no matter how small

WOW, JakkFrost, what an interesting, AND TRUTHFUL, perspective. Upvote!

If you don't want to eat eggs, don't eat them.

Not sure I’d call it a person but would definitely call it a life. It has everything it needs to develop into a person except nutrition and that, of course, is provided by the mom.

The Supreme Court agreed with you but I don’t think that argument will end anytime soon.

:)

It is a person in a very immature state, like a leftist.

Still haven't given up on that?

I thought you usually like to have evidence on your side.

Had to give you an up for being in the middle and not trying to foster you opinion on another. Here, Here!

So what you're basically saying is you don't know if it's a person or not. Kill it anyway. Which is wrong.

But you don't know when that's true. Clear admittance to possible accessory.

Yup. (To murder)

Some people never change their views. Even when they can see they're wrong. Makes me genuinely sad.

In your opinion, what makes it not a life?

Ahh, so like plants, lobsters, fish, and once upon a time, slaves, the mentally insane, cripples, babies, children, women, foreigners of darker complection, the lower classes, and of course, the Hunchback of Notre Dame? All feeling no pain (so whup them harder!) and incapable of taking care of themselves without guess who to guide them?

There are those today saying plants sense nothing, and fish & crustaceans feel no pain, depite their actions.

So I disagree because I do think the science is on our side when talking about viability and the "inability to feel pain" argument.

Just looking for a civil conversation if your willing so I respectfully ask you to hear me out.

The inability to feel pain argument presents a host of issues. For one, the pro-abortion movement is pushing for abortion up until birth (I am not saying this is what you believe, but for the sake of the argument, I am going to pretend like I am talking to the majority of pro-abortion believers here; if I am mischaracterizing them, feel free to let me know). We know from research that babies can start to feel pain around 8 weeks ("The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development" said an expert to Congress recently). So then why does the pro-abortion stance not change to reflect that. Also, if it is about the ability to feel pain, what about anyone with congenital analgesia? Sure, it doesn't affect many people but does that mean the 1 person born with it every decade is not considered a life because they can't feel pain all of a sudden? Since they can't feel pain, can I kill them with no consequences because of that? I feel like you would agree with me on that, right?

As for viability, a life should never be defined by viability because again, then you create stipulations to actually devalue a life. Consider these examples. Imagine we made it to Mars and we find Martians there. The Martians see us and say "well, without all your fancy space gear, you can't actually live here. You are not viable here." Does that mean they would be justified in killing us? Now that is a bit extreme, but consider an even sillier example right here on earth. We aren't fish and have no way of surviving underwater without the assistance of diving gear. That doesn't mean I get to spear someone underwater because they aren't viable there.

Life should have value regardless of whether they feel pain or are viable. But I rambled too long. What are your thoughts on what I said?

I also appreciate the civil conversation. In just a few days, you are easily my favorite person to talk to with whom I disagree!

While I will admit that research seems to be divided on when the baby can actually feel pain (the article you linked even states as much: "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."), I am encouraged to hear that you would consider it a deal breaker. I am starting to see you really are more to the center, with a small leaning to the left. You strike me as a classical liberal. Not sure if you would see yourself that way but that seems to be what I get from you, which is cool. Classical liberals are great!

I also admit my martian example is a bit extreme, but keep in mind, viability lends itself to that premise. I mean, I could also be misunderstanding your description of viability so to clarify, why don't we start there.

My understanding of the viability argument is that personhood is adopted once a person has self consciousness, autonomy or rationality. Assuming that is the definition you are using too, then the issue with that is that lends itself to infanticide and forced euthanasia. The reason why is if an infant, or even some toddlers, are left to their own devices, they cannot live. They aren't viable. In the same breath, as age sets in, there are a plethora of cases in the elderly who need assisted living to keep going and diseases which inhibit their rationality. My take is that they still have a right to live, even if their mind goes.

With that being said, I do want better understand your position. Would you mind either telling me if you agree with my take on viability or provide your own definition? I am sincerely interested to hear your side!

(So I was out of connection for a week so sorry for the super delayed response, hahaha)

I hate to say that the majority of stuff I read in the news is Democrats pushing for Abortions up until birth. But it sounds to me that you draw the line if it can be proven that it is a life, or once it crosses the threshold of cruel and unusual punishment. To be honest, while I don't agree with you on when life starts, I am very much encouraged to hear that we at least have some common ground. In other words, the moment either of us comes to see it as a life, is the moment we start to protect it.

So with that being said, there are still somethings I hope to ask for a little clarification about.

"By viability I generally mean the ability for something or someone to survive without being dependent on a machine (like an incubator) or another person (like the pregnant woman)."

Humor me for a moment, an infant cannot survive without another person (some caretaker). My youngest son is a year, and he is still too pathetic to do anything on his own that would help him survive. He can't feed himself, much let alone get food. He isn't smart enough to shelter himself from the elements (It snowed here in Beijing two days ago and he tried to "strip" those annoying extra layers off, hahaha). He really is no different from a premature baby or an embryo according to the definition. And that leads to my next question:

"so I would put them at the low end of the viability scale."

It seems you have created a viability scale for what is to be protected or not. But how did you arrive at this scale that somehow puts a premature baby and infant at a higher place than an 8 week old in the womb? Where do you draw the line, and why?

As for your beliefs on elderly, I will say, I do believe there is nothing wrong with pulling the plug if it looks like they are not coming back. My only thing there is it really should be the decision of the person the plug is being pulled on. I swear I was the only twenty something with a living will. But at least when the time comes, that is not something my family has to decide, I have already decided it for them. That's my take.