Essay talk:Abortion debate and open mind

I am also open to criticism over my grammatical errors. --Earthland 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The middle ground

Your 'middle ground' section is a load of twaddle

The statement "Abortion is such a complicated issue, anyone who tries to pin such a complex issue down to a black/white solution doesn't understand the issue." is not saying the middle ground is correct. It has no analogy with your middle price comparison. It says that there is no one true valid answer.

To demonstrate a moral dilemma with no 'right' answer consider 'Sophie's choice' - a mother has to choose which of her children has to die. In that situation every answer is wrong, every answer has unacceptable aspects, every answer is problematic. Abortion isn't quite as loose/loose but it is similarly morally ambiguous. It doesn't matter where you draw the line it will be in the wrong place under some circumstances. Every answer to the abortion debate is the wrong one. Any person who tries to pin it down to any one moment, to give a black/white answer to a question which has no black/white answers, doesn't understand the question.

So, when it comes to keeping an open mind, try to realise that, however strongly you hold your views, that's all they are, views. Let your mind be open, appreciate why others disagree, don't just write them off as immoral and/or have an agenda. Doesn't it say anything to you that so many people and organisations disagree, doesn't that give the slightest hint that it's not quite that straightforward? Bob Soles 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I could write at least two more sections to my essay based on your comment. You can be sure I will.--Earthland 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Until you remove the misstatements that are "The Middle Ground" your just polishing a jobbie (Glaswegian phrase for trying to make something bad look good). I know this is in response to my comments on the Talk:Abortion page - it is after all an exact quote - and all it shows is your lack of understanding. Failing to differentiate between saying "There is no answer" and "The middle ground is the answer" shows very poor comprehension. Bob Soles 17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Earthland

Have you ever known somebody who has ever had an abortion? Or contemplated one? Or had an unplanned pregnancy? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That has simply so much to do with everything, and I feel myself obliged to point out that the alleged goal of your question is not just other kind of ad hominem, but as an answer, my mother has had an abortion (and as it turned out, her mother and pretty much all of her (and of course, mine) female relatives). That was the first thing that made me think about it, a long time ago. As you may know, Soviet Union was one of the first countries that made the abortion legal.

I guess you wanted to say that life is tough, and I am an evil moralist who has no contact with reality and probably can't even imagine what it looks like and has ever done anything to help the "real" human beings. Am I correct? --Earthland 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Partially, but not exactly. You describe your essay as a collection of personal observations, so I was curious as to how close you've been to this issue in real life. That isn't an ad hominem attack. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just stirring up a hornets nest but....

Appeal To Consequences

I think this is a missunderstanding of the counter argument. This is presented as

• If life starts at conception
• This would make Abortion baby killing
• Therefore life does not start at conception

This would be far better stated as

• If personhood starts at conception
• This would make Abortion baby killing
• Therefore those who have abortions do not believe that personhood starts at conception

Note I use personhood to define the point where I believe that "life" in terms of becoming a person starts. Not life in terms of the start of the lifecycle.

Point Refuted A Thousand Times

Many, no, make that most, RWians will have thought through and argued the abortion question more than once. When someone arrives with an extreme view and shows no interest in understanding that there may be other valid viewpoints then there is no debate beyond the 'Tis, tisn', tis, tisn't, tis, tisn't....' of the junior playground. This is boring.

Evading or Dodging the Question

Remove the beam from your own eye first.

Using Ad Hominem

Saying that men cannot fully understand the abortion question is not an ad hominem. It is, however, a commonly held view that only a woman can fully understand what it means to give birth and therefore all the issues surrounding it. After all, in the vast majority of cases, it's the woman who is left holding the baby.

Ad Hominen Tu Quoque

Pointing out that many of those who oppose abortion are inconsistent in their views as to the 'sanctity of life' is pointing out that their arguments are flawed. If they believed so strongly in the sanctity of life they would logically have to be pacifists against capital punishment. The fact that they believe so strongly in the sanctity of life only when it applies to abortion implies that it's the abortion that takes precedent, not the sanctity of life.

Middle Ground

This section is totally flawed. There is a massive difference between "There is no answer to the moral dilemma" and "The middle ground is the answer to the moral dilemma".

I don't care

This is not part of the argument, rather it's a reaction to the complexity of the argument. Given that it appears impossible to come to a working consensus as to the moral viewpoint we need to be pragmatic. The pragmatic answer is that women will always have abortions and, given that, it is best to make them as safe as possible, that is, legal. Why then bother to post if we don't care? Because we do care about people who feel they have the right to preach at us.

It's a tough decision - let the woman decide

Writing this off as totally fallacious is not really answering the question. It may appear fallacious to you but you haven't defended that position - just stated it. What it does come back to is the question as to what right you seem to feel you have to make moral judgements over something that doesn't concern you. Until you are a woman facing that decision, then you can make that choice. Until then, why should I bother listening to you.

Bob Soles 15:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course

It is nice to see that a guy who actually believes that there is no true answer at all, takes so much time to prove that my answer is wrong. I believe there is truth, but this, however, is another topic to discuss.

I don't answer your whole comment right now, but I wanted to remind you that the word "person" is purely philosophical term. You also lack any credible reference to back up your claim that there is difference between the beginning of the life cycle and the beginning of the life of the new individual human being... While I have presented probably dozens of references. If you define religion as the opinion which has survived (as opinions don't tend to last very long after they are found to blatantly contradict established facts)[1] I might call you religious in this question.

Now to your previous claim: "It is impossible to prove when life begins (in terms of becoming a person".) But if we don’t know when life begins, then we can’t say it has begun at birth, or at age five, or at 50. By this logic, the law could never convict someone for murdering a 30-year-old woman because there is no way to prove that she was alive.

The fact is, no scientific, biological, or medical textbook says that life begins at any point other than conception. There is no difference, biologically, between the beginning of the lifecycle and the beginning of the life. Further, simple deductive reasoning proves that life begins at conception because that is the only time it can begin. Any other point is strictly arbitrary.

“”Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle. (Encyclopedia Britannica: Life-cycle reproduction)

--Earthland 14:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you believe that a woman who has an abortion - and that includes your mother, should spend her life in gaol? Bob Soles 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To expand on my point above - you have made it quite clear that, as far as you are concerned, from the moment of conception there exists a human being with full rights.

• From this it follows that abortion, including using an IUD, is murder - you have said as much in as many words.
• Furthermore it is murder of a human being with full rights as a human being. You make it very clear that you do not differentiate in any way between the rights of a fertilized ovum and a adult, or any of the stages in-between.
• Therefore the punishment for abortion should be the same punishment as that for murder. No two ways about it. It is the killing of another human being. Murder. no excuses, no differentiation, Murder.
• The punishment for murder tends to be quite severe. In many countries it is the death penalty.
• Logically then, you support such severe punishments for those who have abortions.
• And as for those who carry out the abortions, they're mass murderers. They have killed hundreds, thousands, in cold blood without a second thought. Surely no penalty is too severe for them

I don't know how you can face your family when so many have committed such a heinous crime. You come from a family of murderers.

And one final point - as the end of life is defined as the cessation of meaningful brain activity then logically the start of life is defined as the opposite, i.e. the start of meaningful brain activity. That position is just as valid and just as logical as yours.

Bob Soles 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, evading&dodging the question... and talking about other issues.

First of all, laws prohibiting abortion target the abortionist, not the woman. Why? Well, one answer is that (except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion) a conviction would be virtually impossible. Secondly, woman does not herself carry out the procedure, she simply gives her approval, which is not exactly the same thing.

But the most serious reason is that most woman actually don't know what abortion is. They are given the view that doctor removes "something" from her, like taking out the kidney or so. They only know that abortion terminates pregnancy. No matter how much better it sounds, "terminating a pregnancy" is also terminating a life. As Judy Ferris, an atheist woman who had an abortion but became pro-life, said:

“”Believing that the fetus was just a "blob of tissue", that pro-lifers were lying about how developed aborted fetuses are, I had no reason to avoid information from sources that were not "anti-abortion". I learned about fetal development when my other children were born. I experienced nightmares, crying spells and suicidal thoughts. I knew these were not caused by the activities or words of pro-lifers or preachers. Was I supposed to be upset with sonogram technicians or childbirth instructors for educating me?

That's why I think women should not be regarded as "murderers". We should feel sorry for them and help them if they have realized what abortion actually is. Do you think that anyone ever gave my mother an objective overview about abortion? That someone at least told her what kind of methods are going to be used to terminate the life of the embryo - the unborn child?

But can we say the same about the doctors? It's the doctors who tear the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded. Or who use the curette which cuts the baby into pieces that are scraped out through the cervix and discarded. Or who dismember the fetus, snap the spine and crush the skull in order to remove them from the womb.

--Earthland 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The woman isn't the murderer, she simply gives her approval. Wow! There are plenty of Mafia bosses that would probably love to have you making the laws. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I dare say you shouldn't take my sentences out of context where they actually make sense.... I simply said it is not exactly the same and it is not exactly the same, and I gave additional reasons why this is important when abortion is the issue. --Earthland 18:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC):Wow!!!! Now who's appealing to emotion. But, by your reasoning, you have no problems with those who fire bomb abortion clinics. After all, if the law won't mete out justice then something has to be done to sort out the mass murderers. Yep, in your eyes, that's what they are, mass murderers. And do you really think that women are so blind, so incapable of thought, that they don't know what they're doing. Hey, why don't you join the crowds outside the clinics, harassing and threatening them. After all, it's for their own good. You give yourself a nice little out - oh, the women don't understand what they're doing - yep, they do. Feel sorry for them you condescending misogynist, how dare you, you think you're so high and fucking mighty, you sit their on your throne of disapproval thinking you're better, more moral, somehow you, and only you and those who agree with you, have come to some truth. Did you bring your truth down from the mountain tops written on tablets of stone. At least the religious nuts have a reason, however illogical, for their lack of compassion with other points of view - you, you just know you're better, smarter, more moral, than those poor deluded women and those mass murdering abortionists. You, and your lack of humanity, your arrogance and your supercilious pomposity disgust me! Bob Soles 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I take your entire post out of context? Maybe, but I don't really think so. I certainly don't think I took that sentence out of context. You're the one that wants to go all-in. If abortion becomes fully and completely illegal, as you would like to see done, then you need to take what comes with that. A woman who has an abortion will be tried, almost certainly convicted, and be sentenced. You also have to go all-in and take the likelihood that the sentence could itself be death. Or, hadn't you thought that through. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Earthland certainly sounds like he could be uttering "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Andy would so disapprove. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"But, by your reasoning, you have no problems with those who fire bomb abortion clinics." Can you say straw man? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - Earthland has said, in no uncertain terms, that abortionists are mass murderers. It is but a tiny step from there, OK, so that tiny step makes it a straw man but it's a very tiny step, and, from the emotional language that Earthland uses, he's at the very least on the edge of that step, towards saying that abortionists, because they do know what they do, unlike those poor delude dupes, the women, are, by Earthand's logic, evil. They must be, they're mass murderers who do so knowingly. And, if they're evil, then those who put a stop to them should be applauded. Bob Soles 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

People who believe in the rule of law do not endorse vigilantism, no matter what its targets have done. It is not so small a step as all that. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If there was someone living next to you who was murdering children on a daily basis and the law wouldn't do anything about it... That's a toughie. I'm not sure where I would fall on that one. Earthland makes no distinction whatsoever between an abortionist and someone who murders, for example, five year olds. The fact that other people do he sees as their faulty logic, of immorality. Bob Soles 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So women don't realise what they're doing when they ask a doctor for an abortion? Bullshit. Women have known for millennia exactly what they they were doing and learned many ways to induce an abortion on their own, I have good reason to believe that my own grandmother attempted it with some knitting needles back in the 1920s. Women (like my sister-in-law) visit doctors because it is a much safer way of performing the procedure. Too many women have died through this but Earthland would rather return to the dark ages. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob Soles, you just gave me an idea to sign up in Rationalwikiwiki and write some entries to "What is going on at Rationalwiki". It would be almost same fun as WIGO CP.

What gave you the idea that I "have no problems with those who fire bomb abortion clinics"?

I don't believe that women are blind and whatever adjectives you used. And yup, Genghis, I'm perfectly aware that women have done self-induced abortions and probably there are women who know that abortion "terminates" another human being and still choose abortion. But I certainly think that most women who undergo abortion doesn't know that - or don't think in that way. Pro-choice propaganda is effective, after all. Their husbands and boyfriends (if they happen to have them) probably also believe that abortion is merely termination of a pregnancy.

Of course, there are cases when abortion is not a "choice" at all, but rather the result of total despair. And we should work to prevent such situations, thankfully there are pro-life groups that center on those issues.

What a discovery - Earthland doesn't make distinctions between an abortionist and someone who murders five year old kids. That's what I've been telling you for months.

Of course, that makes me an "inhumane extremist". In my eyes tearing human beings (no matter how small and young) into tiny pieces is inhumane; if that makes me an extremist, so be it.

Ghenghis, following your mindless logic we should legalize practically everything because everything that is legalized is more safe. If the motivation for legalized abortion really is to save the lives of women, why don’t we legalize rape? After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist to keep her from identifying him to the authorities. Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away that motivation. We could also set up rape clinics where rapists could take their victims. These centers could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception, and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim. We could even issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo routine testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

--Earthland 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) "Too many women have died through this but Earthland would rather return to the dark ages." Argument from adverse consequences. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

LX/BS Discussion on morality and legality

LX - in a discussion about morality augment from adverse consequences isn't a logical fallacy - it could be said to be the only valid argument. It's a valid viewpoint that the consequences of an action determine whether it is morally good or bad. Indeed, this is part of my problem with Earthland's viewpoint - he's applying a scientific viewpoint to a moral argument. In science things tend to be true or false, morality is seldom that simple. Bob Soles 11:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is two separate questions. In a discussion of the morality of abortion, arguments concerning the consequences of its legal status are irrelevant. If a million women killed themselves every day via coat-hanger abortions, it would have no relevance whatsoever to Earthland's arguments. Indeed, assuming that Earthland's arguments were valid, some people would call coat-hanger abortion deaths "an eye for an eye." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that, given the difficulties in determining the morality of the act of abortion, then it is necessary to look at the consequences of making that decision. I agree that hard liners like Earthland would probably feel that the women had what was coming to them but, for me, when deciding the morality of abortion I have also to look at the consequences of that decision. I would prefer to do an immoral act to save a life than be morally pure and watch someone die. The moral dilemma surrounding abortion isn't made in a vacuum, it's made in the real world, where decisions have real consequences. I would prefer Earthlands 40-50 million murders than to see a return to the back street abortionist. Earthland would ban abortions to stop poor deluded women from committing the ultimate sin. My position is probably just as condescending but I would allow abortions to stop desperate women from harming themselves. Bob Soles 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You continue to conflate the issues of morality and legality. There are many things that most lawmakers and other people agree are immoral, but that are not banned outright. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there are two separate decisions, the morality or otherwise of the act of abortion and the morality, or otherwise, of making abortions illegal or difficult to obtain. EL takes a hard line on both - abortionist are murderers in his book and should be treated as such, both morally and legally. I would contend that, when taking a moral position on abortion, one has to put into the equation, the results of taking that position. I, a strong support of free and readily available abortions, would never suggest that an abortion is a good thing. What I do say is that the good/bad balance has to have the results of taking the decision taken into account. In moral discussions, arguing from adverse consequences is valid. Bob Soles 17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If morality and legality are separate decisions, then women dying from coat-hanger abortions is not a "consequence" of any moral stance. It is, however, relevant to the question of abortion's legality. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Morality and legality are separate decisions but they are linked in a very real way. Only those who feel that abortion is sufficiently morally wrong to deserve judicial punishment would frame a law against it. Those who have no moral qualms about abortion would oppose any laws. I see nothing morally wrong with aborting a foetus up to, say, 20 weeks where the pregnancy is unwanted, a last resort form of birth control. I do have moral qualms about late term abortions and suddenly, for me, it gets a lot more difficult. If it's abort the child or the mother dies - well, that's not so hard, but it's seldom that simple. But it's because of these moral dilemmas that the legal framework has been put in place. The legal framework is an attempt to take a consensus on the societies moral decisions and put black/white solutions to the various shades of grey. As such the consequences of the legal decision are, very much, the consequences of the moral decision. Bob Soles 19:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Only those who feel that abortion is sufficiently morally wrong to deserve judicial punishment would frame a law..." Two words: Malum prohibitum.

On a more general note, I think that the whole point of secularism was to take moral considerations out of the law, so that the law solely concerns "legitimate state interests." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would answer Malum in se. Whether abortion is a legitimate state interest is an interesting question. Unfortunately jurisprudence isn't my strongest point so I can't talk with any authority beyond 'man in the street'. Bob Soles 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The intent was to show that one can advocate laws against some action without considering it morally wrong. Specifically in this case, right-wingers are accused of favoring anti-abortion laws not because they believe it a moral wrong, but because they consider it necessary to keep women subordinate. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that only the most rabid feminazis would say that. Most pro-choicers understand that the foundation of the pro-life position is EL's "It's murdering babies". The problem with the debate is that only the extremes get heard. It's only the extremeists who can be bothered to debate an issue which is all but settled. Interestingly there was an article in yesterday's NYT saying that apathy among the pro-choicers because the issue is seen as settled is allowing such things as abortion becoming an issue in the health care debate. Bob Soles 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The more moderate feminists use it to some degree as well (whenever they send out propaganda to the effect of "Defeat this anti-choice measure that if passed would undo 35 years of progress for women!"), but that is just a weaker echo of what the radicals say. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Aren't you confusing the perception of the pro lifers intent with the perception of the outcome. I believe that pro-lifers, through motives which are well meaning and sincere about "murdering babies", would, if they had their way, set back progress in what I perceive as a woman's rights over her own reproduction. I would say that most of my feminist friends would agree with that statement. Bob Soles 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think with the moderate feminists it is a mix: they recognize that pro-lifers believe abortion to be murder, but also see a subtext of conscious attempts to remove women's liberties. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we have to agree to disagree. Maybe it's because I'm an old fart, and the feminists I know are also of a certain age, but my friends would only see such a subtext if backed up by other evidence a la Phyllys Schaffly. Taking the pro lifer that started this off, Earthland, for all that he's patronising about women, doesn't want to remove their rights per se. He's shown no evidence of thinking that a woman's place is in the home, for example. Bob Soles 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say the moderate ones were incorrect in supposing such a subtext, or that they used it in contexts where there was no evidence for it, only that they tend to use it to sideline the murder issue. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Say rather then that the difference between the two sides is the weight given to the relative rights of the foetus against those of the mother. It is perfectly reasonable to say that, by putting the emphasis on the rights of the foetus you are diminishing - in relative terms at least - the rights of the woman. Simply by saying that a pregnant woman must bear the child to term under all circumstances is a diminishing of her current liberties.

But to get back to the question - I think one would have to be a pretty extreme feminist to believe that the pro lifers held their views for the purpose of reducing women's current liberties, even though that would be the outcome. Bob Soles 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One could just as easily say that by outlawing murder one is favoring the rights of the victim over the rights of the murderer. It only makes sense if one does not regard the fetus as a person, so it would carry no weight with pro-lifers. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

End of BS/LX discussion

Earthland - dangerous extremist - well, maybe not dangerous, except that you're quite a long way down the road at which the end is fire-bombing abortion clinics as I described above. Extremist - well, yes. You place yourself out there in ground mostly populated by those who hold strong religious views. OK, so you can find web site called 'Atheist for Pro Life' or whatever but that's a version of the rule which says you can find anything on the internet - a sort of rule 34. Your position is well to the extreme of most countries with a strong democracy which suggests that your position is well to the extreme of the vast majority of the world. You say that truth is absolute - I feel it is more relative and, if the vast majority of the population where I live (the UK) believe that abortion is OK up to around 20 weeks then that's fine by me. Personally I use the brain activity marker which puts me roughly in step with the majority.

What I do find ironic is that you bang on about having an open mind but whilst you expect others to change their views you certainly are not going to change yours. Your mind on this is made up. You have decided that life, in every sense of the word, begins at conception. You brush aside those who think otherwise as ignorant, deluded, immoral, or having an agenda. You certainly seem unable to accept that there may be other viewpoints which are perfectly tenable and morally founded. I won't go over the arguments again, I'm bored with not being listened to but if you want to write essays about having an open mind start by not calling the other side immoral murderers.

And this is where we really differ. You know you're right. I don't. I don't even think there is any absolute wrong or right. I've lived long enough to see societies torn in two by people who knew they were right - hell, you lived under a regime that knew it was right, well, until twenty years ago. I am strongly distrustful of people who know they are right because they don't debate, they preach. In particular I am strongly distrustful of people who know they are right on moral issues. I'm lucky, I'm white, middle class, western and male. But too many of my friends, my gay friends, my female friends, my Muslim friends, my different friends have suffered under the hands of people who know they are right.

So fine, you have your views and your welcome to them. In fact I'm rather grateful to you. If anything you've hardened my position. I used to know roughly where I stood, now I know exactly. You've done a fine job of convincing me of the pro choice viewpoint. Because I had to marshal my arguments I had to look closer at what I believe and why. Without you I would never have really looked at why the 20 - 24 week limit is acceptable - well, to most societies. Before this argument I had just accepted that medical and judicial experts had put the start of person hood at aroudn the 20 - 24 week mark, now I know why they've done so and why I agree with their decision. You've done a splendid job, but maybe not quite the one you meant to do.

Bob Soles 23:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"You place yourself out there in ground mostly populated by those who hold strong religious views." Ad hominem

"OK, so you can find web site called 'Atheist for Pro Life' or whatever but that's a version of the rule which says you can find anything on the internet - a sort of rule 34."

Actually I found plenty of "those websites". It is all in the RW's very own abortion article, just at the beginning :) .

"Your position is well to the extreme of most countries with a strong democracy which suggests that your position is well to the extreme of the vast majority of the world. You say that truth is absolute - I feel it is more relative and, if the vast majority of the population where I live (the UK) believe that abortion is OK up to around 20 weeks then that's fine by me."

Even at it's best it's just argumentum ad populum. Besides that, that my views are "unpopular" doesn't make them "extremist". But as I said, if caring for the unborn babies who are torn into pieces makes me an extremist, so be it.

There is no universal conclusion that we must define the beginning of life trough the death. This "brain activity" theory is a real minority view amongst scientist. This is an arbitrary characteristics.

Of course, unborn people are in very early stage of development, but they are still people and that's what matters. Why shouldn't I apply a scientific viewpoint to a moral argument? Only by basing protection of human rights on a scientifically observable and verifiable standard can we guarantee equal protection of human rights for every individual member of the human species. The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood. You are saying that people who have not reached a particular level of physical or psychological development are not worth of protection. But that is subjective. Many aspects of brain development occur after birth. Many or even most aspects of newborn personality do not emerge until weeks to months after birth. What about killing them? Maybe they are not "enough persons"? But maybe a ten-years old kid still isn't enough person, because human development is continous process? Am I right to kill ten-years old boy and it is wrong of you to force your subjective thoughts about the beginning of personhood upon me? But what about the ten-years old in question? And the unborn? 45 to 50 million dead human beings have had the pro-choice mob’s beliefs forced on them. So long as human rights are based on such subjective crietria, there will be no protection for those human individuals who are viewed as being in some sense inferior or inadequate in the opinions of the majority. Many different societies have denied the personhood of certain human groups. (e.g., African slaves, Chinese etc). And who determines the criteria? Those in power, of course. Whenever personhood is defined according to one's functionality, the "line" between persons and non-persons will be a decision of will by those in power. And it will be based on self-interest.

"What I do find ironic is that you bang on about having an open mind but whilst you expect others to change their views you certainly are not going to change yours."

You don't have to "change your mind" or whatsoever. But using false arguments and demagogy is certainly not a sign of an open mind.

"But too many of my friends, my gay friends, my female friends, my Muslim friends, my different friends have suffered under the hands of people who know they are right."

40 - 50 million dead people have suffered under the hands of people who don't even know if they are right, but continue doing it anyway...

--Earthland 14:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Convenient Edit Point

From the top

• Saying you position yourself amoungst those who hold strong religious views is not ad hominem as it is not an attack on you as a person. If you look around at those who hold similar views to you you will find that, in general, they hold strong religious views.
• Yep, you found and quoted plenty of sites to support your views. Most of them had strong religious ties - see above - but even those which didn't, well, I could, should I so desire, provide any number of sites promoting any view I wish to. Finding lots of web sites is proves only that there are lots of web sites.
• That your views are unpopular does make them extremist - by definition. You're well to one end of the bell curve.
• And then we come to the nub of the matter. This is where you really are out there on a limb. You have decided that The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis - but then you decide which objective basis you feel is right and disallow all the rest. At this point you bang on and on and on about one particular viewpoint as to where life - in the sense of having rights - starts. Although oh so many disagree, scholars both of science and jurisprudence, you know you are right and you fight your viewpoint with an almost religious fervour. You disregard any who disagree with you, you put no weight whatsoever on their views. Your mind is closed.
• You say I use false arguments and demagoguery - well, banging on about the horrors of the abortion procedure - that, if anything, is an appeal to the emotions or, according to my dictionary, demagoguery. Similarly, if, like me, you feel that morality is relativistic, then agumentum ad populum is not a false argument. Additionally, I have not used ad hominen although you've accused me of it whenever you haven't got an answer.
• 40 - 50 dead people have suffered.... Oh, come on - talk about false arguments and appeals to emotions! Lets get one thing straight here and now. A foetus under 24 weeks cannot feel either emotional or physical pain - it simply doesn't have the equipment. If I could be bothered I would find the relevant papers from the BMA to support this. To suffer you need to feel pain. Using the word suffering is right out of order in your argument.

When discussing morality, what is right and what is wrong, there is far more to the question than scientific 'facts'. Going from 'The human life cycle begins at conception' to 'A human gains rights as a human being at conception' is not a logic step - it is a statement of belief. I believe differently, so does much of the world. Belief and fact are different. One's beliefs are based on facts, we hope, but there are huge assumptions in the translation. Your assumption is that "genetic individuality equates to rights as a human".

One last point on argumentum ad populum - I believe that, in general, the world is getting to be a fairer, more equitable place. I believe that morality evolves towards a fairer society. As such, and this is a huge broad brush with all that that implies, I tend to believe that moral positions improve over time. We used to have slavery, now we have far less, for example. The world is moving towards acceptance of abortion, not away from it. This, to me, whilst difficult to defend, is one more reason to approve of abortion.

Bob Soles 15:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first point, yes, of course, but what did you want to tell by that?

Lots of web sites proves that there are lots of people who think in same way. Of course most pro-lifers are religious, but that isn't really the issue.

If virtually all encyclopedias and all experts of the field say the same thing, then everything else is merely a speculated theory not "scientifically valid" truth. And this is objective. Law is law not truth; once slavery was legal but it wasn't moral just because it was legal.

And oh, appeal to emotion is not a logical fallacy, if the reality simply is emotional - there is nothing to do about it. Denying it equals lying.

Obviously the world will some day remember our time as the time when innocent people were legally slaughtered and people called it "freedom". New dark age has hit the world. That is, of course, purely my subjective fictional depiction.

--Earthland 16:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, here we go, here we go...

• Equating you with people who have strong religious views is pointing out that the people you align with are using religious, rather than scientific, arguments.
• No, lots of web sites does not mean that there are lots of people who think the same way. It simply means there are lots of web sites. Those with strong views tend to shout loudest - it doesn't mean they represent any significant proportion of the population. Even when they purport to do so, the Catholic church, for example, you'll find that plenty of professed Catholics have had abortions, they just keep quiet about it.
• But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, whilst all encyclopaedias and experts agree that the life cycle starts at conception this doesn't, in any way or form whatsoever, imply that human rights start at the same point. That is an inference that you are making.
• An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. Saying look at all the poor foetuses being ripped apart by those evil abortionists is a deliberate attempt to detract from the lack of any real, logical argument.
• Obviously the world will some day remember our time as the time when innocent people were legally slaughtered and people called it "freedom". New dark age has hit the world. That is, of course, purely my subjective fictional depiction. - don't make me laugh. There is nothing obvious at all, unless of course, you are blinded by your own self righteousness. Obviously the world will some day see the tail end of the twentieth century as a time when women were finally liberated from the reproductive tyranny imposed on them by men. Safe effective birth control coupled with safe and readily available abortion has allowed fifty percent of the population to take control of their own lives, to become complete persons who can fight for their rights on a level playing field. OK, we're not there yet, but we march onwards. Obviously, when you've grown up a bit, (OK, so that is a bit ad-hom but I'll wager you're under 30) you'll look back on this time when you were young and idealistic, but oh so removed from the realities of the situation. Well, that's my purely subjective fictional depiction.

Bob Soles 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, do you believe it is possible that one day you actually talk something concrete, without shifting the question all the time?

That if religious people talk against abortion does not mean that they use religious arguments! As said the "raving atheist":

“”Planned Parenthood today still insists that the question of when life begins is a religious one which varies from woman to woman, apparently mind-dependent rather than reality-dependent. They do draw the line at the old Mayan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, although I don't see why, under their theory, that wouldn't be a protected exercise of religion as well. I've seen more of a reliance on science - embryology, ultrasound - on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side. In fact, the mainstream pro-choice organizations oppose showing women who are considering abortion ultrasound pictures of the child on the grounds that they are "confusing." It should be noted that the pro-choice side isn't opposed to raising religious arguments when it suits them. Planned Parenthood has hired clergy to promote abortion from a theological standpoint. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice devotes its very existence to that endeavor. Ironically, even the atheistic Freedom from Religion Foundation employs a religious argument when it comes to abortion - it argues that the practice should be permitted because it isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible.

And as I pointed out (remember- Encyclopedia Britannica?), life cycle means life. Encyclopedias say that at the moment of fertilization a new life has begun, not simply new life cycle.

And now you come in and talk about human rights. Of course encyclopedias don't say when does the "human rights" begin. This is another question. You are just messing it up and talking bullshit.

I didn't use the words "poor" and "evil abortionist". I said that unborn people are torn into pieces by abortionist, which is fact you can not deny. If this fact created emotions, it's because reality is emotional.

More of Blah-Blah-Blah....

--Earthland 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And we've got there - tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis -

As Jefferson Airplane said back in '67, never argue with a German when you're tired.

You win. Bob Soles 18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You spoiled the whole talk page, silly boy.

This is quite fun, though:

"I, a strong support of free and readily available abortions, would never suggest that an abortion is a good thing."

The only basis for saying that abortion is not a "good thing" is the recognition that it is the killing of a child. The fact is, if abortion is the intentional killing of a child there is no defense for it being legal, and if it is not the intentional killing of a child, then why not suggest it as a good thing? Besides, if legalized abortion is such an empowering thing for women, why would you not suggest it? If abortion is not the intentional killing of a child, why should its use – even in extremely high numbers – be a problem? And if it really is a freedom, we should be celebrating it not saying that it is a bad thing. No one says free speech or freedom of religion should be rare. So why apply this irrational standard to abortion?

--Earthland 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read a word of this entire discussion, yet somehow, I'm already sick of it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis - tisn't - tis -

Appeal to Consequences

I'm just trying to understand your first point. I know that English isn't your first language, and you state at the start of the talk page: I am also open to criticism over my grammatical errors. In the spirit of this, I have to say that the double negative in final comment in this section:

• "But this is not something you can't deny."

leaves me a little confused. Perhaps you could clarify it?--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Should it be illegal for rape victims to have the semen cleaned out of their uterus?

After a (vaginal) rape, some adolescent or adult woman, wish to have the rapist's semen removed. The reasons may include hygiene, collecting evidence, or preventing/ending pregnancy. The procedure is know as D&C. Problem is, there could be a unicellular "person" in their uterus, resulting from the rapist's sperm fertilizing the victim's egg. In this case, should doctors be allowed to go ahead and possibly "murder" "someone" (the egg), or should some of these women/girls, have to incubate, carry, and give birth to their rapists' children? Lumenos (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lumenos

This is not the right essay. Your comment is also fairly provocative, using word like "incubate". Also, the term "egg" is best reserved for a nutritive object frequently seen on the breakfest table. If fertilization has taken place, the egg ceases to be an egg. Rape is definitely a horrible crime, but the child should not be the one who is going to be punished. Emotional level it is, of course, difficult - a 14 years old girl has been raped in a dark tunnel, she didn't even see who raped her, - emotionally it is all very difficult, horrible. In a moral plan, however, abortion is fairly simple issue and rape does not make it any more controversial, because the child is who (s)he is - innocent living human being who has not chosen to inhabit his mother's body when conceived, and what the prenatal child does, he does by necessity. Inhabiting the mother's body is a byproduct of the rapist volitional act, and as such the rapist is the only one who should be punished. --Earthland (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I guess we are off-topic here. I quoted the relevant part of your reply, and responded on the talk page of your essay entitled, "Why I oppose abortion". Lumenos (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

old essay, but never the less

Your entire essay is based on a straw man presentation of abortion, and more importantly of the abortion issue and the arguments (specifically from women) in favor of abortion, of control of their own bodies, and determine who will live inside their bodies, when, and how. There really is no other argument that is worth while, if you think women are adults and able to think for themselves and decide for themselves the course they want to take in life. It's funny that men who argue this issue rarely talk about the women. They tend to talk about "the time life starts", or "how the law views manslaughter against a fetus". they rarely get into the fact that some women, a real woman must put her life on the line for her child. Every single pregnancy has a chance of going horridly wrong and killing the woman. Every single one. Every single one will NECESSARILY cause the women's body harm. 100% of all pregnancies. Every single pregnancy will change the social status of the women, regardless of her status before the pregnancy. every single one. Only the woman, knowing her own life, what she values, what her morals are and are not can decide how her body will be used and by whom. Just like every other human being.

At some point, society may demand that every give blood to blood banks, donate kidneys and marrow, or risk their lives to save other humans in fires, car wrecks, swimming pools, ect. But until you start passing such laws, telling a woman she MUST risk her life, her health, and her social status cause its "a life" is bs. they are all lives. The kid dying of leukemia and the kid in utero. But we as a society only make it "required" to save ONE of those lives.En attendant Godot 16:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is ironic that feminists who argue this issue rarely talk about the fetus. It is one thing to say that a fetus is not a person, as most pro-choicers do, and quite another to consider the question of fetal personhood irrelevant, as some feminists do. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While that may be true, it's my body that has to take the risk. not yours. not some legislatures. It's that simple. there is no other case that i can think of, where the legislature tells a human being who must be allowed to live in them, off them, and what risks they must be told they have to take. Yes it's a baby. yes it's alive. but it is inside me. that is the game. right there.En attendant Godot 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But if the fetus is a person, then it is the fetus's body, not yours or the legislature's. If there are no similar laws on other topics, then it is because pregnancy and childbirth are unique in that regard. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See, the fetus is inside me, i'm not inside it. That's the point i cannot understand in these "the fetus has rights" arguments. Again, even if the fetus were already born, but somehow attached to my body, externally... would the law demand that I not have the right to pull the plug? A mother can pull the plug on a born child that cannot survive without machines. seh cannot do the same when the machine in question is her body? I've been there twice, and i see no compelling reason that I should have to listen to anyone but the people who *i* choose, to tell me how I should live. AT 18, an A student, on a scholarship and working as a professional diver, the fact that a bunch of cells was alive in me was not part of my consideration. The argument that i should take its wants into consideration really makes no sense, when it cannot have any wants.--En attendant Godot 18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Its wants" are not generally what is under consideration by pro-lifers; the argument centers more on a person's right not to be killed. As the Terri Schiavo case showed, at least some pro-lifers are not exactly inconsistent about "pulling the plug" in cases outside the womb. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX hates women and so he chooses to focus on the fetus and ignore the woman. It's one thing to say that the fetus belongs to the mother's body, and quite another to suggest the opposite. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt he "hates women", though i'm apt to scream that when i'm pissed... but he does seem, at least in his argument here, to place the life of the fetus above the life of the women. I can't do that. I cannot say to some women (myself at 18, and a year later) that I know what is right for her, what is best for her. I cannot say to any woman that rape justifies abortion cause it's so traumatic, but messed up birth control does not justify it. I cannot look at a woman (again, thinking me as that woman, but anyone else, a 35 year old lawyer, a 40 year old 3 time mother, or a 15 year old "stupid" blond who thought you can't get pregnant on the first time) and say "You do not have the legitimate right to control events in yoru life as best as you can. There are methods to take control when something has gone wrong (failed birth control, for example) which are as legitimate as taking the pill in the first place. And by the way, I am also in favor of full paid health care for women who want to have the child and give it up for adoption. as well as full paid education, food assistance, and preschool/daycare for women who want to keep the child but finish school or keep the child but can't afford it. it is ALL a choice, a valid choice and i want to make sure we fund whatever choice women with unwanted pregnancies make.En attendant Godot 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant it quite literally. ListenerX is, in fact, a misogynist. Heck, if I were in his position, I'd probably be one too. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that was not a joke? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

...he does seem, at least in his argument here, to place the life of the fetus above the life of the women. Yes, suggesting that all people have an equal right to life is clearly "putting one person's life above another's." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

...he does seem, at least in his argument here, to place the life of the fetus above the life of the women. let me fix that: "...he does seem, at least in his argument here, to place the rights of the fetus above the rights of the women." Occasionaluse (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

cat my prior post | sed s/person's life/person's right to life/g ListenerX^TalkerX 19:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the right to life, I'm talking about women's rights, something you seem hell bent on ignoring/destroying. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The general rule employed, when weighing the balance of people's rights, is that one's right to swing one's fist stops at another's face. In this vein, if the fetus is a person, a woman's equal right to have a vacuum pump inserted into herself would stop at the blob of tissue otherwise known as the fetus. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This "debate" here is entirely funny (besides being out of place and without any actual point made). My next summer may include some work involving small children, perhaps I should introduce it to them. There is no need to be worried by people who completely stop by the first argument that justifies their world view. The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand arguments meant for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. --Earthland (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

When making a remark on a talk-page after many months' absence, it is considered good etiquette to make sense. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know Rationalwiki has etiquette. If I did I certainly would have paid attention to it. Sorry. --Earthland (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, then; what exactly are you saying? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to address the user WaitingforGodot and I certainly didn't want to say a single bad word about you. I wanted to say that she might consider stepping out of the abortion debate if she doesn't want to embarrass the whole pro-choice cause, which isn't, let's say, impressively strong even without her. Let me guess; I still doesn't make any sense? --Earthland (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand. LX is probably just being a dick because of white nationalism, prevalent in religion of Asatru. Stay off his wiki, foreigner. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has an essay in mind, which is written by me but is bizarre (probably because of my english) or seems to be pointless, let me know so that I could delete it. (I won't delete the "Why I oppose abortion" essay, though.) --Earthland (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, and if anyone wants to block me, I'm fine with that. I'm no longer a sysop so that I can't unblock myself. --Earthland (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Earthland. Why would you think that we want to block you?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Bob. I have no ideas about what "you" want to do (there are probably thousands of users here and I'm more than sure that some would fancy this idea). It's just that I wouldn't mind being blocked, because I don't think it's very good for me to hang around here too often. --Earthland (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a grown up. if you want to block yourself, do so. I posted on a virtually dead link, and you responded within 6 hours... that must mean you are around, which is your choice. Don't like my views on abortion, that's your problem, i guess. Don't like my views on abortion in an ARTICLE here, then change the article. that's an editor's right.En attendant Godot 20:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Earthland can't block himself. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi EL. You are a sysop again. If you want to block yourself that's fine - but nobody is going to block you unless you commit repeated vandalism. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

...he does seem, at least in his argument here, to place the life of the fetus above the life of the women. Yes, suggesting that all people have an equal right to life is clearly "putting one person's life above another's." ListenerXTalkerX --- We do it all the time, and fuck yes I have that right. It is a life INSIDE of me. How is it not my right to say "get the hell OUT of me".En attendant Godot 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I have explained several times, if the fetus is a person, in order for the fetus to "get the hell OUT of you," a person must be killed. Hence, if (1) it is a person's right to say, for whatever reason they choose, "get the hell OUT of me," and (2) it is irrelevant whether or not the fetus is a person, then (3) it is that person's right to kill specific other people on a whim, which (4) contradicts any belief in the equal right of all people not to be killed. Denying such an equal right would tend to undermine many of the arguments used in favor of legalized abortion in the first place. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict - "I wanted to address the user WaitingforGodot and I certainly didn't want to say a single bad word about you. I wanted to say that she might consider stepping out of the abortion debate if she doesn't want to embarrass the whole pro-choice cause". Pardon my french, but how the fuck would i "embarrass" the pro choice cause? do you have the slightest idea what the pro-choice arguments are? they are, far more often than not, informed by real women who deal with real issues of real choice and not the tendency to "legalese" this argument. The irony here is that of the people talking, as far as i can tell anyhow, only one of us has the need for abortion, and only one of us has been in a position to decide if she should have an abortion, and only one of us has HAD an abortion. I think that until or unless you are in the position of dealing with a living being inside you, who makes demands on your body that conflict with your own goals for your body; until you sit there and say "I have to give up my job, my education (scholarship), and whatever else for a baby I do not want, and a pregnancy I do not want"... until you wake up violently ill, or know that you will have to change how you eat, what you drink, the drugs you take (and i don't mean pot, heroine, and alcohol, i mean aspirin, heart medication, thyroid pills, etc) you really have no idea much less right to tell me that 1) i am an embarrassment, or 2) you know more about the issue than I. There is a very real reason that people who cannot be effected by a law they pass, have no f'ing business passing that law.En attendant Godot 20:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi WaitingforGodot. I made a comment on one of your essays. You can embarrass the pro-choice cause by presenting even more stupid arguments than pro-choicers usually do. I can assure you that I know a lot about pro-choice arguments. I may know even more than you. --Earthland (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is fallacious to splatter the entire "pro-choice cause" based on the actions of its loony fringe who hold the belief that killing people is an acceptable course of action in furtherance of careers, etc.; even they, for the most part, also take the mainstream position that what is being "killed" in an abortion is not actually a person. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we want a deleted essay?

Dumb question, but i've never seen a "deleted" page show up in the list of articles (in this case essays). Why is this, and is it intentional?--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 00:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Nobody cares about the essay much, but parts of this talk page are worth reading, & keeping the essay page around, even in a "deleted" form, keeps it attached to a category. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)