Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[Ingomike]

You've couched this as condemning a child to death for the sins of the father?

So what? He used a colloquialism rather than the word crime. You seem very vested in this, emotionally explaining how others are emotional. Glad you don’t get to decide who lives and who dies. Life begins at conception…

 

[BugI02]

Recently, I got the “how many more guns to you need?” question. I told her it’s not a question of ”need”, it’s that there’s always another that I don’t have yet.

If you are feeling lucky, you can point out how many pairs of black shoes she has and ask why she needs so many

Hopefully the answer is 'they're all different in some way and have different purposes' and you can then point out guns are the same

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you are feeling lucky, you can point out how many pairs of black shoes she has and ask why she needs so many

Hopefully the answer is 'they're all different in some way and have different purposes' and you can then point out guns are the same

In my case, it’s better to simply change the subject as soon as possible.

 

[Tombs]

While people on the pro abortion side will scoff, I'd like a good faith answer because I'm asking a good faith question. I'd also ask people on the sidelines of this question to not get heated and pile on who ever answers this.

When it comes to defining personhood, slaves were considered non-persons, which was the justification being used to hold onto slavery. Many considered it insane to call slaves people, and considered them sub human. Undeserving of rights or the same respect as others.

The pro-abortion/pro-choice argument hinges on whether you believe the fetus is a human being or not. I've not seen anyone willing to state that they believe the fetus is a human being and still support abortion.

How do you avoid the inevitable comparison going on here? This is one of my biggest concerns around the entire debate, trying to say X is a person but Y is not, based on an arbitrary time table.

 

[actaeon277]

The "fetus" has it's own separate DNA.
It is not the Mom
It is not the Dad.
Therefore it is not just some "clump of cells" to be removed.

 

[Tombs]

The "fetus" has it's own separate DNA.
It is not the Mom
It is not the Dad.
Therefore it is not just some "clump of cells" to be removed.

This is why I believe it is VITAL to the legitimacy of the debate that people at least come up with some basic definitions that are air tight to the slippery slope that could lead to atrocities.

Until that point, it's not really being argued about in good faith, just seeking justifications for personal views.

 

[jamil]

"Why say in 20 words what you can say in 500?"
-jamil

Zactly.

 

[jamil]

So what? He used a colloquialism rather than the word crime. You seem very vested in this, emotionally explaining how others are emotional. Glad you don’t get to decide who lives and who dies. Life begins at conception…

emotional?

 

[KG1]

Zactly.

TL;DR

 

[Cameramonkey]

While people on the pro abortion side will scoff, I'd like a good faith answer because I'm asking a good faith question. I'd also ask people on the sidelines of this question to not get heated and pile on who ever answers this.

When it comes to defining personhood, slaves were considered non-persons, which was the justification being used to hold onto slavery. Many considered it insane to call slaves people, and considered them sub human. Undeserving of rights or the same respect as others.

The pro-abortion/pro-choice argument hinges on whether you believe the fetus is a human being or not. I've not seen anyone willing to state that they believe the fetus is a human being and still support abortion.

How do you avoid the inevitable comparison going on here? This is one of my biggest concerns around the entire debate, trying to say X is a person but Y is not, based on an arbitrary time table.

As stated earlier, I dont think they are saying its not a person. Just that its not a VIABLE person. If the fetus were to fall out spontaneously because you are Old Mother Hubbard in Andrew Dice Clay's joke, No big deal. It wasnt old/viable enough to live outside the womb anyway. Whether it spontaneously left the womb or was sucked out, no real difference. So that makes it all good.

And kudos to everyone not going all PaulF. I appreciate the calm discussions.

 

[Tombs]

As stated earlier, I dont think they are saying its not a person. Just that its not a VIABLE person. If the fetus were to fall out spontaneously because you are Old Mother Hubbard in Andrew Dice Clay's joke, No big deal. It wasnt old enough to live outside the womb. So that makes it all good.

And kudos to everyone not going all PaulF. I appreciate the calm discussions.

So what's the definition for viable person?

 

[Cameramonkey]

So what's the definition for viable person?

The fetus can survive (with medical intervention) once outside the womb. E.g. mom spontaneously delivers or is killed and they can stick it in an incubator and use various medical devices to keep it alive. A quick google says 27 weeks should be viable, as low as 24 weeks if God is on your side. 22 weeks is the absolute cutoff and only has a 6% chance of surviving.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[jamil]

While people on the pro abortion side will scoff, I'd like a good faith answer because I'm asking a good faith question. I'd also ask people on the sidelines of this question to not get heated and pile on who ever answers this.

When it comes to defining personhood, slaves were considered non-persons, which was the justification being used to hold onto slavery. Many considered it insane to call slaves people, and considered them sub human. Undeserving of rights or the same respect as others.

The pro-abortion/pro-choice argument hinges on whether you believe the fetus is a human being or not. I've not seen anyone willing to state that they believe the fetus is a human being and still support abortion.

How do you avoid the inevitable comparison going on here? This is one of my biggest concerns around the entire debate, trying to say X is a person but Y is not, based on an arbitrary time table.

Slaves were still human beings, and that they were considered less than human beings, I think, was a way to justify humans owning other humans as personal property. If you think of them as less than human, it makes it okay. And I get that it's easy for those of you trying to make the case that a fertilized human egg is the same and has the same rights as the human being that was enslaved. But it's not the same thing. Wrapped up in the fertilized egg is the potential for what it will become. But it's not that yet.

So I think there's room for you to argue that "life" begins at conception on a religious basis. That, at conception even that fertilized egg has a soul. But that's the only argument I see that would be valid. I don't think it follows logically that by virtue of its potential, such rights should be conferred at conception.

I don't think the "clump of cells" argument is a good one for the other side. It's reductive.

 

[d.kaufman]

So what's the definition for viable person?

The fetus can survive (with medical intervention) once outside the womb. E.g. mom spontaneously delivers or is killed and they can stick it in an incubator and use various medical devices to keep it alive. A quick google says 27 weeks should be viable, as low as 24 weeks if God is on your side. 22 weeks is the absolute cutoff and only has a 6% chance of surviving.

I would say this would be the minimum and could be reviewed as science/medicine advances

This 16-Month Old Has Beaten the Odds and Set a New World Record

Read about a new record set by Curtis Zy-Keith Means, now 16 months old, who is the world’s most premature baby to beat the odds and survive.

www.thebump.com

 

[jamil]

So what's the definition for viable person?

I think the people who make that argument mean that it can't survive outside the womb if it were removed from the mother. And I think that's a bad argument too. It assumes that the right to live can only be conferred if it's not dependent on the mother for life. I mean that's essentially the parasite argument. And I think that's immoral.

 

[actaeon277]

When is it a "person"?

Well, I don't think passing out of a ... not sure how to say it without being in trouble.
Let's just say, the act of birth doesn't magically transform it to a "person".
And before conception.. Pretty sure most people would agree that's not a "person".

So, sometime in between that...
And, since that time is in contention, the error should be on the side of life.
Sort of like the "better to let a guilty man go, than imprison an innocent man".

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The fetus can survive (with medical intervention) once outside the womb. E.g. mom spontaneously delivers or is killed and they can stick it in an incubator and use various medical devices to keep it alive. A quick google says 27 weeks should be viable, as low as 24 weeks if God is on your side. 22 weeks is the absolute cutoff and only has a 6% chance of surviving.

So it can be a person/have rights or not based on location? The reason I ask is because viability is going to vary, let's say a rural hospital in Appalachia or Children's national in D.C.

Slaves were still human beings, and that they were considered less than human beings, I think, was a way to justify humans owning other humans as personal property. If you think of them as less than human, it makes it okay. And I get that it's easy for those of you trying to make the case that a fertilized human egg is the same and has the same rights as the human being that was enslaved. But it's not the same thing. Wrapped up in the fertilized egg is the potential for what it will become. But it's not that yet.

So I think there's room for you to argue that "life" begins at conception on a religious basis. That, at conception even that fertilized egg has a soul. But that's the only argument I see that would be valid. I don't think it follows logically that by virtue of its potential, such rights should be conferred at conception.

I don't think the "clump of cells" argument is a good one for the other side. It's reductive.

You say the potential for what it will become, the same can be said about an infant. They are not fully developed, including the brain which doesn't become fully developed until what sometime in the 20s?

Non religious argument for life at conception. As soon as the sperm and egg join a new living individual is formed. You can argue viability or completeness, but a newborn is not complete nor is is capable of surviving on it's own. Same as that zygote.

 

[actaeon277]

If the test is "being able to survive on it's own", there's gonna be a LOT of Leftist (capital L) that can be aborted.

 

[Tombs]

The fetus can survive (with medical intervention) once outside the womb. E.g. mom spontaneously delivers or is killed and they can stick it in an incubator and use various medical devices to keep it alive. A quick google says 27 weeks should be viable, as low as 24 weeks if God is on your side. 22 weeks is the absolute cutoff and only has a 6% chance of surviving.

I think you're kind of missing my point with this. You're not defining a viable person, you're defining a viable fetus. And yeah, it does matter.

There's so many exceptions and ways to twist this, I don't think it's a solid foundation.

Think about it like you were trying to explain to a computer what a viable person was, and all the context necessary for the computer to understand what you're thinking. And also remember if you slip up the slightest bit, the computer might commit genocide.

I think it's important to have very precise definitions that can't be interpreted to mean something you don't want, when it comes to matters of literal life and death.