(August 1, 2018 at 11:03 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the study doesnt show support my opinion. I welcome being corrected. The whole debate is too long on rhetoric and short pn facts. When one side claims that women died when abortion was illegal, it seems reasonable to know how many. Or when they say that a fetus is not a person, I wonder why we afford personhood to corporations and give them more rights than unborn human beings.

The FACTS are that my uterus is my business and my business only.

---

(August 2, 2018 at 5:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Pregnancy is a violation of a woman’s body?  That’s a new one.

it is if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Benny, redwoods are a good example. Pine cones are cheap, only a few germinate, and fully grown redwood trees are rare and highly valued. Fully grown eagles are highly valued and protected. Their fertilized eggs are similarly rare and highly valued. As such the penalty for damaging a pine cone is, as far as I know, almost non-existent, whereas someone who damages American bald eagle eggs commits a crime. The question is do we consider human life cheap as a pine cone or at least as valuable as the eggs of an endangered species?

The issue is, as you say, about what makes a human being human. My position is that what makes someone human is not simply abilities they currently have but also those that he or she could potentially have. Just as you own your past and present, you also own your future. Murder is wrong in part because it robs someone of their future...the experiences they would otherwise have had, the talents they might have developed, and the love they could have known. A person in a coma may not currently be consciously aware or have rational capacity but they could potentially regain consciousness. I do not see the difference between them and humans who, if allowed to develop naturally, have the potential to gain consciousness.

It is also about how and why we assign value, in general, and also in particular with respect to human life. If human life is valuable, then what is it about human life that is valuable? The follow-up question is, assuming there is something about human life that is worth preserving, what makes a human being - in its earliest stage of development - different from all other stages of development, states of health, and circumstances. What is it uniquely lacking that 1) makes someone human and 2) that gives value to life.

If there is no secular argument against abortion perhaps that is because there is no secular reason for assigning value to human life?

I submit to you that the burden is on the abortionist to demonstrate why one human being’s life is disposable while another’s isn’t. Is it because he or she is not consciously self-aware? Are not sleepers and people in comas unconscious? Is it simply enough that his or her life is inconvenient and burdensome? Are not the poor or disabled or dependent also burdensome?

I ask these questions seriously and not rhetoric to support the pro-life stance. The question of value is a philosophical problem that touches on every part of life. It’s not that someone has to have a fully developed value-system before expressing an opinion; but rather, how whatever rough-hewn hierarchy of values they do have informs their lives both individually and communally. It seems to me people who carve out exceptions so as to deny the rights and dignity of a specific class of human beings, just to accommodate their personal needs and wants, those people can more easily justify denying the humanity of other classes of human beings. The same foundational values, or lack thereof, that makes abortion morally permissible are the same as those that justify eugenics, infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and genocide. This is not to say that women who have abortions and those who provide them are moral monsters. They can be still good people. But I would suspect they would find themselves horrified by the extreme logical conclusions of their own philosophical beliefs.

(August 4, 2018 at 11:49 am)Mermaid Wrote: The FACTS are that my uterus is my business and my business only.

(August 6, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 11:49 am)Mermaid Wrote: The FACTS are that my uterus is my business and my business only.

If a baby is not a female body part, then by all means what the hell is the umbilical cord for?

And if I were you, I would update myself on the definition of a fucking parasite.

Two points 

1. It does not matter if the fetus is part of the uterus he still owns the uterus and the fetus has no right to live their or use it without her permission .It's a violation on par with rape to use someones body parts against their will. 

2. The Fetus a parasite it takes resources without giving back and even causes harm to the mother

---

You need a lesson in your opponents actual arguments not straw men you got from a fundie website

Lol, ‘no right’? He didn’t climb in from the outside. Fetuses don’t assert themselves into existence of their own volition. They don’t ask to be conceived. This is getting a bit silly.

(August 6, 2018 at 1:38 pm)Kit Wrote: If a baby is not a female body part, then by all means what the hell is the umbilical cord for? And if I were you, I would update myself on the definition of a fucking parasite.

You just contradicted yourself. A parasite would be an organism distinct from its host. If I grant that an unborn human fits some text book definition of a parasite, will you acknowledge that it is not part of a woman's body but rather her child? The follow-up question is whether parents have moral obligations to their dependent children?

(August 6, 2018 at 2:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, ‘no right’?  He didn’t climb in from the outside.  Fetuses don’t assert themselves into existence of their own volition.  They don’t ask to be conceived.  This is getting a bit silly.

1. It does not matter if it was conceived there or not it's an unwanted organism and it has not right to live within her and use her body 

2. It does not matter if it choose to be their it's none the less there were it has no right to be 

3. And wither it asked to be conceived or not makes no difference as i explain above 

So there is nothing silly about it .

(August 4, 2018 at 11:40 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: This is a succinct list from MedlinePlus:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm

Noteworthy, atleast for me, is the fetus’s ability to hear at around 19 weeks.  Around this time is also when the mother can feel the fetus responding to her movements.  Now, I’m not saying that a fetus reacting to stimuli necessarily means that it is having a true experience (whatever that means?), but I think it’s certainly a conversation worth having.

For me, week 10 seems critical since at that point all the organs are in place.

Quote:You just contradicted yourself. A parasite would be an organism distinct from its host.

Which no difference really as either can argued from 

Quote:If I grant that an unborn human fits some text book definition of a parasite, 

Which can be argued 

Quote:will you acknowledge that it is not part of a woman's body but rather her child. 

It makes no difference if he does that would not change the point 

Quote:The follow-up question is whether parents have moral obligations to their dependent children?

We allow parenthood to be an option outside the womb .Taking care of offspring not the same as forced reproduction.