You are either the worst person to follow an argument, or you’re trolling. The stages of an individual life cycle have been linked to help you out. That various life stages of an organism not being separate organisms has been explained. I have explained what MY view on the personhood part is a few times. You just completely got it wrong again while attempting to present it within a question.
Anyone else?
No they are not. They are not mutually exclusive and to have or be one doesn’t nullify the other. Factually, we are talking about human life and the taking there-of in the case of abortion.
And few things are more clear than the fact that a human life, once conceived, will be that and only that, until the point it dies and disintegrates into some other form of matter.
The pro-life position is easy, human life is sacrosanct and should not be killed unless a specific human life is a dire threat to one or more other human lives.
Nah, I don’t think we should further engage his thrill for the fight. Reasonable people with reasonable disagreements is what I prefer. Not a poking stick…
Agreed.
This isn’t completely true. Once conceived it can become one life, or multiple lives, or die in the womb.
None of which make it not human…
Individuality is impossible up until the possibility of splitting ends though.
It’s still a human life or more than one human life. It cannot become any other kind of life because what it is has been decided by it’s nature.
So at the end of the zygotic stage.
Agreed. I actually don’t like to argue about when does an unborn person qualify as a person. It seems like a fools errand to me. From my post above…
That’s not a true pro-life stance. If the baby is not viable and is doing harm to the mother there is little “choice” in the matter. Then it’s tragic but not immoral to remove the baby.
Certainly it is not right to maintain a pregnancy where the mother’s life is in danger because of circumstances beyond anyone’s control.
I wouldn’t ever make a ‘horse trading’ argument. Tragedies happen.
Agreed. I should have said “some” in the pro-life crew…
And in general not every pro-lifer has the same argument, and not every pro-choicer has the same argument.
Yeah I’ve done it and it basically goes the way this one is going which is pretty much nowhere but back and forth.
Like I said regardless of where anyone lands on when at what time legally we have never looked at a woman who just got pregnant the same as a woman who just had a baby. And I showed examples of what I met.
Now I realize that doesn’t change the opinions that could come forth of what the law should do but it doesn’t make it historically accurate. We don’t treat a woman who is 2 months into her pregnancy the same as a mom with a 2 month old. The woman in the latter half can potentially be severely punished for actions that result in the harm of her 2 month old while the first woman typically won’t though I’m sure you can find some exceptions.
Regardless of where anyone lands on the what, where, when, at what time debate legally for the most part we view a pregnant woman as someone who may end up having an infant vs someone who has an infant. And our laws and expectations reflect the fact that it simply isn’t the same thing.
But by all means I’m not trying to end the zygote wars that everyone is having so much fun with.
My anecdotal view of the landscape is that most people become pro-life at some point in gestation. That line is what’s disagreed upon. For instance, very few people seem to be for partial-birth abortion.
People like the likes of Sam Harris, tend to pick somewhere around 20 weeks. And for the pro-life movement, getting their hooks into that gestational argument is key. Finding the common point of agreement, like ‘Okay, let’s agree that at the point of brain function, it’s a bad idea to then abort the baby.’ is paramount. Then the slippery slope effect kicks in over time and that’s how we end most abortions.
The pro-choice knows the playbook and that’s why they clamor to keep everything wide open. But while it insulates them from the slippery-slope, it’s also bad PR. Justifying the most atrocious of acts doesn’t play well for most reasonable people.
Also, screaming and bragging about ‘your abortion’ in the streets during a protest is not a good look. As I would say that no matter side of the argument you are on, at least both sides can agree that it is a difficult, heart-wrenching and deeply personal decision.
I am very interested to see how this plays out in the courts and through out the country, which way it swings when you have to answer the question and cannot leave it like a hanging chad…
Just a few thoughts…
Should be interesting for sure. I still think we should have a laser focus on preventing the type of situations.
Since hoping people will only have sex when they are prepared for pregnancy doesn’t work let’s do something else. Since abstinence only education doesn’t work let’s stop relying solely on it. Teen pregnancy rates are highest in the places where it’s used and where religion may shame people into not using contraceptives.
I mean we can talk about personal responsibility and delaying having sex and all that. Or we can deal with reality.
Fund birth control. Help reduce unwanted pregnancies with ways that have a better chance to work than “God doesn’t want you doing that.”
And if we’re going to say we are pro-life let’s go ahead and act like we give a shit about someone’s health care other than our own. Maybe don’t call that poor mom a welfare queen if we’re so admit she doesn’t have an abortion.
If not I just want people to say “I’m pro-birth.”
That is not true at all. What threat did Japanese babies in Hiroshima pose? The word sacrosanct implies some religious faith so it’s an irrational argument. When all is said and done, it’s just opinion.
None of which make it a person with the rights that a person has.
Pretty good assessment.
I’m pro choice, up until birth from a rights standpoint, but that’s not my stance from a moral standpoint. I fully realize that it sounds terrible, but I’m not sure how else to logically support abortion from a rights perspective without the potential for slippery slope.
I’ll stick with pro-life as it reminds us an innocent human life is killed with premeditation in abortion.
Can it not be reminded with pro-birth? In Alabama perhaps we should compromise and say pro-shitty life?
I guess the good news is that for the first time in years the number of uninsured people is on the rise again. With high teen pregnancy rates, high infant mortality, poor schools, and a myriad of other factors going against it Alabama can at least say it won’t discriminate against women who are raped by a family member.
And hey Alabama is one of those states where rapists can gain parental rights!