Vol8188
revolUTion in the air!
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 44,512
- Likes
- 40,678
It starts with the idea that the abortion debate, a debate which is fundamentally rooted in the philosophical concept of personhood, is in any way impacted by conception.
The idea that personhood starts at conception is complete nonsense. It becomes even more head-scratching when the reasoning for such a notion is tied to another nonsense idea of "life beginning at conception". Life does not magically begin at conception. It is an unbroken chain billions of years old (that we know of). Even if you wanted to posit the idea of a "separate biological entity" at conception, you would be hard pressed to deny that same distinction to gametes. Either way, granting separate biological entity status =/= personhood.
The bigger problem here is that you are trying to frame this as science debate; it is not. No different than when the new atheists tried to frame theology as a science debate. It doesn't work because these are not sciencfic questions.
Finally, distinction of something being alive is rather meaningless in debate about personhood. Even still, your list of requirement to be require for life was nonsense and another reason why science cannot answer these questions.
When you call it my list of requirements and claim they’re nonsense, you should first accept that it’s not my list and it’s a pretty common list you’d find in any biology text book. You can disagree and believe it’s nonsense, but it’s not me who developed it.
Based on your replies I feel you believe I’m arguing in no abortions because life begins at conception. That’s not my argument. I was simply pointing out the flaws in the previous person’s claims that life doesn’t begin until birth.
As far as “personhood” are you talking about from a legal standpoint?
Yes, when life begins is a question we should look to science for. That’s not saying abortion itself is a science debate, but clearly we should also look to science to understand fetal development when making abortion laws.
Finally you keep bringing up the distinction of something being alive. Once again, not my argument. At no point have I claimed we should ban abortion because the child is alive. Clearly it’s alive. My entire point was a response to a 3rd poster claiming he didn’t consider them alive until birth.