Real questions about pro choice

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
SOME pro-choicers would argue that they are not persons until some point, and they use less or more arbitrary guidelines for establishing personhood.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Personhood is a vague concept that we confer rather than discover when it comes into being and when it ceases.

The mistake repeatedly made by pro-lifers is thinking that there's some matter of fact out there. The other mistake is thinking that even if there is a matter of fact which cannot be determined it follows that we can't find stages before personhood is attained.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started a similar thread a while back

making decisions as to a solid cutoff when there are no demarcation points is one of the hardest thing for my mind to grapple..but these decisions must be made and they are made.

the age for the emancipation of children is equally or probably even more arbitrary than the abortion one.

the fact that there is no demarcation point in a person's life does not make it logical that we emancipate children as soon as they are born...(or concieved)

that is not to say that there aren't good reasons why conception should be a good point to consider a being to have full rights and priveleges...but the simple fact that there are no demarcation points thereafter is not enough to exclude other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of two very obvious demarcation points: conception and birth. Seems like you are from the camp that says, we *have* to have abortion, so let's comeup with a timeline to make it palatable.

FYI, another interesting point determined by law is that a miscarriage/fetal death at 20 weeks or later requires a name, birth certificate, and official cremation or burial, etc.

Emancipation of children is much foggier, I agree. We do *have* to emancipate our kids, so yes, we do have to find some way to make that distinction. IMO, it is altogether different from abortion in that emancipating is identifying a cultural distinction, but does not have the potential to end a human life form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you want to be taken seriously in abortion debates you should refrain from low-meaning, high-emotion phrases like 'potential to end a human life form.' It may make your points more dramatic to idiots who can't comprehend and just react on emotion, but it is a meaningless phrase for people who can rationally think about issues. Most of us on this forum are the latter. Nearly everything has the potential to end a human life form. Certainly, scratching and washing your hair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by that? Scratching and washing your hair?

I was not trying to bring emotions in, I was just trying to say that emancipating children and aborting a fetus are very different arguments. Most importantly in that we have to do the former, but we do not have to do the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single cell in my body has the potential to be a human life. Every time I cut my hair, wash my hair, scratch, or do anything that causes me to lose or kill cells (ok, most of the skin cells I lose are already dead, but scratching them causes living ones to die and replace them) has the potential to end a human life.

[jogger08152]

A trimester is 13 weeks. How old does that make the (whatever) during the 11th and 12th trimester?

To elaborate, my point is that "viability" in terms of months in the womb would be just as arbitrary a cutoff as 13 weeks is. I would think that true viability - that is, the ability to survive "on one's own" - cannot exist before age three or so as a bare minimum. In other words, viability requires about 2 trimesters in the womb, and, at the bare minimum in the most exceptional case in the most non-threatening environment, another 11 or 12 more trimesters outside.

In still other other different words, by extension, an argument for viability as the cut-off ought to extend to about age 3. In my post, I mentioned that some people find "viability" palatable, and therefore plausible. I think its palatability (for some) is the only thing lends it any credibility (to those who find it credible) whatsoever.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started a similar thread a while back

making decisions as to a solid cutoff when there are no demarcation points is one of the hardest thing for my mind to grapple..but these decisions must be made and they are made.

the age for the emancipation of children is equally or probably even more arbitrary than the abortion one.

the fact that there is no demarcation point in a person's life does not make it logical that we emancipate children as soon as they are born...(or concieved)

that is not to say that there aren't good reasons why conception should be a good point to consider a being to have full rights and priveleges...but the simple fact that there are no demarcation points thereafter is not enough to exclude other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of two very obvious demarcation points: conception and birth. Seems like you are from the camp that says, we *have* to have abortion, so let's comeup with a timeline to make it palatable.

FYI, another interesting point determined by law is that a miscarriage/fetal death at 20 weeks or later requires a name, birth certificate, and official cremation or burial, etc.

Emancipation of children is much foggier, I agree. We do *have* to emancipate our kids, so yes, we do have to find some way to make that distinction. IMO, it is altogether different from abortion in that emancipating is identifying a cultural distinction, but does not have the potential to end a human life form.

[/ QUOTE ]

why does the formation of a zygote seem like such a big step to some poeple? Why moreso than a specific number of cells? or maybe the beginnings of a brain?

cenception is less of a logical demarcation point than any of those IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, I personally refer to the moment of conception as an equal term with fertilization, or the time when the sperm penetrates the outer shell of the egg. But there is some debate here. Zygote comes much later.

Regardless, we have no technology that allows us to monitor this on a regular basis. So once it is conceived, (whenever that is) we have several arbitrarily decided points that mean something under US law. And, due to the arbitrary nature of conception, we use the woman's Last Menstrual Period as our dating criteria. So, from the LMP, we use 13 weeks for abortion, 20 weeks for naming the child and legally registering a birth. (If an LMP is not known, we use the earliest ultrasound measurements, most notably the length of the femur, to estimate dates.)

[Fels krone]

[ QUOTE ]
A trimester is 13 weeks. How old does that make the (whatever) during the 11th and 12th trimester?

To elaborate, my point is that "viability" in terms of months in the womb would be just as arbitrary a cutoff as 13 weeks is. I would think that true viability - that is, the ability to survive "on one's own" - cannot exist before age three or so as a bare minimum. In other words, viability requires about 2 trimesters in the womb, and, at the bare minimum in the most exceptional case in the most non-threatening environment, another 11 or 12 more trimesters outside.

In still other other different words, by extension, an argument for viability as the cut-off ought to extend to about age 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: tri·mes·ter
Pronunciation: (")trI-'mes-t&r, 'trI-"
Function: noun
Etymology: French trimestre, from Latin trimestris of three months, from tri- + mensis month -- more at MOON
1 : a period of three or about three months; especially : any of three periods of approximately three months each into which a human pregnancy is divided

Forming your own definitions in an existing arguement such as abortion makes you sound like you dont have a clue.

Speaking of which, it seems a lot dont understand the difference in definitions between "life" and being a "person". In the ongoing arguement of abortion, pro life and pro choice alike agree that a person should have the right to life; while a basic life form does not. This is why nobody defends the protection of unfertilized sperm and eggs; although they move around and are considered a form of life, they have no right to life.

Like OP is saying, the main arguement is when that "person" begins to exist. The youngest date argued for is conception. One controversial ethics prof. at princeton claims that even after birth the baby is not a person, and has no right to life.

So just because you recognize the fertilized egg as living, doesnt mean you should defend its right to life (unless at that point you consider it a "person").

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
A trimester is 13 weeks. How old does that make the (whatever) during the 11th and 12th trimester?

To elaborate, my point is that "viability" in terms of months in the womb would be just as arbitrary a cutoff as 13 weeks is. I would think that true viability - that is, the ability to survive "on one's own" - cannot exist before age three or so as a bare minimum. In other words, viability requires about 2 trimesters in the womb, and, at the bare minimum in the most exceptional case in the most non-threatening environment, another 11 or 12 more trimesters outside.

In still other other different words, by extension, an argument for viability as the cut-off ought to extend to about age 3. In my post, I mentioned that some people find "viability" palatable, and therefore plausible. I think its palatability (for some) is the only thing lends it any credibility (to those who find it credible) whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we agree then. I don't think you were the target of my line of questioning, though I appreciate your input. I was wondering what a "True Pro Choice" advocate uses as criteria for him/herself to determine at what stage an abortion is/is not OK.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started a similar thread a while back

making decisions as to a solid cutoff when there are no demarcation points is one of the hardest thing for my mind to grapple..but these decisions must be made and they are made.

the age for the emancipation of children is equally or probably even more arbitrary than the abortion one.

the fact that there is no demarcation point in a person's life does not make it logical that we emancipate children as soon as they are born...(or concieved)

that is not to say that there aren't good reasons why conception should be a good point to consider a being to have full rights and priveleges...but the simple fact that there are no demarcation points thereafter is not enough to exclude other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of two very obvious demarcation points: conception and birth. Seems like you are from the camp that says, we *have* to have abortion, so let's comeup with a timeline to make it palatable.

FYI, another interesting point determined by law is that a miscarriage/fetal death at 20 weeks or later requires a name, birth certificate, and official cremation or burial, etc.

Emancipation of children is much foggier, I agree. We do *have* to emancipate our kids, so yes, we do have to find some way to make that distinction. IMO, it is altogether different from abortion in that emancipating is identifying a cultural distinction, but does not have the potential to end a human life form.

[/ QUOTE ]

why does the formation of a zygote seem like such a big step to some poeple? Why moreso than a specific number of cells? or maybe the beginnings of a brain?

cenception is less of a logical demarcation point than any of those IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, I personally refer to the moment of conception as an equal term with fertilization, or the time when the sperm penetrates the outer shell of the egg. But there is some debate here. Zygote comes much later.

Regardless, we have no technology that allows us to monitor this on a regular basis. So once it is conceived, (whenever that is) we have several arbitrarily decided points that mean something under US law. And, due to the arbitrary nature of conception, we use the woman's Last Menstrual Period as our dating criteria. So, from the LMP, we use 13 weeks for abortion, 20 weeks for naming the child and legally registering a birth. (If an LMP is not known, we use the earliest ultrasound measurements, most notably the length of the femur, to estimate dates.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that our current deciding points are fairly arbitrary...but I contend that conception or fertilization or formation of a zygote is arbitrary as well.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SOME pro-choicers would argue that they are not persons until some point, and they use less or more arbitrary guidelines for establishing personhood.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Personhood is a vague concept that we confer rather than discover when it comes into being and when it ceases.

The mistake repeatedly made by pro-lifers is thinking that there's some matter of fact out there. The other mistake is thinking that even if there is a matter of fact which cannot be determined it follows that we can't find stages before personhood is attained.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am being very specific as to the "matter-of-fact" I am targeting. Personhood debate is a non-starter, at least for this thread.

If you are indeed Pro Choice, please tell the court when you take the Choice away from mom and award said rights to the fetus? You have to choose a time from Last Menstrual Period to Birth, by convention using # of weeks. The US courts have chosen 13 weeks. If given the option, when would you choose, and why?

Can it be agreed that any rational human would say that 39 weeks is all fetus, all the time? 30 weeks, too? If this can be agreed, as we then get to fewer and fewer weeks, my understanding is that the prochoicers get off the bandwagon at about 13 weeks...just wondering why.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Main Entry: tri·mes·ter
Pronunciation: (")trI-'mes-t&r, 'trI-"
Function: noun
Etymology: French trimestre, from Latin trimestris of three months, from tri- + mensis month -- more at MOON
1 : a period of three or about three months; especially : any of three periods of approximately three months each into which a human pregnancy is divided

Forming your own definitions in an existing arguement such as abortion makes you sound like you dont have a clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is traditional to explicitly note when adding emphasis to material that you did not originate. Here's an example of the technique properly (if garishly) applied:
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Main Entry: tri·mes·ter
Pronunciation: (")trI-'mes-t&r, 'trI-"
Function: noun
Etymology: French trimestre, from Latin trimestris of three months, from tri- + mensis month -- more at MOON
<u> <font color="blue"> 1 :</font><font color="red"> a</font><font color="blue"> period </font><font color="red">of</font><font color="blue"> three</font><font color="red"> or</font><font color="blue"> about</font><font color="red"> three</font><font color="blue"> months</u></font> [Emphasis mine. -Jogger.] ; especially : any of three periods of approximately three months each into which a human pregnancy is divided

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to be offensive, but please don't imply that your obtuseness is somehow my fault. I used the term "trimester" in the sense given in the first, unmodified definition offered in YOUR source, and my usage should have been pretty obvious from the context of my argument even if you somehow overlooked this actual meaning of the term "trimester".

If you have further questions or comments I'm available. You're welcome to send me a PM if that would be helpful.

-Jogger

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started a similar thread a while back

making decisions as to a solid cutoff when there are no demarcation points is one of the hardest thing for my mind to grapple..but these decisions must be made and they are made.

the age for the emancipation of children is equally or probably even more arbitrary than the abortion one.

the fact that there is no demarcation point in a person's life does not make it logical that we emancipate children as soon as they are born...(or concieved)

that is not to say that there aren't good reasons why conception should be a good point to consider a being to have full rights and priveleges...but the simple fact that there are no demarcation points thereafter is not enough to exclude other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of two very obvious demarcation points: conception and birth. Seems like you are from the camp that says, we *have* to have abortion, so let's comeup with a timeline to make it palatable.

FYI, another interesting point determined by law is that a miscarriage/fetal death at 20 weeks or later requires a name, birth certificate, and official cremation or burial, etc.

Emancipation of children is much foggier, I agree. We do *have* to emancipate our kids, so yes, we do have to find some way to make that distinction. IMO, it is altogether different from abortion in that emancipating is identifying a cultural distinction, but does not have the potential to end a human life form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you want to be taken seriously in abortion debates you should refrain from low-meaning, high-emotion phrases like 'potential to end a human life form.' It may make your points more dramatic to idiots who can't comprehend and just react on emotion, but it is a meaningless phrase for people who can rationally think about issues. Most of us on this forum are the latter. Nearly everything has the potential to end a human life form. Certainly, scratching and washing your hair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by that? Scratching and washing your hair?

I was not trying to bring emotions in, I was just trying to say that emancipating children and aborting a fetus are very different arguments. Most importantly in that we have to do the former, but we do not have to do the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single cell in my body has the potential to be a human life. Every time I cut my hair, wash my hair, scratch, or do anything that causes me to lose or kill cells (ok, most of the skin cells I lose are already dead, but scratching them causes living ones to die and replace them) has the potential to end a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You apparently consider anything with human DNA to have the "potential to be a human life" so you focus on that to debunk my statements. Brilliantly posed, marvelously written, you, sir, are my superior. Can we get back to the topic, please?