Talk:Abortion/Archive2

Dead reference
[4]...not sure what it originally pointed to, and I slogged through the history and didn't see anything. Someone else know/wanna give it a whack? -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lookit this little tract I dug up...
Ta da! Idiotic, I know. When I get the time, I'm planning on dissecting this bunk. It'll take some time, especially because I'm going to be reading a lot about embryology so I can discredit the day numbers towards the end. Most of these will involve painstakingly searching for a day-by-day guide to pregnancy online and possibly buying pregnancy calendars despite being a single guy. I'm dissecting this one because most Chick tracts worth dissecting have already been done by the Jabberwock and I've read them and I don't want to inadvertently rip off of him, and even most Tim Todd tracts were already dissected by Boolean Union. When I looked more into Tim Todd's work, I found that at least two of the comics (those on evolution and abortion) undergone significant changes between their present forms and what they (presumably) originally were, so it's nice to have some "unconquered" territory. I'm here to stake my claim and show you the comic for your perusal. Wish me luck! The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to mental health problems
...which I didn't even know was a point of contention, has been debunked. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It has NEVER been accepted within the real world of real doctors. it's a way the right tries to say there is "depression".  of course, there is a medical condition that is widly known called Postpartum depression... but somehow the Right ignores that.  so, what are we saying about mental illness? hum....[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you undergo an extremely stressful and difficult period in your life, then you have all these pro-life right-wingers screaming at you for being a baby-murdering bitch and all that... if it was linked to depression and anxiety I wouldn't be surprised, but you know. Scarlet A.pngnarchist  09:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for abortion ?
Is this covered anywhere ? there are economic, social/cultural (sex selection), medical ( genetic /downs/drug) as well as personal choice. Hamster (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard Dawkins recently caused controversy on Twitter by suggesting that aborting Down Syndrome foetuses is a 'humane moral choice', implying that it is inhumane to bring a DS person into the world (for unspecified reasons). Would this be worthy of inclusion? dawkins causing controversy for  change Therealnessy (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

False Dichotomy
Am I the only one that thinks that the terms Pro-life and Pro-choice present a false dichotomy? For instance, I'm Pro-life in that I think abortions should be the last resort and if I was female I wouldn't have one, but I'm Pro-choice in that I think that I recognize it's not my decision. Greatnecro (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not "pro-life" at all. You're 'pro-choice'. You feel that your choice would be not to have an abortion but that doesn't mean you're pro-life because you admit that it's a choice. It's a big, big mistake to think that pro-choice means that you don't "think abortions should be the last resort and if I was female I wouldn't have one". Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that there was really a dichotomy. I was complaining about how the terminology implies one or the other. I think "Pro-life" should be renamed "Anti-choice". Greatnecro (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clear things: Pro-choice doesn't mean apparently people who force anyone to have abortions or who always get an abortion. It is, i think, people who want humans in general to have the right to have a abortion if they deem it's needed and wanted in their situation. The strawman would be "forcing everyone to have an abortion, therefore causing the extinction of the human race". Imadmagician (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Against Abortion
This page honestly sickens me. My stomach is reeling and I feel depressed, mortified. You are all arguing in favor of killing little children, yet you intellectualize this grim reality, and by a turn of rhetoric convince yourselves that killing little children is morally defensible, hardly objectionable in the least. It sickens me to see people placing such a low value on the life, that depriving a being of life, the most precious resource of all, is without consequence. As a profound atheist--I once injured my wrist slamming my cane into the ground, bellowing "Death to religion! Death to religion!", I know that this is the only life that they shall ever know, that YOU shall ever know, and yet you rob them of it, condone this robbing, and convince yourselves you have committed no wrong. Please, have more respect for life. To condemn someone to nothingness before his or her time is evil boundless.
 * The counterposition to that argument is: no, it isn't. 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What if the aborted fetus was cryogenically frozen. Then it wouldn't be death, huh?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What if it wasn't? What does that have to do with the price of fish?  21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume that this massive delete was well considered.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Pro-choice advocates, terrain now slipping from beneath their feet, might desperately flee to the last remaining argument of any substance, that of overpopulation. Abortion, indeed, serves as a form of population control, but it is just as radical and inhumane as genocide or warfare, belonging not to civilized society. Instead of resorting to such primitive methods of population control, we should economically empower the poor, universalize education, provide better healthcare, and subsidize contraceptives, all more effective and rewarding vehicles of population control and societal progress."

- the change


 * Look at this (sample) stupid rhetorical bullshit. It was perfectly considered.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

More than that was deleted and at least a third of that make some sense. Talk to Civic Cat   22:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Let's take a look at a couple of those other paragraphs arbitrarily(since there's a lot to deconstruct here)

"Pro-choice advocates may object that fetuses lack rationality and cannot (yet) act as moral agents. To subscribe to this narrow, Kantian view of rights and corresponding duties, however, would justify the indiscriminate and unadulterated abuse of infants, the mentally deficient, and all animals, for by denying “consciousness” to these individuals, we reserve them no rights, and owe them not a single obligation."


 * This is a shitty false dilemma, where the mere idea of not deserving the same consideration of the pregnant woman is a complete dismissal of all rights. If it were framed in a "some people think this" kinda way I'd be okay, but no.  It's verbally structured like a take-down of pro-choice people.  Not a good thing.


 * --Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I sense the false dilemma in that it is possible to believe fetuses have no rights, yet to still treat infants, the mentally deficient, animals, with dignity and respect. However, as implicated elsewhere in the article, if you deny rights to fetuses on the basis that they are not rational, autonomous beings, then you logically must deny rights and any sense of personhood to infants, the mentally deficient, and animals. Otherwise, you are gravely inconsistent, and on such basis, hypocritical. Though you dismiss this argument, it is a cornerstone in arguments for attributing rights to those three categories I have listed several times now--infants, the mentally deficient, and animals, and has been validated time and time again. Simply because the fetus is not yet rational or autonomous, simply because some kid with Down Syndrome or cerebral palsy is not entirely rational or autonomous, does that justify not extending rights to them, and respecting their rights? Because they do not fit the Kantian definition of "person", a rational, autonomous agent, does that justify mistreating or killing them?


 * --Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Next, I am not dismissing the mother's right to choose. Merely, I am stating the obvious when, in the equilibration of rights, when we make judgments of moral significance, it tends that the right to life supersedes the right to choose, just as a deer's right to life tends to supersede the hunter's right to kill. I am not completely the mother's rights. Instead, I make a general statement upon the matter of moral significance without which anything morally considerable cannot be judged appropriately against something else which bears such moral considerability. For example, if a tree and a human are morally considerable, should we, generally speaking, assign greater significance to the tree, or to the human? You falsely equate my general statement about moral significance with a complete dismissal of the mother's rights, and in so doing, you warp my words to create a strawman. You should not attack someone's position until you can accurately restate it.


 * --Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Finally, it is a logical, ethical take-down, not a verbal, ad hominem attack. If you deny rights to fetuses on the basis that they are not rational, autonomous individuals, you must, of logical necessity, deny rights, and therefore obligations, to those who also aren't rational, autonomous individuals, namely infants, the mentally deficient, and animals. This is an unavoidable logical consequence of the position taken by this article, a position to which I believe you subscribe. Unless or until such time as that you validate a morally relevant difference between fetuses, infants, the mentally deficient, and animals, you must treat them the same, or you violate the foremost principle of consistency in moral reasoning, that like cases be treated alike.


 * Another:

"Arguments that children will be unwanted or abused are likewise inexcusably flimsy. If a pregnancy is carried to term, 98% of white mothers and 99% of black mothers will not abandon their child. If abortion were restricted, these rates would remain roughly the same, since the maternal bond is among the strongest in nature, reinforced by oxytocin release during childbirth, breastfeeding, and childrearing."


 * Look at this: Complete scientific bunk like "Maternal bond among the strongest in nature" and the needlessly racist distinctions.  That's some metapedia shit.  It's ... kinda shitty.  Ikanreed (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * --Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Admittedly, I relied on the common sense understanding of the world to acknowledge that mother's have innate desire to care for their young. I tried to validate this obvious claim by citing the neurotransmitter, oxytocin, which solidifies the "maternal bond". It would be completely contrary, moreover, to the thrust of evolutionary theory if mother's didn't care enough to defend their young, as they often do, even to the death.


 * --Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Additionally, citing facts is not racist, especially when I possessed no intent of being racist. In fact, I thought these statistics gave some credit to African American mother's for being better parents, contrary to the belief that African American parents are less committed to their children. Mind you that we are discussing a difference of a massive 1%. I do apologize for using the words white and black instead of the more politically correct terms, caucasian and African American. Nevertheless, you should not have jumped to the conclusion that I was intentionally being racist and derogatory, and you could have simply changed the words to reflect your sensibilities.


 * Or look at this one

"Unless abuse is truly life-negating, as in many depraved cases of animal vivisection, pain so profound, and prospects of recovery so slim, there exists little justification to deprive an individual of life, and even then, we would preserve hope for a better life, and seek to ameliorate the very conditions which conduced one so unlivable. All other acts constitute murder rather than euthanasia, and consequently rarely possess sufficient justification."

- depends on ignoring that they were talking about animal rights a moment ago


 * Strangely, this attitude is almost never coupled with a desire to ban eating meat. Some sort of wholesale protection is deserved, for non-rational creatures that live, but let's only worry about it when it's fetuses?  Why?  It's not a self-aware argument.  This whole edit was bad, and every time I look in more detail at a particular paragraph, the more reasons I find to support my revert.  Ikanreed (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * --Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)I accept the criticism that my contribution had major flaws, but not the ones you continue to nitpick at. First and foremost, it was written and presented as a brief essay, going against the style of this article. However, I found it necessary to create a new section of general objections since, most likely by virtue of revisionists such as yourself, there is not even a single section on this article for arguments AGAINST abortion. This is one sub-section, by it is abysmal compared to my contribution. Basically, all arguments against abortion appear to have either have never been written, or edited out. This is contrary to the very aim of rationalwiki, which is to provide constructive criticism of ideas. The revisionism I have just encountered is eerily reminiscent of religious pages which dare people to refute the arguments thereon, sometimes with prizes offered in the thousands of dollars, only to be systematically removed and denied by the page owner. This article absolutely should have at least one section reviewing counterarguments against abortion, particularly since it would be more disruptive to respond in line to the arguments in favor of abortion.


 * See our articles on abortion arguments and the pro-life movement. 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * People are often hypocrites when it comes to dealing with the full implications of their arguments, but that doesn't mean that their arguments are invalid, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't there those who oppose abortion and are pro-animal rights? I return that at least 30% of that stuff is still good. I might do some wedding, but if I did it'd be a while. Talk to Civic Cat   22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I will guarantee that this person doesn't sincerely want to ban meat. Ikanreed (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost a billion Hindus. Hinduism and abortion. I wonder if some of them would ban both abortion and meat. (More reading, huh?)Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We already discuss the various religious perspectives. The phrasing was as a (not purposefully) dishonest deconstruction of legalized abortion, not some personal perspective on what they themselves should do.  Ikanreed (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ‎Animalian, couldn't you have posted this thing at the bottom of this page as well as use the 4 tildes?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Folks, should I revert Animalian's posts here unless he/she uses the four frikin' tildes? I'm kinda ig'nint about conventions here.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * --Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)I oppose abortion, I detest religion, and I fight for animal rights. I apologize for not using tildes--I joined yesterday, and I am still quite unfamiliar with this site. I nevertheless have valid contributions to make. My articles have been reviewed by my philosophy and ethics teachers, and they reassured me that, not only are my arguments against abortion valid, but also sound. I have even changed a few minds along the way. If these arguments have been commended by my teachers, and even convinced a few teachers otherwise, I assure you that they must be at least partially valid. I tried posting some of these arguments when I found not a single section dedicated to arguments against, rather than FOR, abortion and abortive rights, particularly since responding inline to the preexisting material would be disruptive. I have more arguments in a more a digestible format to post, but I am afraid that those of of a revisionist mindset will remove them. I find such revisionism unacceptable, in that it defeats the purpose of constructive criticism, ignores my arguments, and suppresses the information the free exchange thereof. Denying, editing out, and decrying valid arguments is not how you win debates. Instead you refute them, and refute them deftly. You are welcome to criticize the content I generate, but you are not permitted to destroy it entirely, especially since the arguments in question are valid and correspond to the only full-bodied defense of the position so clearly unjustly disfavored on this article. 00:04, 11 February 2015‎
 * My suggestion is to put your arguments in an essay rather than in this article. You can create an essay by creating a page with the title "essay:[your chosen essay title]".  If you specify yourself as author, nobody else will edit it & they will raise any counterarguments on its talk page.  00:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dude, I'm not opposing your arguing. I oppose your not using 4 tildes. Upper left part of the keyboard. Also you might want to put your counter-punches at the bottom of the page, keep it chronological-like.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The tilde appears in various keyboard locations. Mine is on the right in the centre row.  00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it one of those Dvorik one's I read about oh so long ago? By the way, Weaseloid, we kinda walked this ranch before, but when should posts be chronological and when not? Edumacate me.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   00:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok. I sign things now! What do I have to do to upload content which you won't remove? I apologize for the length of the numerical pure numerical argument, but I want the introduction and conclusion back, because those were easy to follow and stress the main point. (The pure numerical numerical argument was just a string of line of lines, united by words such as "therefore".)--Animalian (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I suggest putting it in an essay, not the article.  00:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, Weaseloid, you have just posted a chronologically ordered post.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   00:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * [[image:eyebrow.gif]][[image:shrug.gif]] 01:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There, you did it again. But why for you do it dis way?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   01:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being successful in transmitting your intended meaning. Typically, when replying to a post, you put your reply below it with an extra indent. If there's already a chain of replies below it, you can either put your comment below the reply chain or directly underneath the comment you're replying to (possibly with an additional extra indent to separate your post from the one below it). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Numerical Argument
Weaseloid, I finally condensed the numerical argument to sufficient length and clarity to include it on the main article. I accept your objection--I would have cited it, but I had terrific difficulty tracking down a professional source--the statistic I used came from the March of Times, but was without citation. At last, I have found the source from which these oft-cited yet uncited statistics descend (or, at least, by which these statistics are validated), an article included in the New England Journal of Medicine. Believe it or not, this article is cited on the "Spontaneous Abortion" page of rationalwiki, yet terribly misconstrued. Here is what is actually states--

"A total of 199 pregnancies were detected by measurement of maternal urinary excretion of chorionic gonadotropin.19 The day of ovulation or implantation could not be determined for 10 pregnancies (5 percent) because of missing data; these pregnancies were excluded from our analysis. The remaining 189 pregnancies include all 48 that ended in early loss (loss within six weeks after the last menstrual period), all 15 clinical losses (those occurring after six weeks), and 126 pregnancies ending in live birth."

Given that of 199 pregnancies, tracked as soon as conception was confirmed (via the presence of certain hormones in urine within one or two days after fertilization), 126 pregnancies resulted in live births, we may derive that 66.666% of all measured conceptions result in live births (126/199). This experiment and the means employed, successive hormone tracking, offer our best estimate for the number of conceptions miscarry, before and after implantation, and until such time as more accurate methods are developed, and valid disconfirming evidence arises, must treated as our closest proxy to the actual figure.

As to your indictment that I am merely window dressing the right to life argument, I would ask why the numerical argument, adequately condensed, clarified, and now sourced, cannot remain on this article, particularly wherefore there exists not even a single section dedicated to the rights to life argument, let alone, until very recently, a section for any argument against abortion. I find such revisionism therefore unacceptable, and hereunto do I now render my source--

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199906103402304#t=articleResults

--Animalian (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds more in line with what I've heard, but it's very different from the edit you put in earlier. Ikanreed (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Now, I do have a question, because I am interested in factual accuracy. In the source I cited, the definition of "conception" is unclear, and appears to include implantation. Yet I keep hearing that 50-80% of all fertilized eggs are discarded prior to implantation, in which case I would need to revise the numerical content of the "numerical argument". (If we assume maximums, would arrive at the conclusion that up to, but no more, than 88.888% of all pregnancies, defined here as all biological processes following fertilization, end in miscarriage, so construed, as widely as it may be construed. With this maximum, it becomes the case that roughly 1 in 10 abortions claim the life of a child who would otherwise be born alive. Would a 1 in 10 chance of killing someone who would otherwise survive into infancy, growing more likely than not into adulthood, becoming friends, family, and other loved ones, be justified?) Does anyone have a source which provides a valid estimate of the total percent of all conceptions, here defined as the full (or sufficiently representative) set of fertilized eggs, which die prior to birth? Until such time, the numerical content of the numerical arguments stands.  21:03, 11 February 2015
 * I can't help it, but now we're about to have an argument about abortion rather than the article's content. But I think it's necessary.
 * So here it goes:
 * Why do those lost eggs not deserve the live saving attention the law mandates for a human who's on track to death? Enabling implantation is a medical technology that has seen a lot of development for those suffering from fertility issues.  Why do you not mandate that on these lost eggs?  Ikanreed (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (EC, reply to Animalian:) Is "the numerical argument" an actual thing within the abortion debate or something you've just made up? I've Google-searched for abortion & "numerical argument" and it comes up with nothing.  I do still see it as window dressing a 'right to life' argument, since you are arguing that "abortion must be strictly justified in denying such fetuses several decades of life", and if this is the case, what difference does it make whether 40% or 20% or 80% of pregnancies end in miscarriage?  There's no connection between the two things.  21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weaseloid, the validity of an argument is not determined by its popularity, though stronger arguments, naturally, tend to be more common. Again, we need to more purely address the right to life argument, and more generally, other arguments against abortion. All my attempts have been categorically rejected and removed by you, even though these represent the only well-articulated arguments against abortion on this entire article. And even though the numerical argument does not purely address the right to life argument, it is a very powerful tool to visualize the impact of abortion, putting it in practical, readily understandable terms. I suggest that the unpopularity of this argument descends, in part, from this power. You claim there is no connection between the right to life and the percentage of children inadvertently, to the best of our capacity for inference, killed via abortion. It would seem significant that abortion results in the inadvertent death of children who would otherwise, to the best of our capacity for inference, be alive, in that these inadvertent deaths should be considered in the calculus by which we determine whether a specific instance of abortion was sufficiently justified. Life and death are, indeed, crucial to the present ethical consideration, particularly since, at the very least, 1 in 10 children aborted would, to the best of our capacity for inference, be inadvertently killed. The numerical argument would therefore seem entirely relevant. We aren't talking about marginal percentages. We talking about, at the very least, the inadvertent death of 1 in 10 children. If inadvertent, yet avoidable deaths, applies to our consideration of other ethical issues, such as starvation wherefore the starving could be so easily fed, given relatively minimal investment, why should inadvertent death not apply to our consideration of specific instances of abortion? Can you provide a morally relevant difference strong enough to completely dismiss consideration of the deaths inadvertently caused by abortion? Until such time, the numerical argument stands on its own merits.--Animalian (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It was removed by me, not weasel because I thought it wasn't very good article material, per many of the objections I've raised above. Here's some things that would help establish an anti-abortion section that I'd personally be happy with
 * Make it clear whether this is an argument against a personal choice some people make or an argument against allowing that personal choice. Anti-abortion can mean multiple things, and being opposed to abortion doesn't necessarily mean being opposed to abortion being legal.  See: vegetarianism.
 * Try to avoid strawmanning at all. It's hard not to do it a little, but if you can't make your case without ascribing specific arguments to pro-choice people it's probably not a great argument.(There are exceptions to this, but the extent to which you did it in your edit definetly went too far)
 * Definitely make clear to what extent the arguments come from different perspectives. You did this a little.  A matter-of-fact tone is nominally fine, but it worked out very badly when making the case that abortion is wrong.  Different philosophical perspectives on morality are going to come to wildly different conclusions, and knowing which is which would be great.  Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about the phenomenon of abortion and about the well known subject of the abortion debate (although, as I've already pointed out, arguments within the abortion debate are covered more thoroughly in other articles) - it isn't a good place to put up ad hoc arguments that don't actually feature in the abortion debate at all. This argument also isn't numerical since there's no logical connection between the numbers and the conclusion.  There is no connection between intentional abortion and accidental miscarriage.  Either we accept the premise that, for whatever reason, a fetus has an inalienable right to life which is violated by abortion, or we don't.  How frequently miscarriages occur is neither here nor there.  22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of legality it's relevant for its comparisons to manslaughter. If you take an action that could lead to the discharge of an embryo(malnutrition, e.g.), are you criminally liable for unimplanted ones you have?  Heck, outside the law, morally responsible?  It's a relevant question, and focusing on before or after potential abortions is kinda misleading.  Ikanreed (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * First, pro-life arguments and pro-choice arguments are only presented efficaciously on the abortion arguments page, which many wish to denigrate to essay status, such denigration as of which I defended the article against. Pro-choice arguments and reasoning moreover saturate the abortion page, which contains an entire section dedicated to "arguments for safe, legal abortion", and which, until recently, lacked a section for "arguments against abortion". All attempts to more adequately represent the pro-life position and the arguments thereto have been categorically rejected, even when I have attempted to emphasize these arguments through other theories, some of which you have yet to see because I simply do not have the time to upload them all because of your ever-surveillant nighthawks who categorically reject any and every pro-life argument, except the flimsiest aside from divine command theory. (Recall the argument that, since the constitution mentions nothing of abortion or family planning, abortion is categorically illegal, the same ridiculous argument that Castaigne made that, since the American Medical Association in its ethical code made no specific mention of abortion, this generalized, abstract construct (just like the bill of rights) had no bearing whatsoever on the ethics of abortion, and the once-common and occasionally heard argument that, since the bible never condemns slavery, slavery is morally justifiable. Why limit the pro-life section to only the most measly arguments, ones that aren't even the most common or most central? Centrality belongs, most assuredly, to the right to life, which for whatever, revisionary reason, cannot even appear on the pro-life page.) The point being, pro-life arguments, though adequately covered one of four articles, the abortion arguments page, do not and should appear on the abortion page, or the pro-life page at the very least. If the abortion arguments page is denigrated to the status of an essay, which few will ever find, visit, let alone read, then all that will remain of pro-life arguments are those flimsy excuses, such as the constitution states nothing of abortion, and that abortion is therefore categorically illegal. The pro-choice position will only be more hegemonic and unjust.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Next, this argument is numerical in that its content is numerical. Your conniption against lies in my interpretation of the numerical argument, or, more exactly, the ethical considerations I apply to this simple mathematical reality. You therefore assert that the conclusion, “abortion must be strictly justified” shares no logical connection with the numerical content. However, if you apply the right to life, which I would have specified, had I not encountered such vehement resistance—I sought to create an operational proxy subject to further revision, not categorical rejection and destruction (remember everything I said about actually editing?)—this conclusion you both accept as consistent and valid within the framework of rights-based ethics, just as we accept certain utilitarian conclusions within the domain of utilitarianism. A proxy moreover represents a launching point for further inquiry, discussion, and debate, and is subject to change as we revise our understanding. You are welcome to revise this understanding, but you accomplish it by writing criticisms alongside the pro-life arguments, just as in any other debate, rather than categorically rejecting what your opponent asserts. And though you may object that our operational understanding rests solely on the pro-choice imperative, we are both intelligent human beings, applying reason and arriving at different conclusions concerning a number of ethical dilemmas, and we must reconcile these differences through debate. We are not debating evolution versus creationism; we are debating empirical data and competing ethical theories to broach the subject of abortion and its justifiability. But what proxy do you leave us, insofar as actual content of the pro-life position is concerned, if you will not allow pro-life arguments to exist at all? You unfairly bias and skew the article toward the absolute exclusion of pro-life arguments and mock pro-life advocates, despite the fact that some of us are highly reasonable and extremely intelligent. To constantly ascribe pro-life advocates to the status of irrational, hateful, and bigoted Christian fundamentalists, is a fallacy of composition, and overlooks, perhaps deliberately, strong counter-examples such as myself. At one time, however, rationalwiki did note that it is possible to oppose abortion on purely humanistic grounds—but this, too, was edited away, probably since it reveals the wider of community of rationalists, humanists, and skeptics who oppose abortion. You may find we the overlooked here—http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/. Even the great Christopher Hitchens was among our ranks— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your following remarks, you attribute more than I believe due to the numerical argument as a constricted document, though the conniptions you draw are certainly relevant. I furthermore believe that you could incorporate these criticisms alongside the numerical argument, and I will not remove them, unless outrageously incredible, in the original sense of the word. (I actually encourage the strongest arguments on either side, for, if you intend to defend your beliefs, you must address the most prominent and strongest arguments against your position, and frankly, the pro-life argument that, since the constitution mentions neither abortion nor family planning, abortion is always and invariably immoral, and therefore illegal. Honestly, it is as if Tom Regan woke up and decided that, to defend animal rights, all he had to do was refute Descartes’s belief that animals were insentient, unfeeling, living machines, whose cries from dismemberment were no different from the sound of cogs in a clock.) Fortunately, you at least offer valid criticism, and I now redress it. You submit that miscarriage and abortion differ by intentionality, and that, consequently, no comparison between either exists. While I grant this obvious verity, the numerical argument, to the best of our power for inference, relates that, since roughly 40% of all pregnancies, both documented and undocumented, as per the NJM study I cited, end in miscarriage, we may assume that roughly 40% of all abortions result in the death of a fetus who would have died anywise. Hence, the abortion, in roughly 40% of all pregnancies, does not change the outcome, the death of fetus. While we cannot with perfect confidence assert this statistic absolutely, you would have to be profoundly unreasonable to reject the power of strong inferential judgment, since women rarely obtain abortions to spare their children miserable diseases, a large enough volume of women obtain abortions, and the set of women who obtain abortion is sufficiently representative. And while abortions occur disproportionately among the poor, poverty is a social construct, and largely irrelevant concerning fetal health, since most are born into poverty and anyone can be so born, except in extreme cases, such as starvation, in which the health of the fetus may be severely compromised, though recovery may indeed be possible. For the remaining 60% of cases, however, abortion alters the outcome of the pregnancy—a child who would otherwise have been born alive was killed, to the best of our capacity for inference, in such cases. You very much hate this argument, and admittedly, it seems to rest on an unstated premise of “necessary evil”, i.e., that, if we are to reproduce, we must accept a 40% death rate among the conceived until such time as that these deaths become avoidable. Though one may argue that humanity should cease reproduction to drive this theoretical death rate to 0%, such persons are highly unrealistic, and no better in their “maunderings” than the utter failure of abstinence only sex education programs backed by religious fundamentalists. For the time being, to ensure the continuity of our species, we necessarily must accept a 40% death rate among fetuses. This is a necessary evil. Abortion isn’t.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Having demonstrated preliminarily, though with moderate investment, the very unreasonableness of preventing pro-life arguments from appearing on the pro-life page, I will attempt greater defense of the pro-life position tomorrow. I am nevertheless aggravated that I must argue with people who have convinced themselves that others do not value their lives, that the unborn are not persons in any meaningful sense, regardless of development and the imminent potential thereto, and that the unborn do not matter. I find it sickening, and again, I reassert—valuing one’s comfort before the rights and lives of others has always been a central component to every atrocity perpetrated, whether in the holocaust or the “casual” consumption of meat. And if you apply the utilitarian ideal, the greatest good for the greatest number, and perform the hedonistic calculus, the pro-life conviction in the vast majority of cases recommends life rather than death.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The equilibration of rights
Contrary to popular belief, pro-life advocates do not strictly argue that we must preserve the right to life of the fetus at all costs. At the same time, while pro-life advocates tend to emphasize the right to life of the fetus to the diminution of the mother’s right to life, pro-choice advocates tend to emphasize the rights of the mother to the near or total exclusion of the rights of the fetus.

Under a more just worldview, however, we would consider the mother’s claims and those of her fetus on the merits of those claims. Weighing these claims against each other constitutes that grand act of calibrating the scales of justice.

Loose guidelines may be prescribed to determine, given isolated variables or smaller clusters of variables, which rights should take precedence in which conditions. Such guidelines will all factor into the moral calculus of the decision of whether or not to abort.

The right to life is influenced by the probability that the mother and/or child will die, the expected quality of the mother’s and child’s life following natural pregnancy or abortion, the expected lifespan of the mother and child following natural pregnancy or abortion, and various combinations of these factors.

In general, the fetus’s right to life will outweigh the mother’s right to life; out of nearly four million live births in the US each year, only 650 women die of pregnancy-related complications (1, 2). Moreover, only 13% of mother’s in a 2005 survey choose “possible problems affecting the health of [my] fetus”, even when given the opportunity to check off as many reasons they sought abortion as possible, and write in reasons not listed, indicating that a comparatively low number of abortions are sought to protect the child’s welfare, and even fewer with demonstrated or expected disability.--Animalian (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1.	http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf#table01 2.	http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm 3.	http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

Changing the "arguments" section to side-by-sides
I think the article would benefit from comparing "pro-life" and "pro-choice" arguments, which is best done with side-by-side templates, as done at Abortion arguments. Good idea? 18:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely!!!--Animalian (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But .. wouldn't that just duplicate the existing side-by-side Abortion arguments article? If there are additional pro and contra points wouldn't it be better to expand that article?--Coffee (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would merge Abortion arguments into Abortion. 18:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't. That article was split from this one because it was making it too long & interrupting the flow of the article.  See threads above, circa mid-2011.  Besides which, side-by-side is meant for textual commentary, & isn't a very good format for discussing the merits of arguments.  18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Then I propose the reverse: move arguments about the morality of abortion to the abortion arguments page. (It could be renamed "Morality of abortion" or similar.) That way we provide a close look at both pro-life and pro-choice arguments; right now, the abortion page doesn't do either extremely well.
 * Why's sbs bad for merits of arguments? (And, if sbs is bad -- what's the alternate? Do point-counterpoint vertically?) 20:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikanreed, you have asked me to discuss alternate theories. I have not had the time to contribute and expand my arguments because of the unreasonable revisionism I have encountered. Here--look at all the material I could improve and which other people could view and edit but which will never make it because of unreasonable revisionists who will categorically reject all pro-life arguments on the basis they contain pro-life content. It is as if we were discussing vegetarianism on a page controlled by non-vegetarian meat-eaters, and everything you wrote was destroyed simply because it contained pro-vegetarian arguments, the flaws of which your opponents will not bother to correct and which they are apt to emphasize, even though they perpetrate such flaws in their own arguments and corresponding discourse.

I wish for you to actually EDIT these arguments, to suggest revisions, offer constructive criticism, and insert your own refutations and reasoning until such time as that you actually permit these pro-life arguments to appear on the pro-life page. I will soon contribute elsewhere, but would like to finally produce something which overcomes your sensibilities and yet which still adequately represents the pro-life position and arguments thereto.--Animalian (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed contributions
Nearly two weeks have passed, and the equilibration of rights and the utilitarian argument stand unopposed, not to say that either is without criticism. While briefly challenged, the numerical argument has been moreover satisfactorily defended. I thereby submit these articles to the Arguments against Abortion section, where they, even against your best criticism—or lack thereof—rightly belong. If you find portions of these arguments objectionable, incorporate your objections into the main article, or for more extensive debate, raise these objections on the appropriate section of the talk page. In this way, our work is collective and intellectually honest—we each contribute to the article and we each defend our views, against the thrust of our opponent’s best arguments. Such is the spirit of rational inquiry.

Some final notes: The present abortion article is replete with arguments for legal abortion, and has, in comparison, a trivially modest section dedicated to arguments against abortion, a section won only a few weeks ago after heated debate and intense revisionism. For reasons I have explained on multiple occasions, the present arguments against abortion section are among the weakest, not the strongest, pro-life arguments (1). In the spirit of rational inquiry, we should present not only the most relevant, but the strongest arguments to either side of the issue. Therefore would we know those arguments most essential we refute, lest they undermine or even invalidate our position, perhaps irredeemably (2).

Moreover, the present article is incomplete insofar as the arguments against abortion section not only underrepresents, but represents not at all many of the most prevalent pro-life arguments. Most glaringly absent is the right to life, which presents, as academicians (such as Tom Regan) have spent a lifetime defending, the most compelling arguments for the rights view, and, consequently, against abortion (3). Whereas you may object to the numerical argument on the grounds that it is not endemic to the pro-life encampment—without good reason, as I argue (4)—you cannot object to the right to life on these grounds. If ever there was a conviction which united the pro-life encampment, it would be either the belief that life is sacred or the right to life, the latter but the foremost legalistic interpretation of the forerunning. In such regard, the right to life duly earns a slot on the abortion page, if not also the harshest criticism.

Finally, I must note stark differences between myself and others I have encountered here in the past. Having demonstrated the need for, at the very least, the inclusion of the right to life, due to its centrality and merit—which we shall presume unless or until demonstrated otherwise—in the arguments against abortion section on the abortion page, I contribute either lacking or altogether missing content. This missing content is habitually removed by ever vigilant “guardians”, who, within minutes of uploading this missing content, swipe it from existence. Even if the missing content I generate for the arguments against abortion section on the abortion page prove flawed, all the better for criticism and my personal humiliation. But seeing that two entire proposed sub-sections stand yet unopposed, and that those criticisms which elsewhere (as on the pro-life page) were competently refuted stand without further defense, I find it highly unreasonable to categorically dismiss and expunge content that none among you will, as it seems, ever contribute and, worse yet, intellectually dishonest. To destroy by force of the fist—or computer mouse, as it so happens—that which you fail to more competently refute (let alone read, as the case often seems) is a victory in a limited sense, and most certainly not a philosophical one (5).

For reasons already enumerated, do I therefore restore work previously expunged to its rightful place—


 * 1.	Consider the unconstitutionality of abortion argument--since the constitution neither mentions abortion nor family planning, both are categorically illegal, if not pervasively immoral. Neither does the constitution directly mention anything about African American’s rights (prior to the 13th amendment) nor women’s rights (prior to the 19th amendment). Nor does the constitution directly mention gay rights or rights of the disabled, except by extension of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, formerly unrecognized or severely abrogated in the case of African Americans, women, homosexuals, and the disabled. The constitution outlines rights which are at once universal, impartial, and objective, and which therefore apply to all matters of legal justice. Only in extreme cases (consider slavery) were amendments which targeted a specific subpopulation necessary. To protest that abortion ought to be categorically illegal due to its “absence” from the constitution is just as preposterous as and no better than arguing, as many taken to the “Christian slavery” conviction in an era prior, that, since the bible never objects to slavery, slavery is therefore not only part of the human condition, but a virtue. No reasonable person would accept this argument, nor would I, even as an adamant pro-life advocate.


 * 2.	The duty of every bounden philosopher is to affirm in the logical sense the most voracious, complete, and well-reasoned theory as defended against the most salient attacks from quarters within and beyond the ivory tower.


 * 3.	Tom Regan, even in his 1983 work, The Case for Animal Rights, published but a decade after the Roe v. Wade verdict, argues that the subject-of-a-life criterion, or an experiential welfare, is a sufficient but not necessary condition to bear rights. Among other sufficient criteria he lists potentiality, as in the case of fetuses, for many fetuses will quite clearly develop an experiential welfare in the not too distant future. To Regan, the probability that a fetus will come to occupy a distinct psychophysical identity is morally relevant, a capacity the fetus does not share equally with a rock. The disparity between the experiential potential of the rock and a fetus so unbridgeably vast, Regan argues that, though infants, imbeciles, and children may lack personhood in the Kantian sense, they are nevertheless subjects of a life, with an experiential welfare independent of their utility to us. Precluding imbeciles, perhaps, Regan considers it morally relevant that the vast majority of infants and children will become moral agents. He nevertheless maintains that, as in the case of those imbecilic from birth, being a subject of a life, even if one is or will forever remain a moral “patient”, is a sufficient criterion by which to bear rights. If Regan is consistent, as his eminent mind and work suggest, alongside his generally critical remarks concerning abortion, he must concede that killing an infant or child is a prima facie harm comparable to killing a fetus in the absence of a morally relevant difference. I have identified one such morally relevant difference, the generally higher rates at which fetuses die compared to children, an implication encapsulated in the numerical argument. Nevertheless, for the remaining 60% of fetuses, the harm is prima facie comparable to that fundamental, irreversible harm of death, as when we kill the young gratuitously without engaging in what Regan calls “preference-respecting euthanasia”. If you wish to denounce potentiality as an invalid argument for the attribution of moral rights to the unborn, you must find reasoned objection to argument thus far conceived, and argue as would the philosopher, through reason, precision, and clarity.


 * 4.	Refuting an argument on the grounds that it is unpopular, or not shared by enough people, would commit oneself to the ad populum fallacy. Instead, you must refute an argument by its respective merit—or demerit, as it may so happen—independently of popular approval or avowal.


 * 5.	There is, as it were, two ways to win an argument—through superior logical argumentation, or through steadfast denial. But victory comes not truly to hand until you win in a latter respect—by changing the minds of those once opposed, for which I continue to fight, as ethically enlightened (or disillumined) I may be.--Animalian (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If my memory serves me right, nobody "conceded" to your argument. It went "unchallenged" in your eyes because you are little more than gish galloping. You're long winded and I'm pretty certain nobody cares to submit to your forced rules of "debate." And those who have you've simply gone by your own wayside against your own rules by stonewalling your point and repeating the same thing over and over again. So, I vote no and I don't care to explain why at this time, mostly because I think someone else can and will do a better job of it than myself fairly soon. Trick (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your long winded addition adds nothing useful. This wiki is not intended to host philosophical explorations of topics.  Take a look at MISSION. Marlow (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "do I therefore restore work previously expunged to its rightful place" Did you seriously look at this phrasing and think it was anything other than laughably pretentious and egotistical? Queexchthonic murmurings 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the "arguments against" section is pretty lame. Not that the 5k characters that are being debated looks like much of an improvement, of course.  ħ uman  18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marlow already said it best. This isn't the freshman philosophy wiki and your philosophical screeds have nothing to do with our mission here. You've been told this over and over again and still insist on doing this bullshit. If you come up in the Coop, I know exactly what I'm voting for. --Castaigne (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Trick, I was challenged, and I defended myself reasonably. Though I wrote quite mercilessly, and could have written far more coolly, I was deeply frustrated and struggling with emotional instability following an attempt to wean myself from my medication, a sleep pill which I fear might cause side-effects over time. My sickness now alleviated—I sleep well rather than restlessly—I have returned to debate more reasonably, more generously toward those who I have offended with my brazen pretentiousness in the past. And as before, I will respond point by point, a practice I encourage you to adopt.

Indeed, no one “conceded” to my arguments, insofar as I am aware. Neither did I receive an admission of fault from anyone, nor did anyone tell me that, as a result of my arguments, their minds have been changed. So far as I am concerned, no one has conceded to my arguments, nor do I make this claim anywhere in the above body of text—I reread it to determine your textual accuracy, for I did not recall writing anything about concession. At the least, you must quote or paraphrase me accurately, rather than just slander me. We seek logical argumentation in pursuit of the truth, not ad hominem attack.

Nor did I state that my argument—it is actually a composite of several, though you mistakenly identify it as one—went completely unchallenged, as you imply I believe. In fact, I acknowledged the challenges presented in earlier debates, only to note that, more than a week later, various arguments I pose still stand unopposed so far as logical inquiry is concerned—they have garnered no direct comment, criticism, or refutation up to the present point. I only draw attention to this paucity since my intent is, through the criticism of my peers, to achieve a document permissible to include on either the pro-life or abortion page.

I do, however, claim that, for all the criticism I and my arguments have received, none of this criticism, to my intellect, appears sufficient to dismiss my “argument” in toto (again, there are several arguments, each of which must be judged its merits). Perhaps certain positions I maintain are logically untenable, and try as I may to ground objection to abortion in utilitarianism, I believe I have failed, and I anywise find the implications of utilitarian theory unsavory, to say the least. Nevertheless, I have raised a utilitarian argument that must be dismissed on utilitarian grounds, which clearly no one has yet managed.

Moreover do I validly claim that my refutations stand without further criticism, and have so stood for more than a week, despite ample time for plenary persons to criticize these refutations—again, I am but one defending against many. Since the fullest expression of our debate was initiated by Castaigne, and still remains tied to his initial criticisms, refutations 1b-7 constitute the most plausible point from which to proceed, absent ad hominem attack. You are free to criticize other sections, but if, as I believe, my criticisms are sufficiently valid to dismiss Castaigne’s objections, then I have won insofar as these points are concerned.1

You next protest my long-windedness. Admittedly, my first refutation, refutation 1a, was comparatively massive. In fact, it spanned more than 20 pages on a standard word document. In this span, I attempted to incorporate all my relevant life experiences in dealing with the elderly, poor, and disabled to make the case that people value their lives dearly, independently of the value—or the lack thereof—we assign to their lives, for example, by aborting a fetus due to the probability he or she will be raised a poor child, or upon the diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome. My cousin with cerebral palsy, my great-grandma who just died, and my experience with the retarded in my youth simply do not permit these anemic justifications for abortion.

While I did write to an acceptable level of quality, that itself does not free me from the fault of excessive length. I duly apologize, and in all further commentary, wrote to far shorter length, on the order of a paragraph or two. Such will you find the case regarding refutations 1b-7. I nevertheless find it regrettable that I poisoned the well concerning the length of my responses, since you now protest anything I write on the premise it is too lengthy for consideration. Nevertheless, the later fault, I am afraid to confide, is your fault, not mine. For reasons I have already argued, it is unreasonable to dismiss my work on the basis of length alone.2

You next criticize my reliance on the formal rules of debate, and allege that I “stonewall” my arguments by “repeating the same thing over and over again”. Your first criticism is invalid in that, whether at home, on the internet, or in academic circles, the rules of formal debate still apply, just as the laws of logic still hold. The format of the debate, the way in which proceeds, will naturally be dictated, in part, by various constraints, such as time or character limit. And while a 45-minute presentation by the author of a 400-page tome will doubtlessly lack the nuance of the former work, the principles behind both remain constant—clarity, precision, information, and rationality.

As to your allegation, I admit you are correct—I have thrice posted the same content with but mild alteration each time. But this is only true of the arguments which I work so hard to bring to light on the abortion and pro-life page. It does not hold for my responses to others’ criticisms concerning such work. Just peer over what I have written thus far concerning your criticism hereinabove. Each sentence is unique and fits together harmoniously with the body of the article I now compose. Moreover, concerning past criticisms worthy of mention, but less than “harmonious” with the grain of the essay, I have noted such restatement, and clarified these criticisms in the notes which follow.

You might, however, be commenting on the ideas which I consistently express and which underlie my writing. This criticism, however, is misdirected at best, confused at worst. While potentially valid, I suspend such validity on the premise that my beliefs are well-founded, and demonstrated to far greater extent than any of your beliefs. In fact, based on everything you have thus far written, I can conclude nothing of your beliefs, let alone identify what they are. All I can deduce is a deep-seated ambivalence toward me, and, as I infer, the pro-life position. You are therefore dually untoward—not only do you fail to specify, let alone justify, your beliefs, but you treat me—to speak generously—without any particular hospitality.

Hostility aside, the presence of unifying ideas beneath one’s work is not itself an adequate criterion by which to dismiss one’s work as needlessly repetitive—which, given my argument to this point, is more like a variation on a theme, not thoughtless, parroted drivel. In fact, the presence of unifying ideas provides the foundation upon which consistency may rest, and is commendable at least insofar as it facilitates consistency. But if the underlying idea itself yields inconsistent conclusions, or is for some other reason(s) objectionable, say, by a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, we ought to express disdain for these beliefs and abandon them in place of more viable alternatives.

For reasons stated above, I cannot appropriately comment upon let alone identify your underlying beliefs. But insofar as we concern my beliefs, upon which I have written several condensations, and which I have expended more than forty pages defending, we may count among my underlying beliefs the arguably undying presumption that life is intrinsically valuable, that the rights view constitutes the most equitable ethical theory over all other considered alternatives, that the rights view defends the assignation of rights to the unborn, and that morality exists in a meaningful sense.

Having researched various, competing ethical theories, and versed myself with many of the strongest criticisms and defenses thereof, I can defend these convictions by force of argument, perhaps more decisively than another less-versed in ethical theory.3 And though you (and many others) will be quick to deride my moral presumption, my boundless moral naïveté, and my reliance on morality to arbitrate matters such as abortion, we, as I have defended in two separate essays, are necessarily debating ethics.

More directly, you seem to believe that we ought to preserve the right to abort for women; I believe we ought to respect the right to life of fetus, and balance this right against the rights of the mother. You might proclaim your position as purely scientific and objective, but you cannot consistently maintain this. For if you believe we ought to preserve the aforementioned right, not only would you be the first to derive an “ought” from an “is”, but would you presuppose some value, as freedom, which itself presupposes morality—for value is a meta-ethical property codified in axiology. No matter how basic or slight these values, their mere existence instantiates morality.

You might yet protest that the compiled body of facts and theories we hail as science is without value, and neither bears value, nor manifests it. In particular, we might value science for its objectivity. And while facts may be absolutely true or false, or even exist independently of the subjective experience—it strains the imagination to conceive a perfectly objective being, and may, in fact, be impossible—the argument of science for its own sake (or for other ends) introduces a value exterior to objective fact itself. Likewise might you value rationality. In either case, the overarching conclusion still applies—any value, however slight, however invested in science, mathematics, or other (possibly) purely objective domains, necessarily presupposes the existence of morality.

This conclusion appears to me, after all consideration, inescapable and ineradicable. How we apply morality is a separate issue, and one which I have tried to answer to the best of my ability. As for yourself (and others like you), I leave the following dilemma—either concede that morality necessarily exists given the existence of value, no matter how basic or slight, or deny the existence of morality altogether. If you choose the latter option—perhaps there are other options, but I have yet to encounter them—you have a tremendous burden of proof to satisfy. At any rate, if I cannot convince you by any moral means whatsoever that we ought to respect the right to life of the fetus, weighed against the rights of the mother, do not expect to convince me that we ought to preserve women the right to abort, absent some ethical theory or value.

To simplify—

A.	Revisit refutations 1b-7, found on the pro-life talk page under “toward the refutation of the pro-life conviction”. From thence may we continue our debate.

B.	To invalidate my arguments, you must either a) invalidate them within the framework from which they were conceived or b) invalidate the entire moral theory itself.

C.	You must abide by the rules of logical argumentation, including specification of beliefs, clarification of meaning, and satisfaction of the burden of proof. Otherwise, you automatically forfeit your chance to win this debate, for debate is won via superior logical argumentation. (I prefer to imagine that I debate before a panel of judges at an ivy league, as in the film “The Great Debaters”—though I make little claim to the brilliance of those enjoined to such debates.)

D.	You must refrain from ad hominem attacks and qualify what you say by citing appropriate, well-considered evidence. Fallacies and misrepresentation are not merits in most any debate.

E.	If you reject my arguments because they rely on morality, you must demonstrate one of three things: a) why your beliefs and arguments don’t rely on morality, b) why it doesn’t matter that your beliefs rely on morality while it matters than mine do, or c) that morality does not exist, why your beliefs somehow aren’t moral, and how abortion can be justified exterior to morality.


 * 1.	To direct you to these refutations, read “toward the refutation of the pro-choice conviction” on the pro-life talk page. I have specified how to manage its length—but seven pages in a standard word document—in the first paragraph. I do not particularly commend my writing for its quality, but its objections nevertheless stand.


 * 2.	Mind you, several pages is a moderate length to combat indeed. To simplify my arguments, I have proceeded point by point, and even indicated how to manage such length in the introductory paragraph to refutations 1b-7. I have even, reviewing my work, consolidated it into an afterward, a-e, and I have done so twice, to spare you the burden of reading a page or two at a time. However, to categorically dismiss something, even of moderate length, on the grounds of length is nothing short of a fallacy. Moreover is it unreasonable to suppose that seven pages constitute a length too great to read, for then why read 80-page chapters, 200-page disquisitions, or 400-page manifestos? Accepting your argument that seven pages is too great a length to read, it seems impossible to consume books accept after painstaking months of progressing several pages a day, the weak interpretation of your criticism from long-windedness. Following the strong interpretation of your criticism, it would not even be possible to read such extended works. Due to my efforts to consolidate and clarify my work, as related above, your criticism from long-windedness is only further rendered unreasonable.


 * 3.	Such a statement, however, does not preclude personal brilliance, or any sufficiently insightful individual, from reaching ethical conclusions and synthesizing entire ethical theories independently of others or with limited prompting.--Animalian (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * tl;dr --Marlow (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Marlow. To help everyone manage the length of my responses, I now condense my work into items a-x. You may find these condensations at the bottom of my lengthier responses, just before the note section. To make matters easier, and condensations a-e more readily apparent, I resubmit them hereinbelow--


 * To simplify—


 * A.	Revisit refutations 1b-7, found on the pro-life talk page under “toward the refutation of the pro-life conviction”. From thence may we continue our debate.


 * B.	To invalidate my arguments, you must either a) invalidate them within the framework from which they were conceived or b) invalidate the entire moral theory itself.


 * C.	You must abide by the rules of logical argumentation, including specification of beliefs, clarification of meaning, and satisfaction of the burden of proof. Otherwise, you automatically forfeit your chance to win this debate, for debate is won via superior logical argumentation. (I prefer to imagine that I debate before a panel of judges at an ivy league, as in the film “The Great Debaters”—though I make little claim to the brilliance of those enjoined to such debates.)


 * D.	You must refrain from ad hominem attacks and qualify what you say by citing appropriate, well-considered evidence. Fallacies and misrepresentation are not merits in most any debate.


 * E.	If you reject my arguments because they rely on morality, you must demonstrate one of three things: a) why your beliefs and arguments don’t rely on morality, b) why it doesn’t matter that your beliefs rely on morality while it matters than mine do, or c) that morality does not exist, why your beliefs somehow aren’t moral, and how abortion can be justified exterior to morality.--Animalian (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, this was exactly my point. I say you're long winded to the point that nobody with EVER pay attention to you, and you respond with over 12,000 characters. Not. Necessary. And again, you're creating your OWN RULES of debate. It's not about your argument. It's barely about your content. You're just trying to dig your heels in on a topic, badly. Make your points piece by piece if you want an actual debate. Trick (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Animalian, article talk pages are for discussing article improvements, not debating the topic itself. It has already been explained to you why the content you wish to add is not suitable; refuting it in the manner you demand is not necessary nor desirable on a talk page.  If you want a debate you can create one within RationalWiki:Debates.  That being said, dictating a bunch of rules to everyone at the start isn't likely to win you many takers or friends for that matter.  Marlow (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Marlow, I have tried to improve the article by generating missing content—particularly, the secularist arguments against abortion. I have even submitted proposed sub-sections to, after revision and heavy-handed philosophical debate, emend to the present article, which bears but the weakest arguments against abortion. I have tried numerous times. Indeed, I need to rewrite the arguments, to re-condense them—the right to life, as I have proposed, operates more so as an essay. But it is still unreasonable that no part of these arguments can appear, that we cannot accept a proxy, until or unless demonstrated otherwise. And even if my arguments prove faulty, all the better for reinforcing the pro-choice conviction and humiliating me personally. You can add criticism, in a style appropriate to the article, after each pro-life argument. But rather than be reasonable in your revision, you simply remove pro-life arguments, including the numerical argument, which, last I checked, has no valid criticism lodged against it. Your actions are therefore arbitrary and revisionist—you will not allow sound arguments to appear simply because they challenge your beliefs. You withhold pertinent information to the arguments against abortion section often without sufficient reason. I have written by now more than 50 pages defending just a couple additions to the articles. You only deny what I say and you are never methodical and consistent. To see a work which is methodical and consistent, look at the one right above you, where I addressed Trick’s criticism, literally clause by clause. None of you have ever been so methodical, and you make assertions without providing sufficient evidence to validate them. I do not claim that all your criticisms are unfounded, but rather that many of them are insufficiently supported. That said, unless or until you become more methodical, many of your criticisms will be inherently weak. Your current criticism, which you grant to much liberty, is that my arguments belong in debate space. I grant that, but will you actually bother to methodically refute my arguments there? Your criticism that my responses belong in debate space do nothing to actually counter my arguments. You are confusing a procedural technicality for a logical victory. Please correct that, and actually respond to my arguments, here or wherever you deport them so they can be forgotten.--Animalian (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re B.: Could you clarify what you mean by "framework" and "moral theory"? Is the framework a specific moral perspective (e.g. preference utilitarianism, or Kantian deontology) or something else? By "the entire moral theory", are you referring to all of morality or to a specific moral perspective? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument he points to boils down to "life begins at conception therefore abortion is murder". I would suggest that our friend has a look at When does life begin where this, along with much else, is addressed. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, when any arbitrarily defined concept of 'life' begins is hardly on-point. The question is whether or not it's morally relevant that at the moment of conception a single cell begins developing into a multicellular and eventually sentient organism. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Trick. I responded with 2,291 words, which amounts to roughly 12,000 characters, I permit. Since the average adult reads at a rate of approximately 250-300 words per minute, it should take no more than 10 minutes to read. Moreover, such length was not without purpose. I, for example, refuted essentially every argument you have since raised. (Please note—length is not a valid counterargument. I refuted this argument more thoroughly in note 2.) If 10 minutes is too engaging, read a few paragraphs at a time, and formulate your rebuttals on the basis of what you read. Presently, your rebuttals rest on the basis of what you haven’t read. I find it very troubling indeed that you categorically refute something before you even read it. I have known the religious to operate in an eerily similar way.

Next, I am not making up the rules of debate; they exist regardless of how well we follow them. I addressed this also in my three-page refutation. We each share the burden of proof. We each must refrain from fallacies. We must each state our position. We must each clarify our terms. Without obeying these rules, philosophical inquiry can scarcely proceed. You, however, contest these rules and their application to our present debate. The burden of proof is therefore unto you to demonstrate why these rules do not apply or do not matter in the present debate. Specifically, you must show how these are my rules and my rules alone, and why they have no place in logical debate. If you can do neither, you claims are incredible in the sense that we have little to no reason to believe them. You must demonstrate that which you say.

Finally, I have made my case point by point, though perhaps not with the precision of a carefully outlined book. I have rendered arguments against abortion within at least two major ethical theories; I have released condensations of my work (A-E, as a prime example); and I have contested multiple specific points, such as that expected mental handicap or poverty is a sufficient condition for aborting a fetus, and I have done so at length, point by point, paragraph by paragraph. The section, A-X, which now follows my lengthier responses clarify the major challenges I pose to your position. I do not leave the burden of reading my responses and deducing the arguments I pose entirely on the reader; instead, I specify what you must accomplish to refute my arguments.

To simplify—


 * A. Noting the length of my responses does not refute my arguments.


 * B. You can manage my length by reading a few paragraphs at a time, or immediately resorting to the A-E rehash.


 * C. If I am making the rules up as I go along, you must demonstrate that these rules are my rules and my rules alone. Specifically, you must demonstrate why the following rules are my rules and my rules alone, or why they don’t matter in the present let alone any debate—


 * 1. We must satisfy our burden of proof.


 * 2. We must refrain from fallacies.


 * 3. We must state our position.


 * 4. We must clarify our terms.


 * D. I have proceeded point by point; in fact, my above response followed you original response virtually clause by clause—it is time for others to demonstrate such precision.


 * E. You can’t refute what you haven’t read.


 * F. It is unreasonable to refute what you haven’t read.


 * G. Refer to note 2 in former response concerning length as a valid argument.--Animalian (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Animalian, I think you should know why people read wiki articles: it's because they want to read the summary of the issue of interest. These articles exist to satisfy the needs of those that don't wish to read thick books in order to become knowledgable on a subject. Don't expect to receive respect on a wiki based on your verbosity; the response is much more likely to be a negative one. Also, you seem to want people to engage you in a debate about abortion, but this is not the purpose of article talkpages. If you want to have that kind of discussion, you should try the Debate: or Forum: namespace. As it stands right now, you have no hopes of winning your 'debate' as you've been unsuccessful so far in starting one up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Trick. Collapsing my work does not make it go away. Please snap out of your revisionist mindset. This is where our debate left off—

To simplify—

A.	Revisit refutations 1b-7, found on the pro-life talk page under “toward the refutation of the pro-life conviction”. From thence may we continue our debate.

B.	To invalidate my arguments, you must either a) invalidate them within the framework (such as utilitarianism) from which they were conceived, b) invalidate the entire moral theory itself, c) invalidate all ethical theory.

C.	You must abide by the rules of logical argumentation, including specification of beliefs, clarification of meaning, and satisfaction of the burden of proof. Otherwise, you automatically forfeit your chance to win this debate, for debate is won via superior logical argumentation. (I prefer to imagine that I debate before a panel of judges at an ivy league, as in the film “The Great Debaters”—though I make little claim to the brilliance of those enjoined to such debates.)

D.	You must refrain from ad hominem attacks and qualify what you say by citing appropriate, well-considered evidence. Fallacies and misrepresentation are not merits in most any debate.

E.	If you reject my arguments because they rely on morality, you must demonstrate one of three things: a) why your beliefs and arguments don’t rely on morality, b) why it doesn’t matter that your beliefs rely on morality while it matters than mine do, or c) that morality does not exist, why your beliefs somehow aren’t moral, and how abortion can be justified exterior to morality.


 * “Ok, this was exactly my point. I say you're long winded to the point that nobody with EVER pay attention to you, and you respond with over 12,000 characters. Not. Necessary. And again, you're creating your OWN RULES of debate. It's not about your argument. It's barely about your content. You're just trying to dig your heels in on a topic, badly. Make your points piece by piece if you want an actual debate.” –Trick


 * Hello, Trick. I responded with 2,291 words, which amounts to roughly 12,000 characters, I permit. Since the average adult reads at a rate of approximately 250-300 words per minute, it should take no more than 10 minutes to read. Moreover, such length was not without purpose. I, for example, refuted essentially every argument you have since raised. (Please note—length is not a valid counterargument. I refuted this argument more thoroughly in note 2.) If 10 minutes is too engaging, read a few paragraphs at a time, and formulate your rebuttals on the basis of what you read. Presently, your rebuttals rest on the basis of what you haven’t read. I find it very troubling indeed that you categorically refute something before you even read it. I have known the religious to operate in an eerily similar way.


 * Next, I am not making up the rules of debate; they exist regardless of how well we follow them. I addressed this also in my three-page refutation. We each share the burden of proof. We each must refrain from fallacies. We must each state our position. We must each clarify our terms. Without obeying these rules, philosophical inquiry can scarcely proceed. You, however, contest these rules and their application to our present debate. The burden of proof is therefore unto you to demonstrate why these rules do not apply or do not matter in the present debate. Specifically, you must show how these are my rules and my rules alone, and why they have no place in logical debate. If you can do neither, you claims are incredible in the sense that we have little to no reason to believe them. You must demonstrate that which you say.


 * Finally, I have made my case point by point, though perhaps not with the precision of a carefully outlined book. I have rendered arguments against abortion within at least two major ethical theories; I have released condensations of my work (A-E, as a prime example); and I have contested multiple specific points, such as that expected mental handicap or poverty is a sufficient condition for aborting a fetus, and I have done so at length, point by point, paragraph by paragraph. The section, A-X, which now follows my lengthier responses clarify the major challenges I pose to your position. I do not leave the burden of reading my responses and deducing the arguments I pose entirely on the reader; instead, I specify what you must accomplish to refute my arguments.


 * To simplify—


 * A. Noting the length of my responses does not refute my arguments.


 * B. You can manage my length by reading a few paragraphs at a time, or immediately resorting to the A-E rehash.


 * C. If I am making the rules up as I go along, you must demonstrate that these rules are my rules and my rules alone. Specifically, you must demonstrate why the following rules are my rules and my rules alone, or why they don’t matter in the present let alone any debate—


 * 1. We must satisfy our burden of proof.


 * 2. We must refrain from fallacies.


 * 3. We must state our position.


 * 4. We must clarify our terms.


 * D. I have proceeded point by point; in fact, my above response followed you original response virtually clause by clause—it is time for others to demonstrate such precision.


 * E. You can’t refute what you haven’t read.


 * F. It is unreasonable to refute what you haven’t read.


 * G. Refer to note 2 in former response concerning length as a valid argument.--Animalian (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh Gods, now you're even copypasting your previous posts. >.< 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh Gods, you can see what Trick is trying to cover up. I copy pasted because was DELIBERATELY IGNORING MY EVERY POINT. He still has yet to respond to a single one. Who is the unreasonable one here? The person who won't argue, and who deliberately hides valid criticisms, or the person who produces these criticisms with the intent of both winning the debate, through superior logical argumentation, and improving rationalwiki articles?--Animalian (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem very capable of doing either. 17:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The utilitarian argument
(This section is incomplete. I had to wrap it up to fit a three-page word document to print and distribute amongst other members of socratic society.)

Following the mantra “the greatest good for the greatest number”, we may derive useful utilitarian arguments against abortion, depending on the value we select. In classical utilitarianism, that value is suffering. Though modern utilitarians may select alternate values, such as happiness, as the ultimate or intrinsic good, their moral considerations still obey the same hedonistic calculus, variables of which include intensity, duration, certainty, and propinquity (1).

By the right to life, “the greatest good for the greatest number” consists of two competing variables, a) the number of the living and b) the respective quality of their lives. Through the hedonistic calculus, we may optimize both. Such remark, however, fails to directly provide utilitarian arguments for or against abortion, for which we resort to general observations. We count, among these observations, the simple fact that most beings cherish their life, so much so that they are willing to persevere through horrendous conditions to preserve it. We may also count the simple fact that life is a rewarding experience, and that for all its misery, there remains tremendous joy, the joy we actively strive to achieve. (As an aside, non-existence is a misery of its own, for it neither provides comfort, nor ever the relief of tribulation overcome.)

An objection arises in that, if suffering is the ultimate evil, then we should eliminate suffering entirely. And since the only option presently available to achieve this end appears the extermination of all life, including human life, such an objection defies our foremost moral sensibilities. Moreover, this objection tacitly assumes that neither nature could create nor could man ever synthesize beings which, though capable of suffering, cannot process such suffering, i.e., a being whose interests may be violated, but whose capacity for experiencing pain is nil.

From these considerations arises not only the conviction that we should respect the right to life of beings, but also ensure that humans thrive via the optimization of our competing variables. It stands to reason, that, in general, forsaking a child to nothingness, denying him life in all its wondrous complexity, is a grave evil for which, even as a profoundly anti-religious man, I believe we should repent (2).--Animalian (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1.	http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html 2.	http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/


 * (I have some slightly off-the-cuff remarks…) You cite a principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number”, then detail the feelings and imagined suffering of the potentially aborted person(s). (If they're aborted, there is a great difficulty in claiming that they suffer actual pain, loss of anything, etc. You can't easily claim their soul/spirit exists and has suffering inflicted upon it; and if they do exist as spirit, they might simply be born to someone else…) You don't seem to allow possible societal good of abortion… for potential benefits to society, such as population control, preventing single-parent births, reducing high school and college drop-out rates, preventing pushing people and their offspring [further] into poverty, preventing what some sufferers of birth defects (and the courts) term “wrongful life”… The typical things anti-abortion people claim that people who choose to have an abortion selfishly and wrongly cite as their reasons. — Moray (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
Currently, this page is biased and doesn't have much room for response. If there's no opposition for 24 hours, I'll move them over. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Move the arguments about the morality of abortion to the Abortion arguments page
 * 2) Rename the Abortion arguments page to "Morality of abortion" or similar


 * FuzzyCat, you believe that this page is biased, in favor of pro-choice advocates? If you do, I esteem you for such recognition. I can't believe how much I had to fight just to get valid pro-life arguments on either the pro-life or abortion page. I am exceedingly intelligent, and I should not have to deal with such bullshit. I apologize for my arrogance, but I was told most people here hold doctorates, or other advanced degrees, or are elsewise intellectually respectable, or even just mentally competent. I, for one, would like to believe that doctors are smarter than those I have encountered. I believe furthermore that you revamped the morality of abortion page, for which I would thank you tremendously.--Animalian (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed contributions II
I have been arguing for weeks in order to upload some missing content on the abortion/pro-life page. Presently, the abortion page contains only the weakest pro-life arguments, which I have debunked several times, and does not even represent the most common let alone strongest arguments against abortion, such as the right to life. The abortion page, however, contains a great variety of pro-choice arguments which adequately cover and represent the pro-choice position. This great variety and the relative paucity of pro-life arguments have been achieved through consistent revisionism, wherefore the “guardians” of the page immediately retract pro-life arguments. After weeks of argumentation, the only reason for this revisionism appears that I disagree with your pro-choice conviction. But unlike my opponents, I do not nor have I ever deliberately removed pro-choice content on the basis that I disagree with it. In fact, I have never touched any pro-choice section finding its coverage adequate. As I have already stated, the coverage of not only the most common but the strongest pro-life arguments is grossly inadequate.

To improve the article, I suggest the following additions. You are welcome to introduce new criticisms in a fashion fitting to the article, to engage in the process of constructive criticism and philosophical inquiry. You, however—and I count myself among you—should not engage in blatant revisionism, by removing such content categorically simply because it includes pro-life arguments. We should all assume our role as editors. And though I have been chided in the past that deletion is a form or editing, I have been presented with no substantive reason to accept this in the case of the following proposed contributions, now more concise, complete, and better-sourced than ever. I have also defended these and other arguments to the tune of fifty pages, and I have done so with ever greater clarity and force. You will now be given the chance to edit the following contributions prior to their addition to the abortion page itself. This is your chance to identify the non-arbitrary reason why this content, which contributes to the completeness of the article at hand, cannot be uploaded.

If harsh or unreasonable resistance persists, I will ask moderators to arbitrate matters for us.

The equilibration of rights
Whether we should override the fetus’ rights or the mother’s rights is influenced by the probability that the mother and/or child will die, the expected quality of the mother’s and child’s life following natural pregnancy or abortion, the expected lifespan of the mother and child following natural pregnancy or abortion, and various combinations of these factors.

In general, the fetus’s right to life will outweigh the mother’s right to life; out of nearly four million live births in the US each year, only 650 women die of pregnancy-related complications. Moreover, only 13% of mother’s in a 2005 survey choose “possible problems affecting the health of [my] fetus”, even when given the opportunity to check off as many reasons they sought abortion as possible, and write in reasons not listed, indicating that a comparatively low number of abortions are sought to protect the child’s welfare, and even fewer with demonstrated or expected disability.

Pro-choice advocates may object to forced pregnancies which involve rape or are ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies, however, are relatively rare, comprising roughly 1-2% of all pregnancies. The same 2005 study moreover found that only 12% of women cited “physical problem with health” as a reason for abortion, indicating that abortions are generally performed for reasons other than a legitimate concern for maternal health. Finally, the argument from rape punishes the child for the actions of his or her father, and though regrettable, serves more as a rhetorical device than a substantive argument for the termination of innocent life. Arguments of such form, in fact, commit oneself to the genetic fallacy, though more reasonable arguments may be provided to justify abortion.

The numerical argument
Given that roughly 40% of all pregnancies, both documented and undocumented, end in miscarriage, we may strongly and reasonably assume that roughly 40% of abortions occur in cases wherefore the fetus would die regardless.

However, it follows that roughly 60% of abortions result in the death of children who would otherwise have been born alive. Consequently, abortion must be strictly justified in depriving such children of life.

Many pro-choice advocates criticize the numerical argument on the basis that the conclusion, that we must be strictly justified in depriving such children of life, does not seem to follow. In other contexts, such as euthanasia or war, however, this criticism would not hold, since matters of life and death are serious indeed. --Animalian (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. If this is how you like to play, I will now upload the proposed sections which, again, you tuck away so no one can see. You have failed to give any substantive reason why not to include the proposed content. I therefore upload it to enhance the completeness of the abortion article.--Animalian (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You realize people can expand collapsed sections, right? Anyway, perhaps you really want a debate / discussion site rather than a wiki. May I suggest League of reason? --SpecialFFrog (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I will admit my fault in positing that he moved my content "elsewhere", where no one can see. Please note that my opponents NEVER admit fault. However, I found the drama, even as it factually errs, justified, since it bespeaks a nasty, long-standing, revisionist trend, whereby my content has been continually deleted for no good reason and others have systematically ignored my work, treating it with off-handed, unsubstantiated derisive criticism. And so soon as I respond to this criticism, clause by clause--please note, NONE of my opponents possess this precision--my refutations are swept under the rug. Open the collapsed section above, the "repeated content". Indeed, some content is repeated, but at least three novel paragraphs are introduced, alongside two heavily edited proposed contributions, which are NOT repeated. Moreover, I brought to light those criticisms which Trick wished to sweep under the rug by collapsing them, poisoning the well and entreating his own incompetence with the assignation, "boring". If you open the collapsed section, I dare say, you will see what Trick wants to hide, what Trick wants to ignore, what he doesn't want others to know about him and his incompetence, or the collective incompetence of those with whom I have argued, in which case he is but a trollish vassal. No one should accept this unjust, deliberate negligence. I have expended more than 50 pages fighting against it, and, at last, valid pro-life arguments appear on the morality of abortion page, no longer rejected simply because they challenge others' beliefs, simply because they contain pro-life arguments AT ALL. After weeks of argument, I have secured a modest and just victory, against the incompetence of others. I learned just how unreasonable and irrational rationalists can be. (See the above collapsed section.) Now that you know WHY I have had to pursue debate--the unreasonableness of others, rejecting valid content for no other reason than they disagree with it, in which case they can EDIT--I will examine the League of Reason. Thank you!--Animalian (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still question whether this content belongs on a wiki. I would expect that a rationalwiki article on arguments around abortion would summarize the main arguments from both sides (assuming "neutrality" is desired). You instead want to fill it with your own personal arguments which are not common ones and seem to counter imaginary pro-choice arguments rather than real ones.
 * It seems you don't want these in the essay section -- where they belong, IMO -- because you think no one will read them there and you feel entitled to an audience.
 * Again, I think you really want a debating site or a blog.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at the morality of abortion page. Condensed. And in case you didn't know (or haven't read much of my writing, including that immediately above) there has ALWAYS been arguments in favor of abortion on the abortion page. ALWAYS. Only the weakest pro-life arguments made appearance, such as that, since the constitutional mentions nothing of abortion or family planning, both are categorically illegal if not also profoundly immoral. I have refuted these fuck-shit arguments SEVERAL times, and I am a pro-life advocate. There wasn't even a section for arguments against abortion until more than a weak of intensive debate, after which all the better arguments I had composed in addition to the weak arguments made appearance. Since the abortion page was ALWAYS bleeding pro-choice arguments and saturated with pro-choice sentiment, I figured I would contribute the missing content, including hugely relevant arguments such as the RIGHT TO LIFE, which made appearance NOWHERE priorly. I still need to revise it for the wiki, but you may find it, along with THREE other essays under the abortion essay category. In other words, before me, there WAS NO "NEUTRALITY"--it was all pro-choice arguments plus a few of the most fuck-shit pro-life arguments. Since the pro-choice sections are relatively complete and satisfactory for this wiki, I have never found the need to edit them. In fact, I have never even touched them. Instead, I have generated the missing content. I am therefore hugely different from the revisionists on this website who destroy my content, as it has been revealed, several weeks and nearly 60 pages of writing later, only on the basis that they DISAGREE WITH IT. I am also unlike the revisionists because I do not delete their words, excise entire pro-choice sections, or threaten to destroy their accounts and every word which can be traced to them, no matter how diverse or valid their various commentaries. The only content I have ever removed or collapsed was on my talk page, which was rife with ad hominem attack (non-substantive argument) and cluttered my work. At any rate, several of your criticisms miss the mark, considerably.--Animalian (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Writing / editing a wiki article is a collaborative experience. You refer to what you have written as "my content". Would you actually be okay with people re-writing your arguments or editing your text? If not, you are missing the point of this being a wiki. And I still don't agree that your arguments address common pro-choice claims. Can you cite one example of anyone using this "numerical argument" in favour of abortion rights? --SpecialFFrog (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Special Frog, please let me repeat--the content I generate is NEVER edited--it is merely excised. The reason there are so many sections for proposed contributions is so that everyone can edit them until they are satisfactory to add to the main page. However, NO ONE has bothered to edit any section I have proposed, after emphatic invitation and several weeks. I decided to take this course of action since the first couple times I tried to upload the missing content, "guardians" removed it almost immediately from the main page. The reasons they gave for such revisionism were so unsatisfactory that I HAD to debate extensively. And only now do valid pro-life arguments appear on the morality of abortion page. Do not blame me for being a careless editor, for this blame resides far more blatantly upon the revisionists. And I have already defended the numerical argument at length. First, the popularity of an argument is rather irrelevant in determining its validity. The majority of homo sapiens believe in religious superstition, i.e., pure, unadulterated bullshit. But to we take religious bullshit to be the truth? We ought not to answer moral question with polls, but, instead, through logical inquiry. Next, even my sharpest opponents, such as Ikanreed, admit that the numerical argument is capitulated in one form or another. Is not a major point among the pro-life encampment that abortion results in the death of many children who would otherwise be born? As such, the numerical argument serves as a clarification of this general "argument", rendering it very nearly into a syllogism. As I have told you, it relies on an unstated premise, that we ought not to accept so high a wrongful death rate rate wherefore other readily actionable alternatives exist. From the general objection, I form a true, deductive argument. Therefore, I clarify a general objection into a general argument. Moreover, this clarification make it far easier to examine the validity of the premises to determine whether we have a sound argument. I am not sure why you oppose this, other than that you happen to disagree with me. And alas, how myopic such can be.--Animalian (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A few of your criticisms, however, are more valid that others thus far covered. While some of my arguments seem "unconventional", most are closely tied to the major objections within the pro-choice encampment. The numerical argument, for example, relies on unstated premise--that a 60% wrongful death rate is too high or unacceptable given other alternatives. It therefore captures the sentiment that abortion results in high proportion of deaths among fetuses who would otherwise be born alive, who are, i.e., killed via abortion. My clarification of the argument by educing a roughly 60% wrongful death rate serves only as a clarification of this common protestation--the unacceptably high rate of avoidable death instituted by abortion. My utilitarian argument, however, is a stretch, and I believe that I have failed to ground pro-life conviction in it, due to unsavory consequences if we accept utilitarianism (u) as our foremost or singular theory of ethics. Since, for example, u treats individuals as mere receptacles of value, being the satisfaction of various desires or preferences, and is an aggretative theory, we could justifiably kill someone, say, a rich man, to distribute his wealth amongst others, thereby increasing the overall happiness in the world. In other words, u just makes murder to easy to justify, especially (unless you are, say, a rule utilitarian) since u does not account for the fundamental, irreversible prospect of death, whereafter an individual can no longer experience joy or sate his various desires. The argument from overpopulation, though a rarity, and even more rarely understood as do I, is, in fact, the strongest argument against a fundamental right to life I have ever encountered. Since I am ethically consistent, I find the human population an evil. Over time, we have killed trillions of animals for no good reason, and continue to do so into the modern day. We slaughter 60 billion cows, chickens, and pigs each year, and kill an estimated 90 billion marine creatures during fish "harvests", deaths of whom are so great they are measured only in tons. Since we may reasonably assume that the average will eat meat, his hands are bloodied--because of his or her existence, hundreds of animals will suffer gruesome fates, in factory farms and at slaughterhouses. Worse yet, humanity has caused the 6th mass extinction since the beginning of terrestrial life. To spare the remaining integrity of our planet, humanity should suffer massive die-backs and exercise extreme forms of birth and population control, such as abortion. Why should the will of several billion outweigh the needs of trillions? Who are we to believe that 200 throats may be slit a year to sate our insatiable appetite?--Animalian (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)