Stoicircumstance? I miss that guy.

If I remember correctly, StofCircumstance wasn't on Plastic back then (or had a different username).  I really don't recall who it was.  I keep wanting to say OSULogan, but I'm pretty sure he or she was actually a pro-lifer so I'm just remembering seeing that handle in abortion debates.

Did StofCircumstance make the jump to TnT?

I don't think so. I remember him being a lawyer from Northern NJ and around my age, maybe he had children and got busy.

"maybe he had children and got busy."

...or got busy and had children...

I think you can hold the position that life is sacred without holding the belief that "God intended it to happen" - it's not inconsistent at all and I really do think that those are two different beliefs.  In the first, you're saying that a fertilized, implanted egg has the same rights as the mother, but you're not claiming any outside agency was involved in the pregnancy happening...so a pregnancy resulting from rape is tragic, but it just happened by a combination of free will (i.e. the rapist's free will that led him to commit rape) and chance (i.e. the chance that the woman was fertile at that time, and she happened to get impregnated).  In the second position, the one that Mourdock seems to be articulating, God's will is in there somewhere - even if he didn't cause the rapist to rape, it seems like maybe he caused the pregnancy to take, caused the egg to implant, who knows?  If you don't believe that, though, then why use the "God intended" terminology?  I don't see any other explanation of it.  At best it's just a matter of really poor wording, but poor wording in a religious context usually comes from somewhere - comes from parotting things you've heard in church time and time again to the point you've internalized them.  If that's the kind of guy you are, I stand by what I said before - you don't belong in public office.

Allons-y!

I think you can hold the position that life is sacred without holding the belief that "God intended it to happen"

I agree, but what I'm saying is that a large portion of those who hold the "life is sacred" position do so because they believe it's God's will.  The latter is not necessary for the former, but when the latter causes the former, opposing rape exceptions is logically consistent.

Meh, if you think that the pregnancy resulted from God's will, I don't see how you can really draw a distinction then and say the rape didn't also result from God's will (which is what Mourdock seems to be doing) - and if that's the belief you hold, I do think it's pretty monstrous.

Allons-y!

You can't draw a distinction.

I think there's an inherent tension in the idea that there should be no religious test to hold office - it's the problem that we've seen time and time again in the Muslim world, when Islamic extremists use free and fair elections to win office, and then immediately use their authority to bend the rules so that elections are no longer free and fair.  I think that if someone holds a religious belief that is incompatible with the idea that the US is a country where religious faiths tolerate each other and do not generally attempt to codify their beliefs into law and force them on non-believers, then that person should never be elected to hold public office, even if he or she shouldn't specifically be barred from running.  I'd hope the electorate is smart enough not to do so...but if I had to chose, let me pose this question to you - would you rather live in the Turkey of the 1990s, when the threat that the military might step in and disqualify Islamic extremists from holding office kept the country largely secular, or the Turkey of today, where Islamic law is increasingly becoming the rule of the land?

Allons-y!

"Generally"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generally?show=0&t=1351092938
generally
a : in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture <generally speaking>
b : as a rule : usually

emph added

Allons-y!

Now answer the question.

Allons-y!

So you'd be ok with a politician enacting a law that specifically codifies their religious beliefs (outlaws abortion, say), but not with them generally doing so (a broad code of ethics)?

I don't want to live in Turkey at all.

Umm, no, there's a reason why I highlighted the "as a rule" secondary definition.  That's what I meant - if you are focused on implementing religious law, and that's something you frequently push as part of your agenda (you're generally / as a rule focused on it), then that's a problem.  If it's a very, very minor thing (i.e., maybe you support Sunday Blue Laws or something like that), maybe it can be overlooked.

Allons-y!

Mourdock isn't doing that, so why do you have a problem with him?

His view of the basis of American law is clearly very strongly influenced by his religious beliefs, and he's using that to justify changing a fairly significant portion of American jurisprudence.  That's enough to bother me.

Allons-y!

That is not his official position.

If it's a very, very minor thing (i.e., maybe you support Sunday Blue Laws or something like that), maybe it can be overlooked.

When a politician injects his religion into political matters in a secular state it's never a minor thing. Take for instance your example of Sunday Blue Laws. There are people who wish to stay open on a Sunday who aren't Christians (hell, they might even be Christian) so by creating those laws you are imposing your religion on those people.

Let's impeach any President who claims God wants us to pass his jobs bill.

Wasn't that a sarcastic remark in response to Republican Tea Party douchebags wasting time by trying to pass H.Con.Res. 13 to reaffirm "In God We Trust"?

Ah looks like your old ass has been hitting the talking points again from Biggovernment.com.

"In the House of Representatives, what have you guys been doing, John?" Obama said on Wednesday, singling out House Speaker John A. Boehner.

"You've been debating a commemorative coin for baseball. You've had legislation reaffirming that `In God We Trust' is our motto. That's not putting people back to work," he continued. "I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work."

The next day, the headlines read: "Obama: God Backs Jobs Plan."

So, does he?

"I'm not sure the president was necessarily saying that God has put a stamp of approval on his plan," Pastor Steve Hassmer of the Calvary United Methodist Church in Arlington, Virginia, said in a telephone interview. "I do believe he was saying that sloganeering is not enough; that God wants us to roll up our sleeves and get moving."

Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/obama-jobs-plan-in-god-we/11/4/2011/id/37772#ixz z2AF3Se2Vr

 The next day his spokesman referenced a fictiuous bible quote to explain what Obama said in his speech the day before.

I'm sure, all the while  Mitt Romney was converting people in their graves to Mormonism. Because what's a more persuasive argument for converting to Mormonism than being dead?

Well, after all, those dead people have all that time to kill.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Stop that!  He's already confused enough!

not generally attempt to codify their beliefs into law and force them on non-believers, then that person should never be elected to hold public office, even if he or she shouldn't specifically be barred from running

 I'm sure Mitt Romney will appreciate your vote.

He left out: "And sendeth cancer upon 6 year old children, who he saveth from abortions, so they could suffereth and becometh angels."

He also got that guy's penis stuck in a jam jar 6,000 times.

I like that show American Greed and there's some episodes where Christians got conned out of their life-savings by Pastors and no one them ever goes "well that must've been part of God's plan."

Christians have heard the story of Job, maybe you should try reading it.

Which Christians? The Christian pastors who conned the dumbass Christians or the dumbass Christians themselves?

Worked out for Job, not so much for his 10 dead kids.  God's a dick.

Allons-y!

You can make an argument against slavery that's not based on religion, and use that to justify its abolition.  You can't easily make an argument against first trimester abortion that's not based on religion.

Allons-y!

You can easily make an argument against abortion that's not based on religion. The fact that you needed to include the 'first trimester' phrase in your assertion is evidence of that, and of the mental gymnastics necessary to avoid the obvious.

Give me a rational, non-religious reason to consider a lump of cells that can't survive on its own something that has all the same rights as a living, breathing, independently functioning human being.

Allons-y!

My argument would be that human life is a process that begins in extreme dependency and passes through several stages of increasing independence. The difference between a fetus and a 6 month old baby as regards dependency is pretty small.

The difference between a fetus and a 6 month old baby as regards dependency is pretty small.

Err, umm, except for that whole "can't breath on its own" part.  But yeah, feel free to ignore that.

Allons-y!

Err, umm, except for that whole "can't breath on its own" part.  But yeah, feel free to ignore that.

A few months ago I underwent surgery, and the anesthetist put a tube down my throat to keep me breathing during the procedure. Could you have aborted me while I was under?

But then my temporary condition ended, they took the tube out and I am apparently alive again. A close call, eh?

I don't understand why you and gerry find it so difficult to see the difference between something that, as part of its natural condition, cannot live on its own, and something that cannot live on its own because of some kind of injury or other outside concern.  They are simply not analogous things.

Allons-y!

Unless it's a condor egg.

Oh for crying out loud - it's not just illegal to destroy the eggs, it's illegal to interfere with the birds mating cycle, period.  It's also illegal to destroy their nests - the egg isn't a condor any more than the nest is a condor.

Allons-y!

If condor eggs are nothing more than eggs, why is it illegal to collect them?

If Condor nests aren't Condors, why is it illegal to destroy them?

Allons-y!

Condors are gay, so liberals have made wrecking their homes a hate crime.

It depends on whether or not he would enjoy it.

A 'living, breathing, independently functioning human being' is also a lump of cells that can't survive on its own. The womb adults live in is larger, and with generally greater resources for survivability, than that of an embryo, but it's still a womb. (Heck, in at least one way, embryos are better than adults at survivability -- they survive underwater for months.)

There is no rational reason other than preference and tradition not to consider a viable human embryo as worthy of the same rights we accord to any person, including those in comas, or drowning, or exposed to extreme cold. If something has human DNA and is trying to thrive, it should be considered human, with the legal opportunity to balance its rights against other people's.

The womb adults live in is larger, and with generally greater resources for survivability, than that of an embryo, but it's still a womb.

No, it's not.  Your use of language is so tortured I've got nothing to say - it's so bizarre that there's not even any way to make a coherent counter-argument.  If you are going to make that argument, then aren't we all committing murder every day by not doing everything we possibly can to make sure no one starves to death or otherwise lacks the resources they need?  We're all adult abortionists!

There is no rational reason other than preference and tradition not to consider a viable human embryo as worthy of the same rights we accord to any person

Here's a big one - it's not a person.  It's never lived on its own, breathed on its own, or formed a coherent thought.  A dog is more self-aware.  I think that there are valid arguments to be had about exactly when a fetus becomes human, but I don't think there's any way to make that argument about a first trimester fetus.  It can't possibly be self-aware, it could never survive outside the womb - it's. not. human.

Allons-y!

aren't we all committing murder every day by not doing everything we possibly can to make sure no one starves to death or otherwise lacks the resources they need?

You're messing up the analogy. With the world as a womb, we are each other's siblings, not providers. (Gaia, on the other hand, is a genocidal sociopath.)

Here's a big one - it's not a person.

Sure it is. It has human DNA, and it grows.

It's never lived on its own, breathed on its own, or formed a coherent thought.

Apart from the breathing example, neither has a newborn infant. It can't fix memories, much less hold a job or microwave a pizza for dinner. And yet, using one for a skeet target is frowned upon; go figure.

It can't possibly be self-aware

So what? Neither are women who have been drugged -- but we don't take "she wasn't self-aware" as a reason to justify rape. "Sorry, miss, but you were under the influence of rohypnol, which makes you not human during that time period," is not a valid argument -- and neither is this.

But since I enjoy seeing people twist in nooses of their own devising, answer this: if a human embryo isn't human, what is it? An animal byproduct, which can be regulated like milk or egg production? Medical waste? Something else that magically, miraculously transforms into human in the birth canal? (And scientifically describe that transformation, please.)

With the world as a womb, we are each other's siblings, not providers. (Gaia, on the other hand, is a genocidal sociopath.)

Then why are mothers obligated to keep their fetus alive?  Sink or swim fetus, like anything else.  Face it gerry, it's a terrible analogy.

Apart from the breathing example, neither has a newborn infant

And apart from being a skyscraper, the Empire State building isn't big

So what? Neither are women who have been drugged

There is a huge difference between something that's natural state is a lack of self-awareness, and forcibly denying someone of self-awareness.  I don't understand how you could think that argument makes any sense.

if a human embryo isn't human, what is it?

A human embryo.  I'm not being trite - it's distinct from those other things that you've mentioned, but it's not human.  It's its own thing.  It becomes fully human at some point, when it becomes capable of surviving outside the womb and self-aware.  Yes, I realize that means I'm saying newborns aren't fully human, and I'm okay with that and willing to make that argument.  I can see how other people might set the cutoff at different points, though, and I'm willing to go with the test of "when the fetus is likely to be able to survive on its own outside the womb without modern medical intervention", which puts us somewhere in the third trimester.  I stand by my assertion that there is no rational argument for considering a first trimester fetus to be a distinct human being.

Allons-y!

Then why are mothers obligated to keep their fetus alive?

They aren't. We don't prosecute women who miscarry for murder. We balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the fetus, often advocating what's best for both.

natural state is a lack of self-awareness

But it isn't. An embryo's natural state includes self-awareness -- it just takes a few years to get there, unless it dies first. Just like a coma patient might. Bully for you for taking the philosophically rigorous stance that newborns aren't human, but no court would agree with you.

Your unwillingness to accept a rational argument does not invalidate an argument's rationality.

They aren't.

You're being a tool.  You want a woman who removes a fetus whole from her body to be prosecuted for..something..if it happens to dies.  You want her body to be slave to the fetus until it comes to full term.  Admit it.

An embryo's natural state includes self-awareness -- it just takes a few years to get there

A sperm's natural state includes self awareness -- it just takes a few years to get there.

Allons-y!

You want her body to be slave to the fetus until it comes to full term.

What I want is for women to live by the principles of equality they've been spouting for years, and admit that they have some damned responsibility for the bodies they demand to have 'choice' over.

A sperm's natural state includes self awareness -- it just takes a few years to get there.

I've heard this kind of counter-argument enough recently to start thinking that liberals only love science because it was the class easiest for them to sleep through during school.

What I want is for women to live by the principles of equality they've been spouting for years, and admit that they have some damned responsibility for the bodies they demand to have 'choice' over.

Right, by imposing 'responsibility' on them via laws.

I've heard this kind of counter-argument enough recently to start thinking that liberals only love science because it was the class easiest for them to sleep through during school.

You're a medical doctor now?

What I want is for women to live by the principles of equality they've been spouting for years, and admit that they have some damned responsibility for the bodies they demand to have 'choice' over.

Two words: ectopic pregnancy.  I can't remember how we resolved this last time, but were you one of the ones telling me my wife should have shut up and died already?

I've heard this kind of counter-argument enough recently to start thinking that liberals only love science because it was the class easiest for them to sleep through during school.

Make a stupid argument, get a stupid counter-argument.  A fertilized egg won't become a human being without outside interference (i.e. without the mother's body's active help).  In that sense it's no different than any individual sperm - maybe a little further along the process, but it's still not a fucking fully formed human, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

Allons-y!

I can't remember how we resolved this last time, but were you one of the ones telling me my wife should have shut up and died already?

I assure you, that never happened. Neither have I ever advocated banning abortions driven by medical necessity -- not then, not now.

it's no different than any individual sperm - maybe a little further along the process, but it's still not a fucking fully formed human, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

In this case, the 'process' involves finding 23 matching chromosomes, and fusing to become viable. Thinking this is the same as taking in nutrients is an error on the level of thinking a girl can get pregnant from giving a blowjob -- forgivable once, if you're 13 and don't know better.

Neither have I ever advocated banning abortions driven by medical necessity -- not then, not now.

I'm curious why you can justify killing a human life in that case, but no other.  The way I see it, you either have to be all in or all out.  If any fertilized embryo is a human being, then any abortion, even to save the life of the mother, is murder, isn't it?  So how do you make an exception?  And if you're willing to make an exception that one case, why not others?

In this case, the 'process' involves finding 23 matching chromosomes, and fusing to become viable. Thinking this is the same as taking in nutrients...

Why's egg fertilization so much more special, in your eyes, than nutrient intake, or for that matter, than the formation of individual sperm or unfertilized eggs?  I'll give you a hint - it's because of your religion.  To me, one's no more special than the other.  You've yet to articulate to me why the fertilization point is the line that shouldn't be crossed, in any way that has meaning without being placed in a religious context.

Allons-y!

I'm curious why you can justify killing a human life in that case, but no other.

Sometimes, one person has to die for another one to live. That's just cold, hard reality. If/when there's a way to extract an embryo from the Fallopian tube from a woman with an ectopic pregnancy without killing or debilitating her, I'll advocate in favor of that.

it's because of your religion.

No, it's because of science. I don't know how much more clear I can make that, than:
Egg + sperm = human
Human + nutrient = human
Egg/sperm + nutrient = nutrient

This is the biology of two-gender sexual reproduction at its most basic. If you can't accept this, you've failed at understanding science far worse than the hardest of the hard-core anti-evolutionists.

I think you could poll a whole fucking boatload of biologists and find that there's not remotely a consensus that a fetus is a human being, so I'm not sure what the fuck you're talking about.

Allons-y!

I'm curious why you can justify killing a human life in that case, but no other.  The way I see it, you either have to be all in or all out.  

Casting your opponent's position as required to be one extreme or the other is a false dichotomy.  Gerry's position (based on reading his posts) is far more rational and nuanced than that.  

If any fertilized embryo is a human being, then any abortion, even to save the life of the mother, is murder, isn't it?  So how do you make an exception?  And if you're willing to make an exception that one case, why not others?

Because some deaths and some killings are not considered murder.  Taking someone off of life support when the doctors give a very low chance of survival isn't considered murder.  Triage in a military hospital is not considered murder.  Self defense isn't considered murder.  Our society allows killing, and not taking extraordinary efforts to save a life, in some cases and not others.  Even with the point of view that a embryo is a human, this can still be one of those killings that isn't murder, very much like triage.  

Why's egg fertilization so much more special, in your eyes, than nutrient intake, or for that matter, than the formation of individual sperm or unfertilized eggs?  I'll give you a hint - it's because of your religion.

I'm an atheist, but I find this statement strange.  A fertilized egg (zygote) is quite different than an unfertilized egg (gamete).  One difference is that it's the complete genetic information necessary to construct an individual human.  The blueprint, the genetic code of the adult human, has been set.  

To me, one's no more special than the other.  

You've yet to articulate to me why the fertilization point is the line that shouldn't be crossed, in any way that has meaning without being placed in a religious context.

My position on the subject is not the same as Gerry, but to me a zygote is more special than a gamete, and an implanted embryo is somewhat more special.  I'm not really for outlawing their removal, but I would feel uncomfortable being involved in the process.  As it starts to look more like a proto-human, I start to become less and less comfortable with its casual eradication.  

Clearly, my discomfort occurs well before yours, since you have suggested that born children who cannot yet form memories are not necessarily humans yet.  

While Gerry's position is likely informed by his religion it is possible, even outside of religion, to have a different opinion on this subject.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

I'm not really for outlawing their removal, but I would feel uncomfortable being involved in the process.

And that involvement will never get to the point of something growing inside your body. You will never experience what is to have someone tell you that thing inside your body is HAS to happen, even beyond your will (some believe that even if it is forcefully implanted inside of you).

And that involvement will never get to the point of something growing inside your body. You will never experience what is to have someone tell you that thing inside your body is HAS to happen, even beyond your will (some believe that even if it is forcefully implanted inside of you).

The biological system of mammals was not my design, but it is what it is.  A newly created pre-human lives its first ~9 months in what amounts to a human factory built into a female human's body.  We do not yet have the technology to remove them from the factory and survive; perhaps one day we will.  The maintenance of that factory and the building of the human is very taxing on the female in which it is contained.

Telling myself the larval stage of humans is not a life feels dishonest.  It's clearly a primitive life with a potential for something much more complex.  Even if I try to lie to myself in order to achieve something closer to gender equality (a noble goal), it's still lying.  I do not worry about other non-human primitive life, so I could argue that this primitive life does not require protection, because the likely outcome of continued development into higher life does not outweigh the major inconvenience of the adult female.  What bugs me is that a human baby is also primitive (although far more complex and well developed than an embryo), but with a potential for something more complex, and most of us agree those need protecting.  The only serious differences are how well developed, and that the inconvenience of the adult woman is no longer physically required to perform that protection.  Any support for abortion must maintain that undeveloped pre-human life is less important than the inconvenience to the woman, or that insufficiently developed pre-humans are simply not important.  

If we decide those pre-humans are a life that requires protecting, the inconvenience and possible degradation of health of the adult female becomes a necessity.  Some convince themselves the life is not important, or even that it's not a life, because they abhor the idea of forced inconvenience.  I don't base my logic of what something is or is not based on how inconvenient it might be for someone, including myself (although in this case, I will never be put to the test, as you point out).  

I might wish we had a biological system more fair to women, but we do not.  

Also, I note that you refer to the fetus as "that thing inside your body."  My wife is far more pro-choice than I am.  She had a miscarriage.  I have never heard her, or anyone else who had a miscarriage say, "I lost the fetus" or, "I ejected a complex lump of cells".  That kind of language only EVER happens during the defense of abortion, even by people who support abortion.  Even seriously pro-choice women inevitably say "I lost the baby".  

All that said, while I'm personally uncomfortable with abortion, I do not support legislation or constitutional amendments which prevent others with fewer objections or a different understanding of the matter from having or performing them.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Also, I note that you refer to the fetus as "that thing inside your body."  My wife is far more pro-choice than I am.  She had a miscarriage.  I have never heard her, or anyone else who had a miscarriage say, "I lost the fetus" or, "I ejected a complex lump of cells".  That kind of language only EVER happens during the defense of abortion, even by people who support abortion.  Even seriously pro-choice women inevitably say "I lost the baby".

When I wrote "that thing" maybe I was projecting the sentiments of Republican politicians as they like saying things like "rape thing".

Your wife is more pro-choice? Can you clarify what that means? Why do you think she is more pro-choice? Again, what does "seriously" pro-choice mean? Is there a "casual" pro-choice?

Here comes the miscarriage story. A miscarriage is a sad event because someone wanted a child from a pregnancy, of course they project the 'baby in the future" into the fetus. That's like an imaginary friend, it doesn't really exist as a baby but people think of it as a baby like they would clothe an imaginary girl, but might end up with a boy.

Using the word "convenient" or relating it to convenience is just plain old insulting and ridiculous. There's nothing convenient about getting an abortion or inconvenient about being pregnant. I'm sure up until your wife had a miscarriage, she didn't feel her pregnancy was inconvenient. I doubt - her being seriously pro-choice and all - convenience would even enter into her frame of reference in regards to pregnancy.

Another thing is that women or that thing inside of a women are not human factories. They are living human beings with the capacity to create another human beings, that doesn't make their lives equal to that of a fetus. A woman utility to society then fetus does. A woman can create multiple fetuses at another time if she loses one. The fetus has no utility until and even after it comes out of the woman's body. Comparing the two as equal beings is more than ridiculous. Again, I doubt your seriously pro-choice wife that had the miscarriage would appreciate comparing her hopes, dreams, memories, experiences, knowledge, relationships, abilities, imagination... to that of a fetus. Potential is not the same as actual.

what does "seriously" pro-choice mean? Is there a "casual" pro-choice?

Well, apparently for you seriously pro-choice means abortion is an option for the unborn, the born, or even the unutile homeless. And since you apparently also think pregnant women are crazy, what with their projecting an actual future life onto something that hasn't even filed a tax return yet, they are obviously incapable of deciding for themselves.

We're usually cool with each other, so don't let your crazy Catholic side put words in my mouth. Have a drink if need be. Pro-choice means abortion is an option for the unborn, period. Until it stops being a fetus - IE not anymore connected to the woman's body, it is unborn, and abortion is an option.

I don't think it's crazy to imagine a fetus today as a baby in the future. Plenty of people look at a baby and imagine a child they can play with, teach, and have conversations with. They plan by setting up college funds and such. There's nothing crazy about that but that doesn't change the fact what that thing is right now is not a baby. It's not a baby, it's a fetus. Likewise, imagining having conversations with a small child doesn't turn a baby into a small child. Imagining a small child graduating college doesn't make it into a young adult. Imagining an young adult get divorce for the 3rd time and drink himself to death after having a relationship with a transgender woman will not make that young adult into a middle-aged guy.

Your wife is more pro-choice? Can you clarify what that means? Why do you think she is more pro-choice? Again, what does "seriously" pro-choice mean? Is there a "casual" pro-choice?

There are degrees of pro-choice.  Some think abortion should be allowed up to 3 months, others up until the moment of birth (See China and 1 child policy).  Some think it's not a good thing but should be legal because it's sometimes necessary, and others think it's not that big of a deal.  Some are just a bit on one side of the fence, and others care so much that they donate, are activists, or would never vote for someone who wasn't pro-choice.  

If you think of those sentences as sliding scales, she's further to the end of the sentences than I am.  That's what "more pro-choice" means.  

Using the word "convenient" or relating it to convenience is just plain old insulting and ridiculous. There's nothing convenient about getting an abortion or inconvenient about being pregnant. I'm sure up until your wife had a miscarriage, she didn't feel her pregnancy was inconvenient. I doubt - her being seriously pro-choice and all - convenience would even enter into her frame of reference in regards to pregnancy.

We disagree.  I am constrained by the language in which we are communicating.  I have no more precise brief description of the impact of an unwanted pregnancy than a major inconvenience (troublesome, awkward, or difficult).  How would you refer to it?  Problem?  Discomfort?  It seems inefficient to post a link to an essay detailing all the impacts to the impregnated female each and every time I refer to the impact of an unwanted pregnancy.  I'm trying my best to describe the ideas.  If you have a better way for me to have expressed the idea in a small number of words, I'm willing to listen and if I agree that your description is more efficient, I'll consider using different language in the future.  

Further, even a wanted pregnancy is seriously inconvenient.  

I didn't intend to imply that getting an abortion was convenient (depending on point of view, some may view it as less inconvenient than carrying an unwanted child to term).  

Another thing is that women or that thing inside of a women are not human factories.

A uterus is essentially a human factory.  Its purpose is to build a human.  If you had to describe human reproduction to a 4 year old wanting to know where his upcoming baby sister is coming from, you might (and I have) use very similar language.  Other than getting into details, I think that accurately sums up a uterus and I think outside of a discussion of abortion, unlikely to offend.  If I described a liver as "essentially a blood cleaner", would you be upset?

I never said, and never would say that a woman is a human factory.

They are living human beings with the capacity to create another human beings, that doesn't make their lives equal to that of a fetus. A woman utility to society then fetus does. A woman can create multiple fetuses at another time if she loses one. The fetus has no utility until and even after it comes out of the woman's body. Comparing the two as equal beings is more than ridiculous. Again, I doubt your seriously pro-choice wife that had the miscarriage would appreciate comparing her hopes, dreams, memories, experiences, knowledge, relationships, abilities, imagination... to that of a fetus. Potential is not the same as actual.

I didn't say any of these things you're accusing me of.  I don't disagree with any of what you said in this block (except that you imply that I claimed an adult woman and fetus are the same).  

--------------------------

I hadn't considered the imaginary friend angle with respect to why fetuses are referred to so differently in wanted pregnancies than in abortions.  Perhaps those who want a baby overly humanize a fetus, which leads to the disparity in language.  Something I'll think about some more.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

There's really no degrees of pro-choice or pro-life, they fallacies. You either or you aren't. Either abortion is legal or it is not. Deep inside everyone knows this. The Todd Akins, John Kosters, and Richard Mourdocks are the consistent people here. They think a fetus is a life and can not be aborted in under any circumstances. Pro-choice people have to leave the choice to the woman, until the fetus is out of her body. So they know that being pro-choice means being pro-choice in all scenarios to be consistent.

I find your rigid insistance on either with us 100% or against us 100% illogical but common.  

Many people who claim to be pro-choice (including me) do not advocate legal access to elective abortion in the final trimester.  Deep inside, they must be pro-life.  

I don't like the chances for your cause if everyone realizes you are right that either abortion is always legal or it's always not.  A lot of people have what must seem to you like wierd imaginary friend issues with about-to-be born infants.  

I think we must just accept that we disagree on this subject.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

My stance is rigid, but not illogical (you haven't pointed out what is illogical about it). It is logical and consistent.

Deep inside, they could be pro-life or pro-choice (maybe they let their emotions get in the way), but they certainly aren't consistent.

A lot of people have what must seem to you like wierd imaginary friend issues with about-to-be born infants.  

Are you daft? Or wholly inconsistent? In the last reply to me, you said:

I hadn't considered the imaginary friend angle with respect to why fetuses... Perhaps those who want a baby overly humanize a fetus... Something I'll think about some more.  

"I'll think about it some more" turned into "let me be sarcastic."

Read comment # 147 where I explain the 'imaginary friend' idea and why there's nothing weird or crazy about it.

Read comment # 147 where I explain the 'imaginary friend' idea...

Man, that was worth waiting a week for electricity!

I meant comment #142, but of course you ejaculated to such a petty thing.

Creamy.

"I'll think about it some more" turned into "let me be sarcastic."

I thought the language was inflamatory, but that there might be the seeds of something worth thinking about.  I didn't say I agreed fully, and more to the point, most people don't even if I do.  Most people don't, and that's why it would be problem for the pro-choice cause if you were able to convince everyone that the only two choices are between no abortion or elective abortion up until labor is complete.  I believe that if you present the choice in that manner, no abortion will be chosen.  Even if you don't think the idea that a fetus has value equal to that of an imaginary friend is weird or crazy, many would.  

My stance is rigid, but not illogical (you haven't pointed out what is illogical about it).It is logical and consistent.

It is only logical if you start with the axiom that socieity could only ever choose between two possible values for a fetus, zero or infinite, and that it couldn't change at any stage of development.  Otherwise, it is illogical that abortion must be 100% allowed or 100% disallowed.  I think that axiom is wrong and illogical (a false dilemna), so I consider your position illogical.  

The conclusions of logic depend on the axioms.  Two logical and consistant people can arrive at very different conclusions if their axioms differ.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Nice backtracking lol.

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up this 'most people' bs? Consensus is not logic. Most people in the world believe in imaginary beings and all kinds of other goofy shit. That doesn't make all that shit somehow logical and rational.

If this is about politics, then say that. Because it seems to me what you're really saying is "You're absolutely right, but politically it's not a good position." Well then fine, we can argue about the merits of the politics of presenting absolute logical, rational, and consistent choices in regards to abortion. Then I would say to you politically it doesn't really matter. You think these people are proposing incremental shifts towards the pro-life agenda, but they aren't. They are proposing radically invasive steps towards removal of women's autonomy, IE the personhood amendments or transvaginal ultrasound.

You're just making up axioms. There's nothing logical or consistent about your position[s] (notice the plural because you would have to hold varies positions for your beliefs). As port has already did a fine job of pointing out in this thread: these are rationalizations to mesh with you being uncomfortable with picking a damn side. Either the fetus is a life or it is not, everything else is illogical and inconsistent and now downright delusional. That's okay though, like you have pointed out, you are in good company.

You're just making up axioms

Either the fetus is a life or it is not

I'm not making up anything.

I believe just as you do, it's a fetus at 9 weeks and a fetus at 38 weeks.

The only ones being intellectual honesty are the hypocrites that think it's okay to kill a life because of a horrific situation.

It is a fact that inside a pregnant woman is a fetus until it comes out.

I don't think the things you think are self-evident are self-evident; I actually think some of them are wrong.  

For this reason, you and I cannot agree no matter how long we argue or no matter what logic is applied.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Another thing I want to squash is this myth about third trimester elective abortion. It doesn't exist. If you can find me any significant (I would bet you can't find one) number of abortions that occur in the third trimester because of "whim" or "inconvenience" then I will declare myself pro-life the next minute. If you think that they exist, then you and Zyx are fantastic idiots or massive trolls, because I'll tell you there no woman that spends 6 months with a fetus inside of her and decides on a whim that "oh fuck it, I don't feel like having this anymore."

It doesn't exist. If you can find me any significant (I would bet you can't find one) number...

Do you have first hand experience of elective abortion in the third trimester? Do you have any proof of elective abortion in the third trimester occurring? Do you have any proof that women have abortions on the whim?

Dr. Martin Haskell has stated "And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective...."

BS stuff, non-evidence. Even with the BS quote attributed to him, it doesn't say it there's elective abortions in the third trimester.

It's not a "BS quote", and the first hand experience of an expert in the procedure is evidence.

Another thing I want to squash is this myth about third trimester elective abortion. It doesn't exist. If you can find me any significant (I would bet you can't find one) number of abortions that occur in the third trimester because of "whim" or "inconvenience" then I will declare myself pro-life the next minute. If you think that they exist, then you and Zyx are fantastic idiots or massive trolls, because I'll tell you there no woman that spends 6 months with a fetus inside of her and decides on a whim that "oh fuck it, I don't feel like having this anymore."

Why would you be pro-life if a bunch of people have an abortion in the third trimester?  Your position all along is a fetus at any stage is just a fetus, and has no inherent value.  You are not being logical or consistant.

Now I know that not only do you have an axiom that I disagree with, but you have also failed at applying logic to those axioms.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

It's a facetious statement, because I know it doesn't exist.

And to your other post, whatever that makes your believe your nonsensical position is valid.

P.S. You know it, that's why you spent lines talking about the politics of it.

If you know it doesn't exist why did you immediately qualify your challenge with a demand for a "significant" number before you'd change your mind? If it doesn't exist then surely you see no harm in laws outlawing it?

You don't see any harm in creating laws that are useless? Or meant to find solutions to problems that don't exist? That's incredibly inefficient and nonsensical.

If you know it doesn't exist why did you immediately qualify your challenge with a demand for a "significant" number before you'd change your mind?

Bad writing.

You going to answer any of my questions?

So you know it does in fact exist?

P.S. You know it, that's why you spent lines talking about the politics of it.

I have not been dishonest or disingenuous with you at any time.  That you believe someone on the other side of a debate MUST believe you are correct but is lying is on you; I take no responsibility for it and will not try to dissuade you.  

Despite that I disagree with your logic, I took on face value that you were being honest with me as I am with you.  Although I questioned your logic, I did not doubt your honesty until that post.  

You either believe what you say or you don't: that a fetus at all stages is just a fetus and has no value.  It can be disposed of for any reason the woman might have.  

If you don't, you have been dishonest with me in many posts.  If you do, you have been illogical in your post about being pro-life if third trimester elective abortions occur.  

For my part, I believe that fetus can have a non-zero value, and that the value can change over the course of the pregnancy (generally increasing, though never exceeding the value of the life of the adult female).  What makes late-term abortion restrictions possible that at some point in the development the value exceeds the value of the woman's autonomy, though still not her health.  You seem to think this view is impossible to hold, and that I must be lying or crazy.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

You either believe what you say or you don't: that a fetus at all stages is just a fetus and has no value.  It can be disposed of for any reason the woman might have.

I never said anything about value or lack there of, I talked about who has priority and that is the woman, until the fetus is out of that woman's body. I have kept the same position throughout the thread. You are now hinged on my facetious statement to highlight some kind of contradiction. There is no contradiction. It was facetious wager, another thing you definitely know or you're just incredibly stupid now. I know you can't find an example of an example of elective abortion in the third trimester. You know that as well, it's a fantasy so the conclusion is there is no reason to talk about third trimester abortion as if it is elective (IE cruel terms like "whim" and "convenience). Atleast Ephraim is honest about his position, he thinks there is elective abortion in the third trimester and he provided some BS links to prove there is.

What makes late-term abortion restrictions possible that at some point in the development the value exceeds the value of the woman's autonomy, though still not her health.  You seem to think this view is impossible to hold, and that I must be lying or crazy.

No I think that value is illogical and irrational because human life is human life, there are no "grades" or steps to human life. Either human life is valuable and should be maintained or it's not. There is inherent contradiction amongst those that believe the fetus is human life but can be disposed off if the situation leading to the fetus is horrific. If you believe abortion is okay in situations of rape and incest at anytime during a pregnancy and yet you still believe you are pro-life then you are fuckin' fool. Likewise if believe you are pro-choice up until a certain point within the pregnancy, then the fetus can not be disposed off then you are fuckin' fool. That is all.

It was facetious wager, another thing you definitely know or you're just incredibly stupid now.

I assume people mean what they say until they give evidence to the contrary.  Very well, if the bargain was made only for rhetorical effect and not intended to illustrate your position, then it is possible that post was neither illogical nor dishonest.  I'm glad, because I was hoping you had not been dishonest with me.  

I know you can't find an example of an example of elective abortion in the third trimester. You know that as well, it's a fantasy so the conclusion is there is no reason to talk about third trimester abortion as if it is elective (IE cruel terms like "whim" and "convenience).

Does this suggest that you think third term abortions are bad, but that laws are unnecessary because most women choose correctly?  Should we not allow complete priority to the woman if they begin to choose incorrectly in large enough numbers?  

No I think that value is illogical and irrational because human life is human life, there are no "grades" or steps to human life.

You assert that this is true.  You suggest it's self-evident.  I disagree.

Either human life is valuable and should be maintained or it's not.

You assert that these are the only choices.  You suggest it's self-evident.  I disagree.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Does this suggest that you think third term abortions are bad, but that laws are unnecessary because most women choose correctly?  Should we not allow complete priority to the woman if they begin to choose incorrectly in large enough numbers?

I don't make a value judgment about that because it doesn't involve me. I have no right to tell a woman with a fetus inside of her what she can do with it. I am Pro-choice, so I accept her choice regardless of the circumstances. There is no "incorrect" choice when they fetus remains in her body.

Either abortion is legal or it is not. Deep inside everyone knows this...

Denial is  your word.

What's yours?

I've used plenty in this thread. You might want to read them.

Your words make no sense. You wrote, "There's really no degrees of pro-choice or pro-life, they fallacies. You either or you aren't." People who believe as you do are a minority.

Doesn't change anything. It remains a fetus until it comes out of the woman.

You are cleanly missing the central point: many people believe it is morally acceptable to kill a fetus at 12 weeks gestation, but morally unacceptable at 36 weeks.

There are also many people who believe that a groundhog's shadow will predict how many more weeks of winter we'll get each year.

Allons-y!

The groundhog belief is mere ignorance whereas the abortion belief is a matter of opinion. One side's opinion in the abortion debate carries no more weight of truth than the other.

True enough, which is why it's all the more disgusting to me that the pro-life side chooses to privilege an unborn fetus over a living, breathing, fully autonomous human being.  

Allons-y!

... the pro-life side chooses to privilege an unborn fetus over a living, breathing, fully autonomous human being

Are you sure you didn't grossly misunderstand something?

If you think abortion should be illegal, that's what you're doing.  You're saying a fetus's right to continued development outweighs a woman's right not to have a fetus in her body if she doesn't want it there.  If that's not privileging an unborn fetus over a a living, breathing, fully autonomous human being, then what is it?

Allons-y!

Most ardent anti-abortionists will allow for abortion if the life of the mother is truly in jeopardy. But, yes, they are " privileging" the life* of an unborn fetus over the whim of the mother.

* Funny that you change "life" to "continued development."

A fetus isn't alive.  The fact that you imply women who have abortions do so on a "whim" pretty much says all that needs to be said about your desire to address this situation in an intelligent manner.  Not sure if you're trolling or just being an ass, but either way, fuck you, not in the mood for it today.

Allons-y!

A fetus isn't alive

The fact that you imply women who have abortions do so on a "whim"...

A fetus isn't alive

By any definition of "life" that hasn't been twisted to bolster a pro-choice argument, a fetus is alive.

It's alive like your foot is alive.  It's not capable of independent life, at least not until 28 weeks (and even then it's about 50/50 odds that the child will survive and won't have serious disabilities...you don't get to 90% odds on that count until about 32 weeks), and even then only with massive modern medical intervention.  If a fetus can't be naturally birthed and expect to survive independently, then, again, there's no rational argument that it has independent life.

Allons-y!

Was this girl trying to get an abortion on a 'whim' Kenneth?

Allons-y!

I have no idea, but what has rape got to do with anything?

Read the comments on this article and tell me if the women with troubled pregnancies who contemplated abortion at 22 or 23 weeks rather than waiting, because if they waited past 24 weeks they might be forced to carry a non-viable fetus to term, were doing it "on a whim" Kenneth?

Allons-y!

I'd rather not spend the time reading that, so for the purposes of this discussion I will stipulate that those women all had considered, rational reasons for choosing to undergo an abortion.

What of it?

That belief is misguided and inconsistent.

What about it is inconsistent? Why is it misguided?

Where I live "unlawfully" killing an imaginary friend is first degree manslaughter.

And I completely disagree with that. I do not think that killing a pregnant woman should be a double murder.

What should the charges be if a pro-life protester shouts bible verses at a pregnant woman walking to an abortion clinic holding a condor egg and it startles her causing her to drop it and to miscarry?

He/she should not be charged, but compensated 50% of the debt increase saved from the miscarry and Condor Egg.

Also, I note that you refer to the fetus as "that thing inside your body."  My wife is far more pro-choice than I am.  She had a miscarriage.  I have never heard her, or anyone else who had a miscarriage say, "I lost the fetus" or, "I ejected a complex lump of cells".  That kind of language only EVER happens during the defense of abortion, even by people who support abortion.  Even seriously pro-choice women inevitably say "I lost the baby".  

That doesn't, on the other hand, make it a baby.  My wife also miscarried - more to the point, she was forced to abort an ectopic pregnancy.  The preferred method of dealing with that is the chemotherapy drug methotrexate.  She got the shot and miscarried a few days later.  Whatever was growing in her wasn't viable, and as much as we mourned the loss of a potential child (particularly since she has diagnosed fertility problems, and this was the furthest along she's ever been...a whole six weeks), her bodily integrity came before that complex lump of cells.  I don't hold to the belief that a fetus is human for the reasons I've already articulated, which I'm not going to rehash (it's a definitional matter and you either agree on it or you don't), but even if you do, I think it's blanket hypocrisy to support abortion when it's rape (particularly) or the life of the mother at stake, but at no other time.  If it's murder, it's murder.  If you can see that the mother's right to do with her body as she sees fit (in the case of rape) is more important that whatever the rights of the fetus are, then how you fail to logically extend that to the rest of pregnancy is beyond me.  I think this pretty much sums it up.

Allons-y!

I think it's blanket hypocrisy to support abortion when it's rape (particularly) or the life of the mother at stake, but at no other time.  If it's murder, it's murder.

But that's you ascribing a motivation to the other person's position.  In the case of the life of the mother, even if the pro-lifer thinks abortion is wrong because it's normally murder doesn't mean they'll think it's murder when it's self-defense.

As far as rape goes, you seem to be going back to what I was saying earlier: if someone opposes abortion on "life is sacred" grounds, then he or she is merely being consistent in not making an exception for rape.  That absolutist reasoning, however, is not the only way to arrive at a pro-life position.

But that's you ascribing a motivation to the other person's position.  In the case of the life of the mother, even if the pro-lifer thinks abortion is wrong because it's normally murder doesn't mean they'll think it's murder when it's self-defense.

Not sure how the self-defense analogy holds up when the woman chose to get pregnant - she put herself in that positions and she knew the risks, right?  You can't claim self-defense if you start the fight...

That absolutist reasoning, however, is not the only way to arrive at a pro-life position.

Based on my definitional perspective, it's the only one that I think is logically consistent (even if I completely disagree with it).  If a fetus isn't a sacred individual human life, then there's no justifiable reason to oppose abortion.  If it is a sacred individual human life, then abortion should be banned in all cases.  If you have an in-between position it's because you're squeemishly uncomfortable with either abortion, or with forcing a woman who's been raped (or whatever) to carry her fetus to term and you're trying to find a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Allons-y!

Not sure how the self-defense analogy holds up when the woman chose to get pregnant

I know the risks if I decide to walk through the Trinidad neighborhood in northeast DC.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't have a self-defense defense if someone attacked me and I ended up killing him.

Based on my definitional perspective, it's the only one that I think is logically consistent (even if I completely disagree with it).  If a fetus isn't a sacred individual human life, then there's no justifiable reason to oppose abortion.

One could easily assign great moral weight to the life of a fetus/embryo/pick-your-stage-of-development that is less than assigned to the life of an independent human being but greater than to an individual's right to full autonomy.  In that scenario, the circumstances of conception can add weight to either side of the scale: e.g. post-apocalyptic recovery adds weight to the life side while vicious crime perpetrated against the mother adds weight to the individual autonomy side.

I know the risks if I decide to walk through the Trinidad neighborhood in northeast DC.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't have a self-defense defense if someone attacked me and I ended up killing him.

Well, it depends on how we define the act of getting pregnant, doesn't it?  Considering how fixated pro-lifers seem to be about how getting pregnant is a choice and a matter of personal responsibility, I would think that if we're going by their worldview, then it's more akin to getting into a fight than just walking through a dangerous neighborhood.

One could easily assign great moral weight to the life of a fetus/embryo/pick-your-stage-of-development that is less than assigned to the life of an independent human being but greater than to an individual's right to full autonomy.  In that scenario, the circumstances of conception can add weight to either side of the scale: e.g. post-apocalyptic recovery adds weight to the life side while vicious crime perpetrated against the mother adds weight to the individual autonomy side.

Sure, but any rubric like that is going to be arbitrary, and I see no justifiable reason, ever, to allow some arbitrary moral code to impinge on a woman's bodily autonomy.  So we get back to the fact that it comes down to first things - either the fetus is a fully formed human from conception, or it's not.  The rest comes down to a whole lot of post hoc rationalization.

Allons-y!

Sure, but any rubric like that is going to be arbitrary, and I see no justifiable reason, ever, to allow some arbitrary moral code to impinge on a woman's bodily autonomy.

I'm not making that argument.  I'm pointing out how someone can have a belief system that results in them being generally pro-life but make exceptions for rape.

So we get back to the fact that it comes down to first things - either the fetus is a fully formed human from conception, or it's not.

It might come down to that for you but it doesn't for everyone.  Sure, if we use your and indecentspeech's framework, everybody has to be either absolutely pro-life or absolutely pro-choice, but many, many people do not accept your initial framework which is why we see a spectrum of stances between the two absolutes.

I'm not making that argument.  I'm pointing out how someone can have a belief system that results in them being generally pro-life but make exceptions for rape.

I don't really get what you're saying here.  Yeah, anyone can believe anything they want to, but that doesn't make their beliefs inconsistent and irrational.  You've yet to really say anything that would convince me there's any logic behind the people (either pro-life or pro-choice) who don't take one extreme or the other, except "I find rape/partial birth abortion/children born of incest/etc icky" and am going to make an exception because of that.  It's all rationalization.

many people do not accept your initial framework which is why we see a spectrum of stances between the two absolutes.

That's really the only framework there is - the other "frameworks" amount to, again, I have formed an opinion about when abortion is okay and when it's not, and now I'm going to work backwards and torture logic to try to justify it.

Allons-y!

Yeah, anyone can believe anything they want to, but that doesn't make their beliefs inconsistent and irrational.

That should say, "that doesn't mean their beliefs aren't inconsistent and irrational."

Allons-y!

Yeah, anyone can believe anything they want to, but that doesn't make their beliefs inconsistent and irrational.

I think you meant it doesn't make their beliefs consistent and rational (to which I obviously disagree).

I hesitate to use a simplified graphic because I disagree that it's necessary a simple, black-and-white position, but think of it as though we assign weights to all sorts of different aspects of a scenario.  In that case, a pro-lifer who wants an exception for rape might have assigned weights such that:

"Life of unborn" + "Woman taking actions known to produce life" >> "Individual autonomy" >> "Life of unborn"

Or maybe

"Life of unborn" >> "Individual autonomy" >> "Life of unborn" + "horrendous act forced on woman to produce life"

There's no backwards or tortured logic.  It's a weighing of all circumstances before deciding whether something is "right" or "wrong".  Almost all people do it for everything.  Even killing a human being, for example, while generally considered "wrong" has exceptions to that wrongness-- for most people-- depending on the circumstances.  Why do you feel abortion has to be different?

Why do you feel abortion has to be different?

Because if you believe at all in the value of individual human autonomy, then there is nothing more important that the ability to control what's going on in your own body.  If you believe abortion should be illegal, then you need to be able to justify your willingness to ignore that.  Here's a thought experiment for you - let's say that you volunteered to donate your kidney because your identical twin brother needs one.  You wake up after surgery to find that the surgeons dropped your spare kidney and ruined it, but despite being a klutz, the surgeon is so brilliant he was able to use a radical new technique to surgically bond you and your brother together in such a way that his body is relying on your (one) kidney - essentially you're conjoined twins now.  You face a non-trivial risk that if you stay conjoined, your kidney will fail and you will die before another kidney becomes available for transplant.  If you remove his surgical bond to your body, though, he'll die right away.  Should you have the legal right to be surgically removed from him, even though it will kill him?  With who should that decision ultimately lay - you or him?

Allons-y!

I'm not sure the purpose of the thought experiment.  Of course I think the decision should be mine.  But I'm pro-choice.  I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to take the pro-life position.  I'm pointing out that there are consistent, logical means by which someone can arrive at a position between the two absolutes.

The purpose of the thought experiment was to show that if you look at the issue objectively, there's really no position to take other than one of the absolutes.  I mean, yeah, obviously people have these justifications, but I'm saying that all they amount to is rationalization back from the position that they instinctively want to be right.  Do you really disagree with that?  Do you think anyone sits down, tabula rasa, and objectively looks at the facts, then arrives at one of those half way point decisions?  

Allons-y!

The purpose of the thought experiment was to show that if you look at the issue objectively, there's really no position to take other than one of the absolutes.

Not just one of the absolutes, but your absolute.  Until now, I've never seen anyone use that thought experiment with any intent other than to convince someone of the correctness of a pro-choice stance-- that's why it amplifies the downsides of a pregnancy instead of simply providing a parallel scenario.

Really, you don't think it possible that even an ardent pro-lifer might not come to the conclusion that you're not obligated to be shackled indefinitely to another adult reliant on your support due to absolutely no action on your part?  It's a horrible analogy to buttress the either/or proposition because it only gets there by eliminating the nuances that allow for a spectrum of views on abortion; hell, if anything, it's a parallel to the rape exception.

Really, you don't think it possible that even an ardent pro-lifer might not come to the conclusion that you're not obligated to be shackled indefinitely to another adult reliant on your support due to absolutely no action on your part?

I think if they're being consistent, that's where they have to go with it.  I'm not saying it's impossible for people to come to inconsistent positions - we're human after all, it's what we do - but, again, those are going to be developed through post hoc reasoning.

Allons-y!

Your argument is a tautology: only inconsistent logic can arrive at conclusion X, therefore anyone arriving at conclusion X is using inconsistent logic.

There are numerous ways to arrive at a pro-life position other than "life is sacred".  Many-- all that I can think of-- would allow one to be pro-life while, with consistent logic, not believing that one is obligated to be indefinitely shackled to another adult whose condition is not the result of one's actions.  Can you point to what was post hoc about the inequalities that I listed above?

Can you point to what was post hoc about the inequalities that I listed above?

What post?  After all this back and forth I'm getting lost!

Allons-y!

Sorry-- comment 177.  The one where I use an inequality statement to say that people can assign different moral weights to certain aspects of circumstance and therefore arrive at different moral conclusions based no circumstances, e.g. abortion is okay in the event of rape but not otherwise.

As a point of clarification, I'd also like to note that when I say people can arrive at a pro-life position through paths other than "life is sacred", I am including many people who say "life is sacred" but, through their actions, reveal that what they really mean is "I place a very high moral weight on [insert adjective] life".

Okay, let me try to suss out what I'm thinking here.  Basically it comes down to this - if you oppose abortion because you think the minute an egg is fertilized it becomes an individual human life, that is justifiable but you need to oppose all abortion (except possibly an exception for cases where the life of the mother is threatened).  If you do not think an immediately fertilized egg is an individual human life, then no argument you can possibly make outweighs the fact that a woman's body is her own and she should be able to choose what she wants to do with it and any part of it.  That's where I'm coming from.  I just drove five and a half hours so I'm not really up to more than that, but maybe later I'll come back to it and try to clarify more.

Allons-y!

If you do not think an immediately fertilized egg is an individual human life, then no argument you can possibly make outweighs the fact that a woman's body is her own and she should be able to choose what she wants to do with it and any part of it

Cows can feel pain too.  Yeah, I went there.

Allons-y!

Really, you don't think it possible that even an ardent pro-lifer might not come to the conclusion that you're not obligated to be shackled indefinitely to another adult reliant on your support due to absolutely no action on your part?

I think if they're being consistent, that's where they have to go with it.  I'm not saying it's impossible for people to come to inconsistent positions - we're human after all, it's what we do - but, again, those are going to be developed through post hoc reasoning.

Allons-y!

Pro-abortion zealots who argue women have a "right" to bodily autonomy don't think it should be legal to sell bone marrow, let alone sell a kidney.

They also have enacted laws making it illegal to sell condor eggs.

I don't have a problem with selling blood or organs or whatever.  I'd like to see some proof that pro-choice people are more likely to oppose that than pro-life people...it seems to me that most of the people I know who are opposed to an organ market are on the more religious / conservative side of things.

Allons-y!

I linked to an example of pro-abortionists opposing organ sales, "more likely" is irrelevant.

What, the Obama administration?  That's like saying they killed Osama bin Ladin because they're abortionists.  Yeah they did it, but they're completely unconnected things.

Allons-y!

They are connected, it's an example of how pro-abortionists do not take their claims about bodily autonomy  seriously.

"there is nothing more important that the ability to control what's going on in your own body"

This bit of pro-abortionist "logic" goes out the window when it comes to ingesting tobacco.

Provide a rational, non-arbitrary reason to oppose infanticide. Explain why it's a crime to destroy a condor egg.

Provide a rational, non-arbitrary reason to oppose infanticide.

I don't oppose infanticide, particularly for severely disabled (i.e. couldn't survive on their own without massive medical intervention) children.  I think that the more fully formed the fetus / infant is, though, the greater risk you're taking that you are killing a self-aware human being, so later term abortions and infanticide should be undertaken with much more care.  If we had a flawless test to know when the kid was self-aware, though, I wouldn't  have a huge issue with it, provided it was done humanely.

Explain why it's a crime to destroy a condor egg.

Explain to me why a condor egg can't fly.

Allons-y!

If it's acceptable to kill severely disabled infants, what's wrong with killing severely disabled adults? Babies can't survive on their own. Premature babies can't survive absent medical intervention. What's wrong with throwing a premature baby against the wall for the fun of it?

Condor eggs are not self aware. Why is it illegal to destroy them?

If it's acceptable to kill severely disabled infants, what's wrong with killing severely disabled adults

If they're in a vegetative state, nothing particularly.  I don't have a problem with how the whole Terry Shiavo thing went down, for example.

Babies can't survive on their own. Premature babies can't survive absent medical intervention. What's wrong with throwing a premature baby against the wall for the fun of it?

Same reason you can kill a cow for food, but you can't torture a puppy for fun.

Condor eggs are not self aware. Why is it illegal to destroy them?

I'll answer your stupid question when you answer mine.  Why can't condor eggs fly?

Allons-y!

Allowing the killing of the severely disabled but not allowing, say, having sex with them is rather arbitrary and irrational. Why does some thing that isn't self aware and therefore doesn't deserve protection from killing deserve protection from sexual usage. Arguing it should be illegal because someone enjoys it reminds me of what Macaulay said about Puritans and bear baiting.

It's a crime to kill a condor egg because condor eggs become condors. Curiously people who support such laws find this reasoning obviously wrong when it comes to humans.

rather arbitrary and irrational

How do you feel about laws outlawing bestiality?

It's a crime to kill a condor egg because condor eggs become condors. Curiously people who support such laws find this reasoning obviously wrong when it comes to humans.

We want more condors, we don't want more humans.  It's also illegal to interfere with condor breeding, period - if you had condor sperm and destroyed it, that would be illegal too.  It's nothing inherent about egg that's the issue here.

Allons-y!

I'm against them. I'm against a lot of things, I don't try to disguise it.

"we don't want more humans."

Who is "we"? It's funny how upset pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, we don't need more humans, right to choose liberals get when something like this is suggested.

I meant against bestiality, and for laws outlawing it.

Explain why it's a crime to destroy a condor egg.

A condor egg is necessary to produce an adult condor.  We have decided that the survival of the condor species is important, and threatened.  We therefor extend special protection to pre-condors.  

A chicken egg is necessary to produce an adult chicken.  We have decided that the survival of the chicken species is important, but that it does not require protection of individual pre-chickens.  We will revisit the issue when the chicken population falls to threatened levels.    

A human embryo is necessary to produce an adult human.  We have decided that the survival of the human species is important, but that it does not require protection of individual pre-humans.  We will revisit the issue when human population falls to threatened levels.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Few pro-abortionists premise their arguments on overpopulation. Most get upset if a purpose, other than self actualizing "choice", for abortion is suggested.

I don't consider myself pro-abortion, except that I'm not committed to outlawing it.  I was trying to answer the question of why we outlaw condor egg destruction.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Also pro-abortionists who universally recognize a condor egg as a pre-condor deny fetuses are pre-humans.

In my opinion, denying that fetuses are pre-humans is silly.  The only denial that even remotely makes sense is the pro-life position, which is that it isn't a pre-human because it's already a human.  I don't completely agree with that position either, but a fetus not being a pre-human is nonsensical.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

That came out somewhat wrong.  It should read "a pro-life position", not "the pro-life position", because an alternate but rational pro-life position could still agree that fetuses are pre-humans but that pre-humans need protection even though they aren't fully human yet because human life is that special.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

I've yet to even see someone on the pro-choice side debate the term "pre-human".

Most religion does believe in slavery.

The point is the moral code shouldn't be derived from a text that is 1000+ years old when people still believed in dragons and elves and such.

Roe v. Wade cites Plato as an authority on abortion.

Specifically on moral code?

Ethics.

People may have believed in dragons and elves, but they also had babies and they tried to figure out the meaning of life. The current idea seems to be that everybody was stupid until the birth of Penn Jillete, and all their insights may be safely ignored.

I think it's safe to ignore any "insights" on the meaning of life conceived prior to 1859.

I think it's safe to ignore any "insights" on the meaning of life conceived prior to 1859.

Great, you just torpedoed Plato, Socrates, Boethus, Marcus Aurelius, Maimonides the Physician, Thomas Acquinas, Francis of Assisi,  Voltaire, Confucius, Lao Tzu and Ben Franklin.

I hope you're not putting those people in the same category as the hallucinating writers of the Bible.

Did any of them have anything useful to say about the meaning of life?

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it"

That part jibes pretty well with The Origin of Species, last I checked.

Pretty sure Charles Darwin would have no problem with gassing the Duggars.

Does the Bible have anything useful to say about the meaning of life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Allons-y!

Does the Bible have anything useful to say about the meaning of life?

Did any of them have anything useful to say about the meaning of life?

Well, mostly they spoke about how one may live an honorable and useful life, and make the most of our limited time on earth. Some, like Francis and Maimonides focused on charity, while others like Aurelius, Lao Tzu and Franklin focused on our place in the society of our fellows. How is that not relevant to the "meaning of life"? Or are you speaking only of biological questions, a rather narrow-minded view?

See comment #114. Who was right: Franklin, or Moses?

There's no law that forces you to associate with black or gay people.  You may have to tolerate living near or working with them, but you don't have to interact with them beyond that.

Allons-y!

Living near, and working with, is forcing association, there is no need for liberals to be so modest about their edicts that make the world a better place.

When your right to free association comes up against someone else's right to live where they want to or find a job, something's got to give.  When Obama implements Sharia law and makes it illegal for non-Muslims to own companies, you'll probably be glad for this precedent.

Allons-y!

Where do these 'rights" come from? Some argue that premature babies have a "right" to live.

"something's got to give"

I agree, yet liberals insist what they are doing is neutral, in fact you were only moments ago.

you could always move.

They could always move.  

Absolutely.  When I look at Obama, I pretty much see someone acting and speaking like I would if I was elected president (more or less...I'm white, for starters, but then again, I think it's pretty fair to say that if Clinton was America's first black president who just happened to be white, Obama is American's first white president who just happened to be black) - dude's an academic, has a solid political science & legal education...so yeah, he's my people and it's pretty obvious to me when he's slinging the BS and when he's not.

Allons-y!

A candidate couldn't come to 100% agreement with my policy press through religion.

Allons-y!

press should be prefs - DYAC!

Allons-y!

The truly religious are backwards, but liberals are morally advanced, which is why it's admirable when they dishonestly cloak themselves in religion to advance the cause of faggotry.

Religion has been dishonest since day one. Making fools out of religious people whether left or right won't hurt them. They won't even notice it if you ask them to pray over it.

Erroneous is not dishonest, and since you admire dishonesty from liberals religion you really have no businesses complaining about it.

Retardation is not dishonesty either.

I'm not complaining about anything, as I have not been conned by the dishonesty of religion. I admire religious people can being conned regardless.