Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
What is morality but about how a person should behave.

Our relations with non-persons are included in that I think. If "it will never viable unless" is a proper place to start and that probably should end with when it is unlikely for natural accidents to end it. So the general range of when life starts should be after attachment to uterine wall to about 12 to 14 weeks after such attachment when normal body chemically generated accidents cease to be a factor in going to term.
That's not when life starts. The embryo is alive the whole time, as is the zygote, as are the sperm and egg. If you're looking for when life starts, you have to go back billions of years. Twelve to fourteen weeks after attachment is definitely not it.




Unless it can be shown that no medical treatment is needed for those terminations to take place then I'm all in favor of using the 12 to 14 week termination of abortions as a reasonable starting point for such discussions about shared choice.
What about a person who needs to be in hospital for twelve to fourteen weeks. Is that person terminatable?

I don't see how your test is relevant to the issue you think you're testing.




This is a pretty harsh standard for those who are unlikely to know they are pregnant and for those not in a position to take care of any pregnancy coming to term. So maybe that factor should also enter into the discussion.

Finally, a well to do person should not just arbitrarily choose unless there is a real likelihood that there is some other moral standard being violated by the existence of a pregnancy. Rape, incest, infidelity, brain damage, severe genetic abnormality, and such.
What about a philosophy professor who resulted from rape? Can we terminate her?




Be clear I'm in favor of a woman having control over her body since she was forced to have it. I'm just saying that the state may have an interest in serving communities of differing beliefs that women choose to live within as a matter of choice.
There are a lot of people in the KKK, and those people believe fervently. If the state has an interest in serving communities of differing beliefs, then the KKK ought to get to burn a few crosses on the lawns of black people, don't you think?

--

I suspect that I sound hostile in this post, but I'm not sure what to do about that. So I'll just mention that if the tone seems off, the intention is still good.

I'm trying for concise, not hostile. Efficient. To the point. I'm also in a mental state where I'm not sure how I'm coming across, just took some medicine. So I apologize for seeming hostile (if I do seem hostile) or for seeming overly apologetic (if I don't seem hostile).