kemmer

I never alter your posts; I simply quote parts of them.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

That’s altering, making something appear differently than said, just as you tried to do...

Again, the posts speak for themselves!

kemmer

Yes dear. 🙄😅

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

I believe the lady made her point!

kemmer

😂 She tries, bless her.

3507

That looks reasonable enough so far.



I understand. You're describing a "rationalization". (To be more specific, I might use the term "biased rationalization".)



Not necessarily "unviable tissue mass". I think we all know that some fetuses are "viable".

The biased rationalization, or the good reasoning, either one, can proceed without supposing that a fetus is "unviable tissue mass".

(As mentioned below, "viable/unviable" was not part of my argument, anyway.)



"must presume" is part of the biased rationalization process. At least, it appears to be so, in this example.

"solitary and unassailable" could be rigid thinking ("black and white thinking", which sometimes occurs when "shades-of-gray thinking" might be more appropriate). But it may be true that she does have such a solitary and unassailable right. I wish the father of a fetus might share in such a right, but ultimately I think the pregnant person's right will always supersede his regarding the fetus. I would not want to _call_ her right "solitary" nor "unassailable" (even though possibly it _is_ "solitary" and "unassailable"), but I would say it supersedes some other rights when the chips are down. I would want her to at least inform, listen to, and respect her husband in a discussion about it, but I'd say the final decision, after considering everything, would be hers to make. Such a decision is a big burden, and I'm glad I've never had to make it; however, it seems that, while _some_ people perceive it as a big burden, some _other_ people don't think as much about it, and I suspect that some people may even act frivolously in such a matter. Keep in mind that a******ns do not all occur for the same reasons. To take some examples, there might be such a severe birth defect discovered during some medical test that the fetus, upon becoming a baby, at birth, would either not survive long or would have a miserably painful and ineffective life, or would never achieve consciousness. Such a consideration might be what the parents are thinking about when they consider whether they should get an a******n. Kaiser Permanente (an HMO-type medical organization) has an entire class dev**ed to such possibilities; I (as a prospective father) remember attending at least one such session of it, and probably attended more than that.

You may have noticed that I didn't yet refer to how the fetus feels about it. Of course the fetus _does_ or _would_ have _some_ kind of feeling about it, and thinking about this is one of the things that makes such a decision a big burden. _If_ one has _already_postulated_ (think about that) that the fetus is somehow "morally equivalent" or even "intellectually equivalent" or _maybe_ even "emotionally equivalent" to a full-grown human being, then I think a******n would not be regarded as an option. But a fetus is not those kinds of equivalent any more than some other kind of animal is.

"not in the Constitution" -- What's right or wrong is not always in the Constitution. People wrote the Constitution to conform to their own notions of right or wrong. I heard that Black people were counted as 3/5 of a person each, in the Constitution, but I don't think that was right, do you? Just now I looked it up; at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text
I find the phrase "three fifths of all other Persons" in the original text, which was much later subjected to an Amendment. (And, I think the Amendment was an important improvement over the original text.)

When I think of "right" and "rights" I'm thinking abstractly, not legally. But I can say "legal right" when I want to specify legality.

An a******n does NOT "only [affect] the woman". Most obviously to me, it also affects the father. Also obviously, it affects the fetus.

One could also say, and it is also true, that when a human k**ls an animal, this act does not affect only the human.



Or, in an alternative situation, one might try to legally force everyone else to accept some other interpretation of what's right, or of what constitutes a "human being". I would like you to think about that.



"unviable" is not part of my argument.

I understand "viable" or "unviable" to be a technical (and sometimes medical, and sometimes scientific) term to indicate that something is feasible or that something can survive on its own. The same terms might apply to animals or to projects.

Human beings are a high-level kind of animal life. Usually "human being" refers to a human creature which has passed a certain point of development (such as birth) (in fact, usually, "birth"). In that sense, a human sperm cell would not be considered a "human being", even though, strictly speaking, it's both a "human" sperm cell and a "being".

Yes, you would be right that a "viable/unviable" kind of argument could apply to a human in any stage of development such as being only 14 years old. I notice that some 14-year-olds are more "viable" than others, in that they could survive pretty well on their own. But this is also true of full-grown adults. In fact, a great many of us adults are not very viable in the sense of surviving on our own -- we're dependent on civilization and/or technology and/or medical science to keep us going. However, as I've mentioned, viability or unviability was not part of my argument anyway.



Yeah, I'm sure glad I don't engage is biased rationalization.

That last few lines you wrote bring up a host of issues.

Mothers can be very frustrating. I was married to one. Back in 1998 there was a big article in the San Francisco Chronicle that said mothers murder their children far more often than fathers do. They weren't talking about a******ns; they were talking about what I call small children. The article immediately followed that observation with a counter "observation" about the "mystical bond" between "mothers" and their children. As a father in the middle of a divorce, I would have liked to puke at that but didn't.

The short answer to your last few lines is that we have some "line" or some boundary, and on one side of the line, k*****g is not accepted, and on the other side of the line, k*****g is accepted.

There's a lot of k*****g in the world, and I have my opinions on where to draw the lines (it's not just one line, because there are many kinds of k*****g of many kinds of beings and for a variety of reasons). So far I have not yet been able to impose my thoughts about it as laws telling everybody else what they may or may not do. Maybe if I get myself elected President, or anointed King, or elected governor of Texas, or appointed to the Supreme Court, or invent a nifty slogan and carry a sign and a gun, then I will be able to impose my will on everybody else, bwa-ha-hah!

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

3507, I may have inadvertently given the wrong impression. My post was not intended to be aimed at you, or your prior post, in particular. It was more of a generic presentation against the arguments supporting a******n. Your post was logical, as I said, though I stand by my opinion that a not-as-yet-born baby IS a human, and aborting he/she is murder. ANY supposed 'justification' for an a******n is, to one extent or another, rationalization.

kemmer

And MOST humans are given to rational thinking, which does not necessarily lend itself to universally accepted conclusions.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I disagree. Most humans are given to rationalization. You are a prime example.

3507

Thank you for that clarification. I had thought it was more about my post than it was.

Even as a generic presentation, I think it still brings up important questions: things not addressed, or not addressed well enough yet.

There are a couple of important questions (which I asked you a few days ago) that I don't think you've answered yet. 1. When do you think an entity becomes a human being? 2. What do you think is important about being a human being? It seems to me that any anti-a******nist ought to answer these two questions, as a start, before they try to impose their view upon others such as upon pregnant women. The two questions go together; the answer to #2 will be compared with the answer to #1.

More recently you've provoked an additional question: 3. How is what you're doing NOT a biased rationalization? You've claimed that "science" supports your position, but when I asked specific questions about that (what scientific paper, what experiment) you didn't say. You wouldn't _have_ to cite a paper or experiment, but you should at least explain something about the science and why your position is more scientific than somebody else's. I think maybe it's you who are adopting some postulate or assumption, without justification, and then doing biased rationalization to support it.

kemmer

Thank you.👍🏼

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I thought I did answer them, so let me be more precise: 1. You call something an 'entity'. I will accept this for our purpose, and define it as a human egg fertilized by human sperm. The entity begins to grow, and some people claim that at the moment of fertilization it is a human being. Personally, I lean more towards the moment the entity attaches itself to the uterus, because at that point, unless something goes wrong, the 'entity' will naturally grow into a fully functional person. 2. A human being has value to him/herself, hopefully to his family and society, and certainly to God, if you are religious. Ending the life of a human is murder. If you do not accept the basic premise that human life is precious and to be saved whenever possible, then no need to go any farther.
3. The premise that an unborn fetus is NOT a human is rationalization to justify murdering the fetus. That is my opinion. Based on the certain knowledge that the fetus is a human child. I can not site a specific scientific paper that will prove my opinion to be t***h, but then neither can I prove YOU are human. Likewise, I can not prove I am, either. Some things, religious or secular, are based on faith. Here is one of the better short discussions that I could find.
https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children

3507

Thank you.

There are parts that I would disagree with (but won't, at least not at this moment).

I did follow the link and read the article there.

You did not ask for my critique or response, but I want to give a mild brief one anyway, for the record:

I like your answer to #1, even though I disagree with its conclusion. At least it has precision and thoughtfulness.

I think the first sentence in your #2 is pretty good. The whole #2 answer looks to me like a kind of logical construct. Possibly it left out some intermediate steps.

There's room for discussion in #3.

I agree that "Some things, religious or secular, are based on faith." That goes deep, however, and one faith might be a lot different from another.

Thank you for your patience. There's a lot at stake in such discussions, and it didn't seem right to just let such things pass without comment. I appreciate your kind, or thoughtful, replies to my earlier comments.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

It was a good discussion, wasn't it? I wish more of us could have such pleasant ones, and leave out the ugliness. I learned some things, and I look forward to future discussions with you.