You keep calling abortion foes irrational. It's okay, I did too. They just came to their conclusion by a different path. It is a very, very rational path. I disagree, but it is rational. My own view hangs by a very, very thin thread on the limits of the state.
-
-
Replying to @PaulBates7 @HPluckrose
Let's imagine science progressing to the point where that clump of cells didn't need a host to survive. We're not far from there. Maybe 10 to 30 years. Doesn't change the underlying fact that the clump of cells could then become a human being w/o regard to the mother's support.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PaulBates7
I'd have to give thought to the ethics of that & the boundaries. If a clump of cells had the right to develop into a person without the mother hosting them, what about a few days earlier? The sperm and the egg? Do their owners have the right to dispose of them
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
It's a thought experiment. Just narrow it down w/o complicating it. (It's complicated enough). Woman goes to find out if she's pregnant. She can have an abortion, send that clump of cells off to an incubator, or have the child. The first two are equally easy medically. Now what?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PaulBates7
I'd have to give thought to it and this would require thinking around the problem which would include the ethics of letting eggs and sperm die. I have not yet given thought to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Please do, but I'd say the ethics of leaving sperm or eggs around to die is immaterial. As are questions on contraception, abstinence and the like. It's better to narrow it down to conception. Two things coming together to make something new and unique is the proper dividing spot
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PaulBates7
That's what needs proving with rational argument first. Why? Is it just the cognitive bias that tells us that failing to make something is better than stopping something that has started even tho the consequences are the same for the potential person? Not sure that's good enough
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Here's my problem with you saying pro-life people are irrational. Does human life begin at conception? It's certainly a rational, logical, philosophically, and altogether scientifically sound concept. For sake of argument: Human life begins at conception. Now what?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PaulBates7
But I don't say that pro-life people are irrational. I say that that position is often based on an intuitive, rather than rational sense of an embryo as a baby.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I responded bc you called them irrational. Sometimes, yes they are. But not on that intuitive care/harm level. That's completely rational. From pro-choice, I see as much irrationality. Maybe my own sense of it is the same.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No. The care harm foundation is intuitive, not rational.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.