Where does Awimb stand on abortion?

[Burney]

In which case a person in a vegetative state without any active brain pattern is also a 'human life' and turning off the life support system is the moral equivalent of murder.

See how easily it gets complicated? The human life angle and conception were introduced because of the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. It isn't in anyway disingenuous or dishonest to question the definition of human life and argue that because it is impossible to define it therefore has no bearing on the argument.

Much of that confusion you mention goes away if that is your perspective as well.

No, I'm sorry, but the significant difference here is of potential. The PVS victim has reached a point where life in terms of their brain activity has to all intents and purposes ceased and they can only be sustained artificially. They have no potential for improvement and are alive in name only. When you turn off the machine, nature takes its course.
An embryo, by contrast, is full of potential and to end it is to snuff all of that potential out by a deliberate act of killing. The two are qualitatively different in both ethical and medical terms. One is entirely justifiable in moral terms, while the other is highly morally dubious.
You seem to think that I'm arguing from a position whereby all human life is innately sacrosanct. I'm explicitly not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should acknowledge first of all that we're ending a human life and then work from there.

[World's End Stella]

No, I'm sorry, but the significant difference here is of potential. The PVS victim has reached a point where life in terms of their brain activity has to all intents and purposes ceased and they can only be sustained artificially. They have no potential for improvement and are alive in name only. When you turn off the machine, nature takes its course.
An embryo, by contrast, is full of potential and to end it is to snuff all of that potential out by a deliberate act of killing. The two are qualitatively different in both ethical and medical terms. One is entirely justifiable in moral terms, while the other is highly morally dubious.
You seem to think that I'm arguing from a position whereby all human life is innately sacrosanct. I'm explicitly not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should acknowledge first of all that we're ending a human life and then work from there.

In which case the embryo is only a 'potential human life' as you there is no certainty as to how it will develop.

The complexity of your reply sort of proves my point, Burney. There are so many angles to the 'human life' definition and debate that I fail to see how anyone can come up with anything definitive. And if you can't reach an agreement as to what is or is not 'human life' I also fail to see how it can be used in the argument.

The alternative is to simply be practical and not bother with nebulous definitions.

[Burney]

In which case the embryo is only a 'potential human life' as you there is no certainty as to how it will develop.

The complexity of your reply sort of proves my point, Burney. There are so many angles to the 'human life' definition and debate that I fail to see how anyone can come up with anything definitive. And if you can't reach an agreement as to what is or is not 'human life' I also fail to see how it can be used in the argument.

The alternative is to simply be practical and not bother with nebulous definitions.

No. It is not a 'potential human life'. It is a human life with potential. There's a fairly significant difference, there.

There is nothing at all nebulous about my definition - it is purely scientific. Human life starts at conception and ends at death.

[barrybueno]

I’m really not sure how I feel about it.

Both sides of the divide are so militantly bogged down in ideology - pro-life being rooted in religious nuttery and pro-choice in feminist dogma – the actual real-life consequences are almost forgotten.

We need more of it imo.

Even if it did cost me a weeks wages many moons ago, better than a lifes wages though I suppose.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

We need more of it imo.

Even if it did cost me a weeks wages many moons ago, better than a lifes wages though I suppose.

Ladyboys can't really get pregnant, baz.

[barrybueno]

Ladyboys can't really get pregnant, baz.

Well it looks like I was had over then, twice. :begbie:

[World's End Stella]

No. It is not a 'potential human life'. It is a human life with potential. There's a fairly significant difference, there.

There is nothing at all nebulous about my definition - it is purely scientific. Human life starts at conception and ends at death.

Well, that may be your view but my point is that there is no broad consensus on what defines human life and people could make a strong argument that there are serious flaws in your definition (a fully formed human being who had suffered a brain injury but was still capable of living and breathing is not a human life but a collection of dividing cells with no form or ability to feel or breath is?) as they could with pretty much every other definition.

As such, I fail to see how we can use the concept in any sensible way when attempting to address the issue with abortion. It is the complicated nature of this definition which causes the confusion, not the fact that people refuse to accept your particular definition.