re: The next time a pro-abortion zealot denies that status, show them this.

quote:

---

It’s the humans involved who ultimately matter.

---

Sure, which I think goes in my favor.

Not looking to "win," whatever that looks like.

Looking for entertainment and some decent discussion.

I got both tonight.

quote:

---

Correct. I'm sure you have access to a dictionary.

---

Why would I need access to a dictionary when you insisted that you had answered my question about how you define a person?

quote:

---

I think it's uninteresting to pretend we don't know the definition of "person."

---

I think it's telling you've done your best to avoid giving a definition thus far.

We could have avoided all this pointless back and forth had you only given your definition when I asked for it.

quote:

---

Done.

Back to you.

---

I'm trying, but you won't even answer a simple question on a word's definition.

quote:

---

Philosophically, it just makes no sense whatsoever to me to vest legal rights in an organism which is not even aware of its own existence.

---

Don't fall asleep, or get knocked out, or pass out.

Also, at what age do humans obtain awareness of our own existence? I'm on my phone and heading to bed (don't feel like minimizing and looking it up) but I'd imagine self awareness is gained a fair bit past birth. That has big implications.

quote:

---

Don't fall asleep, or get knocked out, or pass out.

---

Or become incapacitated in an accident.

quote:

---

Don't fall asleep, or get knocked out, or pass out.

(Or get knocked out in an acvident)

---

I am disappointed. This is the first cheap and intentionally disingenuous point raised during this civil discussion. We have been discussing the point at which rights VEST, not the removal of already-vested rights.

As I said in the same post, LOSING rights (once vested) is a distinct question and is governed by the Constitution. It cannot happen without due process of law (or a valid advance directive, of course). Raising that issue in this context is a cheap red herring.

Moving on, you are correct that the purely philosophical answer of “consciousness or self-awareness” (as the point for vesting rights) would not protect newborns, which is why I have never advocated that the purely philosophical answer become the LEGAL answer.

Animals (including humans) are evolutionarily programmed to be attached to newborns and infants. LEGALLY, you just have to find the point which the bulk of the population accepts as a reasonable balance of competing concerns. There is nothing scientific (biological) about the process of finding that point. Everyone’s “point” will thus vary.

Me? In a world in which an unwanted pregnancy does NOT interfere with the rights of the woman (Star Trek transporters to remove an embryo and Brave New World incubation technology to grow it … all at no cost to the woman), I can see “playing it safe” and prohibiting abortion entirely. But we do not live in that world.

Prohibiting a pregnant woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy DOES unreasonably interfere with HER autonomy and self-determination. It seems to me that we must find a point of balance between those long-recognized rights and the hypothetical rights of a developing and potentially sapient entity/organism (the fetus).

For ME, the development of higher brain function (HBF) is related somewhat to self-awareness (SA), though it precedes SA by as much as a year or more. The brain does not even BEGIN to develop the physical STRUCTURES associated with HBF until about week 16, and the fetus does not begin to display BEHAVIORS arising from HBF until about week 24 or so.

As such any cutoff before 24-weeks strikes me as being entirely reasonable, and I am perfectly willing to negotiate to a point as early as 16-weeks. Any woman who fails to exercise her right to an elective abortion before that point could reasonably be said to have waived those rights.

“Conception zealots” will not like that compromise, and “birth canal zealots” will not like it. Such is political reality.

You see that slope as slippery. I see plenty of friction. Such is life.

Good talk.

quote:

---

Good talk.

quote:

---

Indeed, best in a long time.

---

---

For the most part, the feces-flinging monkeys in the peanut gallery showed self-control and allowed the adults to talk.

I would love to see more of that. The question is “How to attain it?” Damned if I know.

I do not see “hoping for continued self-control” as a workable tactic. I suppose that I do not have as much faith in humanity as you seem to think.

And there it is

quote:

---

When everyone else is the a-hole, maybe you should take a look internally

---

My family has me.

They tell their friends that they have a plane of glass with these words printed on with a little hammer next to it.

“Break glass when you need a real a-hole to deal with too much stupidity. Be advised the results will be quite humorous (to you) but be sure to stay out of the line of fire while viewing. Popcorn and a comfortable chair are recommended”