Replies

Your point about extremes is well taken.

I did not say that it was a 'poof' moment, and if I did, it was a misstatement. You are the one who is arguing for such a thing, for you, the 'poof' moment is conception. That's not very credible. I don't think of 'life' when I see a fertilized egg.

Dynamism itself is part of the ontological nature of the developing person. It is an attribute of life and separates a substance (such as a human organism) from a property thing (an automobile). The DNA containing the blueprint for this development program exists as an intrinsic, ubiquitous component throughout the whole.

Conception is not much of a "poof" since we are only talking two cells - there has to be a beginning somewhere, and the flash created by "poof"-moment over several billion cells, you would agree, is much greater, more difficult to defend, and at odds with the human mind's familiarity with reality (i.e. smooth, gradual transitions). The point of debate is where you place the beginning of humanity, and on what basis do you divorce legal personhood status from ontological humanness. I would suggest that the basis has become legal abortion. (In 1973 it could legitimately be claimed that "we don't know"; we no longer have that excuse).

The most salient point rests in your words "I don't think of 'life'", etc. This belies the Platonic rationalism underlying the pro-choice position - that the human mind shapes reality. For example, if I see a dog, my brain imposes attributes of "dogness" and can even read in things that aren't there but common to other members of that category.

Rationalism is inherently subjective and stands against the objective empiricism that forms an important cornerstone of post-Enlightenment scientific inquiry.

MHGInTN is more of an expert in this philosophical aspect than I am, so I've pinged him. But I hope you see that my position has a solid philosophical and objective basis.

The evidence of 'LIFE' -to the lab scientist working with embryos- is the beginning of cell division in the zygote. When the single cell that results from fertilization (mistakenly called a fertilized egg by your poster, since the egg ceases to exist as soon as the chromosomes of the sperm and ovum unite) makes the first cell division, the lab tech identifies the entity as now directing his or her own construction project, which will include building a placenta and a body for life in the air world in a few months. With cell division, the scientist understands that a LIVING ORGANISM is present, an ORGANISM that came into being at conception. That your poster refuses to accept the science is not unusual ... the utilitarian approach to justify all manner of obscenities against human beings is well documented in History.

Conception is not much of a "poof" since we are only talking two cells - there has to be a beginning somewhere, and the flash created by "poof"-moment over several billion cells, you would agree, is much greater, more difficult to defend, and at odds with the human mind's familiarity with reality (i.e. smooth, gradual transitions).

I explicitly stated that I do not believe in such a moment, that it is in fact you who believes that. And I don't think that you can pin-point the exact time when a fetus becomes 'really' human and living. But it's fair to say that it doesn't happen at conception.

The point of debate is where you place the beginning of humanity, and on what basis do you divorce legal personhood status from ontological humanness. I would suggest that the basis has become legal abortion. (In 1973 it could legitimately be claimed that "we don't know"; we no longer have that excuse).

If you look at polls, more than 70 percent of people want to outlaw abortions that are done in the second and third trimester, even though they are allowed under Roe v. Wade. Legal abortion in those trimesters may set the standard for the law, but it is not setting the standard for the people.

The most salient point rests in your words "I don't think of 'life'", etc. This belies the Platonic rationalism underlying the pro-choice position - that the human mind shapes reality. For example, if I see a dog, my brain imposes attributes of "dogness" and can even read in things that aren't there but common to other members of that category.

Ah, the form of the dog. But people have to live with the results of what they advocate. If you believe that life begins at conception, you should accept the logical conclusions of that belief, namely that a fertilized egg is a life, a human, a person, or whatever you wish to call it.

Rationalism is inherently subjective and stands against the objective empiricism that forms an important cornerstone of post-Enlightenment scientific inquiry.

There is no way that you can establish your belief as fact under objective empiricism.

MHGInTN is more of an expert in this philosophical aspect than I am, so I've pinged him. But I hope you see that my position has a solid philosophical and objective basis.

A solid philosophical basis, yeah. Objective, not so much. Beliefs about this issue are subjective, whether they be pro-choice or pro-life.