tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post7933592408162996632..comments2024-03-29T02:07:13.583+00:00Comments on Geoff's Shorts: The Pro Life Atheist Guest PostAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10548882212024368758noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-74138733386005152992013-02-14T01:33:37.744+00:002013-02-14T01:33:37.744+00:00I do find it disappointing that someone who makes ...I do find it disappointing that someone who makes repeated references to logic, relies so heavily on fallacy to make their argument.<br /><br />The misleading vividness of the late term abortions was what got to me, it read straight from that "Silent Scream" propoganda and Abort 67, and does not apply to 91% of abortions, the fallacy of composition - mistaking the parts for the whole, coupled with overly emotive language which disguises the weakness of the argument. <br />Does the author have an objection to DNC procedure after a late term miscarriage? As this is essentially the same thing. <br /><br />As for when life begins, life began a few million years back and it has kept on rolling ever since, to paraphrase George Carlin.. Life is a continuum, for this reason to base this argument around attempting to define its start point is completely illogical. I would echo what others have said - it should be about personhood. Perhaps the capability of existence ex utero?<br /><br />I too find the absence of any consideration of the woman quite disturbing. As much as this poster may wish to ignore her existence, it is her body that is required to incubate this foetus. So many anti choice arguments seem to ignore the pregnancy. That 9 months of carrying a baby around inside you, and all the things that go along with it. In the same way that the anti choice side will say that we do not give due consideration to the foetus, the anti choice side seem to deny the existence of the task that they seek to force upon women who find themselves pregnant against their wishes.<br />But which one of these beings deserves precedence? Well, as one literally cannot live without the other I think nature has given us our answer. <br /><br />Without access to safe and legal abortion we put already living women's lives in danger. The only thing making abortion illegal does is make it unsafe. It does not stop it, it merely turns a blind eye to it, exports it, and ignorance is no excuse. If a woman does not wish to be pregnant she will find a way. We owe it to our women - slightly more than half our population, to respect their personal wishes - whether that be to have a baby or not. But more importantly we need to educate and use contraception to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible. Gizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06950726375142300591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-12725127058959509842013-02-12T11:52:39.493+00:002013-02-12T11:52:39.493+00:00This piece proves you don't have to be an cath...This piece proves you don't have to be an catholic to be anti-choice. You just have to disregard women from the equation completely which is handy for some catholics but doesn't make catholicism essential.Oisínhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06258425771105214813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-55450412198145817082013-02-12T11:48:48.669+00:002013-02-12T11:48:48.669+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Oisínhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06258425771105214813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-68918759062603085982013-02-09T23:35:36.781+00:002013-02-09T23:35:36.781+00:00here's a link where they refer to necessary me...here's a link where they refer to necessary medical treatment being permissible but not direct abortion. that seems pretty clear that if direct abortion (the deliberate removal of an unviable foetus for example) is the only way to saved the mother then it is not permitted. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17455358796078245403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-45173939079754756772013-02-09T23:21:43.584+00:002013-02-09T23:21:43.584+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17455358796078245403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-20513238570088380862013-02-09T23:21:14.687+00:002013-02-09T23:21:14.687+00:00hi Jill, I'm a little confused as to how the l...hi Jill, I'm a little confused as to how the law of double effect allows for the unborn baby to be deliberately removed from its mother's womb knowing it can't survive outside the womb - if this is what's required to save the mother? for example isn't the Catholic teaching that if an ectopic pregnancy is to be "treated" then the entire fallopian tube must be removed as the embryo cannot be directly aborted?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17455358796078245403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-45379580816439214742013-02-09T15:25:06.661+00:002013-02-09T15:25:06.661+00:00May I break my rule to jump in one more time:
&qu...May I break my rule to jump in one more time:<br /><br />"If a foetus has an absolute right to life then the Church is right that we must let both mother and baby die if killing the baby is the only way to save the mother. I can't accept that situation, so immediately it can't have an "equal" right to life."<br /><br />This is of course not the Church teaching, as it would represent a callous disregard for life that is never acceptable to Catholicism. In these instances the principle of double effect takes over. The fetus is never permitted to be directly killed (colloquially meant as "abortion" by most), but actions can be taken that result in inevitable death of the fetus by natural causes if done with the good intent of saving the mother's life. To many I know this is silly theological nonsense. But to me, as a Catholic and a physician, it's of the utmost importance. As a Catholic I believe that all life is precious and has equal inherent dignity. As it's all we've got I aim to protect it. As a physician, I simply will not kill someone when my job is to promote and protect life. Obviously though, I have seen death at every stage of life, from 20 weeks to 97 years, and know it's inevitable at times regardless of our best efforts. While I will never be involved with physician assisted suicide, I am a huge proponent of comfort care and have hasted death numerous times by prescribing higher doses of morphine for terminal patients in pain.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13764733566802748781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-75751957684887690032013-02-09T02:08:25.976+00:002013-02-09T02:08:25.976+00:00As a staunchly pro-life atheist myself, I love any...As a staunchly pro-life atheist myself, I love any time I see an article from a fellow pro-life atheist. Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12504178675680658267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-50655886322074776162013-02-09T02:08:11.321+00:002013-02-09T02:08:11.321+00:00As a staunchly pro-life atheist myself, I love any...As a staunchly pro-life atheist myself, I love any time I see an article from a fellow pro-life atheist. Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12504178675680658267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-50754224193308480592013-02-08T05:58:27.269+00:002013-02-08T05:58:27.269+00:00I love the way these excellent comments make any c...I love the way these excellent comments make any contribution of mine redundant. Great to have attracted such readership. Do continue; I'm quite enjoying.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17925999586920385972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-18120951903433721372013-02-07T22:41:02.354+00:002013-02-07T22:41:02.354+00:00Others have mentioned fatal diagnoses, pre-eclamps...Others have mentioned fatal diagnoses, pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, cancer treatment and other conditions that medically indicate abortion so I won't go there...(tho I'd love to here David's response)<br /><br />I agree, David, that human life begins at conception. However - how can we give an unborn baby "human rights". For one thing it doesn't need most of them. For another - even the declaration of human rights states that the enforcement of one person's rights cannot infringe on another's - they must be balanced. <br /><br />The very nature of pregnancy (if unwanted or high risk) immediately infringes on some basic human rights. Thankfully most women accept the risks to their health and even life because they want a baby. But imagine the horror of something you don't want growing inside you - ruining your life/health a little more every day while your panic increases? Suicide is actually the leading cause of maternal death in Ireland (women wait until the baby is born then do it).<br /><br />A foetus is dramatically different from a disabled person who needs round the clock care - it is essentially a parasite. It feeds from the woman's body in order to grow. As The Life Institute like to say.......we can treat different situations differently! <br /><br />Whether a human in its parasitic stage has an "equal right to life" as all other born humans is actually the question. What if its host doesn't wish to be fed from for 9 months (a health, body and mind altering and life threatening 9 months)? <br /><br />If a foetus has an absolute right to life then the Church is right that we must let both mother and baby die if killing the baby is the only way to save the mother. I can't accept that situation, so immediately it can't have an "equal" right to life. <br /><br />The rights of an unborn baby must be balanced with the woman's rights. To me the question is then "who should be valued more?" The answer to me is anyone who has made it to viability outside the womb should be valued more than those who haven't. It is estimated that up to 80% of fertilised eggs don't make it to birth (natural loss) - we can't start giving them all equal rights to children and adults who have made it. <br /><br />On another tangent - we expect women to shrug off early pregnancy loss and not cry over having their periods 4 days late when they were hoping for a pregnancy, then we point fingers and call them murderers if they deliberately induce their delayed periods because they don't want to be pregnant? Hypocrisy anyone? Does the early miscarriage have equal rights or not - thoroughly unworkable in the harsh reality of a woman's reproductive system isn't it? <br /><br />I wonder how many men actually consider these issues? How many men have cried over the appearance of some blood in the bathroom or panicked and contemplated the ending of life as he knows it because of the non-appearance of blood in the bathroom? 80% are lost naturally. Life and death in our monthly cycles.....and we rarely speak about it.<br /><br />As long as the unborn baby can exist only as a parasite then I believe a woman should have the right to decide she cannot cope with that situation, and if that is her choice she should have the right to a safe, legal abortion. <br /><br />After all - studies have shown that legalising abortion only increases the number of safe, legal abortions. Without legal abortion, desperate women will find a way.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17455358796078245403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-25280495972879232182013-02-06T09:15:02.205+00:002013-02-06T09:15:02.205+00:00Jill - I'm not sure about evidence all the ite...Jill - I'm not sure about evidence all the items on Tycha's list, but the Guttmacher institute certainly lists availability of effective contraception as a contributor to lower abortion rates. <br /><br />http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html (papers cited on this page)<br /><br />In studies in the USA, free contraception has been shown to lower the unintended pregnancy rate (and therefore abortion rate): http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/Qaoileannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349957841522992406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-15803145390972399732013-02-05T23:34:36.444+00:002013-02-05T23:34:36.444+00:00If the unborn are to have the same rights as born ...If the unborn are to have the same rights as born people, then why should an unborn person have the right to be inside the body of another or use their body without the person's consent when no born person has that right?<br /><br />What you are advocating is a special class of rights where the unborn are allowed to infringe on the bodily autonomy of another when other people aren't.... <br /><br />I've heard it argued that by having consensual sex you are giving consent to carry a fetus for 9 months, but that is, to be honest, a pretty 'rapey' sentiment to express in my opinion. Consent for one thing with your body does not equal consent for other things. Consent has to be actively and constantly given, and if I don't want to have somebody inside my body I can't see why I should be compelled to.Lounseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317468061504297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-20332009842492419772013-02-05T22:17:04.141+00:002013-02-05T22:17:04.141+00:00Galactor - thanks for your response. I did not fee...Galactor - thanks for your response. I did not feel your initial comments to me were aggressive, I felt you were trying to argue back at what I said, rather than discuss in good faith. Hence my concern that my comments were seen as aggressive and my apologies if they were.<br /><br />I was/am using life in a philosophical sense - when are the rights bestowed. But I vehemently disagree that we cannot determine if something is simply alive or not. The salmonella is alive. The fetus is alive. When it has developed enough to be consider human is my question, and one that I still haven't heard a good answer to. You have alluded to things that we should consider, which I have, but I do not see your answer (unless I missed it?). I do not maintain that something, by virtue of being alive, has rights akin to ours. I maintain that I am uncomfortable with all other points on the human developmental spectrum and thus have settled on conception as when I think those rights should be bestowed to the human embryo --> human fetus --> human baby. I've also said before and will say again I value all human life above all other life forms. <br /><br />Working backwards: If not at birth, then when? When the fetus can feel pain? When the fetus can survive outside the womb? 12 weeks? When the heart starts beating? When the cells implant? I have, after much consideration and study found that none of the above markers work in my opinion, for reasons I'm happy to discuss should anyone care: my email is jill.haltigan@gmail.com<br /><br />I'm not sure how my responses were emotional, other than saying that despite my opinions I realize that there are complicated circumstances and have tremendous empathy for those individuals. Please point this out so I can refrain from that in the future as I do not intend to discuss this matter in such a way. If you are referring to my using the word killing with regards to Peter Singer, what term should I use? To kill does not imply to murder, at least to me, but if others felt that was my implication I will clarify here it was not. <br /><br />I'll keep reading and listening but refrain from commenting further here! Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13764733566802748781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-89736938848664831932013-02-05T20:11:17.458+00:002013-02-05T20:11:17.458+00:00I am mortified if I have been at all aggressive in...I am mortified if I have been at all aggressive in answering Jill's post and would apologise if so.<br /><br /><br />"Things are either alive or not. "<br /><br />I think this must be my third attempt at saying that the use of the terminology "life" in helping us form ethics surrounding the termination of it, is insufficient. It's too ambiguous and broad as a terminology and we clearly abhor certain forms of it like bacteria that give us diarrhoea.<br /><br />"My question was an effort at distinguishing when, for lack of a better word, that life should matter enough that we give it the rights we give people outside the womb. " <br /><br />Now we're talking.<br /><br />"As to when these rights start, there is no scientific answer, but we do our best to figure it out. "<br /><br />Science informs us. Science tells us that at some stage, a foetus will have pain sensation. Science (psychology) tells us why we can feel empathy for a foetus which is beginning to show the human form. Science can show us why we feel that a helpless foetus deserves protection. And then we need to figure it out indeed and discard the emotion or agree that the emotion should persuade us.<br /><br />"If a day old collection of cells is not human life worthy of rights, but a day before birth baby is - where does the change occur that distinguishes the two? "<br /><br />Indeed, this is the question that we must try to answer and I eluded to an answer on my previous comment.<br /><br />But the "moment of conception" position, the starting point of the original blog post, is just not suitable; it doesn't survive scrutiny.<br /><br />"From your responses I imagine my answers to the above would vary significantly from yours. But I am not here to argue. I sincerely am curious your thoughts and have tried to be clear in mine. The discussion is interesting and one I think more valuable initially than focusing in solely on one or two cases and the circumstances surrounding them. You all are free to disagree. "<br /><br />I am also persuaded by emotional arguments; we are, after all emotional creatures and I was rather hoping that the blogpost would use this line of reasoning, open and honestly. But when the emotional approach encroaches on other people, meaning the rights of other people who just happen to have wombs, we are once again on shaky ground when we start imposing the outcomes of our emotions on their individual rights.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-37012028044352857172013-02-05T18:08:39.371+00:002013-02-05T18:08:39.371+00:00Tycha - can you link any of those studies? I don&#...Tycha - can you link any of those studies? I don't know how such an outcome could actually be studied, so I'm curious how they did it. <br /><br />Prolife people and the prolife "position" (to the extent their is one...) are very different things. People are bundles of contradictions and tend to be selfish and shortsighted. The data suggests we have made some inroads, but even with all that you mention we have and likely will always have a huge number of unplanned pregnancies. Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13764733566802748781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-55245419972252900882013-02-05T17:30:26.372+00:002013-02-05T17:30:26.372+00:00You can be opposed to abortion all you want. The ...You can be opposed to abortion all you want. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Because every study shows that making abortion illegal does nothing to reduce the number of abortions. My problem is that people who are "pro-life" are frequently against all thing things that we know actually reduce the number of abortions: comprehensive sex education, wide availability of multiple methods of birth control, social programs that provide support to pregnant women and families with young children, support for gay adoption, and having a sex positive culture.<br /><br />If you want to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, then I'm all for it. While I want to live in a society where women have the right to seek abortions, I'd much rather live in one where women rarely feel the need for one. But if you think you can write a law that makes abortion illegal and thereby SAVE UNBORN BABIES, you're either dreaming or a misogynist, and possibly both.TychaBrahehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367633900863299345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-80632700351970952542013-02-05T17:24:42.632+00:002013-02-05T17:24:42.632+00:00I'm sorry you both took my comments aggressive...I'm sorry you both took my comments aggressively apparently. That was not my intent. I apologize for my use of life in two different contexts. <br /><br />Things are either alive or not. There isn't really a middle ground (prions maybe being the only example?). So I believe you can determine a start to life, because something either is, or is not, alive. The ebola virus is alive until it's not. The cabbage as well. <br /><br />My question was an effort at distinguishing when, for lack of a better word, that life should matter enough that we give it the rights we give people outside the womb. I am curious, sincerely, of your thoughts. As to when these rights start, there is no scientific answer, but we do our best to figure it out. We have laws for when people can drive, vote etc. We create lines in the sand all the time and most people seem to think that is the most important question. If a day old collection of cells is not human life worthy of rights, but a day before birth baby is - where does the change occur that distinguishes the two? I have not found a satisfying answer to this, so I err on the side of conception. I bring up Peter Singer because he takes the question further and elucidates what I mean. Do we ascribe these rights to people at some point before birth, at birth or at some point after birth. Is it the same for all, or do other things matter (is Downs Syndrome a justifiable reason for abortion or not)? <br /><br />From your responses I imagine my answers to the above would vary significantly from yours. But I am not here to argue. I sincerely am curious your thoughts and have tried to be clear in mine. The discussion is interesting and one I think more valuable initially than focusing in solely on one or two cases and the circumstances surrounding them. You all are free to disagree. Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13764733566802748781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-78465704022024751452013-02-05T17:00:26.747+00:002013-02-05T17:00:26.747+00:00You state that you cannot say when else aside from...You state that you cannot say when else aside from conception that life starts, so it must be conception. Do you apply such reduction to adulthood? When does adulthood start? When should people be allowed vote, enter contracts, consent to sex etc? What's the difference between an 18 year old and a 17 year, 11 month, 25 day old? Nothing! Do you presume that adulthood starts at birth? Or conception? When else can it start? Right?<br /><br />Where does the sky start? 1 m above the ground? 100 m? 1 km? Can I fly an aeroplane low? If I have a hovercraft, can I trespass onto your property if I float 1 cm above the ground? What's the difference between 999.9 m and 1,000 m? Nothing! So the sky *must* start at the ground! Right?<br /><br />You're attempting to be logical about conception & life, and have concluded that life begins at conception. Do you apply this same logical extremism to other fields (adulthood, the sky, etc.)? If not why not?Rory McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01645982070103276920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-6225444527150519592013-02-05T16:54:13.697+00:002013-02-05T16:54:13.697+00:00If life begins at conception with unique DNA, then...If life begins at conception with unique DNA, then what about identical twins? Are they 1 life or 2? (Modern society & law says 2). But then how does that 1 fertilized egg turn into 2 human lives? What about conjoined twins? They share one physical body (some even share a brain). 2 lives or 1? If one life can turn 2 lives, then what about the treatment for multiple personalities? Is that murder? Surely this are the logical conclusions of "life at conception".Rory McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01645982070103276920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-23079406745515327952013-02-05T14:42:04.762+00:002013-02-05T14:42:04.762+00:00"Galactor - might you suggest a better time w..."Galactor - might you suggest a better time we use for when life begins?"<br /><br />I think we are on shaky ground when we use the term "life" and posit that it "begins" as some such time. I hoped to have made that clear in my initial critique. Clearly, the being that is being supported in the womb in the first few days and weeks is not a baby; it just isn't in any sense. After eight months it most definitely is. How do we find the point in between when the cellular life takes on a form which is deserving of human rights? That is a question which our moral philosophers have largely answered with recourse to scientific positions (and without recourse to a religious framework) of whether there exists a nervous system or not and upon which the many secular laws surrounding abortion are developed and ratified.<br /><br />"I think this is really the crux of the issue honestly for most people." <br /><br />I doubt it. For religious people, I think the issue is largely doctrinal. For some non-religious people, the issue is rational and the underpinning science is used to determine a moral stance and override emotional feelings; for others, the emotion seems to take over.<br /><br />The term "life" when used to support ethics surrounding abortion is a dead dog. It's as worthless as calling the termination of seven day cellular blastocycts "killing". <br /><br />"There are of course people who do argue that we can kill infants outside the womb because they are not yet a person either - Peter Singer being the most obvious example. "<br /><br />I'm going to avoid responding in depth to this remark but I think you put his position as dangerously simplistic by saying "we can kill infants". I have no idea why you refer to the moral philosopher Peter Singer in addressing my post. I explicitly stated that termination after latter pregnancy stages (where nervous systems exist) would be murder which you acknowledge. <br /><br />"I just think the main issue is where we draw the line, where we think the fetus [sic] is merely cells with potential versus actual human life. The answer to this isn't scientific."<br /><br />The foetus, <b>IS</b>, "merely" cells with potential for greater complexity for a large period of development. It just IS. And to call it *merely* is not to demean the biological process which concerns the formation of life. Clearly, morals and ethics can be formed and informed by scientific knowledge. <br /><br />"As I've said here before, I would argue life begins at contraception [sic]"<br /><br />You mean of course, conception and I would have thought to have exposed that as destroyed by the merest scrutiny of the biological facts applied to any moral code we might share about preventing sentient beings being exposed to pain, for example. A blastocyst is not a child nor a baby nor a feeling, thinking being. It just isn't. And calling these things "life" is vacuous. <b>Cabbages</b> are life! The <b>ebola virus</b> is life!<br /><br />For sure, ethics surrounding abortion are complex although I would argue that they are made unnecessarily complex largely by people who think that a clump of cells represents "life" worthy of human rights.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-79033896119481526342013-02-05T14:23:23.172+00:002013-02-05T14:23:23.172+00:00Thanks to the kind twitter follower who pointed ou...Thanks to the kind twitter follower who pointed out I said contraception instead of conception. Can't google figure out a way to edit comments? Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13764733566802748781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-33468187090212758402013-02-05T13:57:10.728+00:002013-02-05T13:57:10.728+00:00Nothing to add except to note that this post is di...Nothing to add except to note that this post is disappointingly dismal. Surely there must be an articulate pro-life atheist out there with a decent argument? droidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06276962882532347259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-91139892539570044282013-02-05T13:42:27.046+00:002013-02-05T13:42:27.046+00:00As other commenters have pointed out, David does n...As other commenters have pointed out, David does not appear to have considered the rights of the pregnant person here at all. Which is disturbing, but not surprising. <br /><br />And another consideration is legal. You can have pro-life/anti-choice beliefs all you like, but it's when anti-choice people make laws enshrining their beliefs that I have a problem. Does the author believe that all terminations of pregnancy should be illegal? Even under the terms of the X-case? Qaoileannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349957841522992406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8028643425691313983.post-53652232270393021842013-02-05T13:35:25.013+00:002013-02-05T13:35:25.013+00:00GODWIN'S LAAAAW
No, but seriously, just a few...GODWIN'S LAAAAW<br /><br />No, but seriously, just a few points:<br /><br />I'm not surprised our poster has never heard a compelling argument for the 'humanity' (or lack of) of a foetus. Nor have I! The distinction made in many US debates is between 'life' and 'personhood'. Not 'life' and 'human life' - what does that even mean? Obviously a human is human as soon as it exists in any form, the question is surely whether they are a <b>person</b>, and hence whether they deserve legal protection. This distinction is important for many, and why I personally consider viability outside the womb as such a big factor, since only bodily independence from the mother can distinguish a separate person (in my view).<br /><br />Second one is just a pet-hate, but seriously I get really mad when people say that they have abandoned church teachings but still believe in certain basics tenets because they are 'fundamental truths'. They sure are fundamental truths - of religion! If you believe them, don't dare to claim that your belief stems from some universal knowledge. You were raised with certain truths, in this case, through the church. Even if you still support them, others were raised differently, and <i>their truth is different</i>. Judging people by your moral standard is fine to do for yourself - but would you accept somebody else's personal sense of morality governing YOUR life?<br /><br />Finally - yes okay, understand this view, abortion shouldn't be an easy option etc. However the post makes no answer as to what happens in the case of FATAL foetal abnormality, nor in the case of an immediate risk to the life of the mother, let alone a real and substantive (but not immediate) one. So... thoughts on legislation?Katherinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15069391939101625609noreply@blogger.com