Question For Pro-Choice People

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 08:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pop culture references are usually lost on me.


But until personhood it is not an individual. I hate when people throw around "cluster of cells," but in truth that is what it is. That is what everything organic (minus single-celled organisms) is and all cells are life. Society then defines what things are based on certain traits. The unborn go through multiple stages defined by society (and by science) until birth, at which point they become an individual and our legal system recognizes them as a person. But the cells involved were living long before, long before conception, even. The gametes that joined together to begin the evolution to the blastocyst stage were live cells before fertilization, a process that was discovered 400 years after the word conception was first used in the manner you are using it. So for me, the term "conception" and its meaning means very little to the argument when looked at through the lenses of science or law.


On the right to abortion? Likely not. If the unborn were determined to have innate rights as an individual then there would still be a conflict between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the woman carrying it. This is not something that should be handled by the government, especially not in a broad piece of legislation that would be unlikely to take into account all potential scenarios.

Of course the term conception means very little to you and the assertion the unborn is not a not a human is helpful in soothing cognitive dissonance. What cause these individual living cells to become a human?

I get you and others don't "like" abortion, but at least own what you support. You support the woman's right to terminate her child for simple convenience. The rest: "glob of cells", "individual", "blastocyst", "forcing the woman" the graying of when human life begins.... just makes folks feel better about what they support. 

But the legal argument will still be what it is, right?