Your period question, while revolting, does lean on an interesting moral co-shaper: technology.

Before the invention of helicopters, was it okay for a society to leave people stranded during storm surges from hurricanes? Was it someone's duty to row out to them even if the rescuer faced certain death? (Of course not). Now that helicopters make it capable of rescuing people is it morally wrong to not have a rescue service?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, lots of people consider fertilized eggs life. Hence there is actual debate about what to do with the eggs after you've had the kids you want via in vitro. It seems like splitting hairs to say it's not in the first trimester once fertilized but probably necessary if you want to validate that mourning but not fertilization. Quite arbitrary. Dunno what the hell happened but nuance sure went out the window quickly in this response when you started talking about collecting periods.

---

I don't see why. That's literally what you should be pushing for if you really think that all fertilized eggs are full human beings. Otherwise you're just ignoring the largest source of mass human death in the entire world. The fertility clinic issue is another good example. Couples get multiple eggs fertilized and only implant one or two. No one has a dozen children and then decides to cryofreeze all but the 2 they really want. Replace "fertilized egg" in those debates with "4 year old child" and the debate suddenly becomes monstrous. Should we keep the "4 year old children" frozen until someone wants them, or should we just throw away the "4 year old children". Both sides of the debate are horrific if you actually believe a fertilized egg is a full human being.

---

If I had stars I'd meme you asking, 'is this a nuance?'

Life doesn't begin, it continues. We've never documented an instance of life beginning.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

Although I appreciate this debate has been, um, a lively one, I think it has also highlighted one of the complexities of the debate in that its almost completely devoid of women's perspective.

I think it's callous and naive to simply chalk up women's decision to abort as one of simply a matter of convenience. If bringing pregnancy to full term occured in male bodies, with the realistic possibilities of death, disfigurement, abandonment, economic and career derailment, this debate would be quite different.

Honestly, if every time a baby was brought to full term a man's ***** was ripped we might not have made it as a species at all.

This is why I'm personally prolife but pragmatically prochoice. Despite my strong feelings on the subject, I'll never have to be put in the position to make the choice.

Convenience is a word that's being stretched one way or another - I shouldn't have used it, because it's meaning is too varied. In vernacular some folks use it with inconvenience in mind, which is a word we use to speak of minor or trifling disruptions to our life (or their absence).

I'm using it as an absence of hardship, or difficulty - ease, in a general sense. Saying "I am poor and a child is expensive" is an argument of convenience. Saying "I don't want to bear a child to term and deliver it" is also a matter of convenience - avoiding hardship, pain, whatever. Not a minor matter of convenience, but convenience nonetheless.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, lots of people consider fertilized eggs life. Hence there is actual debate about what to do with the eggs after you've had the kids you want via in vitro. It seems like splitting hairs to say it's not in the first trimester once fertilized but probably necessary if you want to validate that mourning but not fertilization. Quite arbitrary. Dunno what the hell happened but nuance sure went out the window quickly in this response when you started talking about collecting periods.

---

I don't see why. That's literally what you should be pushing for if you really think that all fertilized eggs are full human beings. Otherwise you're just ignoring the largest source of mass human death in the entire world. The fertility clinic issue is another good example. Couples get multiple eggs fertilized and only implant one or two. No one has a dozen children and then decides to cryofreeze all but the 2 they really want. Replace "fertilized egg" in those debates with "4 year old child" and the debate suddenly becomes monstrous. Should we keep the "4 year old children" frozen until someone wants them, or should we just throw away the "4 year old children". Both sides of the debate are horrific if you actually believe a fertilized egg is a full human being.

---

Ok I have time for a longer response right now.

I consider eggs implanting or being fertilized to be an involuntary process, like breathing. The moral decision took place before this stage (sex) and at this point the body's on autopilot. There is no moral agency in determining implantation unless you're taking birth control or abortifacient pills. You can't will an egg to implantation by thinking about it as far as I'm aware. That's why this is such a silly comparison.

An equivalent analogy would be if you and I went to lunch. If you drank water and it went down your trachea and you choked, I wouldn't accuse you of attempted suicide. It's an involuntary process, not a moral choice. I could of course be wrong, you may have done it on purpose to protest waterboarding but it happens all the time to people who don't want it to happen so that's not my base assumption.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

My whole point with that line of thought was to demonstrate that no one really believes a fertlized egg is equivalent to a 4 year old child. Literally no one on Earth treats fertilized eggs and 4 year old children the same way. People can talk all they want, but no ones behavior backs up that belief. When I try to show what sort of behavior would actually reflect that belief regarding fertilized eggs, I get accused of being ridiculous.

More broadly, my point was to show that there is more middle ground than people think between the "every sperm is sacred" and "abortion is fine until the child is 12" positions that drive the narrative.

Quote:

---

I consider eggs implanting or being fertilized to be an involuntary process, like breathing. The moral decision took place before this stage (sex) and at this point the body's on autopilot. There is no moral agency in determining implantation unless you're taking birth control or abortifacient pills. You can't will an egg to implantation by thinking about it as far as I'm aware. That's why this is such a silly comparison.

---

Well I think every 4 year old child that dies deserves a funeral. If you think that a fertilized egg is equal to a 4 year old child, then you would want every fertilized egg to have a funeral. Therefore, you would need to know every time a fertilized egg did not implant so someone could mourn them. No one thinks this way. That's why the comparison sounds silly. I'm merely pointing out how you should be acting if you really believe that

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I consider eggs implanting or being fertilized to be an involuntary process, like breathing. The moral decision took place before this stage (sex) and at this point the body's on autopilot. There is no moral agency in determining implantation unless you're taking birth control or abortifacient pills. You can't will an egg to implantation by thinking about it as far as I'm aware. That's why this is such a silly comparison.

---

Well I think every 4 year old child that dies deserves a funeral. If you think that a fertilized egg is equal to a 4 year old child, then you would want every fertilized egg to have a funeral. Therefore, you would need to know every time a fertilized egg did not implant so someone could mourn them. No one thinks this way. That's why the comparison sounds silly. I'm merely pointing out how you should be acting if you really believe that

---

Not at all. One doesn't know when fertilized eggs are passed, unlike a four year old. You even acknowledge that women mourn miscarriages, as my wife and I did ours. The burden of finding them all is so absurd it's not worth treating seriously; it's not nuance at all. It's a paralytic, not argumentation. The idea that we can't save every life and thus must resort to some much lower burden than preventing all abortions is not a serious engagement of the debate over life. Save as many as you can with a reasonable prohibition. My friends who did in vitro plan to use all their eggs and leave none behind precisely because they are lives.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

amen

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Although I appreciate this debate has been, um, a lively one, I think it has also highlighted one of the complexities of the debate in that its almost completely devoid of women's perspective.

I think it's callous and naive to simply chalk up women's decision to abort as one of simply a matter of convenience. If bringing pregnancy to full term occured in male bodies, with the realistic possibilities of death, disfigurement, abandonment, economic and career derailment, this debate would be quite different.

Honestly, if every time a baby was brought to full term a man's ***** was ripped we might not have made it as a species at all.

This is why I'm personally prolife but pragmatically prochoice. Despite my strong feelings on the subject, I'll never have to be put in the position to make the choice.

---

non sequitur

perspective doesn't change truth.

See above

Quote:

---

Not at all. One doesn't know when fertilized eggs are passed, unlike a four year old. You even acknowledge that women mourn miscarriages, as my wife and I did ours. The burden of finding them all is so absurd it's not worth treating seriously; it's not nuance at all.

---

So the burden of finding all the unaccounted-for dead fertilized eggs to mourn them is too high? Let me try my trick on that: So the burden of finding all the unaccounted-for dead 4 year olds to mourn them is too high? Do you even see how awful that second sentence sounds as you casually throw out the first one? Not a single person talks or acts like a fertlized egg is equivalent to a 4 year old child. So why is this the basis of debate?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Not at all. One doesn't know when fertilized eggs are passed, unlike a four year old. You even acknowledge that women mourn miscarriages, as my wife and I did ours. The burden of finding them all is so absurd it's not worth treating seriously; it's not nuance at all.

---

So the burden of finding all the unaccounted-for dead fertilized eggs to mourn them is too high? Let me try my trick on that: So the burden of finding all the unaccounted-for dead 4 year olds to mourn them is too high? Do you even see how awful that second sentence sounds as you casually throw out the first one? Not a single person talks or acts like a fertlized egg is equivalent to a 4 year old child. So why is this the basis of debate?

---

Yes. Like I said, whatever nuance you thought you were adding doesn't exist. Both are human lives and deserving of reasonable protection. Prohibiting abortion is an easy way to do that with. Sifting through periods is not.

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

Quote:

---

non sequitur

perspective doesn't change truth.

See above

---

Your perspective on the truth is just that, your perspective.

You don't speak for God.

It's the height of hubris to confuse your own understanding of what is right with a universal acknowledgement.

In this case, as the people who will actually suffer the consequences of the decision either way, women's perspective is extremely important.

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You keep using descriptive ethics to drive a moral point home. Hume would like to speak with you. An aught cannot arise from an is. Maybe society should treat fertilized eggs with the respect you declare too fervent. Societies reaction to a moral truth is irrelevant to the truth.

And, "An egg and sperm coming together is not a human being' is an extremely limited definition here. No one's claiming that and egg and a sperm form to immediately spring forth an 18 year old. A human egg and a human sperm certainly come together to form the first distinction of what will become an independent human. And if the presence of a brain is what does it for you, congrats on believing in the primordial streak as an important distinction. I expect to see you defend life once it hits 14 days as the spinal cord starts to form. Or maybe just a few weeks when they start to have organs.

And these are actually not philosophical questions. They are conceptual questions. The layers of an argument go as follows: Facts -> Concepts -> Applications -> Moral Distinctions. We are not arguing what forms right and wrong (a moral distinction). Nor are we arguing about whether abstract concepts like murder apply here. We are disagreeing on the fundamental level of facts and concepts. I state, as a fact, that an individuals life has a distinct beginning at fertilization. You reject that claim. To you, all life is fluid and personhood exists at birth. Our moral appeals pass like ships in a night because we don't agree on more fundamental levels.

a philosophical point that people claim to hold but don't actually act as if they really believe it doesn't get a lot of consideration from me as something worth being concerned about.

claiming that a human being is created at conception is theater.

everyone whether they want to admit it or not behaves that way.

somethat that could become a human being isn't a human being. a seed isn't an oak tree. a spinal cord isn't a brain.

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You're making points without engaging intent which matters. How can something be moral or immoral without intent, when it's an involuntary bodily function? A person with congestive heart failure isn't attempting suicide like ramblin wasn't either when water went down his trachea. Miscarriages aren't crimes; there's no moral act. Would we arrest storm clouds when lightning kills someone? Put electricity on trial? Of course not. These are abstractions, sleights of hand to justify an actual decision to murder a person. The only reason to make an arbitrary distinction for personhood is because you want to kill someone, not because you want to keep them alive.

The in vitro arguments I would consider far more worthy to engage with since someone's making an actual moral decision about the life of another human being. But again intent matters - do you intend to implant all the eggs? Do you give them up for adoption if not? The alternatives, yes, we could discuss human rights over.

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You're making points without engaging intent which matters. How can something be moral or immoral without intent, when it's an involuntary bodily function? A person with congestive heart failure isn't attempting suicide like ramblin wasn't either when water went down his trachea. Miscarriages aren't crimes; there's no moral act. Would we arrest storm clouds when lightning kills someone? Put electricity on trial? Of course not. These are abstractions, sleights of hand to justify an actual decision to murder a person. The only reason to make an arbitrary distinction for personhood is because you want to kill someone, not because you want to keep them alive.

The in vitro arguments I would consider far more worthy to engage with since someone's making an actual moral decision about the life of another human being. But again intent matters - do you intend to implant all the eggs? Do you give them up for adoption if not? The alternatives, yes, we could discuss human rights over.

---

how do you establish intent without investigation? maybe it's a miscarriage, maybe the person threw themselves down the stairs on purpose. maybe they are taking things that can be abortifacients. if it's a human being, are you cool with a possible murderer being let off because of their assurances that they didn't intend to do the deed?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

non sequitur

perspective doesn't change truth.

See above

---

Your perspective on the truth is just that, your perspective.

You don't speak for God.

It's the height of hubris to confuse your own understanding of what is right with a universal acknowledgement.

In this case, as the people who will actually suffer the consequences of the decision either way, women's perspective is extremely important.

---

I guess the children being murdered don't get a voice or to add their perspective?

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You're making points without engaging intent which matters. How can something be moral or immoral without intent, when it's an involuntary bodily function? A person with congestive heart failure isn't attempting suicide like ramblin wasn't either when water went down his trachea. Miscarriages aren't crimes; there's no moral act. Would we arrest storm clouds when lightning kills someone? Put electricity on trial? Of course not. These are abstractions, sleights of hand to justify an actual decision to murder a person. The only reason to make an arbitrary distinction for personhood is because you want to kill someone, not because you want to keep them alive.

The in vitro arguments I would consider far more worthy to engage with since someone's making an actual moral decision about the life of another human being. But again intent matters - do you intend to implant all the eggs? Do you give them up for adoption if not? The alternatives, yes, we could discuss human rights over.

---

how do you establish intent without investigation? maybe it's a miscarriage, maybe the person threw themselves down the stairs on purpose. maybe they are taking things that can be abortifacients. if it's a human being, are you cool with a possible murderer being let off because of their assurances that they didn't intend to do the deed?

---

I totally agree. You're supporting my assertion that it's an unreasonable burden to strain periods and outlaw miscarriages. Abortions aren't remotely the same.

Your fact is wrong though. The system of an egg and sperm 2 feet apart is alive and has the potential to become an adult human. If they're near each other, they have that potential, if they're touching they have that potential, if they're bound they have it, if their membranes fuse they still have that potential but now we call it a single cell. A spermatogonia and an oocyst have the potential to become an adult human. 2 embryos have the potential to grow up, produce zygotes, and become a single adult human.

There is no line, only events with varying likelihoods of occurrence. The more you zoom in, the more you find a seamless continuum, devoid of meaning. Cells grow, split apart, fuse, split apart, fuse, split apart, fuse, and that's how your great grandma turned into you. The fusion and the splitting are merely critical steps in a continuous chain.

Quote:

---

I feel bad having to tell this to someone with multiple degrees.

---

You're better than this.

schmendeler said:

---

a philosophical point that people claim to hold but don't actually act as if they really believe it doesn't get a lot of consideration from me as something worth being concerned about.

You're still in descriptive ethics land. Your worldview and morality are anchored in the prevailing cultural opinions around you. What you want is normative ethics.

claiming that a human being is created at conception is theater.

Theater? What does this even mean? You're just hand waiving here.

everyone whether they want to admit it or not behaves that way.

See above.

somethat that could become a human being isn't a human being. a seed isn't an oak tree. a spinal cord isn't a brain.

A acorn that has sprouted in the ground meets the same definition of 'is an oak tree' as the one that is 50 feet tall.

How far along does a brain have to be developed to be considered a brain for you? 11 week sonogram you can see a brain clear as day. A child could point out where the brain is on a drawing of a 7 week embryo.

---

By your own definitions, y'all are proponents of very strict abortion control here. Scientific observation of the presence of human forms leaves you believing in abortions only before a couple weeks. Anything beyond that relies on a philosophical framework that rationalizes the idea of personhood.

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You're making points without engaging intent which matters. How can something be moral or immoral without intent, when it's an involuntary bodily function? A person with congestive heart failure isn't attempting suicide like ramblin wasn't either when water went down his trachea. Miscarriages aren't crimes; there's no moral act. Would we arrest storm clouds when lightning kills someone? Put electricity on trial? Of course not. These are abstractions, sleights of hand to justify an actual decision to murder a person. The only reason to make an arbitrary distinction for personhood is because you want to kill someone, not because you want to keep them alive.

The in vitro arguments I would consider far more worthy to engage with since someone's making an actual moral decision about the life of another human being. But again intent matters - do you intend to implant all the eggs? Do you give them up for adoption if not? The alternatives, yes, we could discuss human rights over.

---

how do you establish intent without investigation? maybe it's a miscarriage, maybe the person threw themselves down the stairs on purpose. maybe they are taking things that can be abortifacients. if it's a human being, are you cool with a possible murderer being let off because of their assurances that they didn't intend to do the deed?

---

I totally agree. You're supporting my assertion that it's an unreasonable burden to strain periods and outlaw miscarriages. Abortions aren't remotely the same.

---

you need to read a little more carefully. i'm not arguing that miscarriages should be outlawed. i'm saying that if you think that a human being is created at conception that you owe it to that person to investigate every pregnancy that doesn't reach full term to determine if they were murdered or otherwise harmed with intent or negligence. does a murdered person not deserve justice? if it was a simple biological failure, then so be it. but if not, then the person at fault should be held accountable, no?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel bad having to tell this to someone with multiple degrees.

---

You're better than this.

---

Point taken.

Let's play "Count the Human Beings". I'm going to describe a process in a hypothetical embryology lab, and y'all tell me how many unique human beings there are at the timepoints labeled in parentheses.

Imagine I have a single cell zygote. I let it develop into an 8-cell ball (point A). I remove one of the cells, so that I have a 7 cell ball and a single isolated cell (point B). Then, I reattach the cell to the ball (Point C).

I would say the answers are:

Point A: 1 human
Point B: 2 humans
Point C: 1 human

I can also see arguments for 122 or 111.

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You're making points without engaging intent which matters. How can something be moral or immoral without intent, when it's an involuntary bodily function? A person with congestive heart failure isn't attempting suicide like ramblin wasn't either when water went down his trachea. Miscarriages aren't crimes; there's no moral act. Would we arrest storm clouds when lightning kills someone? Put electricity on trial? Of course not. These are abstractions, sleights of hand to justify an actual decision to murder a person. The only reason to make an arbitrary distinction for personhood is because you want to kill someone, not because you want to keep them alive.

The in vitro arguments I would consider far more worthy to engage with since someone's making an actual moral decision about the life of another human being. But again intent matters - do you intend to implant all the eggs? Do you give them up for adoption if not? The alternatives, yes, we could discuss human rights over.

---

how do you establish intent without investigation? maybe it's a miscarriage, maybe the person threw themselves down the stairs on purpose. maybe they are taking things that can be abortifacients. if it's a human being, are you cool with a possible murderer being let off because of their assurances that they didn't intend to do the deed?

---

I totally agree. You're supporting my assertion that it's an unreasonable burden to strain periods and outlaw miscarriages. Abortions aren't remotely the same.

---

you need to read a little more carefully. i'm not arguing that miscarriages should be outlawed. i'm saying that if you think that a human being is created at conception that you owe it to that person to investigate every pregnancy that doesn't reach full term to determine if they were murdered or otherwise harmed with intent or negligence. does a murdered person not deserve justice? if it was a simple biological failure, then so be it. but if not, then the person at fault should be held accountable, no?

---

No, I really don't. Just like I don't need to know how many individual cells or atoms have to come off someone's body before it's considered assault. It's a paralytic tactic designed to dismiss any opposition to abortion. You're saying unless I perfectly protect every single life to the fullest extent that I may not oppose an obvious murder and I may not claim to be pro-life. It is more concerned with making me a hypocrite via ad hominem than assessing any reasonable standard for protecting life. You're demanding that I, what, give every woman a pregnancy test each day and ask them what happens if they're not pregnant the next? And be fully prepared to prosecute them? And this is a reasonable burden in your mind?

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You're making points without engaging intent which matters. How can something be moral or immoral without intent, when it's an involuntary bodily function? A person with congestive heart failure isn't attempting suicide like ramblin wasn't either when water went down his trachea. Miscarriages aren't crimes; there's no moral act. Would we arrest storm clouds when lightning kills someone? Put electricity on trial? Of course not. These are abstractions, sleights of hand to justify an actual decision to murder a person. The only reason to make an arbitrary distinction for personhood is because you want to kill someone, not because you want to keep them alive.

The in vitro arguments I would consider far more worthy to engage with since someone's making an actual moral decision about the life of another human being. But again intent matters - do you intend to implant all the eggs? Do you give them up for adoption if not? The alternatives, yes, we could discuss human rights over.

---

how do you establish intent without investigation? maybe it's a miscarriage, maybe the person threw themselves down the stairs on purpose. maybe they are taking things that can be abortifacients. if it's a human being, are you cool with a possible murderer being let off because of their assurances that they didn't intend to do the deed?

---

I totally agree. You're supporting my assertion that it's an unreasonable burden to strain periods and outlaw miscarriages. Abortions aren't remotely the same.

---

you need to read a little more carefully. i'm not arguing that miscarriages should be outlawed. i'm saying that if you think that a human being is created at conception that you owe it to that person to investigate every pregnancy that doesn't reach full term to determine if they were murdered or otherwise harmed with intent or negligence. does a murdered person not deserve justice? if it was a simple biological failure, then so be it. but if not, then the person at fault should be held accountable, no?

---

No, I really don't. Just like I don't need to know how many individual cells or atoms have to come off someone's body before it's considered assault. It's a paralytic tactic designed to dismiss any opposition to abortion. You're saying unless I perfectly protect every single life to the fullest extent that I may not oppose an obvious murder and I may not claim to be pro-life. It is more concerned with making me a hypocrite via ad hominem than assessing any reasonable standard for protecting life. You're demanding that I, what, give every woman a pregnancy test each day and ask them what happens if they're not pregnant the next? And be fully prepared to prosecute them? And this is a reasonable burden in your mind?

---

is it murder, or not?

Quote:

---

You're saying unless I perfectly protect every single life to the fullest extent that I may not oppose an obvious murder and I may not claim to be pro-life

---

No one is saying this. I am pro-life, but I think the actions of attitudes of myself and every person I have ever met show that no one really believes a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 4 year old child. My personal line is drawn when the pregnancy implants in the uterus. Even then, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life I'm okay with ending the pregnancy. I'm also okay with ending pregnancies of non-viable (meaning never able to live outside the womb) embryos and fetuses at any point, preferable sooner rather than later. I think the plurality of pro-life people would be perfectly fine with my viewpoints on all these things. I think most pro-choice people are fine with harshly restricing abortions for fetuses after 20 something weeks when they could be viable outside the womb. So the real discussion to be had is what to do between implantation and outside-the-womb viability. But no one can have that conversation because both sides are polarized to the point of caricature

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So doc, if life doesn't begin at fertilization - when does it begin?

And it seems you're fond of creating separate terms for life from personhood. When does personhood begin?

And finally, don't use descriptive ethics to shape your moral framework here. If a poll shows that a 100% of people say abortion isn't morally wrong that doesn't actually change anything about the morality of it.

---

The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Both are alive before combining.

---

So when does a new life get formed? When does personhood begin? When do you define a fetus/baby as a distinct, independent being?

It seems this framework points to 'at birth' being the answer.

Are you okay with that? If 'everything is alive, no new life is created at conception' is the train of thought then abortions up until birth have to be permissible. There was nothing special happening at fertilization. There is nothing that happens between 0-9 months that changes a fetus's dependent status. Any restrictions on abortion now relies on the fictitious idea of personhood, which is based upon the idea that they start to look like a human.

---

these are philosophical questions. the point is that there is no exact point of where personhood begins, other than birth. it's not a matter of "science" or "facts".

an egg and sperm coming together is not a human being. human beings are not microscopic collections of cells without organs. they have brains.

if a fertilized egg was a human being, then ANY pregnancy that ended with something other than a live birth demands an investigation by law enforcement to determine if a murder or at minimum, wrongful death took place.

in vitro fertilization where embryos are stored indefinitely would be considered imprisonment. disposing of them would be murder as well.

no one actually believes that, though. because even the most hysterical pro-life person admits that those things are too much.

---

You're making points without engaging intent which matters. How can something be moral or immoral without intent, when it's an involuntary bodily function? A person with congestive heart failure isn't attempting suicide like ramblin wasn't either when water went down his trachea. Miscarriages aren't crimes; there's no moral act. Would we arrest storm clouds when lightning kills someone? Put electricity on trial? Of course not. These are abstractions, sleights of hand to justify an actual decision to murder a person. The only reason to make an arbitrary distinction for personhood is because you want to kill someone, not because you want to keep them alive.

The in vitro arguments I would consider far more worthy to engage with since someone's making an actual moral decision about the life of another human being. But again intent matters - do you intend to implant all the eggs? Do you give them up for adoption if not? The alternatives, yes, we could discuss human rights over.

---

how do you establish intent without investigation? maybe it's a miscarriage, maybe the person threw themselves down the stairs on purpose. maybe they are taking things that can be abortifacients. if it's a human being, are you cool with a possible murderer being let off because of their assurances that they didn't intend to do the deed?

---

I totally agree. You're supporting my assertion that it's an unreasonable burden to strain periods and outlaw miscarriages. Abortions aren't remotely the same.

---

you need to read a little more carefully. i'm not arguing that miscarriages should be outlawed. i'm saying that if you think that a human being is created at conception that you owe it to that person to investigate every pregnancy that doesn't reach full term to determine if they were murdered or otherwise harmed with intent or negligence. does a murdered person not deserve justice? if it was a simple biological failure, then so be it. but if not, then the person at fault should be held accountable, no?

---

No, I really don't. Just like I don't need to know how many individual cells or atoms have to come off someone's body before it's considered assault. It's a paralytic tactic designed to dismiss any opposition to abortion. You're saying unless I perfectly protect every single life to the fullest extent that I may not oppose an obvious murder and I may not claim to be pro-life. It is more concerned with making me a hypocrite via ad hominem than assessing any reasonable standard for protecting life. You're demanding that I, what, give every woman a pregnancy test each day and ask them what happens if they're not pregnant the next? And be fully prepared to prosecute them? And this is a reasonable burden in your mind?

---

is it murder, or not?

---

I thought I'd been quite clear on my stance about what I consider life given that I've discussed in vitro and the decision tree. The argument I present here is, what is the lowest reasonable standard to protect human life? Policing miscarriages and periods doesn't meet that, thus i view this as an abstraction and am not sure what the point of the question is.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

You're saying unless I perfectly protect every single life to the fullest extent that I may not oppose an obvious murder and I may not claim to be pro-life

---

No one is saying this. I am pro-life, but I think the actions of attitudes of myself and every person I have ever met show that no one really believes a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 4 year old child. My personal line is drawn when the pregnancy implants in the uterus. Even then, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life I'm okay with ending the pregnancy. I'm also okay with ending pregnancies of non-viable (meaning never able to live outside the womb) embryos and fetuses at any point, preferable sooner rather than later. I think the plurality of pro-life people would be perfectly fine with my viewpoints on all these things. I think most pro-choice people are fine with harshly restricing abortions for fetuses after 20 something weeks when they could be viable outside the womb. So the real discussion to be had is what to do between implantation and outside-the-womb viability. But no one can have that conversation because both sides are polarized to the point of caricature

---

The difference between a baby in the womb and four year old is one of attachment and relationship. An implanted fetus changes a woman physically which is why they grieve the loss, even if we don't understand it as men. It's much earlier for women but even more so for the child itself! My argument is that your attachment (physical or emotional) does not determine my, or anyone else's, humanity and personhood. Hence the need for protection, at which point prohibiting abortion is a reasonable non-invasive way to do that (unlike checking periods or prosecuting miscarriages).

Outside the womb viability is accelerating with technology. We've come so far since roe that the middle ground is shrinking. I believe it will continue to do so and render this moot. Why establish standards for personhood that will constantly move?