|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2009 : 06:22:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I have intentionally not included this definition because it will lead to the inevitable argument about the definition. |
I'm not sure that a meta-argument about the definition, which is massively frustrating to you, was a better idea.I have, instead, attempted to provide an ostensive definition in the hope that we wouldn't be sidetracked into arguments about the specifics, because the specifics are not relevant to my point!
"a living human" is useless to this debate also. There is no concrete definition of "life", but I think you might agree that you are alive. (ostensive definition #2!) |
Indeed. Unfortunately, pointing to living, breathing humans as "alive" or as "people" does little to further the discussion at the fringes (of viruses or zygotes, respectively, for example). Ostensive definitions have such limitations (when does "red" stop being red, and instead becomes "orange?").| My point, one more time, for effect, is this: If you wish to include something new in the definition (of any word, not just this one) you must make a case for that inclusion. You have to convince people to adopt your meaning/value for the symbol. |
And the question is: does your ostensive definition agree with the current consensus? That's where Mycroft's idea that people who think that zygotes are people probably always believed it becomes paramount, regardless of the age of that consensus or its source with religious rightwingers. If the popular definition has changed, then it has changed, no matter the irrationality of the cause. Taking it back is going to be a long, uphill and massively frustrating battle.
Just like with the word "atheist." The popular definition sucks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 13:08:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Indeed. Unfortunately, pointing to living, breathing humans as "alive" or as "people" does little to further the discussion at the fringes (of viruses or zygotes, respectively, for example). Ostensive definitions have such limitations (when does "red" stop being red, and instead becomes "orange?"). |
You still aren't grasping the reason I used ostensive definintion here. I don't know how to explain it any better.
It was not my intention to engage in a discussion about the fringes. If this were about the color red, you could sit down and examine the specific wavelengths of the shades between red and orange, you could test the perception of a few hundred people, and you could build a substantive case for why one specific wavelength is red and another is orange.
Nothing of the sort has been done for the distinction between person and non-person. Assertions have been made, but no substantive case has been made to support those asssertions.
| And the question is: does your ostensive definition agree with the current consensus? |
Sure it does. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would not agree that you are a person.
| That's where Mycroft's idea that people who think that zygotes are people probably always believed it becomes paramount, regardless of the age of that consensus or its source with religious rightwingers. |
That is the battlefield of this larger debate. 40+ years of unsupported assertions has obviously swayed the opinion of some, has obviously been the foundation of the thinkiing of some.
But if we wish to maintain reason and rationality in this debate, and in the laws that come from this debate, then we must insist that these assertions be supported. If they are not, then we must continue to dismiss them.
If the popular definition has changed, then it has changed, no matter the irrationality of the cause. Taking it back is going to be a long, uphill and massively frustrating battle.
|
I'm not sue that the popular definition has shifted so far. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the US support a pro-choice position. Even more so in other western democracies. In the US the 'tard minority is a problem because they are well funded and very vocal. They use illogic, disinformation, and emotional hyperbole to get laws on the books. No one can be for "partial birth" abortion (which isn't even a real thing), so it is easy to get laws passed that ban it, and in the fine print also chip away at other aspects of a woman's right to choose.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 14:04:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W said:
| Indeed. Unfortunately, pointing to living, breathing humans as "alive" or as "people" does little to further the discussion at the fringes (of viruses or zygotes, respectively, for example). Ostensive definitions have such limitations (when does "red" stop being red, and instead becomes "orange?"). |
You still aren't grasping the reason I used ostensive definintion here. I don't know how to explain it any better.
It was not my intention to engage in a discussion about the fringes. If this were about the color red, you could sit down and examine the specific wavelengths of the shades between red and orange, you could test the perception of a few hundred people, and you could build a substantive case for why one specific wavelength is red and another is orange. |
But, I believe a good chunk of the debate is about fringe. The fringe of what constitute personhood.
I guess you could design such a study, looking at what most people believe define a human being and adopting it as your definition.
But, of course, it seems difficult to ask that question and have people not seeing where you are getting at and answering you honestly rather than according to their bias...
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 14:24:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W said:
| Indeed. Unfortunately, pointing to living, breathing humans as "alive" or as "people" does little to further the discussion at the fringes (of viruses or zygotes, respectively, for example). Ostensive definitions have such limitations (when does "red" stop being red, and instead becomes "orange?"). |
You still aren't grasping the reason I used ostensive definintion here. I don't know how to explain it any better.
It was not my intention to engage in a discussion about the fringes. If this were about the color red, you could sit down and examine the specific wavelengths of the shades between red and orange, you could test the perception of a few hundred people, and you could build a substantive case for why one specific wavelength is red and another is orange. |
But, I believe a good chunk of the debate is about fringe. The fringe of what constitute personhood.
I guess you could design such a study, looking at what most people believe define a human being and adopting it as your definition.
But, of course, it seems difficult to ask that question and have people not seeing where you are getting at and answering you honestly rather than according to their bias...
|
...................
Red vs orange is, perhaps, too simplistic to make an apt analogy here. It is only about perception, where the person vs non-person argument is about what qualities are the required minimum you must have to be considered a person.
And this is the exact reason I was trying to not talk about the specifics of defining a person, or making analogies.
Do you, or do you not, agree that expanding the definition of a word to include new things requires more than a simple assertion that the new thing/s should be included?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 14:44:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Do you, or do you not, agree that expanding the definition of a word to include new things requires more than a simple assertion that the new thing/s should be included?
|
... Yes.
Sure. No problem.
Now, how do we settle the question: were feti included in the definition of personhood to begin with?
Red vs orange is, perhaps, too simplistic to make an apt analogy here. It is only about perception, where the person vs non-person argument is about what qualities are the required minimum you must have to be considered a person.
And this is the exact reason I was trying to not talk about the specifics of defining a person, or making analogies. |
But, here is the kicker, I believe.
What are the qualities required to be considered a person?
Is there a list somewhere? Who made that list?
It seems to me that this list of qualities would be quite subjective, based on what a person perceive to be important... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 15:36:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Nonsense. They hope it will become a person, but I doubt very many people are as traumatized by a miscarriage at 10 weeks as they are by the death of a newborn. |
Now that is nonsense.
In the last 5 months, I've had lots of conversations with women who have had miscarriages. You are right that an early term miscarriage is less painful for any individual woman than the death of a newborn would be for that same woman. However, the amount of pain caused to individual women over early term miscarriages varies widely, and for some the pain caused by an early term miscarriage even causes them to feel sadness about it for years and join support groups to discuss and deal with the emotional pain.
A baby doesn't even have to be planned and wanted for emotional pain over a miscarriage to occur. My best friend had a miscarriage right after finishing HS. She didn't even know she was pregnant until it happened, and yet she felt a deep loss and now 12 years later she still thinks on it and does occasionally drawings of fetuses in a personal, visual journal.
Another acquaintance I spoke to told me of her first pregnancy - which was both unexpected and unwanted. She said that even though it was a bad time in her life to have a baby, once she was pregnant she felt quite different. Then she had an early term miscarriage. This was years ago, and she currently has a wonderful 8 year old daughter, and yet when she told me about her miscarriage, she teared up and referred to it as her “ghost baby” to describe the emotional scar it left.
Not to mention the extreme pain caused by later term miscarriages. I'm 5 months pregnant (so my fetus is not yet viable.) I feel the fetus kicking constantly throughout the day. And this is a very much wanted baby, so inevitably my family, midwife, and I all regularly refer to it as “the baby.” My mother in law is comparing the pattern of kicking to my husband when he was a fetus (more active after 9pm until the middle of the night.) I can say that at this point in the pregnancy, a miscarriage would be quite devastating, and it would feel like more than the death of a mere possibility. Certainly the death of a newborn would be worse, but how does that diminish the point? For instance, the death of 5-year-old would be more painful than the death of a 1 day old baby. MyCroft's ultimate point is sound – discussions about the law and philosophical meaning of these terms as it should be applied to everyone doesn't always fit nicely with peoples' individual experiences, and what we decide for law and philosophy shouldn't be used to trivialize peoples' personal emotional experiences.
| When Roe v Wade was decided the (at the time) president of the Southern Baptist Convention is on record saying he was satisfied with the ruling. |
That's rather disingenuous to bring up considering that the reason they were satisfied what not because they view a fetus as not a person, but rather, because they felt it was inappropriate to push their religion on secular law. The Southern Baptist Convention at that time still considered abortion to be morally wrong.
| SCOTUS clearly recognizes that the attempt to categorize the unborn (and zygotes, and embryos) as persons... is unprecedented. |
So what. At some point lots of great things about modern society – such as love-based marriage, and equality of the sexes, and equality of gay marriage to straight marriage – were unprecedented. I don't think that alone is a very strong argument. Values can and do change in society. What our values should be should be judged on their own merit based on how |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/18/2009 15:39:51 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 16:00:02 [Permalink]
|
Simon said:
Now, how do we settle the question: were feti included in the definition of personhood to begin with?
|
A simple examination of history. I have already given an excerpt from the Roe v Wade SCOTUS decision that clearly states the "unborn" have not, ever, in the history of American and English common law been considered persons.
The "debate" has a long history. On and off for a couple of millenia now even the church has held different opinions on the matter.
St Augustine, St Jerome, and St Thomas Aquinas would have all told you that a fetus is not a person until it moves for the first time (the Aristotelian view, which was widely accepted for centuries)(of course, they believed this was when the "soul" entered the body) and that aborting before that point was not murder or killing a person.
The official position of the catholic church has changed many times over the years as well. They did not adopt a 100% anti-abortion position until 1884.
In the US the prevailing opinion (from the time our constitution was written and enacted until the religious fundamentalists lost race as a viable political wedge) has been that a zygote is not the equivalent of a person.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 16:10:41 [Permalink]
|
marf, you can feel free to stop responding to anything I say here. You are clearly irrational, and I am not interested in discussion with anyone who engages in the type of dishonest straw-man debate tactics you use.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 16:28:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
It was not my intention to engage in a discussion about the fringes. |
But by insisting that those who would include zygotes in the definition of "person" need to support their assertions with evidence, you are doing just that. That is the fringe at which the ostensive definition breaks down.| If this were about the color red, you could sit down and examine the specific wavelengths of the shades between red and orange, you could test the perception of a few hundred people, and you could build a substantive case for why one specific wavelength is red and another is orange. |
But the problem is that there is no natural dividing line. A substantive case is tough to build when all you've got is an average taken from what would amount to little more than a poll of who sees which color when presented with particular frequencies. "Red is so-many nanometers plus-or-minus some error" isn't compelling when a particular person says, "it look orange to me."| I'm not sue that the popular definition has shifted so far. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the US support a pro-choice position. Even more so in other western democracies. In the US the 'tard minority is a problem because they are well funded and very vocal. They use illogic, disinformation, and emotional hyperbole to get laws on the books. No one can be for "partial birth" abortion (which isn't even a real thing), so it is easy to get laws passed that ban it, and in the fine print also chip away at other aspects of a woman's right to choose. |
And some people still believe the Big Lies told during WWII. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 16:53:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| But by insisting that those who would include zygotes in the definition of "person" need to support their assertions with evidence, you are doing just that. That is the fringe at which the ostensive definition breaks down. |
The reason for the ostensive definition was to show that there is a common ground in this debate. No one would say that you are not a person.
When we want to expand that definition outward, away from the common center, we have to justify it. ROCKS ARE PEOPLE! I say. Do you accept that rocks are people just because I say it?
| But the problem is that there is no natural dividing line. A substantive case is tough to build when all you've got is an average taken from what would amount to little more than a poll of who sees which color when presented with particular frequencies. "Red is so-many nanometers plus-or-minus some error" isn't compelling when a particular person says, "it look orange to me." |
Well, no. Color is a perception. That is how it is defined. If you want to decide what the dividing line between orange and red is, you get 1000 random people and test their perception. If your study is run well you may be able to make a reasonable argument for why one wavelength should be called red and another called orange.
It is not an apt analogy for the debate about persons though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 20:06:08 [Permalink]
|
@Dude
We are doing fundamentally different things. You are starting with "I am a person" and attempting to expand the definition around that point (i.e. "if I am a person, Dave must be one too, and marf, and so on"). You say it's obvious that you are a person, and that these beings are also persons, but that presupposes a particular definition of personhood that includes these beings. I am attempting to create a concept from the ground up, not based on ideas I see as obvious.
Forget "personhood," maybe that word has too many preconceived notions attached to it. Suppose we are creating a new classification called "qwertyhood," which will include all beings who have a right not to be terminated by other qwertys. To make any appeal to "what most people think" is irrelevant to defining a qwerty because we have no idea what a qwerty is.
The only presupposition is that a qwerty is alive so it be possible to kill it. Beyond that criterion, everything must be proven (or at least supported by evidence).
This is the way I (and I think some others) have framed the debate, as an attempt to create such a classification independent of any ideas we hold whereas you have begun with a proposition for which we have reserved judgment ("I am a qwerty"). I do think I belong to the category of beings which have the right not to be killed by others who share such a right, but I would be wrong to use that as an axiom if I am attempting to define qwertyhood. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 20:06:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The reason for the ostensive definition was to show that there is a common ground in this debate. No one would say that you are not a person.
When we want to expand that definition outward, away from the common center, we have to justify it. ROCKS ARE PEOPLE! I say. Do you accept that rocks are people just because I say it? |
No, we create another ostensive definition of "not people," and point to rocks and skyscrapers and cats. Somewhere, though, there is an area where the "people" definition and the "not people" definition meet. That's the fringe. That's what anti-abortion people are trying to expand. They're trying to turn what will undeniably be people in a few short weeks or months into full-fledged people, without waiting for it to finish cooking. That's what has been discussed here, no?| It is not an apt analogy for the debate about persons though. |
As soon as you can draw a bright, sharp dividing line (that doesn't require an averaging of perceptions) between "people" and "not people," I will agree that the point on the spectrum at which "red" becomes "orange" is not an apt analogy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 20:12:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
@Dude
We are doing fundamentally different things. You are starting with "I am a person" and attempting to expand the definition around that point (i.e. "if I am a person, Dave must be one too, and marf, and so on"). You say it's obvious that you are a person, and that these beings are also persons, but that presupposes a particular definition of personhood that includes these beings. |
No, he is transferring a definition by pointing at examples that clearly fall within it. As if I were to try to teach you what "red" is by pointing out the color of sunsets, Ferraris and apples. He's then saying that people need a damn good reason to say, "grass is red." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2009 : 22:04:15 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
| This is the way I (and I think some others) have framed the debate, as an attempt to create such a classification independent of any ideas we hold whereas you have begun with a proposition for which we have reserved judgment ("I am a qwerty"). I do think I belong to the category of beings which have the right not to be killed by others who share such a right, but I would be wrong to use that as an axiom if I am attempting to define qwertyhood. |
An ostensive definition is not exactly an axiom. It may seem similar, but the distinction is this not to difficult to discern.
Axiom: All circles are round.
Ostensive definition: This "O" is a circle.
Main Entry: ostensive definition
Function: noun
: a definition accomplished by exhibiting and characterizing the thing to be defined or by pointing out and characterizing the cases or instances to be covered
|
/end of basic vocabulary lesson
No matter how you choose to "frame" the debate, you will conclude that you are a person. (you have already admitted as much) So you must admit that you possess the minimum set of characteristics that allows one to be considered a person. (whatever that set may be, it isn't going to be the same for everyone)
It is clear that the oldest and most widely accepted concept of personhood (as it relates to a fetus) begins when a fetus is capable of independent movement. Most people would also say that a moving fetus that can respond to external stimuli also possesses the minimum set of characteristics to be a person.
You can't "frame" this debate independently of those two things, and it is an absurdity to suggest you could "frame" it "independent of any ideas we hold".
Dave_W said:
| No, we create another ostensive definition of "not people," and point to rocks and skyscrapers and cats. Somewhere, though, there is an area where the "people" definition and the "not people" definition meet. That's the fringe. That's what anti-abortion people are trying to expand. They're trying to turn what will undeniably be people in a few short weeks or months into full-fledged people, without waiting for it to finish cooking. That's what has been discussed here, no? |
Sort of. You could also examine those things that are clearly persons and determine what characteristics they have that make them persons. In fact, I'm confident most of you have a good idea of that list already, not that it will be exactly the same for everyone. Debate about that list would be long, tedious, and probably unproductive, which is why I didn't just throw out a list in the first place. We'd end up debating the list instead of examining the real issue here, which is unfounded assertions being used to expand a definition.
I'm beginning to think that it may have been easier to debate a list of characters required for personhood than to explain this one simple point of logic though.
| No, he is transferring a definition by pointing at examples that clearly fall within it. As if I were to try to teach you what "red" is by pointing out the color of sunsets, Ferraris and apples. He's then saying that people need a damn good reason to say, "grass is red." |
In a nutshell, yes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2009 : 08:01:14 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli wrote: | Suppose we are creating a new classification called "qwertyhood," which will include all beings who have a right not to be terminated by other qwertys. |
This would mean that any being who fits the definition of qwerty could lose that status by doing something or being in a situation which warrents other qwertys deciding to kill him or her. For instance, if a qwerty commits some act which is considered unacceptable behavior and the punishment is death, then by committing that that act the qwerty losing his or her qwerty status. Also, if a Qwerty got him or herself into a situation where killing him or her were the other way to save one hundred other Qwertys, again that Qwerty would lose their Qwerty status.
EDITED TO ADD: In the above paragraph I'm trying to make clearer a point that I don't think I succeeded earlier in making clear enough. We could think of embryos or fetuses at some point as deserving of the label "person" but still consider it ethical to terminate them in situations where the mother's health or life is in danger because sometimes we do in real life have to make choices between the rights of some people over the rights of other people.
This was the point I was trying to make in some of my last post to Dude, and my main point since the whole defining “person” thread was introduced: any definition of “person” does not by itself help with the abortion debate because there will always be additional real-life examples of where we end up breaking the rules. And if we adjust the rules to those situations, we end up with a definition which doesn't ring true in common practice.
There is no sharp line between person and non-person. Sometimes we invent them for the sake of law and philosophical argument because it is necessary. But in our experiences of real life, those lines are constantly blurred.
Just the fact that families do experience a kind of mourning when a wanted fetus miscarries shows that our concept of even premature humans is over the loss of a real being, however we define what that being is. And the intensity of the mourning falls along a gradation, with the pain over the death becoming greater with the age. That's why I gave the example of how the death of a 5 year old child being much more painful for parents than the death of a 1 day old baby, even though hardly anyone disputes either of those being considered “people.” If people mourn over the loss of a fetus and even an embryo, that is reason enough to warrant at least a discussion over the ethics of abortion at the various stages of development, rather than treat anti-abortion people as if they are all insane religious nutjobs.
But again, my main point is that the whole “person” definition is a pointless discussion when it comes to this issue. It brings no more satisfactory resolution over what abortion policies should be IMO.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/19/2009 08:04:23 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Souter retires!
