When in a debate or an argument, I find myself often resorting to extrapolation. I point out the flaw in the other person’s train of thought by taking what they say to the extreme. Needlessly to say, this is a cheap trick that I play, and it is logically flawed in many situations. Having said that, I will apply the same reasoning to the abortion debate. I discount arguments that cannot be quantified, e.g. a person’s conviction that abortion is not allowed by the dictates of the spaghetti monster, and focus solely on the rational arguments put forth by both the pro-choice and pro-life side. Note that since the Supreme Court ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson, things have changed quite a bit, for the worse.
Life starts at conception. Wikipedia states that a living thing must demonstrate the ability to signal, and the ability to self-sustain. Given that living cells can always signal, we look at if, and at what stage can an embryo self-sustain. It is obvious that an infant can’t be self-sustainable, we reduce that requirement to viability. If, by the miracle of science, an embryo is viable immediately after conception, then should all termination be barred? Should women be allowed to abort, and have that viable embryo reach maturity in a futuristic incubation chamber? What if the cost of this procedure is prohibitive? Will there be a “recreational” use of it, where the woman wants a child but doesn’t want to go through the pregnancy? While this may satisfy the fundamentalists since no babies will be killed, it would place a huge burden on the society, to care for basically all these orphans.
Staying Afloat 