Moral people can now protect life

[Syne]

Then I said it was "human life" (again, not "being") and asked you when it becomes a "human being."

Nope liar. You asked me when it becomes "a being." That's the first use of "a being" in the conversation. And then you bring up "beingness" and refuse to define it. So you lied and continue lying. No more of this pathetic bs. I'm done.

You just can't stop lying, can you?
I just quoted you saying "A fetus isn't a human being." That's the first use of the word "being," in that sense, in this entire thread.
Again, we have plenty of verification for your delusions at this point. You can stop digging your own hole any time now.

[Syne]

"Like, in Europe, the modern countries of Europe, [are] way more restrictive than we are or what they're [the Supreme Court] even proposing.
"If you are pro-choice, you would like it a lot less in Germany and Italy and France and Spain and Switzerland. Did you know that?"
- Bill Maher

[Yazata]

A fetus isn't a human being. Just like an acorn isn't an oak tree.

That's one very plausible way of looking at it. A fetus might arguably be a potential human being or something like that. But not an actual one.

It does raise the question of what is a human being though. If we are supposed to think that murder is wrong, what is it that we are valueing and want to protect?

One answer might be a distinct human personality. If you murder somebody, you are terminating their unique personality. A fetus lacks a distinct human personality, hence it's ok to terminate one.

But a newborn infant isn't a distinct human personality either. So why do we believe that infanticide is wrong? (There have historically been cultures that accepted and practiced infanticide.)

And what about killing people who are in comas or who are merely asleep? They aren't conscious (if we exclude dreams I guess) and would seem to only be potential personalities (when they wake up).

I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to suspect there isn't any answer, certainly not in any clear-cut rule-like way. Like so much of human life (and in ethics particularly) it's more a matter of feelings and intuitions.

[Syne]

A fetus isn't a human being. Just like an acorn isn't an oak tree.

That's one very plausible way of looking at it. A fetus might arguably be a potential human being or something like that. But not an actual one.

It does raise the question of what is a human being though. If we are supposed to think that murder is wrong, what is it that we are valueing and want to protect?

One answer might be a distinct human personality. If you murder somebody, you are terminating their unique personality. A fetus lacks a distinct human personality, hence it's ok to terminate one.

But a newborn infant isn't a distinct human personality either. So why do we believe that infanticide is wrong? (There have historically been cultures that accepted and practiced infanticide.)

And what about killing people who are in comas or who are merely asleep? They aren't conscious (if we exclude dreams I guess) and would seem to only be potential personalities (when they wake up).

I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to suspect there isn't any answer, certainly not in any clear-cut rule-like way. Like so much of human life (and in ethics particularly) it's more a matter of feelings and intuitions.

A fetus is indisputably, scientifically and biologically, human life...with potential. Not a potential human life. It's not some Schrodinger's Cat of maybe being human. Again, unless you're using the word "being" to obfuscate some arbitrary and subjective notion of when a human life somehow, magically become worthy of protection from violence and killing.

The answer is to rely on objective science (that it is a human life), and don't rely on purely subjective notions that are indistinguishable from whim.

Why is it that those who most tout science ("follow the science") are the ones who most ignore it when it suits them?

[RainbowUnicorn]

Roe v Wade is no more. Moral people once again have the right to decide, through their state legislatures, it they want to protect or victimize human life in the womb.

whos womb is that ?
who owns the organs & body ?

[Syne]

Roe v Wade is no more. Moral people once again have the right to decide, through their state legislatures, it they want to protect or victimize human life in the womb.

whos womb is that ?
who owns the organs & body ?

All human life has a natural right to life. No human has the right to "own" another human. We had a big civil war about that, remember?

[stryder]

Abortion is always a contentious subject and there is no one rule or principle to rule them all (otherwise you'd be an Autocrat)

Where a fetus is "Alive" or just "potentially alive" might seem like the point, but I'd say you are way off the mark.

What exactly is a "Potential" human? You might push the moralist rationality... they might achieve greatness, they might fullfill just a mediocre role, you might get mugged by them in the future. To be honest the true powers at play do not care what role or potential that offspring has.

They (the money orientated power behind a majority of the problems) do not see a baby in the womb, they see $$$ and when a woman terminates a fetus for whatever reason, they see a whole bunch of money flushed down the toilet that "they were potentially entitled to". They don't care about the fetus or the woman.

How I mean is lots of money is spent on looking after infants.

• The expensive in crappy plastic toys that litter the world
  
• Specific dietry requirements (Baby formula etc)
  
• The cost in regards to visitation to clinics for regular checkups
  
• Child entertainment (Based on what fad is relevant at the time period)
  
• Expensives in schools
  
• Crappy happy meals (Fast food culture)
  
• The need for the parents to save money for such things as college
  
• The "Potential" to force both the parents and the child (when grown up) into a spiralling debt cycle where they just keep borrowing to pay off what they borrowed.
  

They (the money orientated power behind a majority of the problems) do not see a baby in the womb, they see $$$ and when a woman terminates a fetus for whatever reason, they see a whole bunch of money flushed down the toilet that "they were potentially entitled to". They don't care about the fetus or the woman.

Children are the GDP's crutch.

[Syne]

You're leaving out all the profit motive behind abortion. What else do you think funds all the lobbying Planned Parenthood has done for decades?