Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

A "point" that makes zero substantiative alteration or contribution to what was being discussed. Yes, I got that from what you said perfectly thanks.

I'm just trying to debate on your level.

What do you call it? Dodgeball-style?

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

I'm just trying to debate on your level.

What do you call it? Dodgeball-style?

Fine, so you are now fully admitting your "point" was an irrelevance. Can we move on?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Fine, so you are now fully admitting your "point" was an irrelevance. Can we move on?

Certainly. Do you have any other questions you'd like to claim nobody will answer, that once they are answered you will ignore?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Fine, so you are now fully admitting your "point" was an irrelevance. Can we move on?

You could try replying to my posts instead of pretending yours haven't been answered. That's if you actually do want to move on that is.

(You said you had no issue with abortion before around 22 weeks. So why are you now complaining because other posters, who also have no issue with that limit, aren't arguing with you about it? Seems more than odd. It actually seems rather schizophrenic.)

Oh, and inside/outside thing was indeed a quote from you : I asked you to explain what you meant by it. I don't think you've done so yet, have you?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

You could try replying to my posts instead of pretending yours haven't been answered. That's if you actually do want to move on that is.

(You said you had no issue with abortion before around 22 weeks. So why are you now complaining because other posters, who also have no issue with that limit, aren't arguing with you about it? Seems more than odd. It actually seems rather schizophrenic.)

The Canadian model, which nearly everybody here appears to support, says nothing at all about a limit, so I've no idea where you're making up the idea that everybody "agrees" with 22 weeks from. Also, the fact that I may agree with others about the time stage of the limit says nothing at all about why I agree with the limit or any other aspect of the whole thing. As said before, medical advances will undoubtedly eventually have us with a 10 week old foetus surviving. If "survival outside the womb" is being used as a criteria, then presumably the abortion limit will then have to be moved to 10 weeks?

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh, and inside/outside thing was indeed a quote from you : I asked you to explain what you meant by it. I don't think you've done so yet, have you?

OscarBraco-esque deliberate "confusion" I see. Inside and outside what? You can't guess? A box, yes, the foetus can gestate in a box...

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Canadian model, which nearly everybody here appears to support, says nothing at all about a limit, so I've no idea where you're making up the idea that everybody "agrees" with 22 weeks from.

I see you do this a lot. You make up something that someone else has said and then claim you don't know where they're getting their ideas from. Presumably to distract from your own lack of any point.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

I see you do this a lot. You make up something that someone else has said and then claim you don't know where they're getting their ideas from. Presumably to distract from your own lack of any point.

I see you like to say something is wrong but you are, of course, unable to say why it's wrong. Intuition, is it?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I see you like to say something is wrong but you are, of course, unable to say why it's wrong. Intuition, is it?

Do you need everything restated constantly so you don't get confused?

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

Do you need everything restated constantly so you don't get confused?

Nope, only from you. Funny that. It's almost as if it isn't me at all...
Tip: "restated" isn't the word you're grasping for when you haven't said something in the first place.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope, only from you. Funny that. It's almost as if it isn't me at all...
Tip: "restated" isn't the word you're grasping for when you haven't said something in the first place.

Maybe I did and you just reinterpreted it as a completely different statement so you could ask where I got the idea.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Canadian model, which nearly everybody here appears to support, says nothing at all about a limit, so I've no idea where you're making up the idea that everybody "agrees" with 22 weeks from.

I don't know why you think everyone agrees with it. How many people have mentioned that particular model? I only saw one poster do so.

Also, the fact that I may agree with others about the time stage of the limit says nothing at all about why I agree with the limit or any other aspect of the whole thing. As said before, medical advances will undoubtedly eventually have us with a 10 week old foetus surviving. If "survival outside the womb" is being used as a criteria, then presumably the abortion limit will then have to be moved to 10 weeks?

I thought you said it was brain development, now you seem to be using viability as your criterion? Or do you mean other people have said so? If you do mean that, then may I suggest that before you start second guessing others, you should really clarify your own views a bit? At the moment they're as clear as mud.

Inside and outside what? You can't guess? A box, yes, the foetus can gestate in a box...

Well, this is why I asked, because if that is what you mean, you are indeed treating the woman as though she were just a box. Is that really how you see pregnancy? It's not how I see it at all. Maybe because I've had several of them, and never felt the least bit like a box.

Cabaal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Canadian model, which nearly everybody here appears to support, says nothing at all about a limit, so I've no idea where you're making up the idea that everybody "agrees" with 22 weeks from.

I personally actually know next to nothing about the Canadian model, so I'm not sure how you can suggest I support it. Maybe I do, maybe I don't...I'd have to read up on it to know.

Given there's only a hand full of people posting in this thread I think your claim that nearly everybody here supports it is rather disingenuous when you have next to nothing to base this on.

robindch

Mod:

Kev W wrote: »

Do you need everything restated constantly so you don't get confused?

No personal comments please.

As there have been a number of posts reported by both sides of the discussion to the moderators, your friendly mod team politely asks that people take a step back, try a deep breath, then discuss this issue:

1. Calmly and without using hysterical or unhelpful language - no talk of "killing", "execution", "murder" etc.
2. Without insulting other fellow-posters intelligence or honesty.
3. Without misrepresenting the views and opinions of other posters.

We'd like this discussion to proceed without the need for constant monitoring for tone and content, as well as the occasional finger-wag or worse.

Many thanks all.

kaftan

Shrap wrote: »

I am interested in how you support a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy before viability and potential self awareness is established, but not a woman's choice to be able to take a priority based decision on whether she and any existing family could go through with a pregnancy resulting in a baby with a severe disability, for example, which as you know only becomes clear at around 20 weeks.

Nobody wants an abortion. Plenty of women need them though and that's what the bodily integrity argument is about. Nobody can decide for that woman because they're not walking in her shoes.

I support both as they are completely different moral questions. One has to do with an absolute or limited right to ending a pregnancy, the other has to do with the morality of bringing a child into the world who will either die shortly after birth or face a short life of extreme suffering. In those heartbreaking cases the issue has nothing to do with bodily integrity.

The bodily integrity argument if people are being honest is an absolute argument. Needed versus wanted is sort of irrelevant in this respect, given that the great majority of abortions are carried out in the first trimester because the individuals involved don't want to be pregnant. A choice I support unconditionally. I just find the absolute bodily integrity argument weak compared to the relative rights argument of a developing fetus versus it's parent (or parents if both are involved in the decision). It is a very difficult moral question though and one where religious opinion should have no bearing, as religions are all over the map on the question.

Dan_Solo

Cabaal wrote: »

I personally actually know next to nothing about the Canadian model, so I'm not sure how you can suggest I support it. Maybe I do, maybe I don't...I'd have to read up on it to know.

Given there's only a hand full of people posting in this thread I think your claim that nearly everybody here supports it is rather disingenuous when you have next to nothing to base this on.

So you like to thank posts recommending things you now claim to know next to nothing about?

lazygal wrote: »

I favour the Canadian model of no legislation at all on abortion. It is a medical, not a legal or moral or philosophical, matter between a girl or woman and her doctor. No one should have the right to force anyone to maintain a pregnancy against a woman or girl's wishes. I don't care why someone wants an abortion, I want them to be able to access it safely and legally.

(11) thanks from:
Cabaal, Cliona99, Fred Swanson, Hotblack Desiato, Kev W, Mark Hamill, MrPudding, PopePalpatine, rainbow kirby, swampgas, volchitsa

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know why you think everyone agrees with it. How many people have mentioned that particular model? I only saw one poster do so.

Er.

lazygal wrote: »

I favour the Canadian model of no legislation at all on abortion. It is a medical, not a legal or moral or philosophical, matter between a girl or woman and her doctor. No one should have the right to force anyone to maintain a pregnancy against a woman or girl's wishes. I don't care why someone wants an abortion, I want them to be able to access it safely and legally.

(11) thanks from:
Cabaal, Cliona99, Fred Swanson, Hotblack Desiato, Kev W, Mark Hamill, MrPudding, PopePalpatine, rainbow kirby, swampgas, volchitsa

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Er.(11) thanks from:
Cabaal, Cliona99, Fred Swanson, Hotblack Desiato, Kev W, Mark Hamill, MrPudding, PopePalpatine, rainbow kirby, swampgas, volchitsa

So? You automatically support something just because you give a like to a post? Someone said something I found interesting. That doesn't mean I support that model as opposed to any other.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

So? You automatically support something just because you give a like to a post? Someone said something I found interesting. That doesn't mean I support that model as opposed to any other.

I'll bear that in mind the next time I see lots of thanks after a post. None of them actually agree, they all just think it's interesting. Apparently.

robindch

Mod:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'll bear that in mind the next time I see lots of thanks after a post. None of them actually agree, they all just think it's interesting. Apparently.

I'm not sure if you had the time to read my inthread warning from two hours ago to all posters.

For the avoidance of any doubt, any posters who, in the opinion of the moderators, post in an unhelpful fashion will be carded or banned.

This is the final warning.

MrPudding

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'll bear that in mind the next time I see lots of thanks after a post. None of them actually agree, they all just think it's interesting. Apparently.

So under what circumstances do you thanks posts? Personally I have a number of reasons. Agreeing would be one, but it could also be because I found it interesting, informative, funny or any number of things. I am guessing most people for similarly. Thanking is a very blunt tool that, to me, merely indicates some positive view of the post. But then, I am sure you know that.

MrP

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

So under what circumstances do you thanks posts? Personally I have a number of reasons. Agreeing would be one, but it could also be because I found it interesting, informative, funny or any number of things. I am guessing most people for similarly. Thanking is a very blunt tool that, to me, merely indicates some positive view of the post. But then, I am sure you know that.

MrP

Hilariously Dan Solo had actually thanked that last post of mine, but alas he seems to have removed the thanks now.

I had thought he was being cleverly ironic, but it appears not.
Sad really. Fat finger syndrome is as good a reason for thanking posts as any, IMO.

robindch

The thread has been closed to allow people to calm down.

//sheesh

robindch

And, we're off again.

Please remember - no inflammatory language, no personal comments, being rude about an idea is ok, but not to excess.

Be nice.

Ta.

Hotblack Desiato

Thought you'd terminated it Rob.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Thought you'd terminated it Rob.

It was a jesuitical termination. The thread closure didn't directly target the thread so it's simply an unintended side effect.

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think we ever finished analysing the "right to travel" here due to the thread split, but the last point I had made on that is that the amendment doesn't actually say you'd be exempt from prosecution when you return from an abortion, just that you are not hindered from travel for whatever reason.

I don't think we finished analysing the "right to travel", because every time it comes up, we on a good day get as far as determining the legal facts, whereupon we put more and more words between those and any reasonable inference from them whatsoever. For some reason.

No, it says pregnant women are not to deemed to be hindered from travel for reasons of getting an abortion, by the "can't get an abortion" provision of the constitution itself. It doesn't have anything to do with any more general "right to travel" -- though EU membership establishes that under separate cover. Nor does it explicitly say travel for such purposes can't be restricted, though obviously that's not going to happen for a whole slew of reasons. To start with: the aforementioned EU obligations. Also, the possibility of the SC ruling that the intent of the people's vote on the 13th was to preclude that -- you'll have to ask someone with an actual clue about the law whether that's a realistic concern or not). But most crucially of all, the fact that very clearly, it would be a complete political non-starter. Would somewhat defeat the whole purpose of the "pretending there's no Irish abortion" regime.

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Do you have alternative statistics or any specific complaint about the methodology? Otherwise claiming "noise" just sounds like you simply don't like the numbers.

What's to dislike? This entire tangent is splitting the difference between "very small" and "very very small".

But specifically: the clear problems are that this is taking some poll numbers from different sources, bashing them together, and attempting to draw conclusions well beyond their original scope. An opinion survey designed to answer this particular question would no only ask it directly, but ask it in context of other questions to cast it in a clearer light. Such as precisely how "non-religious" respondents might be, and exactly what "pro-life" position they might hold as regards specific legislative change they might seek or affirm.

Furthermore, any time you ask two similar questions, and get massively divergent answers, you precisely have "noisy" data.

More broadly, there's a whole "non-post-religion" angle to this. If someone has absorbed "pro life" notions from an ambient culture that has religious assumptions positively super-saturated into it, they're not necessarily thinking entirely independent from it. There are probably a few non-religious Creationists around (as the whole "Intelligent Design" con tries very hard indeed to talk up), but is there any real doubt as to the root source of it as an idea in a space of public discourse?

alaimacerc

[On arguments for zygotic personhood]

Absolam wrote: »

Probably about as many as there are not.

As Golden Mean arguments go, this is sketchy beyond measure. It's traditional to point out actual people making the "extreme" arguments, so one can then compare one's own as supposedly "moderate". If not, one normally would at least sketch those positions out. But no, here they're merely notionally estimated as to their cardinality. Not even their merits, mind -- they're just hypothetical bulk freight.

[...]but I don't think we've seen much of a case being made for many more rights than that one being afforded to unborn people, to be fair.

I believe you have an extraneous "m" in the above.

I think there might have been something about the right to inherit a while back, but I could be wrong?

IIRC yes we -- or rather, you -- did, and yes, you most definitely were!

It's nice and easy for a Christian; people have souls, if it has a soul it's a person.

That's right, they just get a 5th-level cleric to cast a Detect Soul spell. Done and dusted! I think you're mainly thinking here of those Christians with someone in supreme authority to tell them what to think on such matters (coughcoughcatholicscough), and a few fundies.

Most people will agree the assignation of human rights is not all or nothing; there are already progressive degrees of rights which proceed after birth through to adulthood, so no real reason (having determined personhood) they shouldn't proceed through gestation just the same.

Yes, absolutely. There's between zero rights (most places) and one (Ireland) right for embryos. There's most definitely zero assigned to the "fertilised egg" case specifically raised here. Let's definitely assign those as "progressively" as possible. Hrm, no, wait. We're going to have to start moving citizenship, naming, and so on earlier. Or maybe start delaying a few, so they're a bit "better" spread out. Currently, they's looking inconveniently clustered massively around "birth", with a few setting in at "majority", which are extremely inelegant facts for a potentially beautiful theory.

If there were no pregnant woman involved in the equation; say we reached the technological point where we could mature a foetus right from conception to birth, what proportion of those who oppose the right to life of a foetus would continue to do so?

Topical(ish) there -- there was a piece on this in a Guardian this week. But of course the point's been raised periodically on this thread, but never seems to go very far. But who knows, given the pace of social reform in Ireland, we might be living in a Futureshocky SF u-/dys- topia sooner than that...

But I'm fascinated as to what basis you imagine such a "right to life" would arise in the first place under such circumstances, giving occasion for any possible need to "oppose" such a hypothetical concept. In Ireland, the legal fiction of embryonic and foetal "right to life" begins at implantation, and ends at birth. Closely resembling a "no abortion in Ireland!" provision, curiously enough. Do you suppose that a future SC would generalise this to all artificial gestations? Or even to pre-implanted embryos, perhaps on the basis of "sure, why not, now we might be able to get away with it"? Or that the public who demand a yet-stronger 8th to provide for such? I struggle to envisage that, myself. But I struggle to see we'll have a government in four months time, so I have to admit to the limits of my imagination.

Clearly, this is the ultimate conclusion of the "evictionist" analysis of personal autonomy and abortion. Once you're able to hot-swap embryos between artificial and natural wombs, the two sets of "rights" can be entirely uncoupled. Of course, the embryo will need a volunteer "host", but that's a right that can in such circumstances be socialised, if the public so desires it, which impinging on any others. (Beyond the "pesky socialists, enslaving me by making me pay tax!" grade of objection. Sorry, here hot-foot from the "libertarianism in Ireland" thread. It's gas.) Usual routine about civil vs human rights here, or positive or negative ones, to slice them somewhat differently.

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't think we finished analysing the "right to travel", because every time it comes up, we on a good day get as far as determining the legal facts, whereupon we put more and more words between those and any reasonable inference from them whatsoever. For some reason.

No, it says pregnant women are not to deemed to be hindered from travel for reasons of getting an abortion, by the "can't get an abortion" provision of the constitution itself. It doesn't have anything to do with any more general "right to travel" -- though EU membership establishes that under separate cover.

People have a general right to travel "away" from a place they don't like. And generally speaking, you can't punish somebody for something they are thinking about doing in the future. And generally speaking, if it is crime in this country, but it happens in another country where it is not a crime, then the person involved can't be convicted on their return to Ireland.

But there are a couple of greyish areas. Lets say you planned to accompany someone to Switzerland for an assisted suicide, which is illegal here. The Gardai can call in to you before you go and tell you that you will face a prosecution on your return. The basis for this is that your earliest assistance to the suicidee occurred on Irish soil, in the planning stage and the logistics of the travel. In effect this prevents you from travelling with the suicidee, or helping them. But technically, its not a restriction on your own general right to travel, nor is it a threat to prosecute you for something that happens abroad.

Another example is FGM. Most people would agree with This kind of travel restriction being applied in the UK. But how can this ban on travel be allowed? Because its not the parent whose right to travel is being restricted. Its the right of the parent to take the child abroad that is restricted. The state is stepping in ("in loco parentis") to protect the child because the parent is not respecting the child's rights. The parent still has every right to travel to Africa whenever they like, but without the child.

Going back to the abortion situation, if the state recognises that the unborn has human rights, then the same situation applies. Obviously the pregnant woman cannot travel separately to the foetus, so a conflict in the rights of the two individuals occurs. The "right to travel" provision resolves this dilemma in favour of the pregnant woman. She can go, and the state cannot try to stop her on behalf of the foetus. So this travel provision is actually a restriction on the state's ability to step in to protect the presumed right of the foetus not to be removed from this jurisdiction to some place where some harm is likely to befall it. At the same time, it is also a vindication of the mothers own right to travel.

Anyone who cannot see the possibility that a foetus and/or a child could have separate and conflicting rights to the parent, will not comprehend any of the above.
But that is the situation.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

[On arguments for zygotic personhood]

Actually, oscarBrave was asking how many reasons are there for claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights, but since you've quoted me, I'll say I wouldn't personally be inclined to put forward an argument for zygotic personhood, however many reasons there may be for claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights. I find the current legal position, that personhood exists post implantation thereby excluding zygotic personhood, to be a fairly sensible one.

alaimacerc wrote: »

As Golden Mean arguments go, this is sketchy beyond measure. It's traditional to point out actual people making the "extreme" arguments, so one can then compare one's own as supposedly "moderate". If not, one normally would at least sketch those positions out. But no, here they're merely notionally estimated as to their cardinality. Not even their merits, mind -- they're just hypothetical bulk freight.

Let's not pretend it was presented as a Golden Mean argument though. If OscarBravo wants to point something out in a traditional fashion, I imagine anyone who wants to answer in equivalent fashion may do so.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I believe you have an extraneous "m" in the above.

Fair enough. We're all entitled to our beliefs aren't we

alaimacerc wrote: »

IIRC yes we -- or rather, you -- did, and yes, you most definitely were!

Well, no, I didn't, but yes, I am right, there was something about it a while back. If you're interested, common law doctrine holds that an unborn child can have a right to inherit.

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's right, they just get a 5th-level cleric to cast a Detect Soul spell. Done and dusted! I think you're mainly thinking here of those Christians with someone in supreme authority to tell them what to think on such matters (coughcoughcatholicscough), and a few fundies.

Not really... I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn't have a detect soul spell for a start. However, the Anglican Communion & every major (and minor) Christian Church I'm aware of holds that people have souls. I'm not aware of any that say a human can have a soul and not be a person, but I imagine you could have a look for some if you like.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. There's between zero rights (most places) and one (Ireland) right for embryos.

Ah now... a majority of the members of the Organization of American States hold that "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception." That's 24 countries right there. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held that the German Constitution guaranteed a right to life from conception; let's not hold out Ireland as the one country that offers rights to embryos, or even zygotes. Even if it's only one right; if it goes from one right straight to all rights (though obviously it doesn't) that's still a progression.

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's most definitely zero assigned to the "fertilised egg" case specifically raised here.

Aside from the 25 countries above, obviously. Where there's one. And common law jurisdictions (including Ireland, the UK (which is actually a legal fiction, the Nasciturus fiction in case you were wondering), and the US) where there's another. We could probably find more if you wanted? You probably don't want to though.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Let's definitely assign those as "progressively" as possible. Hrm, no, wait. We're going to have to start moving citizenship, naming, and so on earlier. Or maybe start delaying a few, so they're a bit "better" spread out. Currently, they's looking inconveniently clustered massively around "birth", with a few setting in at "majority", which are extremely inelegant facts for a potentially beautiful theory.

No, no; feel free to go for it. I'm not saying we'll have to move any existing rights in order to achieve an even spread (I don't think progression requires an even, or even 'good' spread, only that some follow others) but if you've any suggestions for other rights that could sensibly be assigned before birth it would be interesting to hear. If not we can stick with the one or two and assign the rest in varying stages after birth. It will still be a progression, after all.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Topical(ish) there -- there was a piece on this in a Guardian this week. But of course the point's been raised periodically on this thread, but never seems to go very far. But who knows, given the pace of social reform in Ireland, we might be living in a Futureshocky SF u-/dys- topia sooner than that...
But I'm fascinated as to what basis you imagine such a "right to life" would arise in the first place under such circumstances, giving occasion for any possible need to "oppose" such a hypothetical concept. In Ireland, the legal fiction of embryonic and foetal "right to life" begins at implantation, and ends at birth. Closely resembling a "no abortion in Ireland!" provision, curiously enough. Do you suppose that a future SC would generalise this to all artificial gestations? Or even to pre-implanted embryos, perhaps on the basis of "sure, why not, now we might be able to get away with it"? Or that the public who demand a yet-stronger 8th to provide for such? I struggle to envisage that, myself. But I struggle to see we'll have a government in four months time, so I have to admit to the limits of my imagination.

Well, first out, hardly a legal fiction; it was placed in law by plebiscite so it's hard to argue it was assumed or created by a court. Legal fact seems entirely more appropriate.
Secondly, why do you think the basis for determining when a right to life exists should change? If we're at the technological point where we could mature a foetus right from conception to birth, it's eminently within our ability to remove an implanted foetus from a pregnant person who doesn't want to carry it and bring it to term. Not that we couldn't change the basis, just that I wasn't proposing we necessarily should. Since implantation was set as a limit by the High Court, it would certainly be possible for the Supreme Court to change it without a Constitutional change. If needs be.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Clearly, this is the ultimate conclusion of the "evictionist" analysis of personal autonomy and abortion. Once you're able to hot-swap embryos between artificial and natural wombs, the two sets of "rights" can be entirely uncoupled. Of course, the embryo will need a volunteer "host", but that's a right that can in such circumstances be socialised, if the public so desires it, which impinging on any others. (Beyond the "pesky socialists, enslaving me by making me pay tax!" grade of objection. Sorry, here hot-foot from the "libertarianism in Ireland" thread. It's gas.) Usual routine about civil vs human rights here, or positive or negative ones, to slice them somewhat differently.

Well... evictionism is a pro-abortion theory and I'm not inclined to the notion of a foetus as a trespasser or parasite, so not really, but I can see where you see some commonality. I'm not proposing volunteer hosts or homesteaders though, so no need to worry about 'socialising' pre-birth care.
The proposition (to return from your libertarianism digression) was if there were no pregnant woman (I'll stipulate that also excludes women being made pregnant as hosts by virtue of socialised rights) involved in the equation (once the embryo has been implanted and removed to an artificial environment, lest we need worry about zygotes or a non commencement of rights due to lack of implantation); what proportion of those who oppose the right to life of a foetus would continue to do so?
And I suppose, if any, on what basis. If anyone cares to offer an opinion that is.