abortion early in the pregnancy can be rationally justified, but morality is eye of beholder

~~~ *i think it's reasonable to think reasonably disputed life can be valued less than the freedom to choose.* (most "choose" arguments are very lacking but i think this one is not so much) no one knows, so who should decide? should the government? why not the individual? of coruse, the government could decide a point it thinks it's a person cleary, but that's not necessarily the early organism/cell. give the person the dignity to decide themself, respect it. >But valued less by whom? There is either a person or a pre-person in the womb, and if there's a chance it's the latter, then that person's needs become a factor. For to the child, 10% chance of life * -(value of life) = infinite loss But according to your argument, 10% chance of life * -(value of life) < Motivations for the mother's choice. Such that we are only then considering the value of the child's life to the mother, but for doing this we have no logical reason as the mother is not the only person involved. 10% chance of life * -(value to mother+child+society) = infinite loss ~~~ *it's often the moral thing to do to defer to allowing others the freedom to do something* here's it's unclar whether it's hurting another but the principle still is here and needs weighed. >Note here the unclarity as to whether it's a person. ~~~ at a certain point, it clearly is a human and it's unreasonable to think otheriwse. at a certain point it's reasonbly not a human, clearly reasonably not. so we have to take the cell v. the baby, and the points of uncertainty in between should be deferred to be baby. (if we as a government will choose a point, this is how i'd do it. i guess i'd pick the moment heartbeats forms, with roof for error on the side of person, cause i think that's when the first substaintial thing happens to the embryo. whatever is the first substanital thing, if i'm mistaken.) >Note here you're arguing that a point exists which requires certainty, otherwise every moment from conception onwards would be conceded to the person. A heartbeat happens at 8 days. Many women don't even know they're pregnant yet. And the first substantial thing which happens to an embyro is that it's conceived. ~~~ i'm not by saying all this saying that we can kill people on life support. they're not reasonably diputued to be human life. could there be a point when it's unclear, like when machines start taking over a body? i think so, because machines can make a person function when they are clearly dead (this creeps out family of the dead if they see it; they do it for saving organs etc sometimes), and if you start using machines one by one on a person, their heart and brainwaives (the things that make them clinically alive or not) can be usurped by machines and later they're vital signs would be working again. would it be wrong to kill them when not working? i guess you could argue that it wouldn't be, that life was not in them then, but how are you sure? it's a gray area. like this is a gray area, shouldn't whether the early cell is human be gray too? yes it should. reasonable to think either way. and if all the person is is machines and a beating heart, are theyu alive? it's uncelar. and in a way the machine argument goes beyond the idea that the early cells are in questionable form, and shows that the mother cuold be like a machine on a lifeless body. >There are many differences between euphenasia and an abortion, some in support of it and some against it. But the key difference is very simple, and it's that we understand death much more than we understand life. "Has it stopped working" is a much easier question to answer than "is it working yet?" The grown body is bigger, more accessible, less vulnerable, the technology more penetrating, the matter just easier to see. ~~~ how do i define person? that's a loaded question. and the fact that it's a loaded question is my point. i'd set as definition, as science tries to do. then, things at the frays of the definition would make our definition seem suspect. then scientists would disagree with how to define a person. they'd agree as far as generalities go, for sure. but when things get complicated, they'd disagree. >But one, both, or neither of those scientists might be right, including the scientist which says life begins at conception. ~~~ also some biological functions of the early cells. early cells split. i'd use that as an argument that it's not a human person. of course, a person could split, but. it just does not seem like something God would do. yes, i'm using a faith standard here. it could go either way, but just saying. in that vein, i'd also point out that. most cells do not get implanted after conception and they die. it doesn't seem like a person would die in this regard, even though it is a natural phenomenon and not the same as abortion. granted, it could just be something God would do to naturally weed out bad cells. but still, just doesn't seem like something God would allow. not to get into soul arguments, which are separate from these observations. >Understanding biology, cells which fail to be implanted do so because the embryo itself is not sending off the right hormones to prepare the womb for implantation. The reasonable assumption / implication of this for someone arguing that life begins at conception is that in these cases, something went wrong at conception and that it didn't happen. By the by, the cells aren't just dividing, but growing rapidly. In terms of energy and plain ol' spunk, they are more "alive" than they ever will be again. ~~~ now, i don't think it's unreasonable to simply insist we defer to life, and by that to say i'm wrong and that it's not reasonable to think it's okay. but, i simply disagree and think it's a reasonable position to have. >If you think there's any uncertainty about when life begins, then it might be reasonable, but it's certainly not rational, as a complete and rational position has to take into account the risks that one's personal conclusion might be wrong. And as a society set out to protects human rights, it's not only the mother but also the child whose best interests need to be preserved. Future mothers could adjust and adapt to a society that outlaws abortion; a child presumably cannot similarly adapt to being dead.