Replies

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.

I explicitly stated that I do not believe in such a moment, that it is in fact you who believes that.

Why then do we speak of a "you" and a "me"? Under this view, there is no distinction in persons since there is no moment of separation of identities from parents. You've effectively undermined all further debate by unwittingly proposing that all humanity is part of one giant organism.

So why doesn't the moment happen at conception? Asked another way, why doesn't the beginning of personhood happen at the beginning of unique existence - as defined by the presence of unique DNA distinguishing child from mother? For utilitarian reasons, no doubt - it's inconvenient.

Given your last paragraph, I would like to know whether you believe in absolute truth. If not, why would words mean anything; why would our DI and Constitution carry any weight at all; what would be the basis for law?

Also, you may wish to review posts #242 and #244.