My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.
The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....
I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.
Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?
I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.
I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.
I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.
Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.
I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.
Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.
I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.
"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"
The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?
You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.
The abortion argument is a moral one, but the morals are based on hard scientific fact.
Also, you might want to NEVER attempt to play Grammar Nazi with someone who's light-years beyond you in English skills. You will only embarrass yourself.
Quotation Marks: Rules How to Use Them Correctly
- We use quotation marks with direct quotes, with titles of certain works, to imply alternate meanings, and to write words as words.
In this case, the first half of the equation was, more or less, a quote from you, and the quotation marks indicate that. The second half of the equation was my translation of your words, and the quotation marks are used to indicate THAT.
Lesson over, no charge.
So when you "more or less" quoted me, were you implying an alternate meaning? Because it certainly presented an alternate meaning from what I actually posted.
If you need to change my words and their meaning to make your point work, your point may not be on solid ground to begin with.