This Alabama abortion law

[IUFG]

Sure. The key difference there , though, would be that they are at the end of their lives rather than the beginning.

Beginning. End.

Still a life. Or is it, merely, an existence?

[WES]

You might as well argue that a child is not fully human because it hasn’t yet grown to adulthood and cannot survive without adult protection and therefore should not be afforded the same protections in law.

Instead we take the view thatbthat vulnerability is exactly why the law protects children even more than it does adults.

It therefore seems bizarre to me that we abandon this rationale when it comes to children at their most vulnerable - ie when they’re in the womb. It’s simply nonsensical.

Oh, and we’re all just ‘a mass of cells’, btw.

You have conveniently left off 'that cannot exist outside the womb'.

Christ, this is like arguing with AFC East.

[Burney]

No, it doesn't *obviously* begin at conception. I could argue that human life begins when the foetus is viable outside of the womb.

If I did you would have no logical counter argument other than 'no it doesn't'. Hence why this is such a difficult issue to resolve.

The meeting of gametes and the creation of a zygote is the sine qua non of life. Life is impossible without it. It is the start point whose usual end point is the birth of a human baby. To try and pretend there is any other point at which life begins is just silly, I'm afraid.

[WES]

The meeting of gametes and the creation of a zygote is the sine qua non of life. Life is impossible without it. It is the start point whose usual end point is the birth of a human baby. To try and pretend there is any other point at which life begins is just silly, I'm afraid.

A mass of cells that cannot breathe, think or exist in its own right is not human life. It may or may not one day become a human life.

And as I predicted, your response was nothing more than 'yes it does'. And mine was nothing more than 'no it doesn't'.

That's why it's pointless.

The valid point would be that there clearly is no consensus on access to abortion, there is no threat to our society or way of life from it and therefore it should be made legal and people can choose to do what is consistent with their personal values. Any one who thinks other than that is an appalling c*nt, I'm afraid.

[Burney]

You have conveniently left off 'that cannot exist outside the womb'.

Christ, this is like arguing with AFC East.

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

[Burney]

A mass of cells that cannot breathe, think or exist in its own right is not human life. It may or may not one day become a human life.

And as I predicted, your response was nothing more than 'yes it does'. And mine was nothing more than 'no it doesn't'.

That's why it's pointless.

The valid point would be that there clearly is no consensus on access to abortion, there is no threat to our society or way of life from it and therefore it should be made legal and people can choose to do what is consistent with their personal values. Any one who thinks other than that is an appalling c*nt, I'm afraid.

No, I have produced a logical, scientific rationale for my conclusion that life begins at conception. You have produced none for your hypothesis whatsoever.
And then you have simply assumed moral superiority and reverted to calling anyone who disagrees with you a cûnt.
Pretty pïsspoor argument.

[IUFG]

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

Well, this could make things a whole lot more complicated

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human...ecade-8156458/

The Metro, I know, but...

[WES]

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

If you don't consider it to be relevant then respond saying that, rather than selecting part of the sentence and coming back with a glib reply.

Medical science can't make a mass of cells that has not formed a brain think. Your point is absurd.

[WES]

No, I have produced a logical, scientific rationale for my conclusion that life begins at conception. You have produced none for your hypothesis whatsoever.
And then you have simply assumed moral superiority and reverted to calling anyone who disagrees with you a cûnt.
Pretty pïsspoor argument.

Rubbish. We both came up with a position that it is entirely subjective, there is no clear and obvious definition of human life. Yours wasn't anymore scientific than mine.

And I haven't assumed moral superiority at all, I have pointed out that anyone that thinks that they have the right to impose their moral values on others is a c*nt. I stand by that statement. I have no issue with people objecting to abortion, I have a serious issue with people controlling what others are able to do because of their moral values.

[eastgermanautos]

To be fair, it’s perfectly possible to hold serious objections to abortion on ethical grounds while having no religious faith whatsoever. I do.

That's an interesting, and somewhat doubtful, point.

(Excepting your point of view, which is based on I know not what. Too much cider.)