Secular reasons for and against legalising abortion

[Neo-Scholastic]

Search my posts and you will find no reference to personhood. Only those in favor of abortion promote that idea as justification for ending a human life.

So you don't claim a fetus is a person?

Whether the unborn are or are not persons is irrelevant. Are you claiming it isn't a human life?

---

Search my posts and you will find no reference to personhood. Only those in favor of abortion promote that idea as justification for ending a human life.

No, it is a definition of a human being. I don't care about a bunch of cells without a brain and nervous system.

He says about himself.

[FatAndFaithless]

So you don't claim a fetus is a person?

Whether the unborn are or are not persons is irrelevant. Are you claiming it isn't a human life?

You're the one claiming that pro-choice people support ending a human life. You're asserting there is a human life to end. When does that human life start and why?

[Chas]

No, it is a definition of a human being. I don't care about a bunch of cells without a brain and nervous system.

He says about himself.

Why yes, yes I do. It is not a person.
You want to protect something that is not a person - it's just mindless cells. Why?

[Dolorian]

All you have is the claim that they aren't 'persons', an ambiguous legal concept without any scientific basis whatsoever.

The whole thing with personhood is it's inherent subjectivity, so it it may be best to avoid it. There is also the question of the woman's right over her body and what goes within it, which I think is the most consistent line of argumentation for the pro-choice side.

[Chas]

All you have is the claim that they aren't 'persons', an ambiguous legal concept without any scientific basis whatsoever.

The scientific basis is the presence of a brain and nervous system.

That is a basis.

---

All you have is the claim that they aren't 'persons', an ambiguous legal concept without any scientific basis whatsoever.

The whole thing with personhood is it's inherent subjectivity, so it it may be best to avoid it. There is also the question of the woman's right over her body and what goes within it, which I think is the most consistent line of argumentation for the pro-choice side.

No, personhood is central to the argument. The law applies to persons.

[Brian37]

Masturbation and blowjobs are not safe for the sperm, your point?

A sperm cell is not a complete human, dipshit.

There is no debate to be had here. There are just morons who fucking think they have the right to control bodies they do not own. PERIOD!

What the fuck makes you think you have the right to end another human life for any reason at all?

There is no debate to be had about whether unborn humans are biologically distinct life forms, in their own right, both genetically and developmentally, regardless of whether they are in the womb or in a dish.

All you have is the claim that they aren't 'persons', an ambiguous legal concept without any scientific basis whatsoever.

Hey dumbass, sperm is ALIVE otherwise it would not swim. The "conception" is an arbitrary starting point you picked.

You are not for quality of life if all you give a fuck about is a zygote. Life after birth matters a fuckload more, and if you don't have the money to raise all the kids from pregnancy then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Still not your body in any case.

You are not the morality police of the world and you do not own the world so again FUCK OFF!

You are a fucking idiot bleeding heart stupidly thinking girls/women do it just to throw a fucking party as if they get joy having one. Then you fucking morons never pony up with a punishment for the girl/women because they are involved in that decision too. Then you still do not give one fuck about any health problems the kid or mother might have nor do you give a fuck about either after the birth.

SO AGAIN FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF YOU SELFISH NARCISSISTIC PRICK!

[Dolorian]

The scientific basis is the presence of a brain and nervous system.

Would you consider it a person at the point during development when the brain begins to form? Around the 3-4 week if I recall correctly.

---

...sperm is ALIVE otherwise it would not swim. The "conception" is an arbitrary starting point you picked.

Hmm, no it is not arbitrary, there is a substantial change which occurs at conception that results in the beginning of the development of a new individual.

You are not for quality of life if all you give a fuck about is a zygote. Life after birth matters a fuckload more, and if you don't have the money to raise all the kids from pregnancy then SHUT THE FUCK UP! Still not your body in any case. You are not the morality police of the world and you do not own the world so again FUCK OFF! You are a fucking idiot bleeding heart stupidly thinking girls/women do it just to throw a fucking party as if they get joy having one. Then you fucking morons never pony up with a punishment for the girl/women because they are involved in that decision too. Then you still do not give one fuck about any health problems the kid or mother might have nor do you give a fuck about either after the birth. SO AGAIN FUCK YOU AND FUCK OFF YOU SELFISH NARCISSISTIC PRICK!

Come on Brian, let's try and keep things civil

[Aroura]

A fertilized egg isn't a human being, even if it is alive. It is a potential human being. If a fertilized egg never implants on it's own, or implants improperly (and many suffer this fate), then a natural abortion occurs. I mean, god must hate a lot of potential people, he causes a lot of natural abortions.

A fertilized egg is also not a "complete human". The bacteria living in your gut are also "biologically distinct life forms, in their own right, both genetically and developmentally", yet we have no problem killing them off by the thousands with a dose of penicillin.
Most scientists understand these things. This is why they have different terms, like zygote and embryo. Note, they do not call a fertilized egg a human or a baby or any other emotionally manipulative term.

So your claim is the image on the left is worthless and can be discarded without concern, but the image on the right is a human, with the same rights as you, or the mother? Please be clear, now.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A fertilized egg isn't a human being, even if it is alive. It is a potential human being. A sperm is also alive, and is also a potential human being.

Neither a sperm cell nor unfertilized egg have in-themselves the potential to develop and actualize human potential. What makes the fertilized egg a human is its potential to grown and develop as a human from the first instant of its being to its last breath as a mature adult. As an example, an acorn, the resulting sapling, and matured tree are the same oak, just in different stages of development. The terms 'zygote' and 'embryo' are like 'child' and 'elder'. They describe stages of development for the same being, not different beings.

The fact of spontaneous abortions is a fact to consider when balancing the human rights of the unborn versus those of the woman carrying the unborn. It is a grave and callous mistake to assume that the unborn have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

[FatAndFaithless]

A fertilized egg isn't a human being, even if it is alive. It is a potential human being. A sperm is also alive, and is also a potential human being.

Neither a sperm cell nor unfertilized egg have in-themselves the potential to develop and actualize human potential. What makes the fertilized egg a human is its potential to grown and develop as a human from the first instant of its being to its last breath as a mature adult.

The fact of spontaneous abortions is a fact to consider when balancing the human rights of the unborn versus those of the woman carrying the unborn. It is a grave and callous mistake to assume that the unborn have absolutely no rights whatsoever.

So we're back to the point of where you think human life begins. It it conception? You didn't respond to my earlier post so I'll just re-ask here.