Essay talk:Why I oppose abortion/Archive4

Essay NOT A Debate - or dont I understand Essays ?
My understanding on Essays is that they are an opinion piece by the author. They are not collaborative (dont edit) but do allow comments on the talk page. They are NOT an ongoing debate, thats for Debate pages.

If you dont agree with the position, comment and move on. Ignore the thing from then on. If you disagree hugely create your own essay page and provide your views. Hamster (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be definitely very interesting if someone could take this effort to answer me with his/her own essay. But I don't really believe such thing could happen. --Earthland (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagine that you change your mind...
Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") was the plaintiff in the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade ...

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma,' I said to myself, 'They're right.' I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.
 * And? 12:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really argument or something, but still interesting to think about. If the pro-life movement is wrong, then we are guilty of trying to deny women a privacy right (and privacy isn't really the biggest known right in human history) or constitutional right, as Americans would say. If a pro-choice person is wrong, he or she suddenly understands that (s)he has been directly advocating the mass-butchering of innocent people. --Earthland (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar
Have you considered going into the straw man construction business? 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In a way he's right. The root of the abortion issues is the rights of the unborn. Of course, he feels that his sidebar resolves it all. It does no such thing. Society has been arguing over the rights of the unborn for decades and one simplistic quote isn't going to add to anything. The whole thing could be summarised by
 * Pro-lifer - human rights start at conception - ergo all abortion is murder.
 * pro choicer - human rights are gained incrementally and, for convenience, to cut many decades of contemplation short, we will conclude that they start around the 20 - 24 week mark. After that abortion should be a balance between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother and done only in extreme circumstances.
 * And ne'er the twain shall meet. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the overused arguments that appears in the sidebar is the
 * Pro choicer - you have no right to impose your morality on me.
 * Pro lifer - Ah, but it's like stopping child abuse - and you wouldn't disagree with that, would you?
 * This, of course, is a common arrow in the pro-lifer's quiver but is very much part of the straw man. Sure, in the pro-lifer's eyes abortion and child abuse are the same thing. However they differ in that the vast majority of mankind feels that child abuse is wrong whereas the majority of mankind does not feel that abortion is wrong. Given that morality is relative and society based then the minority does not have the right to force their opinion on the majority, however strongly they feel about it. The sticking point tends to be whether morality is relative - EL says it's not, it's somehow natural, most pro-lifers think it's god given. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And another version of the sidebar
 * Pro-choicer - I have carefully thought through all the issues surrounding abortion and have come to a personal decision. I do not impose it on anyone else but myself.
 * Pro lifer - because you disagree with me you cannot have thought it through, you murdering scum!
 * Jack Hughes (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The pro-choicer in question imposes his "personal" decision on the unborn child who is undeniably another, unique human being. --Earthland (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a TALK page: putting stuff in sidebars isn't how it's done. Would you care to remove it to its place in the "conversation" flow? 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think about it, if you please to wait for a while.... --Earthland (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or add it to the essay?  20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not to the essay. The question is, how does this side-bar prevent discussion? I do'nt need to keep it, but I don't think it's all that bad also. --Earthland (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland, the talk page is not your property. If you wish to include your argument on this talkpage, do it as a normal comment, like everyone else. -- Nx  / talk 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland, several people who actively contribute to this project have told you to remove the sidebar. You insist on keeping it here and now are arguing it's proper. You are obviously trolling and are disrespecting the nature of the talk page. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland: you approach definite trolldom. 20:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone call the LividJengaa!  20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no Libellous Jumper (for the next 4 hours anyhoo) 20:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That should be anywhom. 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'h' is silent where Toast comes from. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Narr, where I come from it should be "Anyroadup". 20:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're from Eastasia? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You just may have noticed that I didn't insist that the sidebar must be there at all! I actually said "yes" to first request but wanted to discuss it at first, because some people had already commented it without saying it must be taken down. Is mere request for discussion now "trolling"? Don't feed Irrational's delusions. --Earthland (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, do shut up EL. 20:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. --Earthland (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Codswallop.  20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. --Earthland (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Poppycock.  20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Such word exists? I mean... honestly? --Earthland (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Balderdash!  20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blasphemy! (Not really!) --Earthland (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Claptrap! 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only does poppycock exist as a word, it's also a popular Canadian snack! As rumour has it, it was a favourite snack of former Prime Minister Joe Clark. --Kels (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the etymology of the word, that's an interesting choice for a name. -- Nx  / talk 21:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just some observations

 * 1) What is up with all the encyclopedia quotes? Quotes are supposed to serve some purpose and need some actual explanation. Some of the quotes seem to be there just as decoration.
 * 2) Why do you say that the definitions of the British Medical Association and American Medical Associations are unreliable? You quote all these encyclopedias and then don't actually explain why the BMA/AMA definition - which you don't actually include or link to - is unreliable.
 * 3) Large chunks of your essay seems to be appeal to definition. This is a bad way to argue. You need to show not only that a particular situation matches the definition, but also that the definition is correct, and is of significance in your argument. Dictionaries are guides to what people think. The dictionary doesn't list necessary and sufficient conditions - it won't actually explain what a concept is or argue the logical limits, just define it. I know a bit about this: I have written hundreds - probably thousands - of definitions.
 * 4) The primary problem, it seems to me, with any discussion of abortion is that it generates so many Sorites problems. I mean, there is a difference between taking a morning after pill on, presumably, the morning after sex, and having an abortion a few days before the delivery is due. Whatever position you take, you have to spell out why you take that position. I mean, in the UK, the current limit is 24 weeks. A few years ago, the Conservatives campaigned for a drop down to 20 or 22 weeks. But if we are happy to say 20 weeks is okay, why not 21 weeks, 22... 23...? This bites the pro-choice people too - if you are okay with abortion up to 24 weeks, why not 25? There is a Sorities problem here for everyone involved. Do feel free to explain yourself on this.
 * 5) I think you've not applied the principle of charity very well to "Life begins gradually". The objection there is very simple: the various functions of a foetus develop over time. Again, Sorites problem - a bundle of two or three cells is different in some important way from a fully-formed baby. Those bundle of cells don't do a whole bunch of things: they aren't conscious, they don't breathe, pump blood, digest food. They aren't bones or skin or muscle or brain matter or organs. 'Life', the very thing pro-lifers are so in favour of (as opposed to those horrible anti-lifers), has no real decent definition - see Wikipedia. Life is a process, and so saying it comes about gradually makes some intuitive sense. It may make sense to reject it, but you have to actually grapple with it first.
 * 6) To follow the principle of charity, try and respond to the stronger arguments for abortion. Look at Judith Jarvis Thompson's A Defense of Abortion for an example of one of these. Thompson is willing to grant the major premise of pro-life arguments - that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. Even if you grant that, Thompson provides some pretty good arguments why abortion is still permissible. It'd be great if you responded to some of them.

–Tom Morris (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this feedback.


 * The quotes are meant to emphasise that the scientific consensus on the beginning of life is very strong.


 * On the one hand, we have encyclopedias and medical dictionaries that define pregnancy as beginning at conception. On the other hand we have organizations that begun to claim that pregnancy begins at implantation only from the second half of 20th century, when certian methods of birth control became available. Taken from wikipedia: "At its 2004 Annual Meeting, The American Medical Association passed a resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter ... "
 * But we actually need to define what we're talking about, and I know no better source than a dictionary. Although I have brought up many definitions, these are not my only "arguments".
 * Yes, various functions of a foetus develop over time because the development of an organism in question is undeniably gradual, but it doesn't imply that the beginning of this orgnism is also gradual. You might ask how is it possible that something "non-living" can develop at all? It must already be alive if it develops. If we take this gradualist position, we find ourselves with expressions like "this thing is a little alive, but that thing there is a bit more alive", and biologically it just wouldn't make sense at all.


 * I hope I'll have time to read it in near future.


 * --Earthland (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dictionaries are indexes of words and their common meanings, not of the opinions and theories of the people who use those words. See etymological fallacy. You have gotten very close to it. I mean, you don't measure scientific consensus from dictionaries. You measure it by reviewing the actual primary literature. There is a significant difference between primary and secondary literature in every field of inquiry. You have mentioned the BMA/AMA statements, but you haven't actually explained what is wrong with them - just that they aren't the same as the two dictionaries you go onto cite. In my own field, I'm sure I can find plenty of situations where the dictionary is wrong. The critic of my work could then easily take a statement I have said and lined it up next to the OED definition and said "damn, he doesn't know what he's talking about. His language, despite being a purported student of the topic, doesn't match the definition in my dictionary". Well, it might be that the definition in the dictionary is imprecise, doesn't match what actual scholars say and so on. I mean, just take moral philosophy: you ask the average person on the street what "utilitarian" means, and they'll tell you that it's the sort of word you'd use to describe particularly ugly, concrete car parks and shopping malls built in the 1960s, rather than the sort of philosophy adopted by Bentham, Mill, Singer, Smart etc. Dictionaries exist to give a rough flavour of the common usage of words, not a guidebook for arguments. A list of definitions is not an argument.


 * My point is very simple: listing a definition doesn't get you where you want to go - you need to actually argue that the definition is correct. You need to ensure that you aren't defining the thing in a circular manner. Like if I said "That's postmodern", and someone were to say "What makes it postmodern?", and I were to respond "Well, it exhibits characteristics of postmodernism".


 * The gradualist position doesn't have to make sense biologically. It makes rough common sense - if you are faced, at the end of life, with someone who is irreversibly unconscious, has lost the ability to move, interact, identify themselves in their surroundings, feel pain, or perform many of the other things living things do - again, the Wikipedia link I posted explains how life is an emergent process - then we do naturally say things like "this person is barely alive" or "this person is alive, but they aren't really living like I am". Similarly, in an important non-biological sense, a fertilised egg is not the same as a developed baby, just as the unconscious dementia-sufferer is not the same as the person was a year earlier.


 * An analogy can be drawn to a computer: a computer may be on or off, right? But when you are starting it up, it's just booting, and takes some time to boot, find the hard drive, load the operating system. Generally with a computer, if you turn it off immediately after start up, you won't lose data in the same way you might if you waited until the operating system had started up. At the physical level, you can say "well, either the electricity is flowing or it isn't". And you could go to the library, find a hundred electrical engineering manuals and quote mine them for all the definitions of "powered up" or "switched on" as you like, and still be arguing rather irrelevantly.


 * The gradualist will agree with you that the foetus is alive. But just because something is alive doesn't mean it's part of the moral community. That can be a fairly arbitrary decision. Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly), we allow, in certain places, the state to determine that a person can be executed. The person who has been sentenced for execution - he has been determined not to be a member of the moral community any more due to his actions. He still satisfies all the criteria that a the pro-lifers foetus does - he's alive, a unique, separate individual. But, rightly or wrongly, he is no longer part of the moral community. He no longer has the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the Declaration of Independence put it. There is no medical or biological reason for this. There is a legal reason, a moral reason. The gradualist argument about abortion seems to me to be the same - it simply says that while the individual may be alive in the biological sense, their membership in the class of moral beings doesn't start until they have a cluster of functions. To understand this a bit better, consider the feeling that someone who has a miscarriage feels, and compare that to the feeling they have if their child were to die when they were six years old. At six, the child has developed language, emotions, complex belief networks, dispositions, joined the social community of friends, has ideas, creates, has independence. Life, in the biological sense, is not the issue.


 * –Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, that piece you linked to was very good. Clearly written (though typo-ridden), and logically presented.  I'd like to see a piece of similar quality arguing the other side sometime...  18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although her analogy does ignore the mostly lifesaving operation of kidney transplant... 14:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I emailed Ms Thompson for permission to reproduce the article. Unfortunately the copyright is owned by the journal, not by her and I can't see them releasing it. Bob Soles (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that Ms Thompson uses the famous "violinist" example. It is an unbearably bleak attempt to justify abortion. (I hope to write about it more...)


 * Tom, it is not "etymological fallacy" since my definitions about the beginning of pregnancy were taken from encyclopedias and medical dictionaries, and as such these definition have nothing to do with "original or historical meaning of a word", but have everything to do with its "actual present-day meaning".


 * I did mention the "early pregnancy factor" for example. And, once again, taken from wikipedia: "The controversy is not primarily a scientific issue since knowledge of human reproduction and development has become very refined, but rather is primarily a linguistic and definitional question."


 * "The person who has been sentenced for execution - he has been determined not to be a member of the moral community any more due to his actions. He still satisfies all the criteria that a the pro-lifers foetus does - he's alive, a unique, separate individual."


 * As I believe there is almost no excuse to purposefully kill another human being, I oppose death penalty as well. The basic premise of such arguments are deeming for human rights. It says that there is human life that does not need protection. The basic premise of pro-life movement is that every human being should be protected - no matter if old and dying, newly born, unborn, disabled etc.


 * Abortion is never "life, liberty and happiness" and as a matter of fact, I don't really care about "Declaration of Independence" since it really is about one country only. --Earthland (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)



Correct but reason Wrong
Mr Earthland is Correct that abortion is Wrong, but Wrong about the Reason. It is Wrong because it is against the Will of God.--Tolerance (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what? The Bible doesn't ban abortion, but gives specific references that forcing miscarriage is only a monetary punishment, rather than "eye for an eye" if the person injures the pregnant woman (Ex. 21:22-25); Numbers 5:11-31 makes abortion the crime if a woman is unfaithful to her husband and gets pregnant from another man; Lev. 27:1-7 makes it clear that there is no value to a human under one month of age. So where in the Bible is abortion considered wrong? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was part of Jesus' sermon about the evils of condoms. Might have been the one condemning lesbians, though, I always get those mixed up. --Kels (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad to see Tolerance back with her own special twist on the subject. We were running short on lulz. Jack Hughes (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's only an argument that people who believe in a god that they think said that shouldn't have abortions. 07:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read about thirty pages of Bible. It didn't address any questions I'm interested in. I don't know what is God's will, since I'm not even sure that any kind of God exists. --Earthland (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My Logic for the moral argument against abortion is quite Simple.
 * Most people believe God exists.
 * God doesn't want us to Sin.
 * Going against the Word of God is a Sin.
 * Churches interpret and Spread the Word of God.
 * Churches are against Abortion because they say it is against God's Will.
 * Therefore abortion is a Sin.
 * Whether you agree or not the Logic is sound. Earthland, by Denying the Existence of God, also does away with the the Absolute Moral Standard necessary to Pronounce Abortion a Sin.   Sadly, he has nothing more than his Human Opinion - which, at the end of the day, carries no more Weight than his opponents. --Tolerance (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This fellow's got it mostly right, he just left out the most important part: Hell! where sinners will fester and burn for all eternity, praise the Lord! RationalChristian (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's low-hanging fruit even for a bear mouse of little brain like myself. First postulate is irrelevant, since believing something exists doesn't make it true.  Second doesn't necessarily follow from the first.  Third depends on the definition of "Sin".  Fourth is irrelevant, since there's no proof the churches are correct in their interpretations.  Fifth is pointless, following from the lack of proof in four, plus there's nothing in the source material (the Bible) that specifically talks about abortion.  To wrap up, to get to the conclusion you have to make logical leaps that would each win you Gold at the 2012 Summer Games, and then some. Plz to try harder next time. --Kels (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tolerance, are you serious? Or just making fun? These are theological not moral arguments. Actually these are not even arguments but assertions. --Earthland (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Kettle, you're black!" --Signed, Earthland Pot. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On what is Morality based if not on Theology? One could Argue that it is based on Changing Social Standards, but that would make Morality Relative to each Society.  We both Know that Abortion is a Sin. I have a Sound basis for my belief (as Above), but I'm Afraid that I'm not so Sure about yours.--Tolerance (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do animals have theology? They have morals. Atheists have morals. Morality comes from society and from socially accepted behavior. Morality is relative to each society, and there is no objective morality because it's really subjective to what the person arguing the objective morality believes. Abortion is not a sin except to those who believe in sin (therefore it's not objective). You have a belief, not a sound basis for a belief. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if God's existences depends on the number of people believing in him, it is also relatively relative basis for morality. You sound like a pro-choice straw-man. --Earthland (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, Irrational, I see you had the courage to edit this Talk page at the same time with me. I also see that You've created another Shitty article that nobody needs. Since there is no reliable third-part source, it has no validity. --Earthland (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland, stop trolling. Your one-hit wonder is useless (an essay???). My contributions are in use. So fuck off already. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * God's Existence is not based on the number of People who Believe in Him. If nobody believed in Him He would still Exist and Abortion would still be Wrong. What I remain Unsure about is how You know it is Wrong.--Tolerance (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've still failed to establish (1) that God (and, in fact, the specific God you've got in mind) exists and (2) that even if he does exist, he thinks abortion is wrong. You kinda need to establish those premises first, y'know. --Kels (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For me that is a Question of Faith rather than Evidence. I do not hope to Persuade you only to show how I Reach my conclusion. The Thing is that my Faith makes is Real for me, I Understand that it may not be Real for you and I Respect that. But what I am really trying to Find Out is what is Real for the Author of the Essay. My Absolute Moral Standard tells me that Abortion is Wrong, I'm Interested to Know how He reaches the Same Conclusion without an Absolute Moral Standard.--Tolerance (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't expect me to take you seriously. --Earthland (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. As I happens, I do most Sincerely Hope you will take me Seriously. I Agree with much of what you Say in your Essay, but what you do not say is Why it is actually Wrong. I Know why it is Wrong - what I'd like you to Explain is Why you think it is Wrong. What is your Moral Base?--Tolerance (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetics
The whole essay page is now a splendid monument to ugliness. 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ...more exactly, what and why? I don't think I'm going to change it anyway. It is too well-structured. --Earthland (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole mish-mash of different typefaces, font-sizes and quote styles. 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Says a lot about the author. 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you spend nice time making vaguely insulting comments about me, "Toast". I do. --Earthland (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only an insult if you agree that it is a "mish-mash", otherwise, if you like it, it's a compliment, surely "Earthland"?


 * It depends on what you think since you made the comment, "..." --Earthland (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like CUR never went away.  21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CUR was friendlier (and more socially inept). This is more like HoG. --Kels (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Goat, I miss CUR. 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too, for the most part. It's just tiresome thin-skinned whining like this that reminds me of the stuff I don't miss about him.   21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The essay's formatting is slightly better than that of Time Cube, "Earthland" (if that is your real name, which I doubt.) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)::::


 * I'm slightly worried because I don't understand what you mean by "better that that of Time Cube" (Time Cube?!). "Earthland" is the most common Estonian name. .... if you take a closer look at my user page, you can find my true name also. --Earthland (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This time cube Look and learn - despite derision from all who look upon him he knows he's right. He's put together a logical answer and all who disagree are either ignorant or part of the global conspiracy. Gaze upon the wonder that is Time Cube (cue spooky music and wobbly images). Bob Soles (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CЯacke ® is part of the global conspiracy but the check is 6 weeks late and I'm thinking of switching to "ignorant". 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Horses and Puppies
Re:some of this, pro-choice advocates don't necessarily consider puppies' lives forfeit, nor do many other people. If possible, I'd like to see a section on whether animals deserve basic human rights (so to speak), since I can't make out your position on that. Or at least more on why gradual development of a moral entity is invalid, beyond comparisons to Social Darwinism. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you'd like to see far too much. Animals have animal rights, that may (in different context) include "basic human rights". It means that they may have the right to life, but not in the same sense as humans. I am not willing to discuss it. It will get boring and abstract. And I think you didn't understand my edit correctly at all. --Earthland (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this subject could possibly go anywhere without being boring or abstract, but fair enough, and it's up to you. I simply didn't see anywhere in which you've distinguished between animals' and humans' rights, which are pretty relevant when arguments involve their sentience/development/etc. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Should abortion be illegal for under-aged rape victims?
Hello Earthland. We meet again. I'm not exactly clear in what way you "oppose" abortion (or choice):

Say you had a case where there was a speedy trial resulting in a rape conviction, and this rape left a 12 year old pregnant. Both the girl and her parents would like to get an abortion. The girl is 1 week into her pregnancy. Should the state forbid doctors from aiding the "murder" this unborn "person"? Lumenos (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should it be illegal for rape victims to have the semen cleaned out of their uterus?
After a rape, some women/girls, wish to have the rapist's semen removed. The reasons may include hygiene, collecting evidence, or preventing/ending pregnancy. The procedure is known as D&C. Problem is, there could be a unicellular "person" in their uterus, resulting from the rapist's sperm fertilizing the victim's egg. In this case, should doctors be allowed to go ahead and possibly "murder" "someone" (the "egg"), or should some of these women/girls, have to incubate, carry, and give birth to their rapists' children? Lumenos (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere Earthland replied with the following statement, "(...)abortion is fairly simple issue and rape does not make it any more controversial, because the child is who (s)he is - innocent living human being who has not chosen to inhabit his mother's body when conceived(...) --Earthland (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)" Lumenos (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the idea of a woman deciding not to get an abortion is a little less controversial than the state trying to intervene when a woman/girl requests help in removing rapist semen from their uterus. Thus I'm asking for your position on the later. Of course you don't have to tell us, if this is something private or undecided. I know it is a touchy subject but would it be too much to ask if you could just come right out and answer with a "yes" or "no"?


 * It sounds like you would be for counseling rape victims, to allow the rapist's semen to go ahead and get them pregnant, if it hasn't already, so as not to risk killing a zygote who might be in their uterus. But I'm not sure how far you believe we should go to prevent them from having their uterus cleaned out, if that is their choice. Should the state categorically forbid D&C? I mean, there is no practical way to determine if the woman/girl has had sex recently. If we ascribe the same rights to zygotes as we do to people, then we would take extraordinary measures to ensure a zygote would not be killed. Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous to you? Lumenos (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)