Abortion still under control in Poland

Ok perhaps there is another answer to the question I didn't consider that you might to be hinting at without actually saying it, i.e. that people never become more than just clusters of cells. I personally believe that the miracle of life is infinitely beyond the limits of our understanding and will forever be so.

I agree it is a well thought out limit, one that I wouldn't change, there is one sentence in the conditions for allowing an abortion that I would remove though, this one:

'Your pregnancy will cause stress and upset your mental health and the mental and physical health of any children you may already have, more so than if you were end the pregnancy'..

This seems to be the true frontline.

Who says that? You're being disingenuous and not for the first time.

As you know, when continue to term, eventually a person with cobalt and a sense of self develops. Usually. Before it does, your term "cluster of cells" is a fair description.


Yes, people did once think that science is miraculous.


That's part of the reason they're permitted. One of many reasons.

I'll never agree that it is a fair description and it's not my term I was quoting you.

Have you considered renting yourself out to Pro-Choice groups as a compelling argument for keeping late term abortion legal, Jon?


Pity your mom didn't know enough philosophy to post the same argument.

A cluster of cells is a cluster of cells.

A fetus is a growing human being inside of a woman. Abortion is and always will be, ghoulish grotesque horrific murder.

Yes, inside of a woman, who, by the way, should have a choice whether or not a foetus grows in her. And not a human being. Can it think? Can it speak? Can it know anything? Can it have a passport? Does it even have a functioning brain? No? Then how is it a human being, exactly?

I remember when I was kid, my mother was making eggs when suddenly she found a chicken fetus in one of them.

I remember feeling this sense of sadness and regret, feeling sorry for a life that had been cut short before inception. Even my childish mind knew that was a chick in the making, not an inert clump of cells. And we certainly didn't eat that egg, even thought the egg was still mostly yolk.

Because atheists do not believe in vertical causes, because they do not believe in such things as forms and archetypes, they have no understanding that a human life is the whole extend of the existence of a person, both in space and in time. Every fetus has already plotted ahead of itself the entire gamut of the existence of a human life, so that killing the fetus is to kill the whole person.

If the essence of a being could be determined by the state of a given creature in time as opposed to the form of that being, the form including within itself the entire gamut of the possibilities of that being regardless of it's current state of development, wouldn't killing a baby or a child be less morally reprehensible than killing an adult person? After all, a child does not have the same level of cognition than an adult. One would be compelled to ask whether killing a baby should be seen as any more reprehensible than killing a pig or some other kind of animal we consume for food. After all, by any measure the pig demonstrates an higher level of cognition than a human baby. Why then do we bulk at the idea of killing a baby but killing a pig presents no problem for us? Could it be because we know that the baby is a human being regardless of it's state of development?

What makes modern abortion even more reprehensible is that the whole thing is treated as a simple matter of convenience. Modern abortion today is done purely and exclusively in name of utilitarian materialism. Abortion for serious causes, say, to save the life of the mother for instance, may be permissible in the same sense that killing in self defence is permissible, but neither exceptions undermine the seriousness of the act. One must kill or be killed in war but just because conditions like that exist in the world does not mean we have the right to turn murder into a casual matter of convenience, but this is what is being argued when it comes to abortion, and sometimes even murder as in the case of euthanasia of the old or the infirm.

It is. And like some here, it lacks a central nervous system.


A foetus is not sentient and has never been conscious. Yet another reason terminations are legal.

@RussianAntiPutin, perhaps you can settle this and answer the question of when does a foetus become a human being?

By all means, you're well within your rights to act like a boneheaded kindergarten kid who wants to have the last word.

Good that you've admitted losing the argument by trying to resort to insults.

You see, emotion, religion, and partisan politics all try to play their part. That part is one reason why the vast majority of the developed world has thought the issue through carefully and over decades and permits terminations.

What about science, reason and logic? You haven't apllied those. You talk about clusters of celles as if that would mean something significant. It doesn't. It does in you mind, a mind of obscutrant.

What argument? For now, I am presenting arguments, and you are responding with "NO, U".

I repeat: Do you have an argument as to why it is wrong to kill a conscious entity?

The reason that developed countries permit women to end has already been outlined in these 81 pages.


So you think an embryo is conscious?

Interesting,,,

Argument over whether a fetus is fully conscious or not is a big misconception because once the process of gestation has begun we are now talking about a person in the making, whose "being" comprises its entire development.

I repeat: Do you have an argument as to why it is wrong to kill a conscious human being that is not a fetus ?

"Fully"? As you know, neither an embryo nor a foetus is conscious at all. If it were, developed societies would not permit terminations. Which they do.


A foetus is not a conscious human being. Hence terminations are legal in developed societies. Kling conscious people? This is why no civilised society has the death penalty,.

Do you think an embryo that has no central nervous system has the same rights as a person?

Some (very developed) US states permit and carry out abortions up to full term, I think this refutes the 'developed countries know what's best' argument.

It 'refutes' nothing. Since a foetus is not sentient.

Doubtless they have carefully weighed up their decision using logic rather than emotion.

I think you are right, there is no way you can kill a 39 week old baby without being completely detached from emotion.

Do you have an argument as to why it is wrong to kill a conscious people?
For me, the reason is: because it is a sin. Thou shalt not kill.

Is a foetus conscious? No.


Religious, in a post-religious world.

Fine, So knock a person unconscious and then slit their throat. A perfect murder, oh sorry an abortion. Fine as soon as that would be the law I will agree that there is logic and reaon behind your argument. Untill then - will you stop? It is embarrasing to read.

How can you "knock" a foetus "unconscious" if it has never been conscious and doesn't have a fully formed brain or central nervous system?

A Child is a defensless creature, easy to kill. Your criteria is not 'knock' but 'unconscious'. I said kill a person while it/he/she is unconscious.

You make no sense so your aim is to obfuscate the issue you can't refute.
Otherwise you would need to admitt that you premise is not based on logic or science but on an arbitraly premise that send us back into an idologicall corner.

As you know, an embryo is not a child. That is why terminating pregnancies is widespread and legal.


An embryo (or a foetus) has never been conscious. Their brains are not yet formed.

A full term baby is fully formed and it is currently legal to carry out abortions on these babies in some states in the USA. It is a baby they are killing, there can be no doubt. There is no difference if they were to do it after birth.

Semantics not an argument.


Nope that is not a reason, reasons are differnt in each culture.


You are going back and fourth with your 'argument'. 'Never' is an addition, you claimed consciousness was the cue.

Semantics means meaning. And an embryo is not a child.


And most developed countries in passing legislation consider those reasons enough.

It isn't about emotion, old religious theories American or other party politics or the 'manosphere'. It is about a woman's right to continue or not continue a pregnancy, about creating a world where women are no longer forced to have dangerous and illegal backstreet abortions, where the 'rights' of a cluster of cells with no central nervous system or brain is considered equal to the woman who has to carry and raise what it may one day become and where women are not criminalised for making decisions concerning their own bodies.

So how to you argue, in a post-religious world, that killing some random people on the street is wrong?

Is anyone saying that?

So, do you argue that killing random people is fine? Nothing wrong with it?