Mississippi voters have a chance to eliminate women's rights

[Maji Matamu]

You're not judging something on ethical judgments. You are using a really bad argument on purpose while claiming that its a good argument. It has been stated many times that a fetus is a fetus until it is actually born.That is a scientific and biological fact. There is also no such thing as borderline infanticide.

"I'll be honest with you, I've thought a lot about it, and if it weren't illegal, I would also try to kill this baby after it had been born." That implies you are not pro-life. Pro-life means somebody who is against any unnatural death.

(1) Nothing in the argument hinges upon "a fetus is a fetus until it is actually born." You might want to actually engage with the argument rather than simply calling it "bad".

(2) I define borderline infanticide as killing a viable fetus rather than delivering it. Now there is such a thing as borderline infanticide. Notice that nothing here hinges on what a dictionary says, and your attempt to go after that point is also a lack of engagement with the subject.

(3) It is indeed true that I am not pro-life, but that statement doesn't imply it. If you actually tried to read and understand, you could very easily see why that is. It has to do with an aspect of language (both English and programming) which is known as quotation; that statement exists within quote marks and is not being asserted by me.

(4) As far as I can tell, at this stage you neither understand the premises nor the implications nor the logical structure of the argument. I mean, you haven't shown any competence with any of it.

Now, I entered this discussion because you said, "I'm still waiting for an actual good argument to be pro-life. Which means one not including religion and appeal to emotion." I interpreted this as an invitation to help you "see the other side." But if you don't make any effort to understand the premises, implications, and logical structure of an argument, then you are unqualified to judge the goodness or badness of such an argument.

The reason that you are "still waiting" is because you have forced yourself to wait forever. It is not anyone else's fault that you refuse to apprehend the premises, implications, and structure of the arguments that are laid out for you. It is as if you are complaining about how far you are from water, lamenting about how you are dehydrating to death -- but even while standing next to a river, you refuse to drink from the river for some hygienic or disease-fearing reason.

[Bottle]

I wish pro-choice groups were more vocal so pro-life groups couldn't brainwash women as much.

A woman disliking abortions is brainwashing? What is this?

I wouldn't call it brainwashing, but anti-choice groups have done a really good job at getting misinformation popularized to the point where lots of women believe things about abortion that are simply not true. Everything from the suggestion that abortion causes cancer, to the idea that your future ability to bear children will be hurt if you have an abortion (actually more likely to occur if you carry to term, FYI), to the slogan that "abortion stops a beating heart" (it actually doesn't in most cases because the heart hasn't yet formed), and of course to the myths like how only sluts get abortions or women only get abortions because they don't want to be mothers (even though the majority of women who get abortions ARE MOTHERS already) or how it's inherently "irresponsible" to get an abortion while it's inherently "responsible" to carry to term, etc.

[An Intelligent Man]

It baffles you that people are hypocrites?

Really?

It does baffle me that someone who spends energy campaigning against something, advocating for it to become illegal, believes that the act is an unacceptable violation of human rights, then goes and does exactly that, yes.

*Puts on monocle*
We are looking at an interesting society within the American civilization here. Mostly congregated South of the Mason-Dixon Line, hardline conservative, and fundamentalist Baptist.
They believe in freedom, as long as it is the freedom to be a conservative Christian. They believe in a free market, except for free trade. They believe in America, but whine about taxes (their contribution) constantly. They call themselves patriots, and yet claim their right to bear arms against the government.
Does it not surprise you that they might also say the abortion is unGodly, etc, and than do it themselves? They are God's chosen people, and are above the rules.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

You're not judging something on ethical judgments. You are using a really bad argument on purpose while claiming that its a good argument. It has been stated many times that a fetus is a fetus until it is actually born.That is a scientific and biological fact. There is also no such thing as borderline infanticide.

"I'll be honest with you, I've thought a lot about it, and if it weren't illegal, I would also try to kill this baby after it had been born." That implies you are not pro-life. Pro-life means somebody who is against any unnatural death.

(1) Nothing in the argument hinges upon "a fetus is a fetus until it is actually born." You might want to actually engage with the argument rather than simply calling it "bad".

(2) I define borderline infanticide as killing a viable fetus rather than delivering it. Now there is such a thing as borderline infanticide. Notice that nothing here hinges on what a dictionary says, and your attempt to go after that point is also a lack of engagement with the subject.

(3) It is indeed true that I am not pro-life, but that statement doesn't imply it. If you actually tried to read and understand, you could very easily see why that is. It has to do with an aspect of language (both English and programming) which is known as quotation; that statement exists within quote marks and is not being asserted by me.

(4) As far as I can tell, at this stage you neither understand the premises nor the implications nor the logical structure of the argument. I mean, you haven't shown any competence with any of it.

Now, I entered this discussion because you said, "I'm still waiting for an actual good argument to be pro-life. Which means one not including religion and appeal to emotion." I interpreted this as an invitation to help you "see the other side." But if you don't make any effort to understand the premises, implications, and logical structure of an argument, then you are unqualified to judge the goodness or badness of such an argument.

The reason that you are "still waiting" is because you have forced yourself to wait forever. It is not anyone else's fault that you refuse to apprehend the premises, implications, and structure of the arguments that are laid out for you. It is as if you are complaining about how far you are from water, lamenting about how you are dehydrating to death -- but even while standing next to a river, you refuse to drink from the river for some hygienic or disease-fearing reason.

I dont understand the point you are getting at with fetal viability. No one would argue against setting standards and 'limits' regarding abortions. Actually the limits we set in the US are decided upon using viability percentages, limit of 50%. Basicly I am wondering what you are getting at here, you are not arguing pro-life it seems you are arguing pro-choice up to the limit of viability, which is the same veiw shared by nearly all supporters of pro-choice.

Also, viability is by no means a sure thing in regards to certain survivability and certainly not an assurance of health. Viability limits are entirely dependent on access to modern, western medicine and medical technology. Even with proper treatment severe premature births(24-26 weeks, 6-6.5 months) have a high chance of causing moderate-severe mental and physical dissabilities, if they even survive.

Sorry about my writing Im still on this damn kindle. Also sorry if I seem like I am attacking your posts since its hard to really understand whats going on without the quote boxes.

[Wiztopia]

You're not judging something on ethical judgments. You are using a really bad argument on purpose while claiming that its a good argument. It has been stated many times that a fetus is a fetus until it is actually born.That is a scientific and biological fact. There is also no such thing as borderline infanticide.

"I'll be honest with you, I've thought a lot about it, and if it weren't illegal, I would also try to kill this baby after it had been born." That implies you are not pro-life. Pro-life means somebody who is against any unnatural death.

(1) Nothing in the argument hinges upon "a fetus is a fetus until it is actually born." You might want to actually engage with the argument rather than simply calling it "bad".

(2) I define borderline infanticide as killing a viable fetus rather than delivering it. Now there is such a thing as borderline infanticide. Notice that nothing here hinges on what a dictionary says, and your attempt to go after that point is also a lack of engagement with the subject.

(3) It is indeed true that I am not pro-life, but that statement doesn't imply it. If you actually tried to read and understand, you could very easily see why that is. It has to do with an aspect of language (both English and programming) which is known as quotation; that statement exists within quote marks and is not being asserted by me.

(4) As far as I can tell, at this stage you neither understand the premises nor the implications nor the logical structure of the argument. I mean, you haven't shown any competence with any of it.

Now, I entered this discussion because you said, "I'm still waiting for an actual good argument to be pro-life. Which means one not including religion and appeal to emotion." I interpreted this as an invitation to help you "see the other side." But if you don't make any effort to understand the premises, implications, and logical structure of an argument, then you are unqualified to judge the goodness or badness of such an argument.

The reason that you are "still waiting" is because you have forced yourself to wait forever. It is not anyone else's fault that you refuse to apprehend the premises, implications, and structure of the arguments that are laid out for you. It is as if you are complaining about how far you are from water, lamenting about how you are dehydrating to death -- but even while standing next to a river, you refuse to drink from the river for some hygienic or disease-fearing reason.

1) So you once again deny biological and scientific terms to claim there is no difference between a fetus and a baby.

2) No there rally isn't. Infanticide means to kill an infant. A fetus is not an infant no matter how much you claim it so it is not borderline infanticide.

3) You have not given any good argument about how a fetuses "rights" supercedes the rights of the woman's. You calling it a good argument does not mean it is good. BLACK PENS ARE BETTER THAN RED PENS BECAUSE I SAY SO.

[Maji Matamu]

1) So you once again deny biological and scientific terms to claim there is no difference between a fetus and a baby.

At no point did I do anything remotely resembling this. Viability is a perfectly valid biological and scientific term which I introduced. I never denied any particular word. And if I had, it wouldn't matter: arguing about words is for people who don't have anything better to argue about.

2) No there rally isn't. Infanticide means to kill an infant. A fetus is not an infant no matter how much you claim it so it is not borderline infanticide.

Like I said, I define borderline infanticide as killing a viable fetus. It doesn't matter that a fetus is not an infant; that's the definition I am using and I plan on sticking with it. Again, like all arguments over words, it doesn't matter: the very fact that you think that this is the crux of some argument shows that you don't understand that argument.

3) You have not given any good argument about how a fetuses "rights" supercedes the rights of the woman's. You calling it a good argument does not mean it is good. BLACK PENS ARE BETTER THAN RED PENS BECAUSE I SAY SO.

And you calling it a bad argument does not mean it is bad. I have indeed given a valid argument that in some cases a fetus's rights supercede a mother's rights -- namely that an infant's rights supercede a mother's rights and there is no reason to expect a moral difference due to the process of birth or C-section. You're the one who believes that a fetus gains a soul when it draws its first breath (or something analogous to it) and you haven't defended that seriously or even claimed it directly -- you haven't even agreed that you're against actual infanticide despite several exchanges where you might have denied it.

If anything is close to "BECAUSE I SAY SO" it's the fact that this was basically your defense for post-viability whimsical abortions -- "THEY'D BE OKAY BECAUSE THE MOTHER SAYS SO, AND THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE I SAY SO." I've been offering an argument; you've been offering nothing in particular.

[Wiztopia]

1) So you once again deny biological and scientific terms to claim there is no difference between a fetus and a baby.

At no point did I do anything remotely resembling this. Viability is a perfectly valid biological and scientific term which I introduced. I never denied any particular word. And if I had, it wouldn't matter: arguing about words is for people who don't have anything better to argue about.

2) No there rally isn't. Infanticide means to kill an infant. A fetus is not an infant no matter how much you claim it so it is not borderline infanticide.

Like I said, I define borderline infanticide as killing a viable fetus. It doesn't matter that a fetus is not an infant; that's the definition I am using and I plan on sticking with it. Again, like all arguments over words, it doesn't matter: the very fact that you think that this is the crux of some argument shows that you don't understand that argument.

3) You have not given any good argument about how a fetuses "rights" supercedes the rights of the woman's. You calling it a good argument does not mean it is good. BLACK PENS ARE BETTER THAN RED PENS BECAUSE I SAY SO.

And you calling it a bad argument does not mean it is bad. I have indeed given a valid argument that in some cases a fetus's rights supercede a mother's rights -- namely that an infant's rights supercede a mother's rights and there is no reason to expect a moral difference due to the process of birth or C-section. You're the one who believes that a fetus gains a soul when it draws its first breath (or something analogous to it) and you haven't defended that seriously or even claimed it directly -- you haven't even agreed that you're against actual infanticide despite several exchanges where you might have denied it.

If anything is close to "BECAUSE I SAY SO" it's the fact that this was basically your defense for post-viability whimsical abortions -- "THEY'D BE OKAY BECAUSE THE MOTHER SAYS SO, AND THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE I SAY SO." I've been offering an argument; you've been offering nothing in particular.

So you really are denying the terms then. No matter how you put it a viable fetus us still a fetus and nothing can ever change that. It only stops being a fetus once it is born. Premature or not. You're using the term infanticide incorrectly since infanticide can only apply to one particular type of person. No you have not. The woman's right will ALWAYS supersede the fetus' right. The fetus doesn't draw its first breath. The baby does. A fetus will always be a fetus and a baby will always be a baby. Also infanticide is obviously good, bro. Because I totally said I support it since abortion is infanticide.

[Keronians]

That's why two specialists must.

Requiring 2 specialists just makes it harder to get the approval you need. It doesn't help you to get around the one who says no because of his personal beliefs.

What if someone lives in rural area that doesn't have many specialists with the relevant qualifications? That would make it unreasonably difficult for someone who is in legitimate need of an abortion for mental health reasons to get the two approvals they need.

There aren't hospitals and clinics in rural areas?

Anyway, I'm willing to lower that to just 1 specialist since the US does not have universal healthcare, which in essence means that the woman will be paying out of her own pocket.

[Maji Matamu]

I dont understand the point you are getting at with fetal viability. No one would argue against setting standards and 'limits' regarding abortions. Actually the limits we set in the US are decided upon using viability percentages, limit of 50%. Basicly I am wondering what you are getting at here, you are not arguing pro-life it seems you are arguing pro-choice up to the limit of viability, which is the same veiw shared by nearly all supporters of pro-choice.

Wiztopia argued against "setting standards and 'limits' regarding abortions." Well, 'argued' is a little strong of a word, but ze said that ze was against it.

Again, I am not pro-life and I was responding to a cry for understanding (which appears to have been mere vanity, as far as I can tell). Wiztopia wanted to know if there were secular, dispassionate reasons why one might be pro-life, and I have tried to articulate a clear case for why someone might.

The 'standards and limits', in this argument, form a 'foot in the door' argument that sometimes, the fetus has rights which do indeed trump the mother's rights. A key question, once that foot is in the door, is when those rights begin to exist -- does it start when the fetus starts responding to external stimuli, or when it has a beating heart, or when it has fingers and toes? A 'second part' to the argument suggests that it might be secular and dispassionate to simply say, "I don't want to place the moral line anywhere for fear of killing someone who didn't deserve it, so let's put the line at the earliest point of biological distinctiveness: fertilization."

While I might have agreed with the 'first oart' of this argument, I would tend to disagree with this 'second part', especially because I fall very strongly on the 'nurture' side of that nature-vs.-nurture debate, and I think that the pro-lifers seem to overstate the 'nature' side for no good reason. I am, for example, much more interested in the scientific studies of when a fetus becomes able to experience pain -- such studies talk mostly about the brain apparatus needed to really feel pain, and when it develops. I would guess that the same apparatus governs more of the fetus' nascent conscious life, and that conscious life should be a key aspect of this moral decision. As long as an abortion occurs safely before the development of true feeling, I would not care so much about the reasons why. After this point, I begin to weigh reasons against each other, but I still feel that a child is growing morally the same way that they are growing physically.

That's not quite 'what I'm getting at here', but it's a larger context that might help you understand 'what I'm getting at here' -- that I find pro-lifers to be relatively understandable and I think that pro-choicers should also be able to understand these sorts of reasons.

Also sorry if I seem like I am attacking your posts since its hard to really understand whats going on without the quote boxes.

Forgiven, though I don't know why the quote boxes disappear on the kindle. o_O. Oh well, that's technology for you. :<

[Maji Matamu]

So you really are denying the terms then. No matter how you put it a viable fetus us still a fetus and nothing can ever change that. It only stops being a fetus once it is born. Premature or not. You're using the term infanticide incorrectly since infanticide can only apply to one particular type of person. No you have not. The woman's right will ALWAYS supersede the fetus' right. The fetus doesn't draw its first breath. The baby does. A fetus will always be a fetus and a baby will always be a baby. Also infanticide is obviously good, bro. Because I totally said I support it since abortion is infanticide.

Look, I'm going to say this one more time. You don't seem to understand what you're arguing about. I am not denying any terms; there is nothing especially changed by 'a viable fetus is still a fetus'; I never said that a fetus 'stops being a fetus once it is born'; I didn't ever use the word 'infanticide' incorrectly (that is, I never committed the fallacy of equivocation with it). Nor did I say that abortion was infanticide, and for you to characterize my argument that way is just a blatant straw-man. I've been very clear about what I've meant, and if you were ever unclear on it, you could have asked.

The only thing you have said which is relevant is, "The woman's right will ALWAYS supersede the fetus' right. The fetus doesn't draw its first breath. The baby does." But the first sentence is begging the question -- you haven't argued why it might be the case and you've been presented with a valid argument why it isn't. (In fact, you now have two pro-choicers in this thread who are saying that your belief is absurd.)

So let us analyze the last two statements. You believe that there is a moral difference between fetuses and babies. (Point of fact: we frequently in English refer to a mother as 'carrying a baby', and we refer to miscarriages as 'losing a baby', so this is unnecessarily jargon-mongering even for you. But okay, I will grant that you want to use 'baby' as a synonym for newborn and post-newborn stages of the baby's development. I will refer to the biological lump which contiguously-in-time spans both fetal and baby stages as a 'child' to make you happy.)

You haven't defended this claimed moral difference between fetuses and babies, or any criterion, merely by denying that the moral difference arises from breathing. Returning back to the argument I articulated many posts ago to you: the argument itself suggests that there is a reason for secular, sober skepticism on this matter, and you haven't risen to the bar. All that you have said is that you apparently view the 'borderline' between fetuses and babies (which apparently has moral importance) as something which happens before the child draws its first breath. But what on earth causes this discontinuity in the rights of this child? It certainly isn't obvious to a pro-lifer, and you will have to think outside of your own head if you want to actually engage with someone else's arguments; obvious-to-you is meaningless when critiquing someone else's argument.

[New Periodspace]

I think woman deserve rights.

[Farnhamia]

I think woman deserve rights.

Thank you. On behalf of women everywhere, I thank you.

[Greed and Death]

I think woman deserve rights.

Thank you. On behalf of women everywhere, I thank you.

The right to be barefoot and the right to be pregnant during child rearing years, and the right to be chained to the kitchen during supper cooking times.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

I dont understand the point you are getting at with fetal viability. No one would argue against setting standards and 'limits' regarding abortions. Actually the limits we set in the US are decided upon using viability percentages, limit of 50%. Basicly I am wondering what you are getting at here, you are not arguing pro-life it seems you are arguing pro-choice up to the limit of viability, which is the same veiw shared by nearly all supporters of pro-choice.

Wiztopia argued against "setting standards and 'limits' regarding abortions." Well, 'argued' is a little strong of a word, but ze said that ze was against it.

Again, I am not pro-life and I was responding to a cry for understanding (which appears to have been mere vanity, as far as I can tell). Wiztopia wanted to know if there were secular, dispassionate reasons why one might be pro-life, and I have tried to articulate a clear case for why someone might.

The 'standards and limits', in this argument, form a 'foot in the door' argument that sometimes, the fetus has rights which do indeed trump the mother's rights. A key question, once that foot is in the door, is when those rights begin to exist -- does it start when the fetus starts responding to external stimuli, or when it has a beating heart, or when it has fingers and toes? A 'second part' to the argument suggests that it might be secular and dispassionate to simply say, "I don't want to place the moral line anywhere for fear of killing someone who didn't deserve it, so let's put the line at the earliest point of biological distinctiveness: fertilization."

While I might have agreed with the 'first oart' of this argument, I would tend to disagree with this 'second part', especially because I fall very strongly on the 'nurture' side of that nature-vs.-nurture debate, and I think that the pro-lifers seem to overstate the 'nature' side for no good reason. I am, for example, much more interested in the scientific studies of when a fetus becomes able to experience pain -- such studies talk mostly about the brain apparatus needed to really feel pain, and when it develops. I would guess that the same apparatus governs more of the fetus' nascent conscious life, and that conscious life should be a key aspect of this moral decision. As long as an abortion occurs safely before the development of true feeling, I would not care so much about the reasons why. After this point, I begin to weigh reasons against each other, but I still feel that a child is growing morally the same way that they are growing physically.

That's not quite 'what I'm getting at here', but it's a larger context that might help you understand 'what I'm getting at here' -- that I find pro-lifers to be relatively understandable and I think that pro-choicers should also be able to understand these sorts of reasons.

Also sorry if I seem like I am attacking your posts since its hard to really understand whats going on without the quote boxes.

Forgiven, though I don't know why the quote boxes disappear on the kindle. o_O. Oh well, that's technology for you. :<

Well, I have never been a big fan of moral or ethical debate; however I beleive this issue uses emotion to cloud biological fact. For instance: Drawing any "moral line" immediatly after fertilization seems to veer away from the fact that untill implentation the mothers body does not even recognize pregnancy (since pregnancy has not yet occured). Calling a cluster of ES cells involved in an intricate dance of embryogenesis & morphogenesis "a human life" is a gross exaggeration. To quote Dr. Michael West "human life, not a human life." An important distinction.
I can, like many other pro-choice advocates, see the need for a 'line' to be drawn; your veiw is similar to many pro-choice veiws - In that the development of neural pathways be a marker used determine a 'cut off' date for abortions. It is good to remember that although by 20-24 weeks a neural pathway, that can react to stimuli, is formed it is far from complete. Too far incomplete to form a state of consciousness - Some studies do explore a possible 'dream-like state' at fetal stages around 24 weeks; no conclusive theories can be formed from such a small amount of data, it is just as likely the electral activity seen in such studies is the result of new neural pathways being formed.
At any rate, 24 weeks would remain the accepted limit. So no, I do not understand what you are getting at(just the way we speak where I live, please dont patronize ). Since it seems you are just summerizing a commonly held beleif among pro-choicers...Could have missread though.
Again, kindle so im sorry if its hard to read.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Some other stuff to consider on the legal status of unborn children:

Why is it that someone who is born in the U.S. is guaranteed U.S. citizenship; but there is no such guarantee for someone conceived in the U.S.?

Why does the national government not issue social security numbers for unborn children?

Even if it can be determined the exact date you were conceived, it is never used for anything -- but your date of birth is on your driver's license and is used on all kinds of paperwork.

These things indicate a major difference of legal status between the born and the unborn, a difference that has been recognized at the national level in the U.S. since the country was founded. Of course, it is possible for the government to get something wrong from a moral perspective, but in this case I think they got it right. Either way, it blows a hole in the slippery slop argument if being born has legal significance outside the abortion debate, and has had consistently recognized legal significance over a long period of our history. The slope really is not that slippery.

They're really unborn adults, obviously. It's a violation of their human rights that we haven't granted them driver's licenses and that we don't allow them to drink.

Of course! Why didn't I see it sooner? Thank you for clarifying that.

[Maji Matamu]

Well, I have never been a big fan of moral or ethical debate; however I beleive this issue uses emotion to cloud biological fact. For instance: Drawing any "moral line" immediatly after fertilization seems to veer away from the fact that untill implentation the mothers body does not even recognize pregnancy (since pregnancy has not yet occured). Calling a cluster of ES cells involved in an intricate dance of embryogenesis & morphogenesis "a human life" is a gross exaggeration. To quote Dr. Michael West "human life, not a human life." An important distinction.

Like I said, a pro-lifer doesn't need a strong emotional appeal to defend the case. They could defend the case simply on the basis of "I'm just not very certain." If you did not feel qualified to make an ethical exemption, then you could very well defend an unemotional case of "I'm just erring on the side of caution. I don't want to accidentally murder anyone simply because I misjudged the lines of who 'anyone' is allowed to be." (Remember that many pro-lifers are essentially ethical platonists: whether due to divine command moralities or something else, they believe that there is a 'true morality' which our ethics attempts to approximate.)

In this particular case, a pro-lifer can say without emotional appeals, "yes, the blastocyst has indeed been alive and growing for about a week before it implants in the mother's body, maybe having roughly 100 cells before it starts to flood her with the hormones that we'd use to test for pregnancy. But doesn't this just make things more uncertain? If we leave issues about contraceptives aside, at around four weeks the embryo will have a head, body, amniotic sac, heart, liver, and buds where its limbs are going to form. I cannot feel certain that this is truly 'human life' as opposed to 'a human life.' So you guys might feel very smug about how at fertilization it's just an egg with a sperm inside of it -- why should it be so different? -- but by the time abortion crops up I just don't see how you can be so certain that you're not killing another human being."

At any rate, 24 weeks would remain the accepted limit. So no, I do not understand what you are getting at(just the way we speak where I live, please dont patronize ). Since it seems you are just summerizing a commonly held beleif among pro-choicers...Could have missread though.
Again, kindle so im sorry if its hard to read.

There are a couple of different things that are going on here, and I suppose they do get a little confusing. (1) There are my own beliefs. Those aren't particularly relevant to this discussion, but I am broadly pro-choice for arguments which most pro-choicers would reject. These concern such things as neural development in fetuses, which is what you're talking about. (2) There is the argument that I am presenting to Wiztopia. This is meant to show that pro-lifers are not ipso facto irrational -- that is, they can certainly have reasons and an unemotional, logical basis for their beliefs. The one that I m defending says, basically, "a line has to be drawn somewhere, and the penalty for drawing the line too far on the mother's side is that we inadvertently commit murder, so let's err on the fetus's side instead." (3) There are the dogmatic assertions from Wiztopia that I am criticizing -- ideas like "emotions have no place in ethics" and "mothers would have a right to abort a viable, non-life-threatening fetus even when a C-section delivery is possible and/or preferable, because she has a right to choice which trumps any rights which a fetus might have."

Now, if you're talking about (2) being agreeable, well, it's supposed to be. It is very important in considering and framing an argument that the argument has agreeable premises. When this doesn't happen we sometimes call it begging the question, with the most obvious example being a 'circular argument' which begs its own conclusion as the question. The issue is this: arguments are supposed to be potentially convincing. There may be some people who simply fail to see the world from anyone else's perspective or so, and fail to be swayed by arguments, but broadly, when you make an argument, it should start from some sort of "shared ground" which people might generally agree on.

It is also important in this particular context: I am trying to defend that one can hold a pro-life view reasonably, and to do this I am starting with a (putatively) reasonable pro-choice foundation, and showing how a reasonable argument might convince someone of another side. Wiztopia's response has apparently been that this starting pro-choice foundation is absolutely horrid and unreasonable and anti-scientific and whatever else have you. So my (3)-statements have been focused on trying to be as reasonable as possible while advocating these common pro-choice views.

But I think you're talking about (1) being agreeable. In this case, this is probably because we actually agree. As I have said several times, I am pro-choice. I am presenting a pro-life argument because it shows that there are indeed decent reasons to be pro-life, which shows that pro-lifers aren't unreasonable. This sort of agreement does not make me pro-life. In fact, I think that there are better reasons to be pro-choice, with perhaps limited support for constraints on third-trimester abortions, but little else. So, I am pro-choice, and thus, we agree.

[Norstal]

Like I said, a pro-lifer doesn't need a strong emotional appeal to defend the case. They could defend the case simply on the basis of "I'm just not very certain." If you did not feel qualified to make an ethical exemption, then you could very well defend an unemotional case of "I'm just erring on the side of caution. I don't want to accidentally murder anyone simply because I misjudged the lines of who 'anyone' is allowed to be." (Remember that many pro-lifers are essentially ethical platonists: whether due to divine command moralities or something else, they believe that there is a 'true morality' which our ethics attempts to approximate.)

Where is this god-given right to enforce your morality/ethics?

Or, more importantly, do you think by supporting what women should be able to choose, you're supporting murder?

Like you said, these are your beliefs. Not the woman's. I don't think you have any authority to change her decisions about her body.

[Maji Matamu]

[ edit: there was some sort of bizarre mix-up with a double-post being taken as a quote. The post below this was complete and this one contained the exact same statements. ]

[Maji Matamu]

Where is this god-given right to enforce your morality/ethics?

Or, more importantly, do you think by supporting what women should be able to choose, you're supporting murder?

Like you said, these are your beliefs. Not the woman's. I don't think you have any authority to change her decisions about her body.

I'm not sure why you believe that I believe in any god-given rights, nor did I say anything like "by supporting what women should be able to choose, you're suppoting murder," nor did I say that these were my beliefs, nor did I say that I had 'authority' to change her 'decisions' about her body. I don't know where you got any of that from.

I do, however, think that the law should reflect a shared ethics which is imposed impartially upon all people in order to promote things like civility and kindness and compassion and responsibility, with a minimum imposition of control or fear. I have the feeling that pro-lifers could agree to this sort of thing as well. It would then follow that yes, we can (and do) routinely illegalize certain actions one takes with one's body. For example, it's pretty routine to outlaw suicide, and I would certainly defend a society's right to do so.

(Along the same lines, I should clarify that in this argument, when I say something like "I don't know where to draw the line" I think that the pro-lifer would say at a broader level that the society does not yet know where to draw the line. It is not a pithy statement about one's own ignorance but a broader statement about where the society itself stands in its present knowledge about this 'true morality'. It is not a statement about "I'm imposing my ignorance on everyone else"; it's a statement of "everyone is ignorant on this matter.")[/quote]

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Maji, I can see how I was confused Since you seem to be playing the devils advocate & did offer up a 'possible' pro-life veiw...A veiw which I still don't see as reasonable or rationale.

It seems to me that any argument making the claim of preimplentation cells being 'a human life' or not seeing them as just a mass of human ES cells; is not an argument that has a firm understanding of biology or embryological data. Any beleif which attributes 'moral humanity' to the earliest stages of embryogenesis is certainly not based in biological understanding & is fueled mostly by emotion and partly by ignorance.
I'm sure that pages could be filled with what 'markers' should be used to determine a limit(in development) for abortion. I don't want to list off, explain, then debate these markers(unless it really comes to that point, but its been done to death already). Besides, I am fairly confident the limit will always fall around 20-24 weeks/6-6.5 months.

[Kalysk]

I've never understood conservatives who push for small government, and yet they demand the government to step in and abolish abortion and gay marriage. It's completely hypocritical.

[Maji Matamu]

It seems to me that any argument making the claim of preimplentation cells being 'a human life' or not seeing them as just a mass of human ES cells; is not an argument that has a firm understanding of biology or embryological data. Any beleif which attributes 'moral humanity' to the earliest stages of embryogenesis is certainly not based in biological understanding & is fueled mostly by emotion and partly by ignorance.
I'm sure that pages could be filled with what 'markers' should be used to determine a limit(in development) for abortion. I don't want to list off, explain, then debate these markers(unless it really comes to that point, but its been done to death already). Besides, I am fairly confident the limit will always fall around 20-24 weeks/6-6.5 months.

Well there are different levels in the pro-life movement. Pro-lifers have at various times opposed, say, the termination of people in persistent vegetative states; embryonic stem cell research; implantation-preventing contraceptives; and abortion of implanted fetuses. Taking this as a broader target becomes much trickier, because I believe that consciousness is the key thing which we're preserving, and neither embryonic stem-cell projects nor vegetative states seem sufficient to me to contain consciousness. But I give them credit where it is due: the people who believe that consciousness is mere computation have not yet opposed the turning off of computers. At least the pro-lifers are consistent with their idea that biology causes ethical status.

You might be able to defend this argument on similar grounds of "where are we to draw the line? Why not just raise the question at biological distinctiveness and be done with it?", but I think it would be a harder sell than the pro-life abortion belief. The most obvious objection is why we stop caring about individual cells when there are other cells with the same DNA around (nobody objects to shedding skin cells by scratching your head), but start caring when those cells reach a critical mass (identical twins are not allowed to kill each other even though they are biologically as similar as my skin cells are to the rest of me). This was famously solved by the Catholics by saying that God grants a soul the moment the sperm enters, but of course that won't work for this argument. In other words, if we're talking about a fetus that's two months old already, I think you can make an interesting case for "society should give the benefit of the doubt to this critter," but if we're talking about forcing a woman to not take Plan B because a blastocyst might implant -- well, that seems a little difficult for me to accept. I am picking and choosing the pro-life position that I feel will be most acceptable to a pro-choice audience, to be sure.

[An Intelligent Man]

It seems to me that any argument making the claim of preimplentation cells being 'a human life' or not seeing them as just a mass of human ES cells; is not an argument that has a firm understanding of biology or embryological data. Any beleif which attributes 'moral humanity' to the earliest stages of embryogenesis is certainly not based in biological understanding & is fueled mostly by emotion and partly by ignorance.
I'm sure that pages could be filled with what 'markers' should be used to determine a limit(in development) for abortion. I don't want to list off, explain, then debate these markers(unless it really comes to that point, but its been done to death already). Besides, I am fairly confident the limit will always fall around 20-24 weeks/6-6.5 months.

Well there are different levels in the pro-life movement. Pro-lifers have at various times opposed, say, the termination of people in persistent vegetative states; embryonic stem cell research; implantation-preventing contraceptives; and abortion of implanted fetuses. Taking this as a broader target becomes much trickier, because I believe that consciousness is the key thing which we're preserving, and neither embryonic stem-cell projects nor vegetative states seem sufficient to me to contain consciousness. But I give them credit where it is due: the people who believe that consciousness is mere computation have not yet opposed the turning off of computers. At least the pro-lifers are consistent with their idea that biology causes ethical status.

You might be able to defend this argument on similar grounds of "where are we to draw the line? Why not just raise the question at biological distinctiveness and be done with it?", but I think it would be a harder sell than the pro-life abortion belief. The most obvious objection is why we stop caring about individual cells when there are other cells with the same DNA around (nobody objects to shedding skin cells by scratching your head), but start caring when those cells reach a critical mass (identical twins are not allowed to kill each other even though they are biologically as similar as my skin cells are to the rest of me). This was famously solved by the Catholics by saying that God grants a soul the moment the sperm enters, but of course that won't work for this argument. In other words, if we're talking about a fetus that's two months old already, I think you can make an interesting case for "society should give the benefit of the doubt to this critter," but if we're talking about forcing a woman to not take Plan B because a blastocyst might implant -- well, that seems a little difficult for me to accept. I am picking and choosing the pro-life position that I feel will be most acceptable to a pro-choice audience, to be sure.

Not really, sorry. Your argument is still based on that shaky and fundamentally wrong idea that "we should give the child a chance".
I have said this before, I will say it now, and I will say it again.
When a child is inside of the womb of a mother who wants to have it executed, do you really think that it is going to be a warm and nurturing environment?
What happens in this debate is a failure to distinguish between life and the state of being alive. Being alive is what these children will have, breathing and eating and other biological issues. Life comes when a person grows in an environment in which both their physical and emotional needs are met. They do the best of their abilities and always have a family support system. If a child is denied this, they are denied a life in ways much worse than killing the fetus.
And yet these self professed pro lifers never seem to care much for welfare for the kids they brought into a subpar existence...

[Bottle]

I am picking and choosing the pro-life position that I feel will be most acceptable to a pro-choice audience, to be sure.

I can help you out with that, it's very easy:

All human persons retain ownership of their own bodies, and no human person has ownership of another person's body, and therefore the personhood of embryos and fetii is irrelevant to the issue of a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

It seems to me that any argument making the claim of preimplentation cells being 'a human life' or not seeing them as just a mass of human ES cells; is not an argument that has a firm understanding of biology or embryological data. Any beleif which attributes 'moral humanity' to the earliest stages of embryogenesis is certainly not based in biological understanding & is fueled mostly by emotion and partly by ignorance.
I'm sure that pages could be filled with what 'markers' should be used to determine a limit(in development) for abortion. I don't want to list off, explain, then debate these markers(unless it really comes to that point, but its been done to death already). Besides, I am fairly confident the limit will always fall around 20-24 weeks/6-6.5 months.

Well there are different levels in the pro-life movement. Pro-lifers have at various times opposed, say, the termination of people in persistent vegetative states; embryonic stem cell research; implantation-preventing contraceptives; and abortion of implanted fetuses. Taking this as a broader target becomes much trickier, because I believe that consciousness is the key thing which we're preserving, and neither embryonic stem-cell projects nor vegetative states seem sufficient to me to contain consciousness. But I give them credit where it is due: the people who believe that consciousness is mere computation have not yet opposed the turning off of computers. At least the pro-lifers are consistent with their idea that biology causes ethical status.

You might be able to defend this argument on similar grounds of "where are we to draw the line? Why not just raise the question at biological distinctiveness and be done with it?", but I think it would be a harder sell than the pro-life abortion belief. The most obvious objection is why we stop caring about individual cells when there are other cells with the same DNA around (nobody objects to shedding skin cells by scratching your head), but start caring when those cells reach a critical mass (identical twins are not allowed to kill each other even though they are biologically as similar as my skin cells are to the rest of me). This was famously solved by the Catholics by saying that God grants a soul the moment the sperm enters, but of course that won't work for this argument. In other words, if we're talking about a fetus that's two months old already, I think you can make an interesting case for "society should give the benefit of the doubt to this critter," but if we're talking about forcing a woman to not take Plan B because a blastocyst might implant -- well, that seems a little difficult for me to accept. I am picking and choosing the pro-life position that I feel will be most acceptable to a pro-choice audience, to be sure.

Well, I am not a religous person and don't pay any heed to a religous explanation on a biological subject.

Intresting case mabye but not a very good one, an 8week old fetus(a brand new fetus, since that would be the end of embryogenesis and therefore the embryotic stage) is still just a mass of tissue; exhibiting controlled and predictable tissue & cellular/systems growth/development -the result of morphogens & ES cells(still existant after the embriotic stage) and the process of fetal morphogenesis. It is important to veiw a fetus in such an early stage as less of a seperate, individual organism and more of a bio-molecular process. Many test tube tumors using ES cells from numerous species follow a very similar process, without as stringent direction of growth(probably the result of comprimised genetic sequence)

As for the 'drawing the line at biological distinctivness' I would call anyone who used that arguement lazy and unable to grasp exactly what happens after fertilization. May as well ban culture of human cells for study. Saying 'we dont know so we choose conception' shows more than ignorance, it also shows a laziness toward expanding knowledge & understanding of the subject.

I dont care if someone morally objects as long as they dont try and justify that morality using science.