Nils on selectivr infanticide? Should parents be able to terminate a newborn upon finding out it has significant disability?

[Nils]

See what I mean, inconsistent worldview.

To test consistency further, I wonder what your thoughts are Nils on selectivr infanticide? Should parents be able to terminate a newborn upon finding out it has significant disability?

My view is that generally, it is not allowed to kill any human life. The reason is that this will, in my and most persons’ opinions, will give the best society, a society with high well-being where any person can be confident that her life will never be threatened even if she is old or disabled. However, there are a few exceptions that everybody agrees about, war and self-defence. Those who are for abortions also have that as an exception. In my case I think that parents can kill there fetus if it is younger than 22 weeks. Every exception has to be motivated and the 22 week rule is motivated in the following way:
- The society will be a better society if parents aren’t forced to have babies they don’t want.
- There is as far as I know no serious draw-back with permitting abortion of young fetuses.
Why then choosing week 22 you may ask.
- Some argue that the limit should be lower, 10-12 week, because most abortions are done before week 10 The argument against is that some parents need more time to decide and an early limit may force them to abort not to miss the limit in cases where they would keep it if given more time. Also lot of medical testing may occur between week 12 and 18.
- The choice of about 22 week as an upper limit has several reasons. Very few parents change their mind after week 22. When being older the fetus is starting to become a person with cognitive capabilities and consciousness and to become viable outside her mothers womb. (This answers your question about infanticide).

Kurieus, you say that this view in inconsistent but you don’t explain why. It is is not a clear cut black and white rule but very few rules are and that doesn’t make them inconsistent. Instead, black and white rules are often inhuman not taking into consideration special circumstances. An example is the view of Dr Adams in the OP. Without arguing he states that the human embryo shall have all rights from the conception.

Besides, is which way is my view above a world view?
Nils

[PaulSacramento]

In this debate, the abortionist said person hood starts at birth. If the unborn is not a person it's ok..

Killing a human being is ok because you can kill without murdering.... You can call the police but they won't arrest him...

So it's all ok

Person hood is irrelevant since that is subjective ( how does one define person and who decides on that definition?)
That it is a live is not subjective.

All definitions are more or less arbitrary and subjective, so that isn't an argument.
Who decides on a definition are those that want to use the word. Personhood is used to discriminate the properties of an embryo from that of an adult person. So it is useful for persons like me that think that the embryo and young fetus should have different human rights.
Nils

Do you believe that there can be a subjective WITHOUT the objective?
if so, how?

[RickD]

See what I mean, inconsistent worldview.

To test consistency further, I wonder what your thoughts are Nils on selectivr infanticide? Should parents be able to terminate a newborn upon finding out it has significant disability?

My view is that generally, it is not allowed to kill any human life. The reason is that this will, in my and most persons’ opinions, will give the best society, a society with high well-being where any person can be confident that her life will never be threatened even if she is old or disabled. However, there are a few exceptions that everybody agrees about, war and self-defence. Those who are for abortions also have that as an exception. In my case I think that parents can kill there fetus if it is younger than 22 weeks. Every exception has to be motivated and the 22 week rule is motivated in the following way:
- The society will be a better society if parents aren’t forced to have babies they don’t want.
- There is as far as I know no serious draw-back with permitting abortion of young fetuses.
Why then choosing week 22 you may ask.
- Some argue that the limit should be lower, 10-12 week, because most abortions are done before week 10 The argument against is that some parents need more time to decide and an early limit may force them to abort not to miss the limit in cases where they would keep it if given more time. Also lot of medical testing may occur between week 12 and 18.
- The choice of about 22 week as an upper limit has several reasons. Very few parents change their mind after week 22. When being older the fetus is starting to become a person with cognitive capabilities and consciousness and to become viable outside her mothers womb. (This answers your question about infanticide).

Kurieus, you say that this view in inconsistent but you don’t explain why. It is is not a clear cut black and white rule but very few rules are and that doesn’t make them inconsistent. Instead, black and white rules are often inhuman not taking into consideration special circumstances. An example is the view of Dr Adams in the OP. Without arguing he states that the human embryo shall have all rights from the conception.

Besides, is which way is my view above a world view?
Nils

So, according to your stated general view, a fetus is not a human life before 22 weeks, but is a human life after 22 weeks?

[Nils]

In this debate, the abortionist said person hood starts at birth. If the unborn is not a person it's ok..

Killing a human being is ok because you can kill without murdering.... You can call the police but they won't arrest him...

So it's all ok

Person hood is irrelevant since that is subjective ( how does one define person and who decides on that definition?)
That it is a live is not subjective.

All definitions are more or less arbitrary and subjective, so that isn't an argument.
Who decides on a definition are those that want to use the word. Personhood is used to discriminate the properties of an embryo from that of an adult person. So it is useful for persons like me that think that the embryo and young fetus should have different human rights.
Nils

Do you believe that there can be a subjective WITHOUT the objective?
if so, how?

Yes, I think so but to answer how will need lot of discussions. I think that that discussion is worth a thread of its own. I'll start one soon if you don't start one before.
Nils

[Nils]

See what I mean, inconsistent worldview.

To test consistency further, I wonder what your thoughts are Nils on selectivr infanticide? Should parents be able to terminate a newborn upon finding out it has significant disability?

My view is that generally, it is not allowed to kill any human life. The reason is that this will, in my and most persons’ opinions, will give the best society, a society with high well-being where any person can be confident that her life will never be threatened even if she is old or disabled. However, there are a few exceptions that everybody agrees about, war and self-defence. Those who are for abortions also have that as an exception. In my case I think that parents can kill there fetus if it is younger than 22 weeks. Every exception has to be motivated and the 22 week rule is motivated in the following way:
- The society will be a better society if parents aren’t forced to have babies they don’t want.
- There is as far as I know no serious draw-back with permitting abortion of young fetuses.
Why then choosing week 22 you may ask.
- Some argue that the limit should be lower, 10-12 week, because most abortions are done before week 10 The argument against is that some parents need more time to decide and an early limit may force them to abort not to miss the limit in cases where they would keep it if given more time. Also lot of medical testing may occur between week 12 and 18.
- The choice of about 22 week as an upper limit has several reasons. Very few parents change their mind after week 22. When being older the fetus is starting to become a person with cognitive capabilities and consciousness and to become viable outside her mothers womb. (This answers your question about infanticide).

Kurieus, you say that this view in inconsistent but you don’t explain why. It is is not a clear cut black and white rule but very few rules are and that doesn’t make them inconsistent. Instead, black and white rules are often inhuman not taking into consideration special circumstances. An example is the view of Dr Adams in the OP. Without arguing he states that the human embryo shall have all rights from the conception.

Besides, is which way is my view above a world view?
Nils

So, according to your stated general view, a fetus is not a human life before 22 weeks, but is a human life after 22 weeks?

Sorry, I was perhaps a bit unclear. I use the standard definition of "human life" that says that it starts at the conception. However, I also say that the embryo and the young fetus don't have all rights that adult humans have.
Nils