I’m glad to hear you agree that it is intellectually dishonest to call pro-lifers pro-birthers. It’s one of the most common claims I hear about us from folks on the left.
It was indeed hyperbole on my part to call active pro-choicers “pro-abortion.” Really, they are usually just inconsistent. You aren’t. You see lesser value in life at all stages, not just in-utero. I like to be consistent as well. I have a very hard time seeing lesser value of life at any stage.
You see lesser value in life at all stages, not just in-utero. I like to be consistent as well. I have a very hard time seeing lesser value of life at any stage.
That is quite the misunderstanding of what I’ve said. You have made some interesting leaps in logic.
Ah not willfully ignorant. Intellectually dishonest. Now i see.
To equate a DNR … ones own choice … to abortion is dishonest. I realize you are going to hide behind the out of context argument.
But still. Cmon.
To equate a DNR … ones own choice … to abortion is dishonest. I realize you are going to hide behind the out of context argument.
I wasn’t the one that brought the choice of killing oneself into the discussion. That was meed.
He asked a question about my opinion on that specific subject, and I answered.
I am speaking in the context of societal value - meaning laws protecting things. Every state in the country has laws allowing/requiring the police/medical personnel to stop someone in crisis from killing themselves. Very few states have exceptions to that law for old/terminally ill patients. You said that people in stages of their life when they are old or terminally ill shouldn’t be stopped from killing themselves by law. That is you suggesting society shouldn’t value the lives of the terminal ill and old as much as it does now (except for a few states). To go along with your view that humans in-utero that aren’t fully formed shouldn’t be protected by law, I think my claim that you see lesser value in life at all stages (terminally ill, old, in-utero), is not a misunderstanding at all. I can see why you might not want your views summed up that way - it does seem quite callous - but I don’t see where my summary has misconstrued what you have said or where I have not been logical.
You are consistently willing to allow the value of human lives to be dependent on outside factors, specifically age and health, and you do not assign an inherent and equal value to all human life. What exactly did I get wrong?
Conception is just as arbitrary. Let every sperm and every egg be sacred. Let’s ban masturbation and menstruation!
Also drawing the distinction at conception would render IVF impractical (because the process usually involves multiple fertilizations followed by selective implantation of those most likely to make it and discarding of the rest, which in this view would be murder).
Congrats! What stage is that?
How is he destroying your property?
By pouring weed killer on his garden. Keep up!
Why? It is only at the point of conception that an egg and sperm will develop into anything other than an egg and sperm. If you put a sperm up on a pedestal, it will never become anything other than the sperm it already is. So the point of conception, where these individual pieces first gain the ability to develop into a new life, is anything but arbitrary.
That is you suggesting society shouldn’t value the lives of the terminal ill and old as much as it does now (except for a few states).
No, that is me suggesting that society should have greater respect for a person’s bodily autonomy.
You want to characterize that as me putting less value on that person’s life. But it is simply me having greater respect for their choice than you appear to have.
I respect that. And agree with it.
But 1) what about the autonomy of the life being aborted? And 2) pregnancy is a consequence of having exercised her bodily autonomy, not a condition that infringes on that autonomy.
I think that pretty much sums up the primary objections pro-lifers have to your arguments.
But 1) what about the autonomy of the life being aborted?
We have a fundamental disagreement on when that “autonomy” and what we would actually consider a “human life” begins.
I don’t claim to have a perfect answer on when that is. But in terms of when “it isn’t”, at a very bare minimum, I would say that an entity that doesn’t have a human brain, isn’t a human life, yet.
And that’s why after 60 years there still isn’t a solution everyone is happy with.
What is the point of laws that stop people from killing themselves? Is it because we, as a society, want to preserve life because it has inherent value? Or is it because we, as a society, disrespect the bodily autonomy of people that want to kill themselves? Considering how many more rights and freedoms we recognize compared to the rest of the world and all of human history, I would think the point of those laws is the former and not the latter. So if you oppose those laws, it’s fair to frame your opposition in the way I framed it.
So if you oppose those laws, it’s fair to frame your opposition in the way I framed it.
No, it really isn’t.
The word “conception” refers to the process of fertilization and implantation. It’s not a single point in time.
You can put a sperm and an egg on a pedestal, because without either one there’s no fertilization. Without fertilization there’s no implantation. Without implantation there’s no development of the embryo.
The potential to develop into a new life exists from each component. Arguing that they must join forces first IS arbitrary.
Okay? Clearly, when saying “conception”, we are talking about before and after that process has occured. Having the choice to abort while the conception process is occuring isnt a thing, because no one knows there is anything that could be aborted. So draw that line wherever you want, it’s immaterial to the discussion.
Clearly, when saying “conception”, we are talking about before and after that process has occured.
That isn’t entirely clear, unless you say so.
There are definitely voices and proposed legislation on the pro-life side that seeks to get of certain types of birth control, such as IUDs, because they operate by preventing implantation rather than preventing fertilization.
When you talk about the point of conception, yes, you typically are referring to the act of conception and the timeframe over which conception occurs. It only becomes unclear when someone else decides to inject the notion of a single point in time just to concoct something to take issue with.