I don't understand what you mean by that first line? My point was that whatever a person's opinion on another's level of consciousness, I disagree with the view that an organism is magically not a member of a species because it doesn't meet what they feel are the standards.Xanadu84 said:I don't think you appreciate the broadness of consciousness. All I mean by that is that there is something...ANYTHING to kill. End the life of a mass of undifferentiated cells, who cares? But even the simplest of humans have a vast emotional complexity. I am against third. Trimester abortions because I cant say with certainty that that child is not self aware, is not an entity in a manner besides a mass of cells. Honestly, killing an infant may very well not be murder, but it is unconciouable to risk that. I have an opinion, but my opinion could be wrong, so I play it very safe. Its fine to end a mass of cells that don't have a brain to be conscious with. And while a lifer may be silly in not connecting the brain with personness, being overly cautious is hardly insane, considering the stakes. Yes, that's my opinion, but it is an opinion based in the objective, with vast allowances for shortcomings.
The brain/spine starts developing in the third week after conception. Same as the heart, although the heart doesn't begin pumping on its own until week 6. Still in the first trimester.
Oh, and an opinion isn't objective when it is arbitrarily made. I understand your view, you don't see something as human because it doesn't think/react in a way that people who are post-birth typically do. Alright, but an objective opinion wouldn't decide that something wasn't human when every single human who has ever lived began life in the exact same way. The embryonic stage is an early stage of a human life. It is still a human.
Again, I am pro-choice. But objectivity isn't sticking to an opinion that relies on scanty logic(An organism isn't a member of its own species because it hasn't been exposed to the environment that promotes/requires obvious signs of mental development), or entirely opinion based concepts ('Personness- when someone is/is not a person') as reasoning for it.
There is a solid reason to be pro-choice, one that doesn't rely on pseudo-facts and is beyond reproach. It's where the view gets its name. Women have the right to choose not take potentially serious health risks (up to and including death) coupled with a guaranteed emotional, physical, and even financial burden of epic proportions. It'd be wrong to force such a thing upon anyone.
The draft was wrong, so too should it be for the denying of abortions to those women who don't want the risks associated with childbirth/childcare.