Atheists and anti-theists

[jet57]

I tend to see abortion or personhood debates as an exercise in frustration where very few on the pro-life side of the debate bother to offer much more than "because life begins at conception" as an argument.

Yeah, that's the trouble I see as well, which is why I largely stay away from the subject, unless it's a new line on it.

Thanks

[Chris]

That's what I'm getting at, I suppose. This isn't specific to Dr. Who. I hear that a lot but have never understood the reasoning.

Right, it's a fairly common stance. The few who embrace a strong pro-abortion stance, who believe in the absolute moral right of a woman's privacy and freedom to abort are few and thee days not looked upon very favorably. I saw a video interview of one of those recently who when pushed came out and advocated the right to murder anyone.

[Dr. Who]

What precisely is unethical about an abortion beyond the 1st trimester?

I would sometimes ask Chloe that question. She would never answer me. One day she had an epiphany and changed her mind about the whole matter.

By the second trimester, the fetal brain begins to direct movement, hearing develops, as does simulated breathing and sensory awareness. A fetus is capable of feeling pain by the 19th week, although not consciously so. Nevertheless, by the second trimester the fetus has more than just a rudimentary brain stem and purely autonomic functions. Drawing the ethical line at 12 weeks gestation errs on the side of caution ensuring that the fetus (and it is only considered a fetus by the 11th week) has absolutely no consciousness or perception of anything whatsoever as the brain has not developed sufficiently.

[jet57]

That's what I'm getting at, I suppose. This isn't specific to Dr. Who. I hear that a lot but have never understood the reasoning.

It mean - mind your own business.

[BenjaminO]

Tell me something, Chris - assuming that you'll answer honestly, which would probably be a mistake. Why is it that when someone comments on your "style" or manner of posting, it's always an "ad hom" - again displaying your ignorance of what an ad hominem argument by definition is - but when you do exactly the same thing to other members - as I pointed out recently in a long list of examples - you always have some sort of lame, vague, half-assed excuse why it wasn't an "ad hom"?

Bingo

[Chris]

Bingo

The more the merrier.

But you like Who and Wolf fail to point to any of my posts/words to support accusations. You can't claim to be criticizing posting or style if you can point to the words to support that. If I accuse you of being a troll, I will point to the words demonstrating it. If I criticize you for incoherency I will point out the contradictions in your posts. If I accuse you of a strawman I will show how your words do not match my words. If I say Who was upset, for example, I will point to her words expressing that: "I tend to see abortion or personhood debates as an exercise in frustration where very few on the pro-life side of the debate bother to offer much more than 'because life begins at conception' as an argument."

[Mister D]

By the second trimester, the fetal brain begins to direct movement, hearing develops, as does simulated breathing and sensory awareness. A fetus is capable of feeling pain by the 19th week, although not consciously so. Nevertheless, by the second trimester the fetus has more than just a rudimentary brain stem and purely autonomic functions. Drawing the ethical line at 12 weeks gestation errs on the side of caution ensuring that the fetus (and it is only considered a fetus by the 11th week) has absolutely no consciousness or perception of anything whatsoever as the brain has not developed sufficiently.

Understood. So abortion should be illegal after 13 weeks or whatever it is? Except of course in cases where the mother's life may be in danger.

[BenjaminO]

The more the merrier.

But you like Who and Wolf fail to point to any of my posts/words to support accusations. You can't claim to be criticizing posting or style if you can point to the words to support that. If I accuse you of being a troll, I will point to the words demonstrating it. If I criticize you for incoherency I will point out the contradictions in your posts. If I accuse you of a strawman I will show how your words do not match my words. If I say Who was upset, for example, I will point to her words expressing that: "I tend to see abortion or personhood debates as an exercise in frustration where very few on the pro-life side of the debate bother to offer much more than 'because life begins at conception' as an argument."

Your post demonstrates his point.
Nothing more need be added.

[Mister D]

Your post demonstrates his point.
Nothing more need be added.

Why don't you add something to the conversation instead of being a whiny little...well, you know.

[Dr. Who]

Understood. So abortion should be illegal after 13 weeks or whatever it is? Except of course in cases where the mother's life may be in danger.

Yes, and I believe it's up to 14 weeks. That is the current ethical standard.