you seem to think that there should be some sort of legal “who lives, who dies” council

Oh yeah, I knew there was another thing; You invent ridiculous strawmen…

Jeff–

I have simply answered your arguments directly. What you see as “condescending” are probably sarcastic jabs that *I like to pepper my comments with when I interact with you because, truth be told, it’s fun to needle you.

Talk about “condescending.” Jeff, it’s funny how nearly every time you accuse me of something, I can find you doing the exact same thing on the very thread we’re discussing:

“However, pro-choice proponents acknowledge, consciously or not, that the question is bigger than just human life.”

No Jeff, it is not “bigger than just human life.” On this planet there is nothing either philosophically or physically “bigger” than human life — that is the very foundation of all our laws. Talk about pomposity — You are contending here that pro-abortionists are engaged in some higher level of intellectuality regarding this issue than people who respect the sanctity of human life. It’s no sign of superiority to make something that really is simple into some faux-agonizing set of questions about the “intrinsic value of the individual,” which of course puts in your own subjective hands the decision about who deserves to live and who doesn’t. That is where we differ Jeff — you seem to think that there should be some sort of legal “who lives, who dies” council, presumably staffed by “enlightened” members of NARAL and the Hemlock Society, who would decide the “intrinsic value” of each human life. That’s frightening.

If you admit you are not sure about the “personhood” (another invented obfuscation of Singerites) of a human at a certain stage of life, why do you err on the side of killing and instead say, “OK, I’m not sure, so we should allow the killing of that “might-be person” until we are sure of his personhood, even though, of course, this is a nebulous classification, nonetheless…forceps” If you’re not sure whether or not someone is standing behind a curtain, your default position is not to fire your rifle into the curtain, right? You err on the side of NOT killing that “potential person,” no? You look both ways when crossing the street, right?

Mind elaborating?

Sure. I’ll start by saying that I don’t dispute the first half of your argument. Given the scientific definition of “life” or “alive” and the NINDS study (I think you cited this, though the dates don’t match), it is easy to conclude that a fetus is “alive” by the 28 week mark.

I take issue with second half, where you extend that conclusion to cover the first 27 weeks as well. For that, your logic appears to be:
– If it’s alive at 28 weeks, it’s a “person” at that point in time.
– You assert three requirements for “personhood”
– You give several examples of humans generally regarded as “persons” that don’t meet those requirements
– Therefore, you conclude that the whole line of reasoning is invalid.
– You then fall back on the assumption of “personhood” is static.

If I have made an error in summarizing your position, please correct me.

As Glib pointed out several times, pro-lifers tend to claim that all human life is of equal value. From that perspective, the question is boolean: “Is she/he/it ‘human’?”

However, pro-choice proponents acknowledge, consciously or not, that the question is bigger than just human life. Therefore, we ask, “What is the intrinsic value of this individual?” That’s definitely not a very PC thing to ask, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid. As you correctly pointed out, our perception is fallible, so we should tread very cautiously when attempting to determine that value, but we need to try nonetheless.

Once you’ve accepted that individuals, of any species, can have various values, it’s no real leap to suggest that that value can vary over time due to changing circumstances. Thus, from conception to burial, it is also possible that an individual may cross the “personhood” threshold, in either direction, at various times.

Now, I’m not trying to convince you that this perspective is accurate. I’m well aware how futile it is to try to “convert” someone. I’m just trying to point out that your perspective prevented you from fully comprehending and analyzing the “pro-choice reasoning.” That was a central to your conclusion that a zygote is a “person” because it becomes a fetus which is clearly a person, so your conclusion is rendered unsubstantiated.

Welcome! Yes, you did very well, and apparently your Professor agreed in that he rewarded your work with an A.

Mind elaborating?

The problem with this is that gender has already been determined. Just because we cannot see the chromosomes yet does not mean that the gender hasn’t been determined.

No, we were literally talking about a hypothetical child. Glib conjured him or her in comment #7. He or she exists nowhere outside this thread.

His analogy between pre-term and pre-maturity dependence is correct given the fact that his thesis is on humanity

That very phrase was an example of me following pro-choice reasoning to its logical conclusion. Of course they’re not non-humans. Following the reasoning of some pro-choice advocates, however, that’s what we would end up with.

Obviously, Mr. Brazil is free to confine his analysis within any boundaries he chooses. The problem is that his conclusion, in large part, rests on his alleged lampooning of “pro-choice reasoning.” He then subjected that reasoning to the same limited confines he chose for his reasoning, which rendered laughable the otherwise plausible “pro-choice reasoning.” It’s essentially a strawman error, though I’m sure it was unintentional.

Thank you Lobo for directing me here. I’m delighted you used the work of an 18-year old college freshman. Guess I did better than I thought I did!

In any case, let’s take a look at some things.

[quote]That oversimplification leads to logical errors such as “these conditions would also seem to designate young infants, the mentally handicapped, and even very decrepit old people as ‘non-humans’.” They’re not “non-humans”; they just have a different level of moral significance relative to other humans. [/quote]

That very phrase was an example of me following pro-choice reasoning to its logical conclusion. Of course they’re not non-humans. Following the reasoning of some pro-choice advocates, however, that’s what we would end up with.

[quote]The hypothetical child had not been assigned a gender and gender wasn’t relevant to the discussion, so I used the gender-neutral pronoun. I could have said “he or she”, but that’s tiresome. One shouldn’t have to use more words to communicate a more general thought. [/quote]

The problem with this is that gender has already been determined. Just because we cannot see the chromosomes yet does not mean that the gender hasn’t been determined. XX, XY, and all that. True, we do not know the sex until the child has developed enough. But that doesn’t mean that the sex has yet to be determined.

They wouldn’t have to make another choice……..

http://www.sexual-health-resource.org/hormonal_birth_control.htm

At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.