The argument that convinces me to be Pro-Choice

[Wozza]

Unless I am reading your posts inaccurately, we have a differing definition of personhood.

That’s the discussion in a nutshell. In brief, I don’t consider a few cells to be a person. I do consider a young child to be a person. That’s why I (and probably you) would save the child from the burning building as opposed to the embryos.

And is there a definite line between not being a person and being one? Unfortunately not. If there were then we’d have a point at which people like myself could say: ‘abortion is ok at this point but not after it’. So as it is, my position is that it is entirely acceptable to have an abortion for whatever reason shortly after conception but not for any reason shortly before birth. And…it becomes less acceptable the later the pregnancy. Because we move from a few cells, which cannot be described as a person using any available definition (and I won’t accept people redefining terms to suit their argument) to that which we could certainly describe as one - such as a new born baby.

So it might come down to the definition of person. An autonomous human able to exist with help if necessary and exhibits all signs of being able to interact with the surroundings. That might do to start, although we could bounce that around for a while. And I’m sure that you could point out at any stage that a late term foetus could fullfill the definition given above. Plus any upon we would agree. And I wouldn’t argue. But take it back to very early stages and I will.

 

[njlisa]

Race and poverty are closely correlated. Look at these data and tell me abortion is a freely made “choice” for poor women. And consider the disproportionate number of black children abortion. There’s nothing fair about abortion. (BTW, this chart comes from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But simply saying that it’s ‘human dna’ isn’t enough

It is therefore a living human being, and entitled to all the protection that any other living human being is entitled to.

I don’t believe it’s possible to describe the few cells present after conception as ‘a living human being’. A potential human being definitely. And there lies a significant difference.

Otherwise you’d sacrifice the one child to save the dozen embryos from the fire.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t believe it’s possible to describe the few cells present after conception as ‘a living human being’.

And yet I just did.
And once again, you do not address all three criteria.
And finally, if YOU can say someone else is not a “living human being,” what protection do you have against someone else defining YOU as not a “living human being?”

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I don’t believe it’s possible to describe the few cells present after conception as ‘a living human being’.

And yet I just did.

As I said earlier, I am discounting any definitions that are self serving and squeezed into concepts that don’t exist. You can call a few cells a human being until the cows come home. I’ve no problem in you doing that. But it means that we have no agreed basis for a reasonable discussion.

Edit: Your definition does mean that you save the embryos rather than the child. Am I correct in saying that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

As I said earlier, I am discounting any definitions that are self serving and squeezed into concepts that don’t exist. You can call a few cells a human being until the cows come home. I’ve no problem in you doing that. But it means that we have no agreed basis for a reasonable discussion.

That’s the pot calling the kettle black!
You can call a few cells not a human being until the cows come home. But it still doesn’t explain how you are immune to the same tactic – being considered non-human, and killed.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

As I said earlier, I am discounting any definitions that are self serving and squeezed into concepts that don’t exist. You can call a few cells a human being until the cows come home. I’ve no problem in you doing that. But it means that we have no agreed basis for a reasonable discussion.

That’s the pot calling the kettle black!
You can call a few cells not a human being until the cows come home. But it still doesn’t explain how you are immune to the same tactic – being considered non-human, and killed.

We are using different definitions so there is no hope of a discussion. If you can’t differentiate between a few cells and an adult and can describe both as ‘a human being’ then we have nowhere to go.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are using different definitions so there is no hope of a discussion. If you can’t differentiate between a few cells and an adult and can describe both as ‘a human being’ then we have nowhere to go.

And if you can’t see you’re advocating murder you are doing what you accuse me of.

And you still haven’t answered the question: “How are you immune to the same tactic – being considered non-human, and killed.”

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

We are using different definitions so there is no hope of a discussion. If you can’t differentiate between a few cells and an adult and can describe both as ‘a human being’ then we have nowhere to go.

And if you can’t see you’re advocating murder you are doing what you accuse me of.

And you still haven’t answered the question: “How are you immune to the same tactic – being considered non-human, and killed.”

Vern, you need to be specific in your terms. What is your definition of a human being?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you need to be specific in your terms. What is your definition of a human being?

I thought I posted this before:

1. Living
2. Human DNA
3. Having its own DNA

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Vern, you need to be specific in your terms. What is your definition of a human being?

I thought I posted this before:

1. Living
2. Human DNA
3. Having its own DNA

Like my toe nail. Like my sperm. Like my wife’s eggs. Each is living, has human dna and has it’s own unique dna.

As I said, definitions need to be specific. And agreed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Like my toe nail. Like my sperm. Like my wife’s eggs. Each is living, has human dna and has it’s own unique dna.

Are you saying your toenail has its OWN DNA? Different from the rest of your body?

Do you really believe that?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Like my toe nail. Like my sperm. Like my wife’s eggs. Each is living, has human dna and has it’s own unique dna.

Are you saying your toenail has its OWN DNA? Different from the rest of your body?

Do you really believe that?

Ah, you want something that doesn’t have it’s own dna that’s not different from the rest of my body. Fair enough. So if we have that something and it’s living, has human dna and has it’s own dna (as defined above), then it’s human. Is that right?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You might need more nuance or a different approach to cover the same thing. Instead of saying having it’s own DNA, it can be said that it has to be an organism as in an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.