Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

Abortion is deliberate.
Abortion is done knowingly.
Abortion is done intentionally.
Abortion kills the unborn human.

So, having admitted all that, how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

What is the factual scientific or biological difference between a 9 month old human being in utero and the same human being three seconds later, having been delivered outside of the uterus, other than physical location?

Why should the decision to kill a full-term unborn human being without penalty be left entirely to the woman when the decision to kill the same human being three seconds later is subject to the most rigorous of reviews and stringent of prohibitions in law, absent justifiable cause and careful review?

What is the moral, legal and ethical distinction between an unborn living human being at any stage of development from zygote to full-term fetus that justifies leaving the decision to kill said living human being solely in the hands of the mother?

Assuming arguendo that the killing of a living human being without just cause and judicial review is ever acceptable, what constraints upon the authority of the mother to terminate the living human being within her apply at what stages of development, and why?

These are the sort of questions that must be considered and discussed before a rational, ethical and moral decision can be made about authorizing abortion.

[mistermack]

If you can find a way that the woman can be separated from the fetus without killing it, you might have a point.
If there was such a thing as an artificial womb that you could put the fetus in, and a method of getting it out of the womb without damage, then I would say that the fetus should be incubated. ( after a certain period from conception ).

I'm not really for the right to kill the fetus, so much as the woman's right to be separated from it.
And even now, I'm not in favour of the woman's right to be separated from a fetus that is close to birth.

An artificial womb would just render every fetus viable, so the principle is the same.

You would then get the question of the right to kill and abort a fetus because it was disabled, or the result of incest or rape. I would say yes, that should be the woman's choice.

As far as rights go, they are what we give as a society. We can change them any time, or adapt them to new technology.

[Seth]

If you can find a way that the woman can be separated from the fetus without killing it, you might have a point.

That would be nice, but it's hardly relevant.

If there was such a thing as an artificial womb that you could put the fetus in, and a method of getting it out of the womb without damage, then I would say that the fetus should be incubated. ( after a certain period from conception ).

I would agree, but that I agree does not mean that I also agree that in the absence of such technology fetal killing should be universally permissible.

I'm not really for the right to kill the fetus, so much as the woman's right to be separated from it.

What right are you referring to, pray tell? Where does this "right" come from and who decided it exists?

And even now, I'm not in favour of the woman's right to be separated from a fetus that is close to birth.

Glad to hear it. But what's your moral reasoning for supporting a "woman's right" to be separated from a fetus any time before natural birth?

An artificial womb would just render every fetus viable, so the principle is the same.

And that would be a good thing. But that's not an option right now. That it's not an option does not make the present alternative of fetal killing axiomatically morally acceptable.

You would then get the question of the right to kill and abort a fetus because it was disabled, or the result of incest or rape. I would say yes, that should be the woman's choice.

Why should it be her choice? What gives her the right to decide the fate of a living human being?

As far as rights go, they are what we give as a society. We can change them any time, or adapt them to new technology.

So, they aren't actually rights at all, they are permissions granted by society that may be revoked at the whims and caprices of the majority. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable for the majority to revoke the permission of a woman to have any abortion, ever, under any circumstances and that societal decision is just as moral and ethical as the societal decision to allow unlimited, unregulated abortion...or anything in between. Is that what you believe?

You can't have it both ways, you see. Either a woman has a "natural" right to abortion which is NOT subject to societal mores and laws or a woman has no right to an abortion at all, but rather may or may not have societal permission to abort a fetus.

Choose one.

[mistermack]

So, they aren't actually rights at all, they are permissions granted by society that may be revoked at the whims and caprices of the majority. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable for the majority to revoke the permission of a woman to have any abortion, ever, under any circumstances and that societal decision is just as moral and ethical as the societal decision to allow unlimited, unregulated abortion...or anything in between. Is that what you believe?

You can't have it both ways, you see. Either a woman has a "natural" right to abortion which is NOT subject to societal mores and laws or a woman has no right to an abortion at all, but rather may or may not have societal permission to abort a fetus.

Choose one.

The second of course. Why do you need me to tell you that?

A right IS social permission.

I can argue for what I think is "right" or "a right" but at the end of the day, it's just opinion.
What you describe as "natural rights" are just opinions that seem to naturally occur in the majority of the population. They have a genetic origin with a survival benefit, which is why they evolved and are still there.

When I write "a woman has a right", it's shorthand for "I think a woman should be allowed to".
It's the same thing.

[Seth]

So, they aren't actually rights at all, they are permissions granted by society that may be revoked at the whims and caprices of the majority. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable for the majority to revoke the permission of a woman to have any abortion, ever, under any circumstances and that societal decision is just as moral and ethical as the societal decision to allow unlimited, unregulated abortion...or anything in between. Is that what you believe?

You can't have it both ways, you see. Either a woman has a "natural" right to abortion which is NOT subject to societal mores and laws or a woman has no right to an abortion at all, but rather may or may not have societal permission to abort a fetus.

Choose one.

The second of course. Why do you need me to tell you that?

A right IS social permission.

I can argue for what I think is "right" or "a right" but at the end of the day, it's just opinion.
What you describe as "natural rights" are just opinions that seem to naturally occur in the majority of the population. They have a genetic origin with a survival benefit, which is why they evolved and are still there.

When I write "a woman has a right", it's shorthand for "I think a woman should be allowed to".
It's the same thing.

I'm glad we finally established that. What this means is that your opinion on anything is of no value at all if it is opposed by the status quo. If the majority says that you should be hung by your balls and flayed alive, well, you'd better just smile and say "Yassa Massa!"

Your sort of slave mentality is ample demonstration of the corrosive and evil effects of socialist dogma for anyone.

On the other hand, my rights aren't granted by anyone, they are an inherent part of my existence as a living human being and therefore they cannot be revoked or infringed by anyone without I do something as an individual that justifies forfeiture or restriction of those rights.

And I have the firepower to back up my claim of rights...which you do not.

As for abortion, you will cease using the word "right" in association with the abortion issue immediately because you yourself have admitted it is no such thing, it is merely a permission that can be revoked at the will of the majority, so if the majority decides to make all abortion illegal, you'd better shut the fuck up and mind your own business.

That said, now that we know your position on the subject, there is no further reason to debate the issue with you because according to your own arguments it's all and only about what the majority wants, for better or worse.

So I don't want to hear you talking about "rights" at all, ever again, in any context whatsoever, because you don't have any "rights" and never will.

But that doesn't apply to anyone else, including me.

[Forty Two]

Abortion is deliberate.
Abortion is done knowingly.
Abortion is done intentionally.
Abortion kills the unborn human.

So, having admitted all that, how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

I'll ask it again -- "how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

[Forty Two]

What is the factual scientific or biological difference between a 9 month old human being in utero and the same human being three seconds later, having been delivered outside of the uterus, other than physical location?

As far as I know, there are none.

That's a baby. My daughter was born at 37 weeks. She was a baby when she was born, and she was a baby a few hours earlier when my wife's water broke.

Why should the decision to kill a full-term unborn human being without penalty be left entirely to the woman when the decision to kill the same human being three seconds later is subject to the most rigorous of reviews and stringent of prohibitions in law, absent justifiable cause and careful review?

It shouldn't. That's one of the reasons why I don't support abortion on demand for no good reason at full-term.

What is the moral, legal and ethical distinction between an unborn living human being at any stage of development from zygote to full-term fetus that justifies leaving the decision to kill said living human being solely in the hands of the mother?

Moral distinction? Well, I think that it's generally "immoral" (in my view) to have an abortion for no good reason at any time. However, I do think it is moral to have an abortion when the mother is very young and has been raped, if the child is conceived of nonconsensual incest (which is also rape), and that sort of thing. If, for example, my daughter was raped, and became impregnated, I would find it decidedly immoral to NOT allow her to get an abortion. In fact, if she was very young, like if she got pregnant at age 12, I think the abortion should just be done quickly and early, and it might be best if she didn't even know she had been pregnant.

Now, as for the moral distinction between an unborn zygote and a full-term fetus, there is a moral difference in that it would be much more preferable to abort, say, in the zygote stage than full term. Many zygotes are expelled from the body or miscarried later, and so it can be argued that it is less likely that a zygote would survive anyway. The zygote has no nervous system, or brain function or even organs, etc. Thus, very early on in the pregnancy, at the zygote stage, there is, some studies have shown that almost 1/3 of them miscarry. So, there is a significant difference between them. So, while I do not believe it is moral to abort for no good reason, there are certainly differences between zygotes and fullterm pregnancies that could allow for different views. I would say that a woman who has been raped should be able to abort the pregnancy early on. But, she would not be morally justified in doing so at 48 weeks.

Legal distinction -- that depends what the law says in a given jurisdiction. The legal distinction in the US is set by State law, governed by Constitutional limitations stated in Supreme Court precedent as to when a State law restricting abortion is unconstitutional. There are plenty of times when the law must allow immoral behavior to be legal, and this is often a practical policy decision, and also an analysis of basic, fundamental rights.

Ethical? What code of ethics are you referring to?

Assuming arguendo that the killing of a living human being without just cause and judicial review is ever acceptable, what constraints upon the authority of the mother to terminate the living human being within her apply at what stages of development, and why?

I think for the first 20 weeks or so, the decision should be exclusively the mother's decision, and thereafter I think it becomes a decision of medical judgment based on the risks to the mother and developing child. The mother ought not be required to die on the hospital table. So, there is going to be a balancing of risks and interests here. In the early part of the pregnancy, however, the mother must, as a practical matter, in my view, be afforded a wide berth in her decisionmaking. Once she's had a fair opportunity, however, to decide, then I think "preference" gives way to "medical judgment."

These are the sort of questions that must be considered and discussed before a rational, ethical and moral decision can be made about authorizing abortion.

Consider them asked of you now. Please answer them.

Question to Seth -- Assuming arguendo that the killing of a living human being without just cause and judicial review is ever acceptable, what constraints upon the authority of the mother to terminate the living human being within her apply at what stages of development, and why?

Question to Seth -- What is the moral, legal and ethical distinction, if any, between an unborn living human being at any stage of development from zygote to full-term fetus that justifies leaving the decision to kill said living human being solely in the hands of the mother?

Question for Seth -- What is the factual scientific or biological difference, if any, between a 9 month old human being in utero and the same human being three seconds later, having been delivered outside of the uterus, other than physical location?

[Seth]

What is the factual scientific or biological difference between a 9 month old human being in utero and the same human being three seconds later, having been delivered outside of the uterus, other than physical location?

As far as I know, there are none.

That's a baby. My daughter was born at 37 weeks. She was a baby when she was born, and she was a baby a few hours earlier when my wife's water broke.

I agree. There is no biological difference, only a difference of location.

Why should the decision to kill a full-term unborn human being without penalty be left entirely to the woman when the decision to kill the same human being three seconds later is subject to the most rigorous of reviews and stringent of prohibitions in law, absent justifiable cause and careful review?

It shouldn't. That's one of the reasons why I don't support abortion on demand for no good reason at full-term.

And we agree here as well. But I hear the crickets chirping...

What is the moral, legal and ethical distinction between an unborn living human being at any stage of development from zygote to full-term fetus that justifies leaving the decision to kill said living human being solely in the hands of the mother?

Moral distinction? Well, I think that it's generally "immoral" (in my view) to have an abortion for no good reason at any time. However, I do think it is moral to have an abortion when the mother is very young and has been raped, if the child is conceived of nonconsensual incest (which is also rape), and that sort of thing. If, for example, my daughter was raped, and became impregnated, I would find it decidedly immoral to NOT allow her to get an abortion. In fact, if she was very young, like if she got pregnant at age 12, I think the abortion should just be done quickly and early, and it might be best if she didn't even know she had been pregnant.

Now, as for the moral distinction between an unborn zygote and a full-term fetus, there is a moral difference in that it would be much more preferable to abort, say, in the zygote stage than full term. Many zygotes are expelled from the body or miscarried later, and so it can be argued that it is less likely that a zygote would survive anyway. The zygote has no nervous system, or brain function or even organs, etc. Thus, very early on in the pregnancy, at the zygote stage, there is, some studies have shown that almost 1/3 of them miscarry. So, there is a significant difference between them. So, while I do not believe it is moral to abort for no good reason, there are certainly differences between zygotes and fullterm pregnancies that could allow for different views. I would say that a woman who has been raped should be able to abort the pregnancy early on. But, she would not be morally justified in doing so at 48 weeks.[/quote]

A well-stated rationale. Thanks. So, we begin to narrow the window for justifiable abortion somewhat at least. Most embryologists eschew embryo research as a matter of ethical policy after the formation of the notochord, or "primitive streak", which is the first appearance of a nervous system, and therefore, according to some, may represent the first ability of the embryo to "feel pain." Others extend this limit well into the fetal period, which begins at the 8th week of gestation.

So what physiological aspects of embryonic-fetal development would rationally serve to preclude elective abortion?

Legal distinction -- that depends what the law says in a given jurisdiction. The legal distinction in the US is set by State law, governed by Constitutional limitations stated in Supreme Court precedent as to when a State law restricting abortion is unconstitutional. There are plenty of times when the law must allow immoral behavior to be legal, and this is often a practical policy decision, and also an analysis of basic, fundamental rights.

This of course presumes that the society involved recognizes that "basic, fundamental rights", as opposed to permissions granted by majoritarianism, actually exist. Clearly, in a society where there are no rights as a matter of social interpretation, there are no "legal" limits at all on when abortion may be either permitted or prohibited.

Ethical? What code of ethics are you referring to?

Pick one. Medical, social, familial, historical...

Assuming arguendo that the killing of a living human being without just cause and judicial review is ever acceptable, what constraints upon the authority of the mother to terminate the living human being within her apply at what stages of development, and why?

I think for the first 20 weeks or so, the decision should be exclusively the mother's decision, and thereafter I think it becomes a decision of medical judgment based on the risks to the mother and developing child. The mother ought not be required to die on the hospital table. So, there is going to be a balancing of risks and interests here. In the early part of the pregnancy, however, the mother must, as a practical matter, in my view, be afforded a wide berth in her decisionmaking. Once she's had a fair opportunity, however, to decide, then I think "preference" gives way to "medical judgment."

Why 20 weeks? What are the specific criteria you use to determine that 20 weeks is appropriate and 21 weeks not appropriate? I would agree that there is always a need to balance the risks to the mother of continuing a pregnancy that may harm the mother, but the definition of "harm" is, as of today, extremely flexible and broad enough to drive a tank through. Some putative future economic or social impact is currently enough in the minds of most pro-abortionists to justify abortion at any time, right up to delivery.

So, are there more specific criteria involved in the idea that the mother's health, safety and welfare must take precedence?

These are the sort of questions that must be considered and discussed before a rational, ethical and moral decision can be made about authorizing abortion.

Consider them asked of you now. Please answer them.

You're doing very well yourself. My position is that of the Socratic interlocutor who entices you to sound reasoning and careful explication of your notions on the subject.

Now, if only the pro-abortionists would engage in similar sound and logical reasoning... Oh well...

[mistermack]

Anyway, where can you get this abortion thread ?

And is it really effective? I can't picture how you would attach it.

[Seth]

Anyway, where can you get this abortion thread ?

And is it really effective? I can't picture how you would attach it.

You tie a roll of it around your willy and bollocks tight enough to cut off the blood supply and leave it there for a couple of weeks, and then you won't have to worry about being the cause of an abortion.

Or, alternatively, you take your girlfriend to the doctor and he ties the thread around her fallopian tubes, and presto!, no abortions.

[mistermack]

You tie a roll of it around your willy and bollocks tight enough to cut off the blood supply and leave it there for a couple of weeks, and then you won't have to worry about being the cause of an abortion.

Why would I have to worry? I never did before.

Or, alternatively, you take your girlfriend to the doctor and he ties the thread around her fallopian tubes, and presto!, no abortions.

Take her? They've got fucking legs, haven't they?

[Hermit]

One word: Vasectomy.

[Seth]

You tie a roll of it around your willy and bollocks tight enough to cut off the blood supply and leave it there for a couple of weeks, and then you won't have to worry about being the cause of an abortion.

Why would I have to worry? I never did before.

I'm sure all the women of the world are relieved to hear that...

Or, alternatively, you take your girlfriend to the doctor and he ties the thread around her fallopian tubes, and presto!, no abortions.

Take her? They've got fucking legs, haven't they?

Now I know why you don't worry about getting girls pregnant...

[Forty Two]

What is the factual scientific or biological difference between a 9 month old human being in utero and the same human being three seconds later, having been delivered outside of the uterus, other than physical location?

As far as I know, there are none.

That's a baby. My daughter was born at 37 weeks. She was a baby when she was born, and she was a baby a few hours earlier when my wife's water broke.

I agree. There is no biological difference, only a difference of location.

Not exactly. There are differences, just not significant ones. Biologically, the baby a few hours earlier is being fed oxygen through a tube and is not breathing. That's a biological difference, just not one that's particularly significant. So, I'll clarify my "there are none" answer above, by saying there are no significant differences at that stage.

Now, using your own logic, people may find the function of breathing to be a key distinction. That's a subjective value judgment.

Why should the decision to kill a full-term unborn human being without penalty be left entirely to the woman when the decision to kill the same human being three seconds later is subject to the most rigorous of reviews and stringent of prohibitions in law, absent justifiable cause and careful review?

It shouldn't. That's one of the reasons why I don't support abortion on demand for no good reason at full-term.

And we agree here as well. But I hear the crickets chirping...[/quote]


So far we agree.

What is the moral, legal and ethical distinction between an unborn living human being at any stage of development from zygote to full-term fetus that justifies leaving the decision to kill said living human being solely in the hands of the mother?

Moral distinction? Well, I think that it's generally "immoral" (in my view) to have an abortion for no good reason at any time. However, I do think it is moral to have an abortion when the mother is very young and has been raped, if the child is conceived of nonconsensual incest (which is also rape), and that sort of thing. If, for example, my daughter was raped, and became impregnated, I would find it decidedly immoral to NOT allow her to get an abortion. In fact, if she was very young, like if she got pregnant at age 12, I think the abortion should just be done quickly and early, and it might be best if she didn't even know she had been pregnant.

Now, as for the moral distinction between an unborn zygote and a full-term fetus, there is a moral difference in that it would be much more preferable to abort, say, in the zygote stage than full term. Many zygotes are expelled from the body or miscarried later, and so it can be argued that it is less likely that a zygote would survive anyway. The zygote has no nervous system, or brain function or even organs, etc. Thus, very early on in the pregnancy, at the zygote stage, there is, some studies have shown that almost 1/3 of them miscarry. So, there is a significant difference between them. So, while I do not believe it is moral to abort for no good reason, there are certainly differences between zygotes and fullterm pregnancies that could allow for different views. I would say that a woman who has been raped should be able to abort the pregnancy early on. But, she would not be morally justified in doing so at 48 weeks.[/quote]

A well-stated rationale. Thanks. So, we begin to narrow the window for justifiable abortion somewhat at least. Most embryologists eschew embryo research as a matter of ethical policy after the formation of the notochord, or "primitive streak", which is the first appearance of a nervous system, and therefore, according to some, may represent the first ability of the embryo to "feel pain." Others extend this limit well into the fetal period, which begins at the 8th week of gestation.

So what physiological aspects of embryonic-fetal development would rationally serve to preclude elective abortion?[/quote]

That's difficult to say, and there is no clear line that is going to be applicable to every pregnancy, because there are pregnancies that develop faster or slower (a statistical distribution). I have to say that I do not know what physiological aspects might be determinative in answer to your question.

My position on preclusion of elective abortion is a balancing of interests, and I do not base it entirely on physiological development. I approach it more like carving a statue. I chip away at parts of it. Like, "full term" -- when the baby is considered full term, I really can't see anything other than emergency medical situations as justifying abortion, and certainly not "elective" abortion at 36+ weeks.

Then there is the "premie" stage where babies can be born alive and often survive on their own unaided. I think it's too late at that stage for an elective abortion too. Medical necessity is, of course, something that should be available, but if we're talking about elective abortions, then no. If the baby can reasonably be born premature then I can't imagine just electively aborting it.

Then there is the premature stage where medical technology has increased survivability -- down to like 24 weeks -- 24 weeks premature babies can be cared for in the hospital and develop into normal adults.

In the first 8 weeks-ish, we see there is no spinal cord and at the early stages there ARE significant biological differences compared to late pregnancy and we have a significant risk of miscarriage naturally, etc. It's very early. So, I would allow elective abortion through 8 weeks.

So what about weeks 9 through 23?

Here is where I have a hard time and I am open to many compromises.

I would probably have abortion be a medical decision between the mother and doctor through about 20 weeks. After 20, I think the mother has been afforded more than enough time to know she's pregnant and figure out what she wants to "elect" to do. After 20 weeks, I think the law and public policy can and ought to step in to provide guidelines. I think this is pretty much what they do in the UK.

In Canada, I also like the way they do it -- they have no federal abortion law in Canada, but abortion is regulated through the medical profession, and you don't find abortions being done after about 20-odd weeks. They just aren't done unless there is a medical necessity.

Legal distinction -- that depends what the law says in a given jurisdiction. The legal distinction in the US is set by State law, governed by Constitutional limitations stated in Supreme Court precedent as to when a State law restricting abortion is unconstitutional. There are plenty of times when the law must allow immoral behavior to be legal, and this is often a practical policy decision, and also an analysis of basic, fundamental rights.

This of course presumes that the society involved recognizes that "basic, fundamental rights", as opposed to permissions granted by majoritarianism, actually exist. Clearly, in a society where there are no rights as a matter of social interpretation, there are no "legal" limits at all on when abortion may be either permitted or prohibited.

Of course, but in the US there are basic, fundamental rights.

But, of course in societies where there are no rights as a matter of social interpretation there are legal limits. The laws are still enacted, and they limit what they limit. What you mean is that in those societies, there are no constitutional limits on what the law might say. That's true.

Ethical? What code of ethics are you referring to?

Pick one. Medical, social, familial, historical...

You pick one. I'm not writing your questions for you. I give you the courtesy of good faith attempts to answer your questions. But, like, if you ask me if abortion is legal or illegal and I ask you what jurisdiction you're referring to, and you say 'pick one, Alabama, Russia, France, ancient Sumeria...." I'm not going to fill in that blank.

Assuming arguendo that the killing of a living human being without just cause and judicial review is ever acceptable, what constraints upon the authority of the mother to terminate the living human being within her apply at what stages of development, and why?

I think for the first 20 weeks or so, the decision should be exclusively the mother's decision, and thereafter I think it becomes a decision of medical judgment based on the risks to the mother and developing child. The mother ought not be required to die on the hospital table. So, there is going to be a balancing of risks and interests here. In the early part of the pregnancy, however, the mother must, as a practical matter, in my view, be afforded a wide berth in her decisionmaking. Once she's had a fair opportunity, however, to decide, then I think "preference" gives way to "medical judgment."

.
Why 20 weeks?[/quote]

A practical suggestion based on my approach to the issues, as outlined above. After 20 weeks, we get into significant issues of viability outside the uterus, and the mother has had, in my view, more than a sufficient amount of time to learn of the pregnancy and decide what she wants to do.

What are the specific criteria you use to determine that 20 weeks is appropriate and 21 weeks not appropriate?

I don't suggest that 19 or 21 might not be more appropriate. 20 is my rough estimate on where we need to look, because soon after that we get into areas of viability outside of the uterus. There is no magic number, and I do not suggest 20 because it is universally applicable and has a completely verifiable application to every pregnancy. It's more like an age of consent type analysis. Is 16 the right age for sex? Why not 15 or 17? Is 21 the right age for alcohol? Why not 18? 16? No age? why not 25? Some 18 year olds are very mature, and some 15 year olds are just as mature, and some 25 year olds are like middle schoolers.

No "cut off" on an issue that involve statistical distributions can ever be shown to be "the" number. It comes down to public policy compromise and pragmatic solution to a social problem.

I would agree that there is always a need to balance the risks to the mother of continuing a pregnancy that may harm the mother, but the definition of "harm" is, as of today, extremely flexible and broad enough to drive a tank through. Some putative future economic or social impact is currently enough in the minds of most pro-abortionists to justify abortion at any time, right up to delivery.

So, are there more specific criteria involved in the idea that the mother's health, safety and welfare must take precedence?

I don't know. Are there? If so, what?

These are the sort of questions that must be considered and discussed before a rational, ethical and moral decision can be made about authorizing abortion.

Consider them asked of you now. Please answer them.

You're doing very well yourself. [/quote] Yes, but I am not on trial here, and in a discussion both sides will give the courtesy of answers to questions.

My position is that of the Socratic interlocutor who entices you to sound reasoning and careful explication of your notions on the subject.

I reject that. You are not my interlocutor. This is a discussion between two forum members, and while I do endeavor to give straight answers to questions posed, I do require others to respond with similar courtesy to my questions.

Please do.

Now, if only the pro-abortionists would engage in similar sound and logical reasoning... Oh well...

If only you would, too.

[Forty Two]

Abortion is deliberate.
Abortion is done knowingly.
Abortion is done intentionally.
Abortion kills the unborn human.

So, having admitted all that, how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

I'll ask it again -- "how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

Seth, if you would be so kind as to answer the question posed.