Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?

[dneal]

Depends on how one determines "life". At the cellular level - i.e.: Lloyd's "clump of cells", or conception? At some arbitrary resemblance of a human being? At viability?

That determination precedes sanctity of life ethics.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

From a biological perspective even a single cell represents life.

As I said before, the abortion argument is not about pros and cons - which are generally clearly understood - but about the religious overlay that some want to apply to all and is couched more along the lines of right and wrong.

[Lloyd]

They're not arguing about veganism (sanctity of lifers would). They're in agreement on the sanctity of human life. Otherwise, euthanasia, capital punishment, and killing enemy civilians would be fine. When is the clump equal to human life though?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

From a biological perspective even a single cell represents life.

As I said before, the abortion argument is not about pros and cons - which are generally clearly understood - but about the religious overlay that some want to apply to all and is couched more along the lines of right and wrong.

Agreed. Even the haploid gametes are "alive". There is actually no such thing as "the beginning of life" because all of these cells are "alive" in all their stages.

I have written already on one of these threads that as far as I was concerned, the country had reached a reasonable compromise in the competing vision of "pros and cons" and "right and wrongs" with abortion being legal up to about 20 weeks gestation (viability).

Some states have abandoned this sense of compromise for the competing interests of society and are now going to outlaw the practice all together, perhaps even attempting to regulate abortofactant medicines. That is a lack of balance and compromise and of wisdom.

[dneal]

I’m not arguing pros and cons. The biological perspective is one of many perspectives. A cancer cell is alive, and so is a virus, for example. There is no debate on the sanctity of those lives, and we don’t “abort” them. The debate is in the context of human life. I’m pointing out that definition of “human life” must be agreed upon prior to debates on the sanctity. That’s the first impasse.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Well, viruses aren't alive and cancer cells are simply over-reproductive regular cells (and are alive).

I disagree with the rest though because the sanctity of life exists irrespective of whether abortions are legal or not. The decision on when a 'clump of cells' can be called life is inextricably connected with sanctity of life as it relates to abortion. If it wasn't we wouldn't be concerned about abortions in the first place.

[Lloyd]

Is about what designated a life that possesses the "sanctity". A mouse is alive, but no one minds it dying in a trap. Here, sanctity doesn't only have the religious connotation; it's a moral one. Atheists value human life, too.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Well, viruses aren't alive and cancer cells are simply over-reproductive regular cells (and are alive).

I disagree with the rest though because the sanctity of life exists irrespective of whether abortions are legal or not. The decision on when a 'clump of cells' can be called life is inextricably connected with sanctity of life as it relates to abortion. If it wasn't we wouldn't be concerned about abortions in the first place.

That’s all fine, but your disagreement demonstrates my point.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

How so? All arguments against abortion rely on socio-religious constructs.

[Chuck Naill]

How so? All arguments against abortion rely on socio-religious constructs.

I am pro life in the sense that the unborn are underdeveloped human life. It would be surprising if most people were not affected by the appearance of an abortion of a 20-week-old fetus.

As a volunteer in the NICU and grand parent of twins born at 27 weeks, I was able to see these little ones and moved to compassion. For me, I cannot see them as a clump of cells as some here have referred to them. Language is important. If we call them a clump of cells and that they are not viable, it allows us to make ourselves believe something, so we don't feel as if a human lost their life, but that is exactly what happened.

Fetuses are not things, but exactly what they are. Now, if you are the sort that does not care about those things, perhaps you can look away and it does not bother you, but I think most people would be bothered and not because society or religious affiliation says they should.

[dneal]

How so? All arguments against abortion rely on socio-religious constructs.

You demonstrate my point that first there must be some agreement on what constitutes "life", and that the context must be "human life" if we're talking about abortion. Basic framework must be established or we end up arguing over clumps of cells, vegetables, viruses, etc...

The discussion hasn't yet jumped that hurdle, so it's still too early to discuss "sanctity" ethics.

"Socio-religious constructs" is ambiguous as well. The first part references society - which is the interaction of groups of humans, among other things, which can be pretty much anything if it involves humans. If one argues some Kantian intrinsic value instead of a religious basis, for example, does that fall under the 'socio' portion of the construct?

[TSherbs]

Rep Miller mixed up her speeches:

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...3ef5366fbefb4d

[TSherbs]

How so? All arguments against abortion rely on socio-religious constructs.

I am pro life in the sense that the unborn are underdeveloped human life. It would be surprising if most people were not affected by the appearance of an abortion of a 20-week-old fetus.

As a volunteer in the NICU and grand parent of twins born at 27 weeks, I was able to see these little ones and moved to compassion. For me, I cannot see them as a clump of cells as some here have referred to them. Language is important. If we call them a clump of cells and that they are not viable, it allows us to make ourselves believe something, so we don't feel as if a human lost their life, but that is exactly what happened.

Fetuses are not things, but exactly what they are. Now, if you are the sort that does not care about those things, perhaps you can look away and it does not bother you, but I think most people would be bothered and not because society or religious affiliation says they should.

A 27-week fetus is past the medical consensus of viability.

A 20-week fetus is not. A 15-week fetus is not. A 10-week fetus is not. And a newly-fertilized ovum is not. These various stages of reproductive human development are not equivalents.

The various ethical and legal interests of society had found a reasonable working compromise at the national level, but the SC, in its new collection of extreme ideology, has just thrown that wisdom out.

[TSherbs]

There is a wisdom of "the middle path". Zealots tend not to compromise and lack this wisdom. They have energy and conviction and a sense of righteousness, but lack wisdom.

[Chuck Naill]

How so? All arguments against abortion rely on socio-religious constructs.

I am pro life in the sense that the unborn are underdeveloped human life. It would be surprising if most people were not affected by the appearance of an abortion of a 20-week-old fetus.

As a volunteer in the NICU and grand parent of twins born at 27 weeks, I was able to see these little ones and moved to compassion. For me, I cannot see them as a clump of cells as some here have referred to them. Language is important. If we call them a clump of cells and that they are not viable, it allows us to make ourselves believe something, so we don't feel as if a human lost their life, but that is exactly what happened.

Fetuses are not things, but exactly what they are. Now, if you are the sort that does not care about those things, perhaps you can look away and it does not bother you, but I think most people would be bothered and not because society or religious affiliation says they should.

A 27-week fetus is past the medical consensus of viability.

A 20-week fetus is not. A 15-week fetus is not. A 10-week fetus is not. And a newly-fertilized ovum is not. These various stages of reproductive human development are not equivalents.

The various ethical and legal interests of society had found a reasonable working compromise at the national level, but the SC, in its new collection of extreme ideology, has just thrown that wisdom out.

Is an iris bulb less of an iris? The gestational process is one of development.

A couple expecting a baby doesn’t think like you because they want and value the child regardless of 10, 15, 20, or 27 weeks. It is only when abortion is discussed, suddenly the conversation changes.

The interests of the white American society allowed native people removal and other humans to be used as slaves. They also felt is was reasonable and felt justified in their actions.

[TSherbs]

.. It is only when abortion is discussed, suddenly the conversation changes.

Of course. Abortion is the topic here, not "couples trying to get pregnant."

I actually can't tell from your posts in this thread: Chuck, are you opposed to abortion as a legal option for women in America?

[Chuck Naill]

Don’t you see the hypocrisy? It’s only a child if it’s wanted, but a clump of cells if not. It’s the language that changes.

Indians were savages if their land was wanted and Africans were not fully human if you needed their free labor. Same people, the language changes to justify the actions.

I am pro life but abortion cannot be a crime. I would be more for having a choice as long as everyone involved is fully informed. I can’t be pro life and leave out the mother and father. I’ve seen the result of opioid laws for pregnant women.

Contraceptions should be fully available to anyone not wanting to become pregnant. Abortion was actually reduced during tue Obama administration.

Rape, incest, and mothers health has always, until now been a consideration for abortion.

Pro life proponents have been vilified by pro abortion groups. The zealots are not on one side. And, Planned Parenthood is not what they appear. They are a service first and foremost. There are reasons to wanting abortion to be a form of birth control.

[TSherbs]

Is that a "yes, abortion should be a legal option for women"?

[Chuck Naill]

You’re stuck on one frequency this morning.

Legality is a broad concept with provisions and limits. Kermit Gosnell was legally performing abortions until he wasn’t. It’s legal to drive a car or use a firearm with limits.

As with most things, I prefer some balance. People are going to have sex, but there is a reason to expect them to understand their responsibility and obligations.

[dneal]

Ignore him Chuck, he’s just trolling you.