Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh? A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Obviously, the results are far different here on our beloved GC. Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one.

It's only as harsh as telling someone they are going based on emotion and not logic and reasoning.

We've already discussed what a "potential human" can become.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

This is funny.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun),

Disagreeing does not equal piling on - you've staked out a position on what you think is rational/logical, especially in regards with when a fetus becomes a human, and people are disagreeing with portions of that argument.

That's a big part of the legal argument, and a big part of the various court opinions (and personal opinions, for that matter) that have shaped the issue. Is the fetus a person at x number of weeks? If so, does that mean that the mother should have a right to abort after that time? Where do the state's interests come in? Those are all questions that, at least in part, go back to the issue of the fetus/human distinction.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As I said when this thread first began, it was a peaceful discourse because it was a surface level discourse about a poll. The tone changed when depth was added to the discourse.

And when people start acting like their backgrounds (legal, medical, logical, etc.) give them an intellectual "leg up" on everyone else in the discussion. It's an issue that touches so many different types of backgrounds that it can be easy for someone to claim an expertise that gives them more insight into the issue. At the end of the day, though, a person's expertise just gives perspective on one piece of the discussion.

I think AOIIAlum and MC went about it in a correct ways - she's a doctor (IIRC) and he's an attorney, and they could honestly have tried to own us all in this discussion. But, they gave their views, and didn't try to force their own experiences or viewpoints on anyone.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?

If we're talking religious beliefs, quite possibly. If we're talking in term of legal definitions, no.

A potential human - is still human, is it not?

Again, from a legal standpoint I would have to say no; otherwise the word "potential" is surplusage It is a potential human, meaning it is capable of becoming human, but is not yet human.

I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it?

As I understand it, the Talmud would say it is an appendage of the mother and a being of "doubtful viability."

I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

I think that what others have been saying is not that they disagree necessarily, but that given the fact that various religious or ethical perspectives can disagree on this (one traditional Hindu opinion is that a fetus becomes a person at 3 months), the law must rely on neutral/legal definitions of human. The question, then, is how is such a neutral principle to be decided on without appeal to religious or ethical authority. Many here have essentially expressed the opinion that viability provides that neutral principle. Why do you think it's more "rational" to say earlier? Simply saying "the fetus is a human" doesn't work -- the traditional Hindu view cited above would disagree, as, I think, would Exodus 21:22-23 and the Talmud. (Not that I mean to suggest that the Talmud supports abortion except in limited circumstances. It does not, but the position of traditional Judaism is not, as I understand it, based on the proposition that the fetus is a person prior to birth.)

ETA: Yes, I know I cited religious rather than neutral authority. I did so on purpose, because the reality is it is very hard to set one aside and focus on the other.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun),

I thought we were discussing legal understandings, which is what you wanted, not piling on.

how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did?

I have. Twice.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did?

I haven't speculated on why the Gallup poll results came out the way they did because it would be just that - speculation.

Maybe it came out that way because the poll went from Thursday through Sunday, and the people polled had just been to church Wednesday night or Sunday morning when they received the call.

Maybe people who participated in tho poll had someone else in the room and, for fear of starting an argument with a loved one, said "Pro-life" instead of "pro-choice."

Maybe it came out the way it did because, for the first time in eight years, there is now a pro-choice POTUS, and pro-lifers feel the need to be more vocal than they had before.

Maybe it's because they had tacos for dinner.

Maybe it's just because they thought it'd be fun to press '1' for everything.

Who knows.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

A potential human - is still human, is it not? If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

is a seed a tree? no. a fetus is not a human. it's a parasite. a potential human is something that is not yet human and thus not human.