3 ms·

Would you be ok with permitting murder on the basis "people will always do it."? Because if you take the arguments of pro-life advocates on good faith, that's

by akavi 10y ago

Would you be ok with permitting murder on the basis "people will always do it."? Because if you take the arguments of pro-life advocates on good faith, that's what you're saying. You can't make your case against position by ignoring the underlying reasons people hold it.

fsloth 10y ago
That's a strawman. Murder and abortion are different things. I don't have to take the arguments of pro-life advocates on good faith since they are obviously poorly informed on the matter, to put it kindly. I'm not saying the case is logically or morally obvious, but there is a large number of western states that hold this distinction. Up to a certain age, the embryo and later fetus are effectively considered to be a part of mother's physiology. What other stand could there be? If we consider an ova and a sperm sacred human life it means I cannot masturbate without murdering a gazillion future human beings. Enter Monty Python's "Every sperm is sacred...". So, I suppose we can then accept disjoint sperm and ova are not humans? That a bunch of matter, that under specific conditions, may become a human , is not a human - until it actually is. If we bring the sperm and the ovum infinitesimally closer to each other they are distinct. If we wait for the wee sperm bugger to dig in, they are not yet a human. A human (by my distinction) needs more neural cells than a tapeworm. We can wait for some cellular divisions to happen. A blastula is just a collection of non-specialized cells. Tapeworm is still more advanced. I'm not going to go on, anyone can induce the steps between a bunch of cells to a human from wikipedia. The point is, potential-for-humanity cannot be equaled with humanity - it's not applicable to human experience or human behaviour. Sex cells are not humans. An embryo less advanced than a tapeworm is not a human. As the fetus grows, there is a phase of transition where it gets human characteristics, after which the discussion actually starts to get ambiguous. But, a bunch of cells, in a womans uterus, is not a human until a certain point. I'm not saying abortion should be used lightly. I'm saying, that anti-abortionists are uneducated, mostly ignorant of the personal, physiological or moral situation of abortion candidates. [edit:I modified some parts afterwards which were really not that polite]

by akavi 10y ago

fsloth 10y ago

That's a strawman. Murder and abortion are different things. I don't have to take the arguments of pro-life advocates on good faith since they are obviously poorly informed on the matter, to put it kindly. I'm not saying the case is logically or morally obvious, but there is a large number of western states that hold this distinction. Up to a certain age, the embryo and later fetus are effectively considered to be a part of mother's physiology. What other stand could there be? If we consider an ova and a sperm sacred human life it means I cannot masturbate without murdering a gazillion future human beings. Enter Monty Python's "Every sperm is sacred...". So, I suppose we can then accept disjoint sperm and ova are not humans? That a bunch of matter, that under specific conditions, may become a human , is not a human - until it actually is. If we bring the sperm and the ovum infinitesimally closer to each other they are distinct. If we wait for the wee sperm bugger to dig in, they are not yet a human. A human (by my distinction) needs more neural cells than a tapeworm. We can wait for some cellular divisions to happen. A blastula is just a collection of non-specialized cells. Tapeworm is still more advanced. I'm not going to go on, anyone can induce the steps between a bunch of cells to a human from wikipedia. The point is, potential-for-humanity cannot be equaled with humanity - it's not applicable to human experience or human behaviour. Sex cells are not humans. An embryo less advanced than a tapeworm is not a human. As the fetus grows, there is a phase of transition where it gets human characteristics, after which the discussion actually starts to get ambiguous. But, a bunch of cells, in a womans uterus, is not a human until a certain point. I'm not saying abortion should be used lightly. I'm saying, that anti-abortionists are uneducated, mostly ignorant of the personal, physiological or moral situation of abortion candidates. [edit:I modified some parts afterwards which were really not that polite]