Essay talk:Why I oppose abortion/Archive1

Oh
Oh shit. Countdown to flame war in 3... 2... 1... -- 20:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A pre-emptive

20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

.. em..? excuse me?

did I miss anything? --Earthland 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a lot of pro-choice users here, and we are trying to preempt a flamewar. Too late.  -- 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then don't have one.
Beyond that, mind your own fucking business. TheoryOfPractice 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it clear that I am not on Earthland's side in this, but that isn't really a valid argument. 21:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OH SHIT IT STARTED! -- 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess this must be the infamous humor of Rationalwiki. They (who?) don't have what?--Earthland 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, TOP is saying if you oppose abortion, then you shouldn't have one, and shouldn't express you views, which is your right to do so. -- 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm saying if you don't think abortion is right, don't have one, but don't expect the rest of the world to follow your desires on an intesely personal matter. This guy can express his views all he wants--just don't think they should be translated into policy. TheoryOfPractice 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He is express why he opposes abortion. I don't think he is trying to translate them into policy.  -- 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just tired of this debate. There have been been no interesting insights or fresh takes on it since we discussed it thirty years ago in my eighth grade Morals class. By definition, there's no compromise or middle ground that exists. Women are gonna have abortions no matter what. They always have. Let them have them. You can't stop it. You're breathing up all of our precious air spouting stuff that's never going to convince anyone to change their mind. So eff off. TheoryOfPractice 04:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People are going to kill other people no matter what. They always have. Let them kill. You can't stop it. Needlessly breathing precious air trying to articulate how that argument sounds to your average abortion-opponent... 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly rewrite my essay so that answer to this argument is in it. Thanks for the idea. --Earthland 21:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks
Would you mind if I change the quotation marks to English ones? 21:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind. --Earthland 21:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion as a motivation
Although we can agree that one doesn't have to be religious to oppose abortion, it would seem to me that religious groups almost overwhelmingly oppose abortion or seek to limit it to cases in carrying a child to term would seriously affect the health of the mother. The atheist guy isn't exactly being rational when he says "All too often, I fear that I'm the only nonreligious person who opposes the genocide of abortion used as a birth control substitute". He has little to fear, since I don't imagine there being many people specifically supporting abortion as a substitute for wearing condoms. Supporting that would be like endorsing fillings as an alternative to dental hygiene. --Concernedresident 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I never thought an essay on abortion would make me laugh
But Additionally, it has never been a part of their agenda to protect any choice other than abortion. They don’t lobby for women to have the legal right to be prostitutes or use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, deny women “the right to choose” just as much as laws preventing abortion would. That was actually quite amusing phrase. However I must point out that in several countries, including the one I live in, prostitution is legal and that there are people that would advocate the right to take crack cocaine. 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention other choices, such as having a choice when the husband wants sex. I'd also respond by saying that the "pro-life" group aren't always pro-life. Wouldn't some of them be in support of the death penalty? That's just a silly word game, but it's in the spirit of what the author has done. --Concernedresident 23:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it really sounds a bit funny at first glance. I agree that many pro-life groups, especially in America, are hypocritical, because they support death penalty and war. I don't.--Earthland 07:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Update
I rewrote my essay a bit. I added section "So what?!" and also improved the section "religiousness of pro-life people".

--Earthland 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes look good, but does anyone actually claim that laws condoned by religious texts should be struck from the books? I can only imagine that position being held by a very small lunatic fringe who'd similarly dismiss procreation on reading "Go forth and multiply" in Genesis. --Concernedresident 09:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New life to old articles
This section looks very much like a copy/paste of this article. I trust you have copyright permission?--BobNot Jim 09:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha. And  this section looks a lot like this.--BobNot Jim 09:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm I see trouble brewing, do we first ask for it to be removed? 09:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed or re-worded are the ways to go. Frankly, I'd hate to see these parts gutted, even though they are a total copy-paste job.  I think it's best we ask for it to be re-worded or else (if it isn't by such and such time), we remove it until/unless it is. 09:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like plagiarism to me. Taking the work of somebody else and claiming it to be your own is obviously unethical. It's also illegal and against our policies. Apart from all that, stealing the work of others weakens the moral case which the author is trying to make.  The same objections would apply to the making of a derivative work of the original articles. It's bad on a whole series of levels.--BobNot Jim 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case we just need to remove the "original work" template at the top. And just put it down as "work" and then reference the links. If the original author doesn't, then the mob may have to. 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is the template. The problem is that it's plagiarism and it breaks our copyright instruction, which states in big black capital letters: DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!.  I'm just quoting, don't blame the big, black capitals on me.--BobNot Jim 16:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, of course, the "give attribution and things will be fine" only really applies to stuff under CC-BY-SA or GFDL. Paraphrasing and citing is reasonable though, as that's the standard we apply in all articles. 17:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Armondikov - have you checked the links? It's a full copy/paste with an attempt to claim originality.  This isn't about "giving attribution" and it's not about  "paraphrasing and citing".  It's plagiarism.  Exactly the same phrases are used.  Are you really saying this is acceptable or have I misunderstood?--BobNot Jim 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Armondikov is saying it's acceptable, but I think what they are trying to say is that, if we cite it as the re-published work of others, it should be fine. I do agree, though, that this is blatant plagerism, though. 17:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is the work of a sole editor who has claimed it as his own work, should that really be "our" responsibility? TheoryOfPractice 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dealing with the plagerism is, in my opinion, is our responsibility, unless the editor in question shows up and deals with it themselves. We can't just have a blatant case of plagiarism be on our pages. 17:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not inclined to do the legwork--we should move the relevant sections to the talk page or something, and leave a note on this guy's own talk page telling him to fix it or it'll get nuked. TheoryOfPractice 17:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a perfectly fine solution to me. 17:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First off it's the legal responsibility of the site owner in the same way as if a photograph were posted without permission. Secondly the author has ignored the site guidelines. Finally - a perhaps less legalistic question - do we really want people to copy/past any article they find on the net as an essay? --BobNot Jim 17:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, I kinda don't like this guy, so I was trying to suggest a way to deal with this that was as diplomatic as possible. If you wanna nuke the whole thing now, Bob, I won't stop you. TheoryOfPractice 17:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Theory is fine with it, then I say nuke it, as well. We can always restore it later to be revised. 17:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My inclination would be to zap the plagiarised parts and leave a note on the talk page of the author. Other comments would be welcome first.--BobNot Jim 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We've brought it up, let the original author reply before the mob tries anything. Any "action" people want to take should be based on their reaction to the accusations of plagiarism. Jumping the gun before that would be rude and counter-productive. I wouldn't want this to seem like it was a trial and execution without a defence. 18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We've shown that it's a pretty obvious case of plagiarism, but it would be good to give the original author a short time to respond first.--BobNot Jim 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The "original author" ? Or the misogynist plagiarist? TheoryOfPractice 20:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Misogynist? 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All people that oppose, dislike or are uncomfortable about abortion are misogynists, that way you do not have to debate the issue on it merits. 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So shoot me for thinking that wanting to pass laws designed to limit the freedom of action of people based on noting else besides their gender and reproductive capacity isn't somehow tied to sexism and misogyny. TheoryOfPractice 01:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This might come as a shock to you, people often want to pass abortion laws not to control women but to protect unborn person, the same way murder is illegal. To roughly quote Pratchett "doesn't stopping a murder limit the rights of the murderer to make a choice"?  02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Foetuses =/= "unborn people."  2. Abortion =/= murder. But I know that's not your point. And frankly, I don't give a shit what your point is. When a majority-female elected political body passes a law that limits the reproductive freedom of choice of women, I will at that point stop thinking that sexism and misogyny aren't, to a certain degree, imbricated in the anti-choice discourse. Until then, I can't help but point out that we're typically talking about men using their power to legislate the behaviour of women as such. And that, sir, is sexist and misogynistic. TheoryOfPractice 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point TOP. By "original author" I mean "the person who claims to be the author here" and by "short time" I would suggest "in twenty four hours from the first challenge". In my (and only my) opinion, the plagiarised elements should be totally deleted if there is no reasonable response in that time. --BobNot Jim 20:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the "24-hours then delete plagiarism" decision reached above. 21:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. I did some background checking, and this guy is almost certainly not the author of the original paper.--Concernedresident 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the links at the top of this section demonstrate.--BobNot Jim 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I zapped the plagiarised stuff I could find quickly. There is still some in there though.--BobNot Jim 07:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
My access to internet is not permanent, I don't have much time and I didn't read all the comments above. (I'll do it later tonight).

First, Richard Stith's article was not originally published in mercatornet.com But I I see what I can do about the copyright permission and I also can quote only paragraphs from the article, can't I? Yes, it was silly, stupid and incorrect to copy that text without refernce to Richard Stith.

About the other comments, I don't see it as plagiarism as most of those arguments are used troughoutly on very many anti-abortion webpages and in many cases it is not even possible to make sure who actually is the author. I don't see nothing bad about collecting those arguments, and I also can't see what the alleged authors could have against it. Re-wording as solution?

--Earthland 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To take your points individually my personal feelings are:


 * If you can get copyright permission from the original author then you can post the work with the proviso that it is not marked as "your" personal work but that it has been written by others and that they have waived their copyright.
 * Your actions were plagiarism whether you feel they were or not.
 * Almost all works on the internet are automatically subject to copyright protection. The fact that other webistes have have previously ignored copyright protections is irrelevant.
 * Whether or not you imagine the original author wouldn't mind is nor relevant to the case.
 * Claiming other people's work as your own is unethical.
 * Be careful about re-wording read this on derivative works.
 * You might wish to read wikipedia's general guidelines on the subject.--BobNot Jim 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true what you say and it was unethical of me. But I'm interested what's the current "verdict"? Human said: "I agree on the "24-hours then delete plagiarism" decision reached above." . What does it mean? (I didn't find this "reached decision").

It is also true that even re-wording doesn't change originality. However, facts do not need copyright permission, but what about re-worded arguments? If someone collects arguments on a subject and puts them into his own words and organizes them, is it still "plagiarism"? Or is it OK in the case the template at the top of the page (that claims "originality") is changed into something else? --Earthland 16:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it's a derivative work if you take somebody else's text and edit it. However, if you were to review all the sites of interest, make a bullet list of the most convincing arguments, put those arguments in the order which you felt was most appropriate and then expand each of those key points into paragraphs using your own words - then I'd say that you had produced an original piece based on research.
 * To address the other point, the problem is not the template - the problem is the lack of originality in the essay. When you make any edit the most obvious instruction on bottom of the page is  "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!".  Putting another template on the page will not give you liberty to plagiarise work.
 * With regards to the "decision", human may have spoken loosely. I suspect he should have written "suggestion". But I have no doubt he'll correct me if I'm wrong.--BobNot Jim 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "decision" I referred to was that we found plagiarized/copyright violation material on the wiki, but rather than instantly deleting it we were going to wait 24 hours in case there was an explanation or author permission(s) forthcoming. We do it all the time (images people upload, etc.).  22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And now?
How does the essay seem now? I changed it a bit. --Earthland 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that the gigantic copy/paste stuff has gone the possibility that somebody will read it to the end has increased. So it's better in that sense at least.--BobNot Jim 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Woopdi-doo. Wow! You've recycled arguments we've all heard a thousand times before. Gosh. How exciting. What, if anything, do you hope to achieve. Do you really think that 'the other side' hasn't thought it through, that somehow you'll make a difference, that somehow we godless 'pro choicers' will be persuaded to change our minds? It's a little more complex than that and any attempt to say otherwise simply adds to the bitterness. Oh, and saying that I condone mass murder is really going to get me sympathetic to your cause - not! Bob Soles 16:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was rather hoping for an argument... 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you at least explain what you mean? Maybe I really am very naive person, but the most demagagogic argument is to accuse someone without any real explanation. If this is such nonsense why do you waste time making words here (but still not saying anything)?


 * If you actually read the essey (the new part) you should have known I don't call every abortion a murder. I can't conclude it from your words "and saying that I condone mass murder is really going to get me sympathetic to your cause - not!" --Earthland 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right up front "However, if pro-choice side is wrong, then they are directly responsible for the mass murder of innocent human beings. Some of us believe it is wrong to take innocent human life."Right there you kick off with highly inflammatory language. Right up front you say that I'm "responsible for the mass murder of innocent human beings". Well, that's a good way to start a reasoned debate, calling the other side mass murderers. Bob Soles 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I will change the word "murder" and context. However, I suggest you reading the section "Is abortion a murder?" also, before passing judgement.--Earthland 17:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did - and there's nothing there I, and anyone who has their ears open, hasn't heard time and time again. Which brings me to my point. What do you hope to achieve? Why did you post this essay? What's the point? Bob Soles 17:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: "if pro-choice side is wrong" is not an equivalent to "pro-choice side is wrong", although it is the main point of the essay.

Dear Bob. "anyone who has their ears open" is an extremely demagogic statement. Please point out what you exactly mean and what arguments you have against it.

I'm sorry, but most pro-life movements depict abortion strictly as murder and nothing else. I don't. I don't consider a woman, who has done abortion, a murderer. What can you have against it?

--Earthland 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider a woman who has had an abortion a murderer. I am far from alone in this view. Calling people I love murderers - now who's the demagogue? I ask once again- what did you hope to achieve by posting this essay? Bob Soles 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how I'm directly responsible for mass murder. I am directly responsible for three abortions tops. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. How many abortions does it take to become mass murder. Bob Soles 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't get the whole argument, especially considering the lack of a theological basis. Earthland's definition of life is strange and semantic, not in any way meaningful. I don't think I ever got an answer from Earthland about their views on the financial burden of anti-abortion. The silence leads me to believe there is deep contradiction. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go from the "life begins at conception" viewpoint and add "taking life is always wrong" then the rest just follows. What is missed is the complexities behind both those absolute presuppositions. Bob Soles 17:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Calling people I love murderers - now who's the demagogue?" I'm sorry, but what did you mean by that?

"I ask once again- what did you hope to achieve by posting this essay?" Isn't it clear? To make my point. This question seems rather odd.

"I just don't get the whole argument, especially considering the lack of a theological basis. Earthland's definition of life is strange and semantic, not in any way meaningful." Did I "defined" life as such? No. I simply made a scientific statement that new human individual is established at conception. This sentence is a quote from encyclopedia. How can you say it's simply "presumption"? Can you actually produce any real arguments against it? Scientific consensus is clear: the life of new human individual begins at conception. --Earthland 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a very skewed concept of scientific consensus if you're turning to an encyclopedia for the answers. Tell me if this seems familiar. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Scientific consensus is clear: the life of new human individual begins at conception." See, this is inane gibberish.  Genetically distinct material is formed at conception which, in the correct circumstances, develops into a distinct organism.  This answers neither questions of morality, ethics, nor what it is to be "human."  You've asserted that a fertilized cell is inherently as "human" as a fully formed adult, and thus its killing is murder, but it's nothing more than that, an assertion. Do not pretend that your views are scientific.  19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "You've asserted that a fertilized cell is inherently as "human" as a fully formed adult"


 * The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. New individual does not come into existence with completed functionality. All living organism develop step-by-step. However, if something develops step-by-step, it must, at least, already exist.


 * What do you mean by "develops into distinct organism"? A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn’s genetic code differs from his mother’s. The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals. The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth. It clearly is distinct organism.


 * If you call this all an "unscientific inane gibberish", then I'm eager to hear your comment on those quotes from human embryologists that were pointed out in the essay. Did you actually read it?


 * "thus its killing is murder". You actually didn't read it, did you? I don't call every abortion a murder. I call it killing of an innocent human being.

--Earthland 13:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're conflating what an "individual" is. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conflating it with what? Maybe you meant "confusing"?  21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conflation of 'individual' as in "distinct entity" and 'individual' as in "a human being". &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

lol
"...It’s unfair to children to bring them into a world where they’re not wanted." is a gross oversimplification of an intricate pro-choice argument. Your attempt to mislead the claim that you are rebutting is a classic straw man. You also appear to use fallacies through language, i.e., "A baby is a baby no matter what we call her." [1] We know that babies are baby. This issue is what the definition of a baby is, and whether or not fetuses and babies are the same thing. [2] "Her" is the incorrect pronoun; this is an appeal to emotion playing the cultural belief that harming females is more immoral than harming males. In fact, the entire attempt to use the word "baby" as opposed to "fetus" is of a similar appeal to emotion, as fetuses and babies are not the same thing by any consensus-established medical definition.

I should probably inform you that Dianne N. Irving represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999. She has teaching positions at the Catholic University of America. She is also apparently paranoid and is quite fond of spreading disinformation about scientific ethics on cloning, stem cell research, and abortion. Despite her degrees, I wouldn't take much of her thoughts on a serious social issue like abortion (her thoughts on this issue are not as scientific as she claims they ought to be) as being meaningful and without bias. I challenge you to read something from her on this topic and tell me that you do not agree. Here's an excerpt: "How are we to recognize this tiny human being as our neighbor -- someone to love not just for his or her own sake, but also for the sake of God -- Who Himself created this tiny child in His own image and likeness, from whence comes this child"s true dignity and status?" --e|m|c  [TALK] 22:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello emc. English is not my native language and I actually don't make much difference between 'he' and 'she', I simply chose one to avoid 'it'. However, embryo is more neutral term and I agree I should probably use this (instead of 'baby' or 'she' or 'he').


 * Dianne N. Irving wasn't the only human embryologist I pointed out. Actually I mentioned 8 human embryologists in my essay. She may be religious and she also may have religious arguments against abortion, but it doesn't make her other arguments (and scientific background) worthless.


 * If ...It’s unfair to children to bring them into a world where they’re not wanted. is an oversimplification of an intricate pro-choice argument, please tell me the real, intricate argument. I've seen the variation of this one sentence on many pro-choice slogans and many quotes on abortion topic centre around this, in a very simpel way.


 * --Earthland 11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressing this and the things you left on my talk page: I think that the Planned Parenthood slogan more-so addresses planned pregnancy than abortion per se. The intricate pro-choice argument, as I understand it, is that the right to potential life is determined by certain circumstances that predate the pregnancy and would jeopardize the child's (if it were to be born) welfare and quality of life. That the potential for life has value is true, but the argument goes that the potential for life is based upon the ultimate rights and will of the mother. The sanctity of life is not a legitimate argument for abortion because the absolutist idea that all life is valuable is inherently contradictory. Upholding this leads to some serious problems in moral issues such as euthanasia (where, yet again, personal choice precedes the sanctity of life in my opinion). Take the very real situation that the mother's life would be endangered if she were to continue gestating the child. Here you're left with deciding whose life is more valuable and whose rights are more valuable (the pro-choice rationale is that it is the mother's decision). Furthermore, the state cannot and should not give, end, or determine the value of human life. The state should only procure liberties, such as the right of women to decide what to do with their own bodies. It cannot proactively protect the right to potential human life in a moral or pragmatic sense. If you choose to abort the fetus in the aforementioned scenario, then you are now, by the sanctity of life reasoning, approving of medical procedures that intentionally take human life (or as some prefer to call it, "murder"). Not only that, but they intentionally take life to save another which is a complex moral question in itself and bizarre medical practice. Hence, the state should mind their own business. To force a person to have a child that they do not want or cannot keep seems, to me, the height of immorality and infringement of human rights. --e|m|c  [TALK] 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The respected human embryologists you cite appear, for the most part, objective. Dianne Irving's inclusion was the only one I felt like pointing out since she directly seeks to make a connection from science to the ethical question of abortion. Science does not itself answer whether abortion is wrong, right, left, up, or purple. "A favourite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible," you quote, yet life is undefined and I can assure you that a sound definition of life is very difficult to determine. As is often the case, doctors and scientists overstep their role in scientific inquiry or malpractice and attempting to add an unprofessional spin for some cause. Defining what makes a person a "person" or what makes an individual and individual is not something science can or should do, and any quote which explicitly defines when an individual becomes an individual, and whether abortion is right or wrong, is null and void as it is simply opinion. --e|m|c  [TALK] 18:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you against conceptiom, vasectomies, hysterectomies (spelling?) and impotence and infertility as well? And gays? and Lesbians? Kwilky 10:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

by 'conceptiom' i meant contraception. Kwilky 10:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kwilky,

If your question was addressed to me, I would like to know, how can you see connections between abortion and impotence, infertility or hysterectomy? If you take a look at my user page, then you can see a userbox "This user believes in equal rights for gay people" (I am gay myself).

Contraception pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but implanting is not the beginning of new human individual. Therefore I am against contraception.

--Earthland 18:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Earthland! "Contraception" can also mean preventing a sperm from coming into contact with the egg, as in a condom or a spermicide.  Are you also against this?--BobNot Jim 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not against contraception, if it simply prevents fertilization. However, not all kind of contraception pills prevent fertilization, but rather destroy a fertilized egg. I don't approve of that.--Earthland 18:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to use language a bit more carefully. But anyway, I think you're saying that if a spermicide stops a sperm an instant before it enters an egg that's no problem, it's morally irrelevant. But if the new cell is destroyed by another chemical an instant after, then that should be regarded as murder?  Have I got your position right right?--BobNot Jim 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob, sperm is not another human being. But fertilized egg is "highly specialized, totipotent cell that marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual", as Keith L. Moore said. It's a huge difference. But I don't regard every abortion as murder, as you should know if you read the section "Is abortion a murder?".--Earthland 18:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it. But I'm afraid I don't fully understand your point. You seem to be saying that abortion is only sometimes murder?  Is that right?  I can't quite follow your logic. Could you expand? --BobNot Jim 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Abortion is always the killing of an innocent human being. This is most important. From the viewpoint's of the women, abortion does not always include intention to kill innocent human being, but this is what makes killing a murder. However, though women who have done abortion are not murderers, I dare call doctors, who perform abortions, murderers, because every competent doctor knows that abortion results in someone's death. But murder has also third component: unlawful action. Therefore, abortion is always 1/3 murder, mostly it's 2/3 (but not from the women's viewpoints) murder and only in rare cases it's 3/3 murder.--Earthland 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So your position is that in any country where abortion is not illegal it's not really murder? --BobNot Jim 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

An answer to emc.

If you agree that "The respected human embryologists you cite appear, for the most part, objective.", how can you still use the phrase "potentially human"? Does "This fertilized ovum is the beginning of a human being" (Keith L. Moore) sound like potential human being? Or "The process of fertilization marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (Bradley M. Patten)?

Keith L. Moore has also said, "The Zygote results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

You didn’t come from an embryo, you once were an embryo, likewise you didn’t come from an adolescent, you once were an adolescent.

Indeed, science does not tell us if abortion is right or wrong. (Just like science doesn't tell us if war is morally justifiable or not). But science tells us if abortions is killing of another human being or not. And it definitely is.

You say that "ultimate rights and will of the mother" is more important than the life of other human being. The "right to control one’s body" argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being. Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights. The right to live is superior to right to privacy. And we can't support any choice just because it's a choice...

--Earthland 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My question was directed as you earthland. And because being gay means you can't provide life, thusly robbing the children you would have had if you were straight of having lives. Your argument against abortion, as most are, is that it stops people having lives. Science is pretty clear that the embryo or whatever doesn't actually care what happens to it. So it is preventing life as much as homosexuality is preventing life, and as much as infertility is preventing life. ETC. Kwilky 14:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really get your point, but even at its best it's simply an ood abstract theory that has nothing to do with real life. The point of my essay is that unborn people are also people. When you sleep or are under narcosis, you also don't care about what happens to you, but it simply isn't enough to kill you.--Earthland 13:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see this going around and around forever. "The point of my essay is that unborn people are also people." Yes, " X is X" is usually very true. A  is still a . But is an embryo, with no sentience or cognizance, really a person? You say yes, I say no. That's what should be debated. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt you can compare an embryo with a person who is sleeping.

A women who gets an abortion denies chilrden or whatever the right to life as much as a homosexual does. I'm not against homosexuality, but it's not an abstract point. it's you choosing not to understand. Kwilky 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Person or not?
Well, "personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species." Person means individual human being. Embryo is individual human being. How can you argue against that?--Earthland 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species" I don't think you understand that we have differing views about all of these definitions. Contrary to what your dictionary or encyclopedia says, neither one of us is wrong. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You must have very strong arguments to argue against dictionaries. You should at least point out some, if you actually do argue against dictionary. However, it doesn't sound very rational to allow everyone to create their own realities in order to justify killing other people.


 * I think, the issue is not if unborn people are persons, but the issue is that they can't exhibit their personality. In order to be able to exhibit one's personality, one must develop physically, because personality will occur only through body. What is the meaning of life in womb? To develop enough to cope with life outside the womb. And the meaning of abortion is to kill that person before he develops enough to be born. But arguing that the person is not a person before he is born or reached a certain weight or height, or level of intelligence, is same as identify personality as an achievemnt of certain stage of development or some form of personality (eg, the achievement of a certain IQ). But you know it's simply extraneous arbitrarily chosen criterion. If definition of personality would be based on, let's say, viability, do you call a fetus of horse also person, after it has achieved viability?


 * If there is criteria about what kind of people are persons and what kind of people are not persons, then someone needs to establish what parameters and what criteria are used to determine the personality. Historically, we know systems, that denied the personality of part of humanity. (for example, blacks in America, or jews as untermensch).


 * --Earthland 17:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why you appeal to a dictionary for answers to ethical and philosophical questions. It'd be like me pointing to US laws that define personhood as beginning at birth. QED, abortion is not murder. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dictionary doesn't tell us if abortion is moral or not, just like science doesn't tell us. But science tells us that embryo is human individual, and dictionary defines the true meaning of "person", whic is.... human individual! And these are facts, because dictionaries are usually not politically affected (at least they can't deny the obvious), but laws are. --Earthland 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who knows me knows I'm no fan of books; they're all fact, no heart.  18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Science tells us that an embryo is a distinct entity, not that it is a human individual as the phrase is commonly used. Dictionaries cannot be used to answer questions of ethical, moral, philosophical or metaphysical questions. Please stop appealing to them as the "true definitions" when it is clear that what we're talking about is well out of the scope of a dictionary's intended use. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The granting of "personhood" is largely irrelevant; they're no way we can point to a specific moment and say "that's a person!" Especially by listening to a dictionary.   18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're going to have to explore the dictionary definition thing before we can move on.
 * Earthland, the philosophical definition of a "person" listed on Dictionary.com is "a self-conscious or rational being". As a fetus without the faculties to be self-conscious or rational, by definition, cannot be a person, abortion of such a fetus cannot be murder. We now have two conclusive arguments by definition to prove two contradictory positions. How do you propose we solve this? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we go to Google and enter Define: person we see a large number of definitions from different dictionaries, though few that would seem to help Earthland much. Wikipedia says "the term also has specialised context-specific meanings" and this would seem to be reasonable.  So the most important question would seem to be whether society regards two or four cells as a "person".  Given that something like the majority of these cell groupings die naturally with zero public interest it would seem that society does not generally regard them as such. --BobNot Jim 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Severus, you said "Dictionaries cannot be used to answer questions of ethical, moral, philosophical or metaphysical questions." Indeed! The question "who is person" is not ethical or philoshopical, it has a simple factual meaning. The first definition that dictionary.com offers is "a human being", the second is "a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing." But the philosophical definition has nothing to do with it! There are lot of philosophical definitions of very common words.

But dictionary definition isn't the only thing I pointed out... --Earthland 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The question "who is person" is not ethical or philoshopical, it has a simple factual meaning." I don't suppose I could disprove that with a simple link to any number of philosophical debates on personhood... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Earthland, the majority of disagreement on abortion is about what is considered human. (Of course, even this relies on the assumption that human lives have inherent value; not many people deny it, but it's not a universal conclusion.) There's no "proven" method of determining something's inherent moral value/"humanity"/etc, so citing people saying "a fetus counts as a human" is stating a philosophical theory, and does not solve abortion.
 * Incidentally, there's also the tangent to whether it's moral for a woman to have less than one child per year...denying life as compared to ending it, and all that. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Emperor's accidental comment on the page moved here
(I don't know, why user Theemperor decided to post this comment on the essay page, not here):

Really the abortion debate can be quite simply boiled down into a single question:Does life begin at conception, birth, or somewhere in between? It's almost definitely not birth, since babies can be born prematurely and still survive, and it's probably not conception, since a zygote has about the same chance of surviving on its own as any other cell taken outside the body. It's about as human as an amoeba. So, obviously it lies somewhere in between. I would say that it's at about the beginning of the third trimester, since that's just about the lower limit of survivability. Abortions after that should probably be performed on a case-by-case basis, with the mother's health being paramount. However, you are entitled to your opinions. -- 02:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Viability" has nothing to do with the beginning of the life. New individual, who is established at the moment of conception simply needs a very specialized environment for nine months, just as it requires sustained care for an indefinite period after birth. But from the moment of union of the germ cells, there is under normal development a living, definite, going concern. To interrupt a pregnancy at any stage is like cutting the link of a chain; the chain is broken no matter where the link is cut.--Earthland 08:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think you make an interesting argument, although one that is full of logical holes. I hope to take the time to come back and convince you that abortion up through the age of seven post partem should be acceptable.  But let me work it out in perfection, first.  09:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a chain cut with just one link still a chain? It is just a link, and is pointless to serve as a chain.  -- 04:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am a fan of tabbed browsing. I had both the essay and the talk opened in separate tabs, and I edited the wrong one accidentally.  -- 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No big deal, I think I talk paged you on it rather than move it myself. 09:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree with Earthland to an extent. If we take viability as the standard then we have a moving target.  Some time ago premature babies had little chance of survival, with improved medical care they can survive at earlier and earlier ages. At some point medial science may well be able to allow a fertilised egg to mature into a baby without it spending some time within its mother.  But would that make the fertilised egg human? I rather think not. Going with viability changes a moral debate into a question about the current state of technology.--BobNot Jim 09:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why pro-choicers may not address the "human life" question
Some of them are not evading or dodging the question, but simply do not care whether the fetus is a person or not. 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, being a human is conflated with being a person. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tere talv! Of course they don't care or at least don't want to care whether the fetus is human being or not, if they propagate abortion. And that was the point.


 * Neverus, what do you mean by "conflated"? This phrase sounds really strange.--Earthland 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come now; the majority of pro-choicers just do not think the fetus is a person, for whatever reason. It is only the more rabid ones who do not care. 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go further. Any moral pro choicer does not consider the foetus as a person. The rationale behind when personhood begins is extremely complex and this position is equally justifiable as 'personhood begins at conception' Bob Soles 14:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by a discussion I had a while ago some (ex) members of this site would support abortion even if foetuses were demonstrably people. 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And did they explain their point of view?--Earthland 22:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Decide for yourself. 04:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit it's far too long to read it trough. I probably try it later. --Earthland 09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

zombie
you are somewhat zombie...life under all circumstances.

you cant stand death...

get strong or finish being weak at least. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 88.68.47.13 / talk / contribs


 * Nice to meet you too, 88.68.47.13.--Earthland 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of vanity
But I feel myself quite comfortable with the lack of any serious pro-choice arguments on this talk page. I used to thought RW is full of such arguments, since truth fears no question (and rationality includes respect for truth).

Damn, I souhttp://rationalwiki.com/wiki/skins/common/images/button_link.pngnd like CP editor.

--Earthland 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? 00:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is vanity :
 * vanity [ˈvænɪtɪ]
 * ... the state or quality of being valueless, futile, or unreal
 * ... something that is worthless or useless
 * [from Old French vanité, from Latin vānitās emptiness, from vānus empty]


 * If I were completely serious, I wouldn't add that last sentence. But nobody has argued that a) from the moment of conception, we have individual human being (biological arguments) and b) if this is individual human being, its right to life is superior to woman's right to privacy (women rights section). I can't see the "I have heard all of these arguments 1000 times" as a valid argument, as it still doesn't explain why those arguments are wrong.


 * The most serious opposition to essay is "person or not" section here, but as I see nobody has commented the updates I have made.


 * Btw, human, what about your "I hope to take the time to come back and convince you that abortion up through the age of seven post partem should be acceptable. But let me work it out in perfection, first." above?


 * --Earthland 09:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I am supposed to "reply" to our troll here. 1. No, a zygote is not a human being, it's just a unique collection of DNA. Your God kills most of them before the woman even notices she is "late".  2.  The slime that is infesting her womb, parasitizing it, surely does not have a higher claim to life than she does. 3. I don't care enough to waste my time to "convince you" that "abortion up through the age of seven post partem should be acceptable" because you are a waste of my time.  Maybe someday I'll bother.  Meantime, I am for abortion on demand, paid for by the state, up through the age of seven years.  After seven years, it goes before a magistrate, and is a gamble - the magistrate might decide to have the parent rather than the child "eliminated".  After fourteen, the child is free of this threat - as are the parents.  03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the real waste of time is taking time to come here and say that it's a waste of time AND replying to a person who you think is troll. (Aren't you supposed NOT to answer "trolls"?!) Making lot of words without saying something is a real art, by the way.


 * Argument is an interesting thing. It's 1. statement followed by 2. explanation that is followed by 3. proof that is followed by 4. conclusion. Refutation is not "No, no, your statement is false!! (I ignore the explanation and proof anyway). You are troll, by the way!!"


 * As far as I understand, you didn't come here to debate but to call me "troll", which is undoubtedly very lovely (you turned your attention to me, after all).


 * --Earthland 16:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say...
...that I agree with you. Don't tell my friends, though, they'd probably give me an earful. :P

But, anyways, yeah. I never liked the religious anti-abortion views anyways. I just don't like dead babies.


 * Erp, forgot ot sign. Atreus 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But srsly
"I began as a human being and I will remain so until death. I didn't come from an embryo - I once were an embryo, and that makes all the difference in the world."

Can somebody please explain this? 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was meant to point out that I was once an embryo and I don't fancy the idea that my mother could have killed me.--Earthland 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And what does it "make all the difference in the world" to? All the rest of us, including people who support abortion rights, also originated with an embryo.   18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal was to make the reader think about himself or herself. Maybe the word "you" would've suited better? According to reality, however, it simply emphasises my inability to be poetic without other people asking me, why I'm so strange. --Earthland 18:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When non-native speakers of a language try to be poetic in that language, half the time it comes off as word-salad. 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually not only when speaking non-native language.... --Earthland 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)