10 Abortion Arguments - 10 Arguments Against Abortion and 10 Arguments for Abortion

Not that I can see - Especially "the concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?"

There's no reference to time limits to abortion in this link and, in the US, the system seems viciously complicated by some stupid differences between the federal and state level - i.e. no federal limits but states can impose some.

IIRC, pro-choicers are very nervous about these because pro-lifers tend to use such restrictions as a wedge to try and unravel Roe v. Wade.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

All that to say, I don't think pro-choicers really say "sciences say X weeks means it's a baby". Viability outside the womb may be imperfect but that's the best we got and it's worth remembering it's a moving target, getting 'better' (earlier) with time and scientific progress.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

10 Abortion Arguments - 10 Arguments Against Abortion and 10 Arguments for Abortion Not that I can see - Especially "the concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?" There's no reference to time limits to abortion in this link and, in the US, the system seems viciously complicated by some stupid differences between the federal and state level - i.e. no federal limits but states can impose some. IIRC, pro-choicers are very nervous about these because pro-lifers tend to use such restrictions as a wedge to try and unravel Roe v. Wade.

Semantics. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers mean different things by "life" or "human".

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

All that to say, I don't think pro-choicers really say "sciences say X weeks means it's a baby". Viability outside the womb may be imperfect but that's the best we got and it's worth remembering it's a moving target, getting 'better' (earlier) with time and scientific progress.

Bit of luck for your arguments, isn't it? Think how terrible it'd look if all the "science" went in favour of it being a baby from conception onwards. It'd be like you guys were arguing for infanticide or something. Good job you've got plenty of "science" in your corner.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Semantics. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers mean different things by "life" or "human".

Indeed. And it's not just because of political posturing, although that's part of it. "It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. Defining life is difficult—in part—because life is a process, not a pure substance". - Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you said, religious people have the advantage to claim "it's what we say it is because of magic". OTOH, that very foundation makes it difficult to legislate in countries other than theocracies because you can easily retort "... since I don't believe in your brand of magic, your laws and definitions do not apply to me".

Quote:

Bit of luck for your arguments, isn't it? Think how terrible it'd look if all the "science" went in favour of it being a baby from conception onwards. It'd be like you guys were arguing for infanticide or something. Good job you've got plenty of "science" in your corner.

Again, I think you're trying for balance (the left is as bad as the right) in an area where it simply isn't true. "Baby" is not a scientific term. We are/I am/science is okay with the "life starts at conception" declaration. Sciences, I don't think, defines the term 'baby'. Thus, sciences' impact on the abortion debate is limited to stating that the religious people's position about "soul enters the child at the moment of conception" is indeed magical thinking. But that really is it.

Apart from that, the truth is that I am okay with the ending of life in order for society to function - thus, I am okay with eating meat - Or plants. Your anti-meat guy had tears in his eyes about the suffering of animals but didn't seem to give a shit about the suffering and eating of plants. Why? They're alive too.

I am not against the ending of human life either. From the discarded embryos to war to death penalty, we routinely kill human life when we think the results will be more satisfying than otherwise.

But, yes, I do think that the ending of human life should be done sparsely for a lot of reasons. From the fact that humans fight back to the expense of military actions to the waste of resources involved in eliminating humans. And to the general taboo against killing.

And yet none of that changes the fact that this...



looks and feels different from that:



That's 9 weeks, by the way. It already feels less comfortable killing that stuff but it still feels meaningfully different from killing this:

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.