I am personally opposed, but prochoice. Can you change my mind?

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Those were only a few items, my list wasn't exhaustive... You won't be able to find a definitive and objective single point where something becomes someone other than birth...  It's just my opinion, it's subjective like yours is... If you want objectivity and undeniability, only birth will give you that...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

May not be all the differences, but I assumed you highlighted the items that best presented your argument first

People can have opinions that not based in logic...I'm not saying yours 100% is, but so far you haven't provided good evidence as to why birth is a reasonable opinion to have. Even by your own standards to what makes a human a person you haven't pointed out differences (within that standard) existing between that of a birthed fetus and one still inside the womb. If I changed my mine opinion to yours, Id have to be able to logically explain to my self and others.

You won't be able to find a definitive and objective single point where something becomes someone other than birth...Conception is an objective single point.  You can argue validity, but it is a definitive and objective single point.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Why would you even want to change your opinion on where life begins? It's subjective and your opinion is as valid as mine... The real contention is whether one should impose their personal belief to others by way of law in this matter... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I don't want to change my opinion, I want my opinion to reside in logical reasoning. I reject the notion that just because ideas may be labeled as opinion one can not be more valid than another.  Chicken or beef...as far that taste goes that is an opinion only settled by preference.

Others like this one, or how much is humanity contributing to climate change can have higher levels validity to them based on reasoning.

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers


"Two consented but the woman gets decide whether the offspring lives or dies.  Is that equal?  When kept alive men have to pay child support.  If whether a fetus/baby lives or not is solely decided by a mother, why can't the man solely decide to abandon it and not pay child support?"

Unless men have a fetus living inside of their body, there is no comparison and no legitimate question of inequality between men and women in regards to pregnancy.


 "I disagree that abortion is typically done in dire circumstances if your relating that to health of the mother."

We can disagree together, because this is not what I said. 


"When you were a fetus were you not you. i.e were you a separate individual."

No. When 'I' was a fetus, there was only "we". I was not separate individual until birth.


"Nothing but a human can develop into a human."

If it is already a human, then there would be no need to "develop into a human". 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

You said: Abortion is typically done only in dire circumstances beyond the control of the mother. She didn't cause pregnancy to threaten her health (but it has), and abortion is a defense of her life.

By saying this.  You have directly linked the "dire circumstances" that are beyond her control to the "threatening of her health" that she didn't cause (i.e the dire circumstance out of her control).  This insinuated that most abortions are performed out of interest to health of mother.

****Unless men have a fetus living inside of their body, there is no comparison and no legitimate question of inequality between men and women in regards to pregnancy.
This statement doesn't really have a purpose or mean anything.  My argument is that we don't create laws to mitigate every unequal outcome.

****No. When 'I' was a fetus, there was only "we". I was not separate individual until birth.

When one individual dies the other doesn't instantly die as well, you are separate entities. A parasite in your body would be a "we" and conjoined twins are individuals.

****If it is already a human, then there would be no need to "develop into a human". 

Only a human can further develop its humanity.  Not into, it already is.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

You won't be able to find a definitive and objective single point where something becomes someone other than birth...Conception is an objective single point.  You can argue validity, but it is a definitive and objective single point.

Is that a mistake on your part? I was talking about a point where "something" becomes "someone", not when life begins, as fertilization would somewhat be a valid point for that...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I was more taking your point to be that is one of the only definitive single point stages of fetal developement that someone can definitively point to.  I think there could be an argument made that creation of the 46 chromosomes and unique DNA transforms the sperm & egg from a something to a someone.  Also consciousness might be a another point, but what value does consciousness truly have if it doesn't produce hardly any rational thought? Really its just the ability to stabilize regular bodily function and the potential to learn in the future.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I'll just copy what I answered to you in the other thread (with a small edit in italic) as it answers this better and we can continue in only 1 place...

Birth is not a stage of development, but it's an undeniable threshold though, a very clear and unmistakable one. That is as binary or black & white as one can get here... You want a line, Nature itself drew the line... I feel like you're asking me "When does yellow become green? Or when does grey become black"...

You won't find a definitive precise moment because it's a continuum, a spectrum, and as no one perceives colours the same, no one perceives morality right/wrong, the same, and no one perceives personhood the same either...

All we can go with are vague "weeks" as the normative unit of reference (0-12 weeks, 13-24 weeks, and so on). But you will undoubtedly bring forth the same fallacy and ask "Well what's the difference between 12 and 13 weeks?" and I'll tell you again that it's fallacious reasoning that led to asking the question... 

I can agree that the later an abortion, the more morally challenging it becomes, but that only strengthens my pro-choice position imo... It can be so challenging that no one else but the one involved can make the decision... To me it's akin to the trolley problem in a way, it would be immoral to punish or force either possible choices (to pull the lever or not), only the one at the lever has the right to decide, no one else... 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

You said: Abortion is typically done only in dire circumstances beyond the control of the mother. She didn't cause pregnancy to threaten her health (but it has), and abortion is a defense of her life.

By saying this.  You have directly linked the "dire circumstances" that are beyond her control to the "threatening of her health" that she didn't cause (i.e the dire circumstance out of her control).  This insinuated that most abortions are performed out of interest to health of mother.

Actually, I said,"[...] at any point in the pregnancy where a fetus might reasonably be considered a person (if we assume personhood before birth is a thing), abortion is typically done only in dire circumstances beyond the control of the mother. She didn't cause pregnancy to threaten her health (but it has), and abortion is a defense of her life." 

Discounting the qualifying preamble distorts the meaning.  I get that you might hold personhood should be applied to anything after conception, but I don't (and neither does the legal status quo).  If it weren't clear on this alone, then the following sentence should have removed all ambiguity - "Early in the pregnancy there can be no reasonable application of personhood without diminishing what is means to be a person."

In the future, if you don't understand my words feel free to ask questions rather than assigning nonsense to me. 

****Unless men have a fetus living inside of their body, there is no comparison and no legitimate question of inequality between men and women in regards to pregnancy.

This statement doesn't really have a purpose or mean anything.  My argument is that we don't create laws to mitigate every unequal outcome.

I agree with that sentiment, but it is beside the point. Women have bodily autonomy (regardless of who lays claim to their body) - that is an equal outcome.

****No. When 'I' was a fetus, there was only "we". I was not separate individual until birth.

When one individual dies the other doesn't instantly die as well, you are separate entities. A parasite in your body would be a "we" and conjoined twins are individuals.

I don't see the distinction you're trying to make between an individual with a parasite, conjoined twins, and a pregnant individual. Are you suggesting distance between times of death equates to individuality? If so, this is absurdly simplistic and wrong.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

****No one perceives personhood the same either.

This doesn't mean everyone's view is valid, or that we should allow the subjective view of ignorant individuals justify ending a human life because there are differences in opinion  Some might not think a baby should be considered a person, maybe because it has no ability to take care of itself or have enough cognitive ability.

Vague weeks isn't completely true, we've studied the development of the fetus.  We can find the discernible differences between the baby each week. 

I can only change someone's mind in one of two ways.  1. Convince them that the human embryo is an individual in a developmental stage that will lends itself to become a cognitive individual...a potential worth protecting.

2. Get them to define what a person is. I can then provide reasons why there definition is invalid, or if the definition is agreeable we can examine the developmental level of the fetus on a week by week basis to identify when it meets the defined criteria.  This would make abortion illegal past the decided week, which is better than nothing. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

That preamble didn't change anything, it points out when reasonable to make someone human.  The argument we were having in your sentence was whether you linked dire circumstances completely to health related issues.  By pointing out dire circumstances she cant control and following it with health is out of her control you made it seem as if all the dire circumstances were all health related.  That was my problem.

****Women have bodily autonomy (regardless of who lays claim to their body) - that is an equal outcome.

You agreed we don't care about equal outcomes. Why should bodily autonomy be an all encompassing trump card?  I believe bodily autonomy is laid to waste by the fact women consented meaning autonomy was not infringed.  You agreed that in society we don't search for equal outcome, so providing autonomy only to achieve equal outcome with men is not sufficient reasoning.

**** I don't see the distinction you're trying to make between an individual with a parasite, conjoined twins, and a pregnant individual. Are you suggesting distance between times of death equates to individuality? If so, this is absurdly simplistic and wrong.

What I'm saying is you seem to be assigning we to the mother and fetus just because the baby is inside/attached to the mother.  Conjoined twins are attached but are separate individuals.  A parasite may pair with your body I wouldn't call me and the parasite a "we",  there is me and the parasite...2 individual entities.  

Yes I think if you die than the "we" would also die as part of that systematic failure.  The fetus would only die with the mother because it no longer is receiving the required nutrients.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Who decides who's an "ignorant individual", and that their view and opinions don't matter??  Why do we let them vote then?? 

Also. don't equivocate "human life" and "person", they are different concepts... 

Babies are legally considered less than a full person, that is why they don't have the same rights... The Law acknowledges a difference in value (which obviously doesn't mean no value at all, before you go there...) but acknowledges difference nonetheless...

You may view 24h old zygote as worth something, that is your personal prerogative but in no way must everyone else hold the same belief, to me it is still a worthless clump of cells and I'm perfectly justified in holding that belief whether you like it or not... 

In the end, it's a personal choice...

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

That preamble didn't change anything, it points out when reasonable to make someone human.  The argument we were having in your sentence was whether you linked dire circumstances completely to health related issues.  By pointing out dire circumstances she cant control and following it with health is out of her control you made it seem as if all the dire circumstances were all health related.  That was my problem.

****Women have bodily autonomy (regardless of who lays claim to their body) - that is an equal outcome.

You agreed we don't care about equal outcomes. Why should bodily autonomy be an all encompassing trump card?  I believe bodily autonomy is laid to waste by the fact women consented meaning autonomy was not infringed.  You agreed that in society we don't search for equal outcome, so providing autonomy only to achieve equal outcome with men is not sufficient reasoning.

**** I don't see the distinction you're trying to make between an individual with a parasite, conjoined twins, and a pregnant individual. Are you suggesting distance between times of death equates to individuality? If so, this is absurdly simplistic and wrong.

What I'm saying is you seem to be assigning we to the mother and fetus just because the baby is inside/attached to the mother.  Conjoined twins are attached but are separate individuals.  A parasite may pair with your body I wouldn't call me and the parasite a "we",  there is me and the parasite...2 individual entities.  

Yes I think if you die than the "we" would also die as part of that systematic failure.  The fetus would only die with the mother because it no longer is receiving the required nutrients.

It seems you're having difficulty understanding my views or you're intentionally distorting them. If the former, ask questions. If the latter, then your dishonesty will prevent us from continuing this conversation. Is an honest conversation our goal here?

Assuming personhood before birth, I pointed to a time frame when a fetus could reasonably be considered a person. This would necessarily be later in the pregnancy. (If there is no brain much less a consciousness or even the capacity for consciousness then a fetus cannot reasonably be considered a person) Basically, late in pregnancy where a viable fetus exists - abortion only occurs when the mother's life is endangered. Abortion at this stage in the pregnancy NEVER occurs on a whim, whereas early in the pregnancy nothing as extreme as the threat of death is necessary for justification. So, your contention that I was suggesting all abortions occur only in dire circumstances is a misapprehension (or an intentional distortion) on your part. 

I did not agree 'we don't care about unequal outcomes'. I agreed that we don't create laws to mitigate *every* unequal outcome. This is a misapprehension (or an intentional distortion) on your part. That being said, consent is not absolute, irrevocable, or covering every possible outcome of a specific event. I believe we've had this conversation before. 

If a fetus lacks the parts to reasonably be considered a person, then there can be no "we". If it is sufficiently developed, then at best (until birth when it naturally separates from the mother) it can contribute to "we". Conjoined twins are not analogous to pregnancy.  Each have a separate consciousness but are (without medical intervention) permanently attached. Neither has sole claim to the body they share. A woman is the sole owner of her body - no thing or person can lay a legitimate lien on it. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

It just seems like to didn't word those sentences to best state your point.  Also not sure why it was important to bring up. 1. Because I didn't see the argument stating that late-term abortions are normally allowed for things other than life of the mother. 2. Profile people are ok with abortions when abortions to save the mother so there is no argument.  Anyways I'll get past this.

We care about equal opportunity, but I don't think we hardly ever care about equal outcome.  I think we have, but I think pregnancy is an obvious potential outcome and therefore is covered.

The fetus gains a separate consciousness from the mother but you still consider it a we.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

A majority doesn't always mean your view isn't ignorant...look at history. I think the inability to back up an opinion with logic determines an argument is ignorant.

A 24h old zygotes aren't aborted, people don't abort that early.  Also I again I don't think you can claim the fetus is worthless just because it is currently an underdeveloped human.  I'm not sure what other decisions we make in life where potential doesn't factor into somethings value (provide an example).

If there were two jobs both paying 50,000 currently but one maxed out at 60,000 and the other at 80,000 would you not say the second is more valuable?

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

 Also I again I don't think you can claim the fetus is worthless just because it is currently an underdeveloped human. 

I obviously can, I just did... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yeah you can claim anything, just not with great validity.  Answer this...What other decision do we make where potential does not factor into somethings value?

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

"just not with great validity"   It only means we have different criterion... As for your question, not sure I understand what you're looking for here...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

The question isn't hard.  How can you discard potential as a factor into somethings value? Give me a scenario (other than the one you are tying to justify) where somethings potential does not factor into its value. 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Any scenario you want will do... 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

It just seems like to didn't word those sentences to best state your point.  Also not sure why it was important to bring up. 1. Because I didn't see the argument stating that late-term abortions are normally allowed for things other than life of the mother. 2. Profile people are ok with abortions when abortions to save the mother so there is no argument.  Anyways I'll get past this.

We care about equal opportunity, but I don't think we hardly ever care about equal outcome.  I think we have, but I think pregnancy is an obvious potential outcome and therefore is covered.

The fetus gains a separate consciousness from the mother but you still consider it a we.

If the fetus doesn't have the substrate in which consciousness might be found (generally true of all fetus before 6 months of pregnancy), it makes no sense to treat it equivalent to the person in which it resides. What it might become is irrelevant to what it actually is.

"Fetus" is a broad developmental period -  some of which, in my view, is self-defeating to classify as "person". Using "I" or "we" to refer to an object within this period of development is dubious. However, these terms can make nominal sense when referring to later stages of development. In short, there is no "I" or "we" before the brain is fully developed, and using these terms naturally points to a fetus in the later stages of development. I hope this clears up the confusion.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

Prolife people don't treat it totally equivalent, between the life of the fetus and mother the mother wins out.

What it might become is not irrelevant to its value.  Potential is taken into account when we assign value or moral equivalence to things.

Crushing a chicken egg with a viable chicken embryo doesn't hold the same moral equivalence or value as crushing one without.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I already provided one here and the in a different thread.  Every situation you can think of we factor in potential into somethings value.  I just want one other scenario that discounts potential that provides justification for what your doing with a fetus.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

We can always discard a potentiality over an actuality... Something actual always has more value than the potential of that something... A car has more value than a potential car because a "potential" car doesn't actually exist. Like the saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" if you like or a single copper coin is worth more than the promise of 10 gold ones...

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

Prolife people don't treat it totally equivalent, between the life of the fetus and mother the mother wins out.

What it might become is not irrelevant to its value.  Potential is taken into account when we assign value or moral equivalence to things.

Crushing a chicken egg with a viable chicken embryo doesn't hold the same moral equivalence or value as crushing one without.

The Pro-life position isn't monolithic. Some pro-life individuals allows no exceptions for abortion and some do. You don't speak for all pro-life just like I don't speak for all pro-choice. Speak for yourself, buddy!

As far as potential determining value - should there be death certificates issued for the potential persons in semen 'wasted' during masturbation? What about eggs lost during a menstrual cycle? I don't  think you believe sperm and egg to be persons, yet they have potential. It seems a bit logically inconsistent.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes an actual 10lb piece of gold is worth more than a rock that would turn in to 10lb in a year, but a rock that has no potential to turn into gold does not have the same value as one that will.

I.E. In regards to abortion, the life of fetus (potential) is not as valuable as the life of mothers (actual), but the fetus or clump of cells which has potential is worth more than a clump of skin cells that doesn't.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

No, but I represent over over 99% of prolife people who have the same view.  There is a very, very small select few that believe abortion is never ever acceptable.

Separate by themselves a fetus and egg don't have the potential to become a human and hasn't yet produced a human life.  An embryo has established itself as a human life and is already in the developmental process.  Also I didn't say the potential makes the fetus a person only that its ability to obtain the characteristics definitely has an added value. 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

the fetus or clump of cells which has potential is worth more than a clump of skin cells that doesn't.

Until that potential is achieved and realized, it objectively cannot be said to be worth more than what it is...  You have 1 dollar, and I promise you 10 dollars in a week if you give me that dollar, according to you that promise is worth more than the actual dollar you have in hand at the moment, which is ridiculous imo... 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

No, but I represent over over 99% of prolife people who have the same view.  There is a very, very small select few that believe abortion is never ever acceptable.

Separate by themselves a fetus and egg don't have the potential to become a human and hasn't yet produced a human life.  An embryo has established itself as a human life and is already in the developmental process.  Also I didn't say the potential makes the fetus a person only that its ability to obtain the characteristics definitely has an added value. 

Is potential to be a person more valuable than the human rights of a person?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

That is only because you could be lying.  The fetus will turn into a person. 

And your analogy is a little off.  I'm saying your wrong to equalize an embryo and skin cells.  The analogy would then have to be 2 things that currently have the same actual value but one with a much higher potential.

I.e.  2 items currently worth $1...it can be seen that one will continue to be worth $1 while the other in the future will be worth $10.  The current $1 item with a potential $10 value is worth more to someone in the present because of its potential.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

1. I don't believe any human rights are violated by making the mother have the baby.

2. Because it is a unique human life in development, I think its life is more important than a lifestyle choice.

Also I'm not totally convinced the fetus is not a person.  Merely using others definition of the fetus to try and convince them when the fetus becomes one.  Which doesn't align with birth.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Many things can go wrong from the moment of conception to birth, nothing is guaranteed as so many variables are involved, in a way to paraphrase you, Nature can be lying with the promise of a full human, it happens all the time... 

You may think I'm wrong to equalize an embryo and skin cells, but that is only your opinion, it's a value judgment and those are always subjective as they depend on one's standards or priorities...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

It's just a dumb opinion. People with logic would never take an object worth $1 potentially worth ten over an item forever worth $1.

It can go wrong, but not often.  The regular process produces a person. 

****Nature can be wrong with the promise of a full human...There would be only 2 outcomes other than "full human".  1. The fetus dies, which is what the person wanting an abortion would want anyway or 2. The person is born with mutation/deformities.  This doesn't make them less of a person.
The potential still stands.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

The problem is that you take the value of the fully realized potential to equate the unrealized potential, potential vs actual are 2 completely different things... A clump of cells is a clump of cells, regardless of what it might become in the future...  

When we sell corn seeds to farmers, we do not sell them at the price of the fully grown corn, a potential corn (seed) is always worth less than the actual corn plant... You can turn that any way you want, a potential is worth less than an actual...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Your analogy is still wrong as I am not equating the potential to the actual just giving it more value than if it had no potential.  I'm not saying a corn seed is equal to full corn, nor that $1 potentially worth $10 is worth ten dollars.  Only again that $1 forever worth $1 doesn't hold the same value as $1 most likely in the future worth 10.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I disagree... Even if your dollar might be worth 100$ in a year, the fact is right now, in this very moment, it is worth 1$ and only 1$... So a fetus at 6 weeks, is only worth as much as another 6 week fetus, nothing more...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

If just due to inflation you would be correct, I'm talking about an actual increase in potential.  One will increase to $100 while the other only to $10.  You would be an not to take an item that is more potentially valuable if currently both items have the same value.

A six week fetus is equal to another six week fetus because they are the same current value with the same potential.  But an embryo potential is not equal to that of skin cells even if the current development is not much different.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

1. I don't believe any human rights are violated by making the mother have the baby.

2. Because it is a unique human life in development, I think its life is more important than a lifestyle choice.

Also I'm not totally convinced the fetus is not a person.  Merely using others definition of the fetus to try and convince them when the fetus becomes one.  Which doesn't align with birth.

1 You're wrong. Forcing someone to do something against their will is a violation of the right all others a built on: self. I believe we have had this discussion before too.

2 Human life =/= person. Person=/=the right to live in, and off of, another person. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

Were going to disagree on that as I believe consent means no rights are violated.

Person does have the right to live off another if the other was responsible for creating that circumstance.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

If just due to inflation you would be correct, I'm talking about an actual increase in potential.  One will increase to $100 while the other only to $10.  You would be an not to take an item that is more potentially valuable if currently both items have the same value.

A six week fetus is equal to another six week fetus because they are the same current value with the same potential.  But an embryo potential is not equal to that of skin cells even if the current development is not much different.

Irrelevant, because we're talking about a precise moment in time, not "a period of time"... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Not sure what your talking about.  Even in precise moment in time something with more potential has more value than something without potential.

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

I am only voicing a legal objection to the use of abortion, there are no pregnancy abortion performed by medical practice ever that can be called pregnancy abortion they are all female specific amputation as a united state. Woman as a group have a constitutional right to incriminate themselves, they do not have a constitutional right to make a union between their own self-incrimination and the entire medical practice as a united state. It is an open attack on global justice, and specifically an attack on American United State Constitution worthy of abolishment. 

Late term female specific amputation are made with all resources available to insure limitation of discomfort possible. Period.