Essay talk:Why I oppose abortion/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 17 December 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>

, (new)(back)

"There has been a noticeable lack of serious discussion on the topic."

Seriously? On abortion? Or do you just mean about you & what you happen to think about it? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant this talk page here.--Earthland (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Could just be that we don't care what you think? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. It's arrogant to assume that because people don't bother debating with you personally that they have no interest in or opinion on the issue and no confidence in their convictions. This is a very divisive issue & most people have strong opinions. Your essays are not likely to change their opinions, & most people can recognise that they're not likely to change yours. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Toast:Yep, I think you're absolutely right. And yes, I put that sign up because people don't bother debating me but still come here to say that "they have heard all of it for thousand's of times" or that I'm a "troll" or that if I don't like abortion then I shouldn't have one, which is arrogant and stupid.--Earthland (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. That is all. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A more exact wording makes you "laughing out loud"?--Earthland (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, yes. There's a huge difference in meaning. Why is it so important to you for people to debate about what you believe rather than what they do? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to say that people don't discuss the topic of abortion seriously. But there has been no serious discussion on this talk page, and yet it's not empty - simply full of garbage that I'd like not to see, and that's why I put up that sign (and corrected the wording) --Earthland (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "garbage that I'd like not to see", see my comments in the section below. You can't control what other people say any more than you can control what they think. Personally, I'll be happy not to comment on any of your essay talk pages again. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Big deal. Maybe you didn't read that "There is no way how I could stop you from leaving your comments on the talk page, but /.../ don't expect me to answer." --Earthland (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Biologist perspective

This is a great pre-festivities topic for me, so I decided to chime in. I want to start by saying that I am heavily bias (in that I think we should stay the fuck out of people's lives unless they need help). I am pro-choice for several reasons:

• Like stated above, I want to stay out of people's lives.

• Since history tells us that expectant mothers are going to get abortions anyways, I'd prefer a MD does them so as not to terminate the mother's life as well.

• If a mother is willing to go through with the procedure, she obviously feels the child is not going to be well taken care of (point: there are worst things in life than death).

• It's not my damn body.

• Added bonus: it pisses off the far-right.

The biology textbook definition of life is that it starts at birth and ends at death. The reason for this classification is there is a marked difference (especially in the animal world) between a fetus and an infant. The trouble with defining life outside of the scientific definition is that there is no clear place that it starts. If a zygote is "life", then so is a gamete. If a gamete is alive, you're murdering human life every time you shed a skin cell.

A point was attempted to be made earlier that a baby could theoretically be alive without ever having been in a womb. Problem is, that isn't a natural life, that is an artificial life (created using artificial means) and, therefore, the definition of life is going to be different there. I've noticed that straw-man in use before in a debate and lament the fact that the biologist didn't go after the person using that in debate. The distinction between natural and artificial is being blurred and we need to separate the two very different concepts.δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 19:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that you are a parodist or you simply didn't read the essay but still "chimed in"? As I've addressed all these questions in my essay, then maybe you actually want to read it? --Earthland (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Earthland, what the hell are you looking for here? Check the other personal essays & their talk pages. There are very few which have run to eighteen sections of discussion. & Yet you seem disappointed with the level of debate here. You are contemptuous of anyone whose attitude is "I've heard it all for thousands of times and I could easily refute everything you said, but I won't", & yet, when somebody disagrees with you, your own attitude is "I've heard it all for thousands of times and I could easily refute everything you said, but I won't". Think about why editors might find it a waste of time to debate with you. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how much people talk about my essay ... unless they talk but still say nothing, as we can see here on the talk page.

My attitude is not "You said a PRATT & I won't discuss it", but if someone "chimes in" in way that the only thing I can to is to copy & paste extracts from my essay (which is pointless) because the person obviously didn't read it ... Is it part of "constructive dialogue"? --Earthland (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for that user, but the way it looks to me is that he/she disagrees with you & wanted to debate the issue. Whether he/she has read every word you've already written on the subject seems to me irrelevant. Rather than assume good faith, you insult & patronise the editor, & make a wild accusation of parody. I find your attitude that you've already said all you need to on the subject & can therefore respond with "just read my essay" to be particularly conceited, especially in light of the whole "I've heard it all for thousands of times" rhetoric. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If Cgb07305 wants an answer...

• You say that you want to stay out of people's lives? By that you say that the issue is not abortion, but choice. But it would mean that what’s being chosen is irrelevant. It definitely is not. We cannot let people make their own choices to rape, rob, defraud, write hot checks, etc. By definition, the goal of every law is to deny someone the legal ability to choose a particular activity. As for abortion, it is the government’s role to protect one individual’s choice to kill his fellow human beings. So the question is definitely not "choice" but abortion and what it actually means.
• Your second point. I've probably said that for countless times for now, but that harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for having no law. The question is not whether abortions stop or not, the question is whether abortion is moral or not. You can not pretend that the law does not influence whether women choose to have abortions - the law can guide and educate people to choose better alternatives. Of course an illegal abortion imposes a greater risk for mother, but we must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous - the central horror of illegal abortion remains the central horror of legal abortion.
• Read this.
• It's not the mother's body that is going to be terminated by abortion - only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive. But it is indeed not your body. But would you support a law that tells we can kill all Chinese people, simply because it's not your damn body that would be in danger?
• "Biology textbook"? What biology textbook? Please read this.

--Earthland (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• "You say that you want to stay out of people's lives?"

>You accuse me of not reading and yet you don't finish reading the sentence you copied back to me. Nice. What I said was that I want to stay out of people's lives UNLESS THEY NEED HELP. Victims of rape, thievery and bank fraud all need help, no? The only person abortion hurts (potentially) is the mother of the fetus. Frankly I don't give two shits if someone wants to hurt themselves. I find tattoos ugly, disgusting and vile, but I don't dream of banning them. If some idiot wants to pay a mint to get hepatitis and screw up their skin, more power to them.

• " that harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for having no law"

>So that is how an idiot thinks about that? The point wasn't that they'll do it regardless of the law. The point was THE LAW WOULD MAKE THINGS WORST. Can you comprehend that or am I going to have to go back and explain it to you slowly?

God knows why but you seem to think life begins at conception. Personally, I think this is stupid from every point of view possible. Have you taken a biology class? ...ever?

Now I have a question for you: since you believe they are terminating human life, do you think that every woman who has had an abortion should be charge with and convicted of murder in the first degree and face the death penalty (in most states)? The only way for you to not be a hypocrite and answer the question would be for you to want to put every woman who has had an abortion to death (because that is the penalty for anyone else who commits the crime you allege).

As for calling me a parodist: I find that charge humorous coming from someone who crapped out an essay, calls out people to debate him, then gets offended when his straw-man bullshit is blown away (example strawman: "Why we never see pro-choice advocates, such like Planned Parenthood or NARAL, explaining where they believe life begins?"-Earthland Planned parenthood's response: "Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath." (taken from plannnedparenthood.org's q&a page). You obviously took no time to bother doing any research. You believe all the propaganda "pro-life" hate groups spew at you. This is why I don't take you seriously at all. Quite simply, you are a brain-washed idiot that doesn't deserve the time of day until (at least) you do a bit of research ON YOUR OWN!δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At Cgb07305, yes. Yes. ħuman 04:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Cgb, as medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception, then maybe you haven't taken a biology class? (Look at the end of the first section in the essay).

What is birth? There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth - it simply changes the location of baby: inside or outside of the uterus. The fetus is viable (can survive outside of the uterus) months before woman normally gives birth to her child. So how can it be "not alive" before birth? But if you somehow think that viability is the "beginning of life", click here.

A child’s “breathing,” its intake of oxygen, begins long before birth. I can't see, however, how it is associated with the beginning of life. It's extremely arbitrary, I could say that life begins when child first eats meat as well.

As for you first point, fetus is another human being who is going to be killed by abortion, and therefore needs help.

Law does not make things worst if the unborn are human beings. Or maybe you simply didn't understand me.

I have never supported death penalty, no matter what the crime is. Laws prohibiting abortion target the abortionist, not the woman. "Doctor" is the person who kills the fetus, not woman (and, except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion, a conviction against her would be virtually impossible).

--Earthland (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cgb, as medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception"

Wrong. Dude, I have a degree in biology (animal physiology emphasis) and I'm getting my medical doctorate, I have yet to read a scientific book that defines mammalian life as starting at any time but birth. Can you cite ONE textbook that any reputable science/medical program uses that states life begins at conception? There are hack scientists out there that will publish anything one wants to hear, provided they are paid well for it (i.e. the hacks at The Institute for Creation Research), but NO ONE in the scientific community takes these people seriously. Life starts at birth. Conception is the continuation of a sperm and egg's POTENTIAL FOR LIFE. If I put a 2 week old infant under liquid nitrogen, I kill it. When I put a 2 week old embryo under liquid nitrogen, I can revive cell devision and, in 9 months, have a living, breathing person.

"There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth - it simply changes the location of baby: inside or outside of the uterus."

You fail to see that this is a drastic change in the environment? Plus, you answered your own question, retard. What is different? The location of the stack of cells! If you fail to realize that location of cells makes a big fuck difference in biology, explain to me your definition of conception. The ONLY difference is the internal vs. external location of the sperm, right? Therefore we should believe that every mother is pregnant...because you can't fucking tell the difference between their uterus and the rest of the Goddamn planet. Seriously now. Are you mentally competent?

"Law does not make things worst if the unborn are human beings. Or maybe you simply didn't understand me."

I'll explain it like I would to a two year old:

With legal abortion: fetus is extracted from expectant mother who choses to terminate the potential for life inside her.

Make abortion illegal: Same as above except now expectant mother has to do it in a back alley and many die of disease due to the unclean practices of using a coat hanger.

Do you see the difference? Instead of just terminating the fetus, many women also die. This is why history (and reading it every now and again) is important. When abortion was illegal in the 50's and 60's in America, this is what was happening. This is why I say I don't want to go back to the way things were. Apparently unlike you, I have learned a thing or two from the past.

"As for you first point, fetus is another human being who is going to be killed by abortion, and therefore needs help."

A fetus is not a human being, any more that a skin cell is. A fetus is a potential for life. Life has to exhibit the characteristics of the species in its viable form. A fetus does not do this.

As for me: I am done feeding the troll. My hope and goal is that people educate themselves on the issue...and they don't believe the lies being spread by hate groups with a massive financial interest in the outcome one way or another. People are dirty thieves and will lie, cheat and steal to earn a buck. It's sad that, in the interest of selling books, science has been all but abandoned in the United States. People like Earthland are the gullible fools that make this all possible. I'm not sure who to be more upset with, the dishonest assholes that feed people like Earthland this crap, or the jackasses like Earthland who confuse science with personal belief and are utterly adamant about a position they can't possibly be right about. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 20:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Cgb, I doubt you even know what biology is, since I've never heard someone actually defending statement that life begins at birth. This is completely ridiculous and I actually do think that you're a parodist. What does environment mean? Environment doesn't change the baby itself. What is conception? After conception we have a new individual with unique DNA and that individual begins to develop as human being.

And oh well, let's go it trough again...

Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 664: ”A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”

Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 611: “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.”

Scott Gilbert, Developmental Biology: ”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. [...] The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.”

Keith L. Moore (a respected human embryologist): "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."

The Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, the developing human being is called an embryo.”

You can also read Wikipedias article.

A fetus is not "potential human life", because it definitely is alive and it definitely is individual human being. Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman. If you mean that fetus is potential "human", it would have to have the potential of becoming either a human being or some other form of life. Perhaps a parrot or a spider. Of course, the problem is that there is no record of such a thing having ever occurred.

I actually have one question for you: How old are you? --Earthland (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You question MY credentials, then quote encyclopedia Britannica as a biology or medical textbook. PHAIL. And deserving of mockery.

I'm 23...I have no idea why or how that matters. I will add that the only source you have that contradicts what I have said is encyclopedia Britannica. The other sources actually repeat what I have said. Zygotes are the POTENTIAL for life..."beginning of each of us as a unique individual.", "the developing human being is called an embryo" and "The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” are all ways of repeating exactly what I said.

Maybe you'll understand it this way. I'm going to build a car. I have a frame, and I tack some suspension on to it. It is going to be (in the future) a car, but I ask all my buddies to come out to my garage to look at my car. Is what is sitting in the garage a car? No. Am I wrong to call it a car? No. Its a potential car, it is car parts, but it is not a car. This is where biology training of any sort i helpful. We have key words that help us distinguish between a bunch of metal sticks and a car. Key words like what I just quoted. No competent biologist would say that a fetus is a live human being. It's not. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 01:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cgb, you are also developing human being - don't forget that human beings develop for their entire lives. A fetus is less developed than a newborn just as a child is less developed than an adult. But being less developed than an adult does not mean that a child is any less a human being. That’s also true of the unborn.

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.)

Also, how does the "the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm." sound like "potential life"?!

Do not forget that Encyclopedia Britannica is written by more than 4,000 expert contributors and is widely regarded as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias. But want some more encyclopedias to support Britannica?

Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. The developing individual between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.”

Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), a new life begins.”

Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 121: ”The new individual is established at the time of fertilization, and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”

Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment.”

You didn't pay attention to wikipedia either, didn't you?

As for your last paragraph...

“”Just think of something being constructed (fabricated, assembled, composed, sculpted – in short, made), such as a house, or a scholarly article – or take a car on an assembly line. When is a car first there? At what point in the assembly line would we first say, “There’s a car”? Some of us would no doubt go with appearance, saying that there is a car as soon as the body is fairly complete (in analogy to the fetus at 10 weeks or so). I suppose that most of us would look for something functional. We would say that there is a car only after a motor is in place (in analogy to quickening). Others might wait for the wheels (in analogy to viability) or even the windshield wipers (so that it’s viable even in the rain). And a few might say, “It’s not a car until it rolls out onto the street” (in analogy to birth). There would be many differing opinions. However, one thing upon which we’ll probably all agree is this: Nobody is going to say that the car is there at the very beginning of the assembly line, when the first screw or rivet is put in or when two pieces of metal are first welded together. Two pieces of metal fastened together don’t match up to anybody’s idea of a car. I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. It is in fact not true that the bodies of living creatures are constructed, by God or by anyone else. There is no outside builder or maker. Life is not made. Life develops. In construction, the form defining the entity being built arrives only slowly, as it is added from the outside. In development, the form defining the growing life (that which a major Christian tradition calls its “soul”) is within it from the beginning. If Corvette production is cancelled, the initial two pieces of metal stuck together can become the starting point for something else, perhaps another kind of car, or maybe a washing machine. But even if you take a human embryo out of the womb, you can never get it to develop into a puppy or a guppy. Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves. The form or nature of a living being is already there from the beginning, in its activated genes, and that form begins to manifest itself from the very first moment of its existence, in self-directed epigenetic interaction with its environment. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. They already are a definite kind of being.

—Richard Stith

--Earthland (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite funny, though: "No competent biologist would say that a fetus is a live human being."

In fact, no competent biologist would say otherwise.

"Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of human embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being." - Dr. C. Ward Kischer ,Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the University of Arizona School of Medicine, American College of Pediatricians.

--Earthland (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no fundamental difference between something that "is created" and something that "creates itself", particularly when living things require such excessive amounts of help to grow (DNA, food, shelter, reproduction, not being aborted, etc).

As for the "life begins at conception" quotes, the physical and moral definitions of life still aren't the same. "Ensoulment" and "potential to be human" aside, what exists in a mother isn't sentient for a considerable amount of time, even if it's technically a unique organism. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 08:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Embryo doesn't "create itself", it already is and now it develops.

“”Here is a non-biological example of development. Suppose that we are back in the pre-digital photo days and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable – let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, and so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example parallel to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I just say blithely, “You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.” Wouldn’t you think that I were the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.

—Richard Stith

--Earthland (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you imagine development as just a sort of “self-construction,” an embryo’s identity can appear to be limited to the form so far constructed, ignoring its future development. Reframing development as self-construction does not in the end, however, provide a good argument against the embryo’s humanity. The embryo must already be human in order to construct itself as human. A non-living entity under construction lacks the identity of its final form because that form must still be imposed from the outside. But the embryo supposedly “constructing itself” possesses the fundamentals of that form within itself from its beginning, giving it a human identity.

To call the embryo a merely potential in the future is highly misleading. For example, yes, a piece of wood may be potentially a beautiful sculpture, but it gets no credit for that beauty until the potential has been realized. An embryo might not seem to deserve “credit” for a development not yet realized. This kind of reasoning is fallacious because the wood is a wholly passive potential, its form lies wholly in the future. The humanity of the embryo, however, is already present and active.

--Earthland (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If being sentient is what makes us human, then those who are in a coma could be killed at any point during their coma? This is arbitrary characteristic, absolutely arbitrary characteristic. You could also ask when is the baby enough sentient to be human? For example, newborn humans are physically and mentally less capable than virtually all other mammals, as many aspects of brain development occur after birth and many or even most aspects of newborn personality do not emerge until weeks to months after birth. Maybe they are only technically unique organisms, and maybe that's what matters? --Earthland (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Grows" would've been more accurate than "creates itself", just not quite as neat. Anyway, my point was that the manner in which something comes to be is not a moral factor: things that develop of their "own" volition (for which things inevitably require a helpful environment) are not inherently better than things that are blatantly pieced together and constructed.

The photo development metaphor isn't exactly relevant, in my opinion. I'd be mad if someone tore up my undeveloped photo because it would later be a photo, and I want a photo; The photo itself has no moral right to exist, so if I didn't want it, it wouldn't matter. (Because it's a photo. An embryo's rights aren't so unanimous.)

Basically, I consider it meaningless to say something has the right to exist when it doesn't exist. The fact that it may exist in the future, i.e. develop into something "human", does not give it substantially more right to exist than humans who haven't yet been conceived.

As for what "human" means, that's the only meaningful question at hand, really. It hasn't been decided that genetic material becomes human the moment it combines.

• Post/point 2, finally: again, there is I see no inherent value it something being guided by DNA/etc to construct itself. Suppose humans did not develop in any "natural" way, but were simply built by others: stopping development halfway would therefore be morally permissible, which is seems rather arbitrary.

The wood-vs-embryo theory is the same, suggesting that there is a difference in something based on how it acquires its form(s). There is no physical difference in an object based purely on how it is assembled, and things either exist or do not, physically speaking.

I suppose a case could be made for the moral right of something to exist if it will hereafter "guide" its own development (and is also sentient/human, since we don't really respect plants' right to grow or exist, etc). It just presumes the inherent importance of human intent (a common belief, granted), seems kind of strained, and isn't exactly universal enough to justify abortion denial.

• Post/point(s) 3: While we're at it, you could suggest I might deny people's right to live whenever they're asleep...both sleep and comas are a bit different from the usual "permanent coma or brain death" example, though brain activity results may vary.

Personally, I don't see any clear distinction between abortion and death, nor between being aborted and never being conceived. In each case, a person is denied a certain span of life. There are an infinite number of people who could've lived if only parents had been willing to conceive, technology were more advanced, more resources existed, etc; this seems no better than abortions from a non-religious perspective, so to speak.

I also grade life based on quality, i.e. believe an extremely torturous life is not better than death, etc. As such, I only see so much loss in the (allowed) death of permanently comatose/brain-dead people. If the person has a chance to recover mental activity, or does have some amount, it increases the value proportionately, and so on. Since sleeping people have a >99% chance of immediate recovery, I find it rather awful to consider their execution for personal gain.

Infants are a bit difficult to place as such, since they have a great deal of largely assured life but are fairly dependent on others for it. (That, and I have a great deal of arbitrary sympathy for suffering infants/animals.) Since I give higher priority to things that technically exist, I tend to frown on infanticide.

• Damn I wrote too much. Anyway, personal issues aside, the idea that anything has the right to exist depends on the moral belief system being used. It's completely arbitrary in terms of physical reality, which is why the statement "this usually becomes human without much intervention" doesn't make abortion morally wrong. The concepts of "humanity" and "potential/destined/incoming life vs current life" are the basis of abortion discussions (ideally) and are pretty ancient, convoluted branches of philosophy.

I should probably say something else, but I'm going to sleep instead. Hope this is readable, in various ways. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"things that develop of their "own" volition (for which things inevitably require a helpful environment) are not inherently better than things that are blatantly pieced together and constructed."

I can't follow you. I mean, "better"? The argument was not that an embryo is better than something that is being constructed, the argument was that embryo does not need to become human being because it already is. But, logically, there is a radical difference between things that are constructed and things that already exist and are simply developing.

The central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

• First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
• Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
• Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.

Those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception. Therefore, the beginning of human life is the heart of the abortion debate.

And I think you got it all wrong, awfully wrong, if you thought that the argument was "it is wrong to take the life of the embryo because it comes to be human trough development not trough construction". The argument was that an embryo does not need to "become" human because it already is human; it already is a definite kind of being.

If you agree that from the moment of conception we have a "technically unique organism", you can't say that this is not a human being. If it is technically a human individual, it doesn't become a "real" human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human is human from the beginning (here lies the difference between construction and development).

Even you require a helpful environment - you need oxygen, food and a lot more stuff around you all the time. However, it is ridiculous to say that you are constructed by food and oxygen...

I'm simply so bored to write more....

--Earthland (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "better" wasn't the right term. My position is that the organism that exists during the early stages of pregnancy is not a human. It becomes human gradually during its development. Regardless of whether it is "constructed", it is what it currently is; it does not have a claim to its future self any more than the metal on a construction line is already a car, etc (nor is either's development guaranteed in any way). There is no physical connection between an entity's past and future selves. If an embryo dies, I consider it something of a shame because the person it might have been never actually came to be.

For the record, I disagree with the first premise, too...mostly because of the terms "innocent" and "human", but still. It's also pretty accurate to say I'm constructed of food and oxygen, since very little (if any) of my body is made of the same pieces it was before I was born; this is another issue with defining living things. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, you have been a zygote yourself. And it is impossible that you started your life as something nonhuman and then became human.

Or well, even if the unborn "gradually" becomes human, I suppose there still must be some point when it its "enough human" to have a right to life? Let's go trough some traditionally suggested "benchmarks":

• The fetus is enough human when it "looks human". But appearance is not a sufficient or even a necessary condition for determining what is or is not fully human. Mannequins in stores resemble humans and they are not even remotely human. And at the same time some might think that human oddities such as the elephant man or the bearded woman closely resemble nonhuman primates, but they are fully human. They are functioning individual organisms that genetically belong to the species Homo sapiens. An early embryo, though not looking like a newborn, does look exactly like a human ought to look at this stage of his or her development!

• "Quickening" - the first movement of the unborn felt by her mother. Current biology demonstrated that a biologically living human individual is present from conception. (Funnily, the ability to feel the unborn's movement is contingent upon the amount of the mother's body fat....)

• The fetus is fully human when the brain starts functioning. Supported by the fact that at brain death a human being "goes out of existence", and so we can conclude that the presence of a functioning human brain is the property which makes one fully human. But it still has some fundamental problems; brain death indicates the end of human life as we know it, because the dead brain having no capacity to revive itself. But the developing embryo has the natural capacity to bring on the functioning of the brain. And there are differences between a dead person and a person whose brain has not yet started to function. The unborn has interests of itself, in a straightforward, non-projective way, that go beyond the interests of its component parts—cells, tissues, etc, just as I as a living organism have interests that go beyond the interests of my component parts—ears, nose, teeth, etc. The growth of the fetus is in its own interest and is the realization of its intrinsic potential, in which realization its identity is preserved. On the other hand, the corpse has no interests beyond those of its parts. The component cells may have an interest in continuing to live, but the corpse itself has none. For example, there would be no loss in the corpse's organs, all being donated to different patients (imagine donating every living cell if you prefer), whereas in a living fetus's being chopped up for spare parts its own interests would be sacrificed. The implanting of a new brain into a brainless corpse would constitute the genesis of a new organism with its own new telos and interests where there were none.

• Viability - I wrote about in the essay.

That is to say, since none of the decisive moments above can be shown to eradicate the full humanness of the unborn entity at any stage of its development, it follows that there are no philosophical, scientific, or moral grounds by which to say that the unborn gradually becomes fully human. For it would still need to achieve full humanness at some decisive moment. That is, someone who is fully human cannot gradually become more fully human.

In short, non-humans can't change into humans. Even if a living being could undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime, it must have been biologically inevitable from conception, and therefore this change is not a change in essential nature, because it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life.

It's like this old pro-life.. um, verse:

You did not come from a zygote.
You once were a zygote.
You did not come from an embryo.
You once were an embryo.
You did not come from a fetus.
You once were a fetus.
You did not come from an adolescent.
You once were an adolescent.

Consequently, each one of us has experienced these various developmental stages of life. None of these stages, however, imparted to us our humanity.

--Earthland (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Still quoting Richard Stith - if you're going to argue from authority then don't choose quacks. Bob Soles (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk, talk, talk - but even here you can make useful contributions and say something smart. --Earthland (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! Sticks and stones... I feel that pointing out that Richard Stith is a quack is a useful contribution. Bob Soles (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Much more like this. If I quote someone who said something I think is true and smart, it is not "argument from authority". I didn't really say it's true simply because Richard Stith said so. --Earthland (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst there is an air of ad hom it's relevant when one side of a discussion quote mines from poor resources. Surely you could find an embryologist to make the point. Relying on a quack like Stith undermines your point. Bob Soles (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't follow you - quote mining is "the dubious art of using deliberate selection of quotes, normally out of context, and using them to refute the original author's point.". Do you think that I should have copied the whole article, because Richard Stith is actually pro-choice? Or what? --Earthland (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Source is absolutely irrelevant, if I'm not saying that something is true simply because "this person" said so.--Earthland (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly you have a long history of quote mining, of cherry picking select portions from longer pieces so as to make them appear more favourable to the point you're trying to make.

Secondly, source is absolutely relevant. When I want informed opinion I'll go to those who have the information. I don't ask a law professor for information on biology any more than I ask a biologist for information about law. In particular I treat with caution anything that comes from someone who lends their voice so actively to one side of a difficult controversy. Bob Soles (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Generic subsection for edit purposes

Quote sources aside...I didn't come from my ancestors, I was once my ancestors. And everything they ate, which later became the fetus I once was. Humanity isn't something you already have, or are entitled to, simply because you will happen to be human at some future point in time. These arguments seem to assume a strange combination of destiny and potential, among other things.
There isn't an intrinsic physical property called "humanity". It's a concept that isn't even remotely well-defined, which is the main problem. Furthermore, the inability to tell where humanity begins with backtracking does not prove it begins at conception. I still find it quite arbitrary to declare that the moment genetic material touches, it becomes a moral entity by all standards; I don't see it as any more "human" than it was five minutes (or years) earlier.
Finally, those conditions for humanity are pretty strange. I've never heard anyone argue that humanity is based on movement, and very rarely that it's based on appearance (that being a form of moral relativism). Brain activity is a more common criterion, but you state that something without a brain can have "interests" if, and only if, it is capable of having them in the future (regardless of whether it will or not)...so it comes back to "potential" again. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"I've never heard anyone argue that humanity is based on movement, and very rarely that it's based on appearance"

Huh. And this.

A fertilized egg didn't exist five minutes or five years before fertilization. You could, of course, think, that all person's "potential" started at the time of big bang...

Scientifically a fertilized egg is new human individual, and everything beyond that is arbitrary and subjective. The protection of human rights must be based on a scientifically observable standard, because there is no other way how we could guarantee equal protection of human rights for every individual member of our species. So long as human rights are based on 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.

--Earthland (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Edgerunner stating that humanity is based on movement or appearance. Please don't put words in other people's mouths. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"The protection of human rights must be based on a scientifically observable standard, because there is no other way how we could guarantee equal protection of human rights for every individual member of our species." - I won't argue too much with that but the moment of conception is an arbitrarily chosen point. One could just as well chose the moment of delivery, the first signs of brain activity, etc. etc. Choosing the moment of conception IS subjective but you'll never accept that as your mind is as closed as steel ball bearing. Bob Soles (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"...mind is as closed as steel ball bearing"? Are you looking in the mirror? That view at least represents biological consensus. Can you show me any competent biologist who actually states something else than this? Of course you can't. --Earthland (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edgerunner's choice of words seemed to imply that he had more sympathy for a fetus once it started looking human, but he didn't actually say anything about that being the definition of humanity.

A fertilized egg didn't exist before fertilization, correct; nor did my body exist when there was just a fertilized egg, nor did anything ever exist for more than one instant, etc. If speaking in this rigidly literal sense, I'm not the person I was a moment ago because my body no longer consists of all the same atoms. In a less literal way of defining everything, the fertilized egg did exist before fertilization; its parts just weren't in exactly the same place. The only difference is that it's easier to consider them a single entity when they're together.

More importantly, morality is not necessarily objective. The definition of humanity is subjective, as is every other definition. Majority rule is (roughly) how democratic countries deal with things, so discrimination will happen if the majority discriminates.

And just for the record, itis possible for living things to be inferior/superior to one another, depending on the definitions being used. Most people put their own priorities first, treat children's opinions as less valid, consider animals less important than humans, and so on. Whether any of this is correct depends entirely on one's various beliefs, and moral beliefs aren't necessarily disprovable. Nothing objectively states that all humans (or animals, etc) are morally equal to one another. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow

I can't believe you guys are going along with this closed minded gook. Hello Boyz (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it's time to stop feeding the idiot who thinks encyclopedia britannica is a medical and/or biology textebook. No credibility as a scientist. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have strange feeling about this sockpuppeting stuff... (and obvious parodism), but never mind.

More exact wording: I sense sockpuppets, obvious parodism and/or provocation from people who call me "closed-minded", while they themselves can't answer a single argument in my essay and can't answer even direct questions I have asked from them. Looking up "troll" definition is probably too difficult, also?

--Earthland (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you want?

Alright--you oppose abortion. I'd like to move this debate beyond the abortion bad/abortion good zone and talk about what would happen if you "had your way," so to speak. So Earthland, a few questions: You get to be king of the world and make all the rules. What laws would you pass re: abortion? What would the penalties be for having an abortion? Providing one? What options would women who get pregnant but do not want the babies be presented with? What responsibilities would they bear? Who would pay for whatever measures are put into place to deal with the children that these women would give birth to? How about the fathers? What rights/expectations and responsibilities would they have for unwanted children? What measures, if any, would you put into place to minimize abortions? To minimize unwanted pregnancies? Would abortion be a crime or a civil matter? Who would have standing to take a case to court? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to make clear that, first and foremost, I want to explain why I oppose abortion and therefore, talk about principles. I do think that those principles should be "brought to life", I mean, the laws concerning abortion should be changed, but if you ask me, how exactly, it takes some time for me to answer, because I don't concentrate on those certain legal issues, but on moral, scientific and philosophical questions concerning abortion; in short, I center on why and not how. I acknowledge that "how" is also very important, and I hope to answer each of your questions in few days.--Earthland (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"How" is not just very important - it's crucial to the whole thing. Ethics doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's right here, right now. Your lack of consideration as to what it means to say that all women who have had abortions are murderers is part of where your arguments fall down. Do you directly equate a woman who uses a UID with one who shakes her child to death? Logically you do, logically, according to you, they are both taking a life and, whilst you will, no doubt, go for the "women who use a UID are ignorant" aspect in the vast majority of shaken baby syndrome cases the woman never meant to kill the child so, in both cases, there is lack of intent. If, as you say, all these women are murderers then surely they deserve the full force of the law, life imprisonment or even the death sentence. If you don't agree that this level of punishment is appropriate then you are, de facto, suggesting that 'murdering' a foetus is somehow different to murdering a five year old - a claim you have repeatedly denied. Bob Soles (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop whining & think, Bob Soles. First of all, "how" is not as crucial as "why", you would never say that we shouldn't ban murder (let's say, in the sense me stabbing you) because it is difficult to change the law or whatsoever. Secondly, even if "saying that all women who have had an abortion are murderers" has serious consequences, it logically is no argument, if you are familiar with this. You choose to ignore what I have actually said on this topic, well, good for you. And you still depend on ad hominem abusive, trying to associate me with death penalty, while I have clearly stated I don't support death penalty.

I'm not sure I find it useful to answer you any more; your "debating style" reminds me of this: "...rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised."

--Earthland (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're getting nastier and nastier, all the while accusing Bob of "ad hom" by mentioning the DP, which he only lists because in some/many places, the DP is used. He also lists life imprisonment. Could just be 8 or ten years in jail. Or just a few for manslaughter. You manage to completely ignore his simple question, which is what do you propose be done with a woman who uses an IUD - a device which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg/embryo/human with full rights and privileges. Also, Bob is correct, in that the "how" is utterly vital - it's one thing to argue ethics as abstract ideas, but one can talk oneself into some pretty strange situations if one ignores the real-world implications of one's positions along the way. ħuman 21:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What would the penalties be for having an abortion? Providing one?

I explained it here. In short, "doctor" providing an abortion should be always regarded as murderer. I will come back to this first question below.

What options would women who get pregnant but do not want the babies be presented with?

To begin with, when a woman is pregnant whether she is ready or not, she already is a mom. At that point, her only “choice” is to be the mother of a living baby or a dead one. But we should criminalize anyone who withholds child support, fires a woman from her job because she is pregnant, refuses to accommodate her pregnancy, expels her from school, or threatens violence - any act that forces her to choose between sacrificing her child and sacrificing her education, career plans, or safety from violence.

Who would pay for whatever measures are put into place to deal with the children that these women would give birth to?

Women give birth all the time. In any meaningful sense, if abortions are illegal and women do not choose it anymore, how could we "make difference" between children and children who survived abortion because their mothers were not allowed to have one?

Btw, in USA, up to 36 couples are waiting to adopt per child available for adoption - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_20050229/ai_mark05048327/ .

How about the fathers? What rights/expectations and responsibilities would they have for unwanted children?

Isn't it already regulated by the laws we have now? The only difference should be that unborn children should have the same status as born children.

What measures, if any, would you put into place to minimize abortions?

The best measure is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. And, of course, women do not receive adequate counseling before having an abortion. All people should have the right to know what abortion really is.

Coming back to the first question. I imagine that some time in the future, after abortion is made illegal, and it is ensured that all people have received adequate information about the nature of abortion, women who have abortion should also be regarded as criminals. And still, many abortions would be a result of despair, which may be taken as a mitigating circumstance.

Would abortion be a crime or a civil matter?

Crime.

To human: You all have been so terribly nice to me that I feel ashamed. --Earthland (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So your laws would abolish the practices of trained professional abortionists. Abortions would still continue because there is a demand for them; they would just be performed by untrained backstreet practitioners & be much more dangerous.

Also, you keep suggesting that women do not know what abortions are. Where are you getting this idea from? In most Western countries abortion is a high-profile issue, & I don't think many would receive an abortion without understanding what it involves.

I agree with Human that you have been increasingly unpleasant to other editors, much more so than they have to you. You don't seem able to accept that intelligent people could think or believe differently to you. You seem to want to debate this issue, but are very quick to scorn anyone who contradicts you. I find it baffling that you still accuse Cgb07305 of being a parodist, when nobody else thinks this & his points seem to me quite reasonable. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cgb - maybe not a parodist but parodist-like provocateur.

For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys. It is not true that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions before abortion was legalized. Also, the history of abortion in Poland invalidates claims that making abortion illegal would bring harm to women.

See, for example:

• Illegal abortion as public health problem (PDF)
• Worldwide Illegal Abortion Study Relies on Bogus and Biased Statistics

And, maybe you even have heard it before, we must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous. Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive. Therefore, the central horror of illegal abortion remains the central horror of legal abortion.

For example, we do not legalize terrorism simply because some terrorists need to blow themselves up with the victims. We could avoid it if terrorism was legal. Then only innocent people will die. But if they can kill people and blow up things legally, there is no need for them to kill themselves also.

Please, try not to draw direct analogy with abortion; I do not compare women to terrorists. But this is the principle.

Another example: 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 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Please, try not to draw direct analogy with abortion". - Why don't you try it for once? If you don't consider abortionists and their clients to be equivalent to rapists or terrorists, then why are you introducing these red herrings into the debate?

"Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive." This is only true if you accept that an embryo or foetus is a "patient". All of your arguments point back to this core. If we don't accept that embryos and foetuses are subject to human rights (which suggestion I think the international community never will support), then your arguments carry no weight. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I said it because people tend to react like "Ah, now you call women terrorists..." . You understand well that there are differences between terrorists and a women who has abortion; intentions are different, the number of victims is different and so on. And I actually consider an abortionist (the "doctor") to be worse person than rapist.

--Earthland (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

so you want to end legal abortion and return to the backyard abortionists, force women into mental institutions for the duration of the pregnancy to ensure they dont end the pregnancy, and of course end the sale and use of birth control pills, iud, diaphrams, condoms, spermacides etc. Hamster (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Learn to read (what I said about this "backyard abortions"); and straw men. Bored to write more. --Earthland (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason I called you an idiot and shot off at you. Your first cite states that "90% of illegal abortions are PRESENTLY being done by physicians." Beyond that, it states that is an opinion of a group and not even researched statistics. You can't even read your own fucking bias sources, let alone actual scientific research on the matter. Your second source has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I sincerely doubt someone who cannot spell "Colombia" correctly actually interviewed the vice minister of health in Colombia. They got the sex of the person wrong. HIS name is Carlos Valencia. Any more brilliance you've readlately that I can shred to pieces for you? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Khm. --Earthland (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer your questions until: 1. you prove to the rest of us you are capable of realizing your own errors and the fact you read and cite biased, bullshit sources that blatantly cannot get even the simplest of facts straight (a simple retraction of the last two sources you "cited" would be adequate here...since I ripped them and their credibility to shreds) and 2. you prove you can read actual scientific information. You aren't making me very convinced you have had any scientific training at all. I invite other scientists to weigh in on this. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 15:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My next response to whatever you say will be after you prove that you can write something that doesn't sound like insane gibberish from someone who is most likely ten-years old. And yes, I have no intent to be nice to you, but to you only. Bye. --Earthland (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Note Earthlands tactics: enter insane amount of gibberish, when gibberish is dismantled cry straw man, when that doesn't work, attempt to discredit others by calling them parodists, when several people say that, no, the "parodist" actually makes a point or two, get seriously offended that your bullshit got called out and, finally, NEVER ADMIT TO ANYONE, NO MATTER HOW OBVIOUS, THAT YOUR SOURCES ARE ERRONEOUS. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yaep (yet another edit point)

Ooh, this is getting nasty.

EL. You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier - you tend to avoid the hard ones - should a woman who uses an IUD be subject to the same penalties as one who kills her child by, for example, shaking? Quite simple, quite straight forward. I've asked this question a number of times and you've always ducked it, each time with increasingly abusive remarks. In this country (GB) I would expect a woman who wilfully killed her own child to get 15 years plus. Is this appropriate for one who uses an UID? Bob Soles (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered the question what should be the penalty for having an abortion. Therefore, -

• If IUD causes harm to fertilized egg, then there's no difference.

• If it prevents fertilization, there's nothing wrong with it.

• If the the certain type of IUD has the secondary effect of interfering with the development of pre-implanted embryos, it may be regarded as abortifacient. A few physicians have suggested that this secondary effect is possible and it is considered more plausible when the IUD is used as emergency contraception.

The problem is, of course, that if it is only secondary effect, we can never know if abortion has taken place or not. Logically, women who use IUD can not be found guilty of abortion, because it is impossible to prove anything. If it is not possible to get rid of this side effect, then maybe the access to intrauterine devices should be restricted.

--Earthland (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You never said what the penalty for abortion should be. In fact, you went on a rant (to Human) saying something to the effect of: "it's not my place to put a penalty." If you are serious in the charge that abortion is murder, you should be willing to seek life imprisonment for every woman who has an abortion. If I were to hire someone to kill a living person, there is no doubt I would be sitting behind bars for an extremely long time. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that old question dodger - how it's not the woman's fault. It looks like your ethics is as weak as your science. At least one woman I know who uses a UID fully understands what it does and how. As a medical practitioner and a woman she probably knows better than you. By preventing the implantation of a fertilised ovum she is, by your definition, committing murder potentially every twenty eight days. Unrepentant mass murderer. Looks like it's life imprisonment. The doctor who supplied the IUD, on the other hand, is no more guilty than the gunsmith or, for that matter, someone who works in a factory which makes knives. Bob Soles (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As weak as my science - says you, who thinks there is no scientific consensus about the beginning of life (in the sense when a new individual physical being comes into existence) because one physicist didn't agree with it. Maybe you can read Wikipedia:Abortion debate and see that even pro-choice side generally agrees - the zygote is biologically alive human individual.

If one is a medical practitioner, yes, she obviously knows, and there are many more, who know, just like every murderer is probably somebody’s old friend. Although, when it comes to this secondary effect, it is extremely rare and therefore should not be regarded as murder (yes, it seems I just changed my mind!). It's like saying that every time I throw something trough the air I commit potential murder, because someone could have been in front of me and could have died. Or... maybe I have to think more about the issue.

--Earthland (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What does the "secondary effect" matter? As I understand it, an IUD works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg - a zygote - in the uterus - potentially every single menstrual cycle if the woman is sexually active. It has no effect on fertilization at all. ħuman 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"And I actually consider an abortionist (the 'doctor') to be worse person than rapist"

Nobody else has taken issue with you on this yet, so I will.

A rapist acts from purely selfish motives, serving only his own pleasure. He does not believe that what he does is right, but does it anyway. He intends to cause suffering to his victim, or else does not care about his victim's suffering. In many cases, the rape creates an unwanted pregnancy, potentially prompting an abortion. Or, if your proposed laws were adopted, the victim would have no choice but to be mother to the rapist's child.

An abortionist performs a service to his women patients. (I do not consider embryos to be his patients, & neither would any abortion doctor). He does what he or she believes to be right, and what government legislation supports. He has no intent to commit murder, other than by your definitions. Why should the abortionist be held accountable to your views of morality rather than his own or society's? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro-lifers aren’t the only ones who know that it is a baby who is killed in an abortion. At a National Abortion Federation conference in Philadelphia during September of 1994, Texas abortion clinic director, Charlotte Taft, said, “When [a pro-choice activist in the Dallas community] came into our clinic – we were inviting her to learn more about abortions – this is a quote from this woman – she said, ‘If I believed that abortion was the deliberate ending of a human life, I could not be pro-choice.’ I said, ‘It would be best for you not to see a sonogram.’”

Less than two years later, at another National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco, a New York abortion clinic director, Merle Hoffman, stated “...I mean, we are talking about an abortion here. And uh, also that the staff is uncomfortable when a patient said, ‘I think I’m killing my baby.’ So I’m comfortable with saying, ‘Yes, you are, and how do you feel about that?’”

It is also not right that the abortionist always believes what he does is right. For example; an abortionist quoted from a radio talk show by John Rice in "Abortion" (Litt D. Murfreesboro, TN.): “The first time, I felt like a murderer, but I did it again and again and again, and now, 20 years later, I am facing what happened to me as a doctor and as a human being. Sure, I got hard. Sure, the money was important. And oh, it was an easy thing, once I had taken the step, to see the women as animals and the babies as just tissue."

Or anonymous abortion doctors, quoted by Jack Hitt in "Who Will Do Abortions Here?" (also quoted in New York Times Magazine, January 18, 1998):

"[Doing abortions] can make you feel bad ... No matter how pro-choice you are, it makes you feel low."

From the same source, another abortionist: "I guess I never realized I would find it as unpleasant as I do. I really don't enjoy it all. It's not a rewarding thing to do."

If you want to know, what abortion (in reality) looks like, search for video "Choice blues" (maybe it's in Youtube).

And wasn't it some times ago in the UK, when there was lack of abortion "doctors" because nobody didn't want to perform abortion on women?

That there are abortion "doctors" who truly believe everything they do is right... Adolf Eichmann went to his execution saying he did not regret his participation in the Nazi holocaust. That does not make what he did defensible. Lack of regret relates to the conscience of the person acting, not to the rightness of the act.

Government legislation and society's may be "pro-choice". So? In 1850, there was no consensus in America for outlawing slavery or allowing women to vote. There was also a time when consensus was that the earth is flat. World history is littered with examples where “consensus” simply meant that most of the fools were on one side.

--Earthland (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lies! There was never a time in which the scientific consensus agreed the earth was flat. In fact, only a handful of kook whackjobs (mostly religious) even tried to claim this. There was a near consensus for both ending slavery and women's suffrage. I'm beginning to get suspect here, I went to school in Europe and American history was never a topic of conversation. I didn't get edumecated in American history until I came back to the states. Are you sure you're really Estonian? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote mining, eh? Well, I'm convinced! --Kels (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"And wasn't it some times ago in the UK, when there was lack of abortion "doctors" because nobody didn't want to perform abortion on women?"- There are a number (around 20%) of UK doctors who exercise their right not to perform abortions on moral grounds. Apart from that the main reason for the decline is that doing abortions is not ""glamorous" and they're fed up with arguing with idiots like you whatever they privately feel. Having said that the UK abortion rate has not been affected by this. Bob Soles (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he is. [1] [2] [3] Though the parts with typos and grammatical errors are EL's. 19:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is having so much fun they forgot to point out that critical mass has been achieved! ħuman 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Choice blues

Maybe it's useful to actually see what we are all talking about - see, what abortion actually looks like.

The most qualitative video is on this site:

http://www.abort.ee/

On the front page, beneath the picture of the baby, there is little text "vali video". Open the menu and choose "Choice blues (video abordist)".

Happy watching!

--Earthland (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your native language? 20:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Estonian. --Earthland (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not paying attention to your essay or the response it's getting because I don't find the abortion debate to be a particularly productive one. It's too incendiary and I've never once seen people come to any sort of peaceable agreement on any significant point. I'm not suggesting you're not welcome here, and frankly you really are welcome because some people here like engaging in debates that will never end, but I wonder what brought you here in the first place. Do you live in the US? Is the energy you're putting into this debate part of some evangelical project? 20:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I love the KKK link there. Viro on hauska kieli. --91.145.72.253 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical project? I'm not even religious. I found this site quite accidentally and "abortion" wasn't the first article I searched for here. But once I had read it, I was upset by the false statements there and decided to ask some questions on the talk page. Many people answered me, and they kept answering me, I wrote an essay and ... here we are.

I still live in Estonia. --Earthland (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting that you'd find yourself here. In any event, even if you don't achieve any productive traction here on your anti-abortion (this is likely) you've got a great opportunity to practice your English. Have fun. 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You can be evangelical without being religious - and, as an adjective, it certainly fits. As for being upset by all the "false" statements - you so certain you, and only you, can see the holy truth! So you're a closed minded bigot as well. Bob Soles (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If so, side-by-side this. Or maybe you have no interest, time and energy to debate with such closed-minded bigot like me? Oh noes! (But you do have the interest and energy to always label me as close-minded troll and other such things).

Nutty Roux, thank you very much for your kind words! --Earthland (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article you point to is already pretty well side-by-sided. I have nothign to add. I know you think all the points have been answered but I don't. Bob Soles (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talking of articles you point to - linking to vidoes and saying "look, look, it's ghastly, tiny babies are being murdered" is, by any definition, appeal to emotion and not logical. Bob Soles (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I simply said it may be useful to watch the video. If it makes you feel emotional, then you should certainly ask, why? After all, the video is plain truth. --Earthland (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you looked at the right article? If you did, I agree; my essay has side-by-sided rationalwiki's abortion article "pretty well". (And all the points have been answered)--Earthland (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to have a discussion on abortion, can you have it without the flamewars?

Of course, I understand that abortion is a major moral and ethical issue. I also believe that, depending on your religous or philisophical views, your opinion, pro-choice or pro-life, is not going to be swayed by logical argument.

The one problem I do have is why does the government indirectly fund abortions? From tax breaks to Planned Parenthood to government funding for Planned Parenthood to insurance coverage for abortions where insurance may be subsidized, the government promotes abortions. Abortion should not be considered a form of birth control and if you want an abortion, you should be able to pay for it. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro-choicers apparently think that it is unjust if some people (poor) have less opportunity to kill their child. But isn't their actual position that government has no right to be even involved in the abortion issue? So why should government pay for something which, according to pro-choice side, is none of the government’s business? --Earthland (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As part of the UK cradle to grave health care it also provides abortions like any other medical service. that's why I pay my taxes. Incidentally, in the US, I believe the consensus swings about 70% pro abortion so the government is doing the people's will. Now, as for the billions they waste killing our sons in Afghanistan... Bob Soles (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got yourself a false dichotomy set up there, EL. A real good one. 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) You can't have this discussion without flamewars because the EL's of this world insist that abortion is the greatest evil and should be stopped at all costs. It becomes a crusade, a battle they must win to save the lives of all those unborn babies, a holy war, a fatwa. Bob Soles (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is quite impossible to label something as the "greatest evil", just like any rational human being couldn't say that something must be stopped at all costs. --Earthland (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And there you have, in a nutshell, the biggest difference between the two sides. The pro-choice side says that, within certain bounds, the decision is down to the individual. That each one of us has the ability to make our own moral choices on what is a difficult and controversial decision. The pro-lifers think they know better, think that they have the right to impose, the right to tell the rest of us that we're degenerate moral scum because we disagree. That in itself is why this will always be a flame war.

• pro lifer: You're murdering babies.
• Pro-choicer: It's my decision.
• pro lifer: You're murdering babies.
• Pro-choicer: It's my decision.
• pro lifer: You're murdering babies.
• Pro-choicer: It's my decision.
• pro lifer: You're murdering babies.
• Pro-choicer: It's my decision.
• pro lifer: You're murdering babies.
• Pro-choicer: It's my decision.

And so on ad nauseam.

This is why EL is successfully turning Rational Wiki into Abortion Debate Wiki.Bob Soles (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And as it seems, I'm the only pro-lifer around.

We are debating whether abortion is moral or not, but it is nonsense to suggest that, as each one of us has the ability to make our own moral choices, it's none of our business. This “trust women” rhetoric is ridiculous. After all, you don't oppose laws against rape because you "trusts men to be their own moral agents" or whatever crazy idea visited your mind. --Earthland (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The moral dilemma is about what points a human being gains certain rights - including the right to life. After all, if, as you propose, all humans have the same rights, then a five year old is allowed to own a machine gun and vote in elections. Disagree, of course you do, because you agree that certain rights are acquired during one's lifespan. The big question is where in one's lifespan is the right to life acquired. You chose one point, others choose other points. You feel that your decision is the only possible one, others disagree. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that the right to life is acquired at conception because there is no such evidence. It's this decision that is a personal one, this decision that you demand the right to choose for other people. So, guess what, we use a relativistic model. Society as a whole has chosen, society at large has come to a different position from you. You lost, get over it. Bob Soles (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conception is the only objective point. If women are to be the ones who decide when "the right to life is acquired", why should they lose that right by giving birth? If a woman who sincerely believes that "personhood" doesn’t begin until speech is possible, and kills her five years old son, should she be charged with murder? What makes her belief less valid than another woman’s belief that "the right to life is acquired" in the second trimester, or at birth, or at any other arbitrarily chosen point? And what gives society the right to charge this woman with murder, while saying that "everyone can choose their own points"? --Earthland (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conception is not the only obvious point - it's the only obvious point to people with your very limited view point. On the other hand society at large has decided that the 'obvious' point is when the baby can survive outside the womb and has decreed this as the limit of the individuals decision. Within those bounds it's up to the woman to choose. That's what right to choose means. Bob Soles (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever notice how people who are opposed to abortion are generally people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?

Just sayin'. _{(and stealin' from George Carlin....)} TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're against abortion, then don't have one. _{maybe somebody else already said it here- tl;dr at 135 kilobytes or so, w/archive} Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That argument is total bullshit. Sorry ... ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's probably the only one that will ever hold. Abortion will always happen, legal, illegal, or otherwise--only those people who are opposed won't have them. Everyone else has pretty much always found a way. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Even those who are opposed to them have them... ħuman 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No! Lie Bot is the king of make outs [4] --91.145.72.253 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Then don't have one"? This sort of mindless logic simply reveals that you know your pro-choice position cannot be defended on its own merits. --Earthland (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How so? "If you're against abortion, then don't have one" emphasises choice. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And the fact that nobody can agree or come to a compromise on any aspect of this. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 11:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I read it, "then don't have one" also points at how some of the most vocal pro-life folks are authoritarian bysybodies, all too willing to direct other people's lives without having an actual dog in that particular fight, which is the pregnancy in your own belly right now. To them, it is about some lofty crystalline principle, and they haven't a clue about the wrenching enduring self-contradictory nature of the choice that is involved. In the words of Saint Ron, they should butt out. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Every person has the right to choose" is vague and unreasonable, because what’s being chosen is anything but irrelevant. We are debating whether or not abortion takes human life, not if every person should have the right to choose whatever s/he wants to. We, pro-lifers, are not saying that we don’t prefer abortion. We are saying that abortion is morally wrong. Would it make any sense for me to say, “If you don’t like murder, then don’t commit one!”? --Earthland (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

...and yet you still don't seem to be able to answer some simple questions: How much jail time for a woman who gets an abortion? Life? Death? Ten to twenty? How about for using an IUD? Public flogging? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I've explained it probably three times on this same talk page. Next time start new section, if you're going to break the normal flow of discussion over one certain issue. --Earthland (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, all I've found is you fudging around saying "women should be regarded as criminals." For the sake of brevity, what would the sentence be? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is now quote-mining? This and this. Apparently reading is not enough, you should think also. --Earthland (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Great--two links to hundreds and hundreds of words by multiple authors. That's very helpful. Because I'm not as smart as you, could I please ask you to answer the question again in small words right here for the convenience of my simple mind. What EXACTLY are the penalties that you would want to see imposed on women who have abortions, expressed in terms of years in prison, dollars in fines, or method of execution or other corporal punishment. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And what about a doctor who performs the procedure with the consent of the pregnant woman? What should his sentence be for... "conspiracy to murder" or whatever? I sure would like to see the answer to that. Javasca₧ No comment 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You can just read the section "is abortion a murder" in my essay. And this (it's just me there :) )

I imagine that some time in the future, after abortion is made illegal, and it is ensured that all people have received adequate information about the nature of abortion, women who have abortion should also be regarded as criminals. And still, many abortions would be a result of despair, which may be taken as a mitigating circumstance.

Exact punishment? I don't know. Even the current penalties vary by country. --Earthland (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And one again EL refuses to face up to the practical consequences of his beliefs. He simply won't answer this question, how ever many times he's asked. Bob Soles (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Every other species in our care is subject to culling of the unwanted individuals, be they cabbages or cattle. Why should we exempt ourselves from improving the strain? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Abortion in the USA is legal - that pesky Roe V Wade case

Regardless of your personal opinion or moral view on the subject Abortion is legal. As a legal choice it should be funded so people who are in poor economic situations can have the option. As a religious matter, my denomination views life commencing at birth, or more precisely with the first breath. A stillborn infant or misscarriage is treated differently than a baby who was breathing and then died. As a practical matter I am not really concerned with infanticide , as long as the parent only kills his/her own children. Hamster (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of perverted mind sees the right to kill one’s own offspring as a symbol of freedom? Why is breathing so important? Intake of oxygen begins long before birth. Legal? Oh yes. Just that the Supreme Court has a long history of making wrong decisions. Your ancestors also had to accept that slavery was a settled issue. As it turned out, it wasn't... --Earthland (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

spam spam I hope you oppose dead penalty --91.145.88.60 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Just that the Supreme Court has a long history of making wrong decisions." - well, sort of. In general I think it's clear that wrong decisions, over time, get overturned. Rode vs Wade has stood the test of time. Additionally, if Rode vs Wade is so wrong why has it been mirrored in practically every civilised society? Why is it that most of the world used to disagree but now most of the world agrees? Are you suggesting that morally the world is regressing? Bob Soles (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Your ancestors also had to accept that slavery was a settled issue"-More than 50% of Americans were against slavery for most of its existence. Economically speaking, slavery was terrible for middle and lower classes...and in states where it was illegal, it was a crushing blow to the land owners. I have many relatives who died trying to free slaves, so, once again, I have no idea where you are coming from. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Britannica

How, exactly, does a 12-year-old quote from Encyclopedia Britannica reflect "current scientific consensus" on what constitutes life? What article was it in? Is it in current versions? Methinks there's some...selective quoting going on here. --Kels (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in their online version also. --82.131.36.34 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Did a bit of digging. It seems to appear on a few anti-choice pages, including Conservapedia and a couple of non-English ones, which I gather Earthland personally had a hand in. Looking at the original article, it seems to simply be saying that life is a process, which I doubt anyone here would argue. But again, does Britannica reflect "current scientific consensus"? --Kels (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Even then it completely misses the point. There is general scientific consensus that the human life cycle begins at conception. However this has only minimal bearing on what constitutes a human being and what rights that human being should have. EL equates the start of the human life cycle with the start of full human rights and sees this as self evident and clear cut. He completely fails to understand that this matter is far from either; the existence of a unique individual does not confer specific rights or we would be asking embryos to vote, marry, drink alcohol, bear arms, or sign up for military service for example. Whilst he would no doubt argue that the right to life is different from those I've listed it is different only in degree and, arguably, is a right that is acquired, not innate.

It is at this point that all rational discussion falls down. There is no rational argument for any one specific point where any particular right is acquired. Why is the age of consent 16 in the UK but 18 in California? Why is the age at which the drinking of alcohol is permitted so variable? The age at which these rights are acquired is determined by the society in which one lives, not by any objective criteria. And so it is with the right to existence.

However, EL will now, undoubtedly reply with another of his start of life <==> start of the right to existence screeds as if it were, somehow, preordained and it is only the inherent immorality of society as a whole that fails to recognise this. He sees himself as some sort of moral crusader who, like Wilberforce, will fight against the tide of convention and bring the unbelievers to their moral senses. Oh, I remember well when I was young and idealistic, when I too thought I could change the world and remake it in my image. Fortunately I failed! Bob Soles (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, Bob, last night I was thinking along pretty much exactly the same lines as the second half of your first paragraph (rights conferred at various ages). I was also trying to think of a way to include the fact that all societies I know of date a person's "age" from the day they first took breath, not their conception. ħuman 20:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So? It's cultural, not scientific. And it's impossible to know the exact date of conception (fertilization is a process, not a moment). --Earthland (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "a fetus is a full human person with a right to life at the moment of conception" business isn't scientific in the least, and is a very recent cultural development, primarily in the religious-led anti-abortion subculture. It is solely supported by misrepresentations of science and emotional appeals, such as you have presented. --Kels (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Science only tells us at what point does an individual physical being comes into existence. And science tells us this point is fertilization - all encyclopedias agree, all embryologists agree; it's rather a fact not just "scientific consensus". Science doesn't tell us when does the "right to life" begin, but I have explained it in other parts of my essay. You're just willfully ignorant.

The question "when does human life begin" was a religious/philosophical question in the past, and was probably based on morphological observations. Only now trough modern science we actually know when does life begin (the question of personhood can not be answered scientifically, of course). --Earthland (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Science only tells us at what point does an individual physical being comes into existence." That's true, and that point isn't conception. Conception is the start (well, not even that, since the formation of sperm and ova come even before that) of the process that culminates in an individual. Individuality in any useful sense doesn't come until much later when brain function develops, and by that time abortions are exceedingly rare and normally done in life-threatening situations. By pushing "individuality" back to a part in the process where there's nothing more than cell division is dishonest, and a religiously-promoted cultural decision, and very recent indeed. -- Kels

"The question of personhood can not be answered scientifically, of course" At last you admit it. At last you admit that your banging on and on and on about how personhood starts at conception is unscientific. Without personhood there are no rights so your endless contention that it's "scientific" that rights start at conception is pure bollocks, and is now agreed by you. Bob Soles (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The first three lines from this of course made no sense to you before? --Earthland (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to keep track as you twist and turn. I cannot be bothered to read every amendment you make; life is too short (although the latest one - a quote saying that viability is not fixed - is pointless. The law has to change to reflect changes in technology and it does so). So, you're now saying that your contention that human rights start at conception is not scientific? But that has been the main thrust of your argument from the start. Now you're admitting that it's philosophical and judicial, not scientific? Fine, but that means that all your endless quoting from encyclopaedia about when life starts is mere hot air and adds nothing to the argument. Let's talk philosophy and jurisprudence and leave all the rest behind. Bob Soles (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC x 2) I'd like to point out that science doesn't actually say when any being comes into existence, either. Whether something is "a human" is subjectively defined; in this case, science just says whether certain pieces are in one place, which is the definition of "a human" proposed here. P.S., the "this" link is to a missing section. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title.

Science tells us when a new functioning individual organisms that genetically belong to the species Homo sapiens comes into existence.

Bob Soles, you got it wrong. Science itself indeed doesn't tell us anything about the right to life. But we should base the protection of human rights on science because it is the only objective way to do it. --Earthland (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In this literal sense, science doesn't define "organisms" or "species" either. Those are subjective categorizations of various groups of matter that appear to share certain characteristics and/or perceived patterns. Whether anything with a certain kind of genetic code should be considered morally equal is subjective and rather arbitrary. Science allows us to determine whether (what we consider) that genetic code is present. (This could be worded better, but oh well.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The best reasoning I have heard on the rights of an unborn is the viability of it independant of the mother. While a dependant part of the mother , her rights take precedence. When the child is capable of living outside the womb then its rights can be considered. Hamster (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't reply at all (although I'm typing a message at the moment). It is all in the "Bunch of tissues, not person" section that has been rewritten. --Earthland (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not all in the Bunch of Tissues section. That talks about becoming a person. A five year old is, undeniably a person but few would argue that they have the right to vote or the right to marry. Both those rights are acquired at quasi randomly chosen periods. Rights are acquired as the person changes. There is nothing in your argument, beyond some rather weak appeals to consequence and straw men, that gives any reason why the right to existence is acquired at conception any more than the right to vote should be acquired then. Bob Soles (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To enlarge - you summarise with "That's probably the main reason why I oppose abortion - because I seek truly equal human rights for all human beings, not just those deemed worthy by the powerful. That inclusive spirit has been at the heart of the greatest social movements in human history. " But, if all human beings, from conception, should have equal rights then they should all get the vote, freedom of sexual expression, and, in the US, the right to bear arms. That is the undeniable logical consequence of your argument. If you don't accept that then you must accept that some rights are acquired after conception - the right to vote, for example. On the other hand, if yo agree that that right should be acquired after conception then you don't believe in equal rights for all human beings. You cannot have it both ways. And if something as crucial to freedom as the right to vote is only acquired later how is that so different to the right to existence. Sure, they're different, sure the right to existence is paramount, but it's a matter of scale, their similarities outweigh their differences in as much as they're both basic human rights. Bob Soles (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Only two kind of rights are denied: if the person in question can not exercise this right (unborn simply can't exercise his right to work or free speech) or if exercising a particular right most probably causes harm to the person in question (drinking alcohol). Unborn person logically can exercise his right to life (unless abortion is legal) and it causes no harm to him. The right to life is indeed the only basic right, because without it other rights are not possible.--Earthland (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But the embryo's alleged right to life can infringe on its mother's right to liberty. Does the tapeworm living in my stomach have a right to life? 'Cause, you know, it can exercise & doesn't harm itself that way. You've no way of proving that an embryo is entitled to a right to life any more than the tapeworm is. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

IVF and excess embryos

Out of interest, where do you stand on the excess embryos produced by the IVF process? Either stem cell research or destruction is murder by your precepts. I would imagine that this aspect alone would make IVF a no-no in your eyes. Bob Soles (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If IVF is simply used as a treatment for infertile couples, what should I have against it? --Earthland (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous answer, or oblivious? What about the surplus embryos the process produces? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please answer the question as stated, "where do you stand on the excess embryos produced by the IVF process? Bob Soles (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If human embryos are destroyed in some kind of process, this process is morally wrong.--Earthland (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And if they're kept frozen indefinitely, perhaps never to be implanted? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still a human being, no matter if it's kept frozen or implanted.--Earthland (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that part of your position. I was wondering whether you consider it immoral/equally immoral for such human beings to be kept from growing/dying permanently, or for a great deal of time. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"...immoral for such human beings to be kept from growing". Why should anyone create those embryos that are only going to be destroyed for "research" and are never allowed to grow? But yes, it is immoral to keep them from growing, although not as immoral as killing them. --Earthland (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Why create them?" Need to make some extras to be sure of getting a viable one to implant in vivo. Fertilization in vitro does not yield 100% success. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But yes, it is immoral to keep them from growing, although not as immoral as killing them. So what penalty would you impose on somebody doing so? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets see if I've got this right

EL's argument, in brief.

1. There is an agreed need to define a point where 'personhood' in the sense that a human being has acquired the right to existence.
2. To avoid clouding the issue we need to choose a 'scientific' point which can be clear cut and decisive.
3. The only point which meets that criteria is conception
4. Therefore personhood starts at conception.
5. Therefore any process that destroys the life of an embryo or foetus is murder and should be considered comprable with murdering, for example, a five year old child.
6. As such abortion, IVF fertility treatment, and the use of the IUD as 'morning after' conception are murder and should be treated as such.

Does that summarise tens if not hundreds of thousands of words as posted on this site? Bob Soles (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to "sign" whatever is written by someone else than me. This is a not very good oversimplification and could give false impressions. Ask something relevant and concrete, if anything at all. --Earthland (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it's nigh on impossible to trawl through your screeds and the attached talk pages. What have I got wrong (in one hundred words or less per point) Bob Soles (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, your essay is titled 'Why I Oppose Abortion' but it's difficult to see your point. When the Gish Gallop is cut away it seems to come down to

• Life begins at conception
• therefore human rights begin at conception
• therefore abortion is murder.

I can't see anywhere where you have logically linked the first two points. You (very selectively) appeal to authority, you appeal to emotion, but you don't make the link because it can't be made outside of saying "I believe". At this point, for all your appeals, you're making what is effectively a religious or philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

So far I have no problem. You have your beliefs and you're welcome to them. However, your beliefs have very real consequences in that, under your beliefs, other people, many, many other people, are moral degenerates of the worst kind. We're murdering scum who are either ignorant or immoral. At this point you go from "I Believe" to "I'm better than you." to which I can only answer Fuck Off. Bob Soles (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your post could be used as an example of Gish Gallop and straw men, or maybe it's only general bullshit. --Earthland (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, you're missing a crucial element of Earthland's argument.

• Abortion is akin to murder, but we must be cagey on what the real-world consequences of that conclusion would be. Any attempt to pin down a reasonable answer to the question "what would you do to someone who commits murder-by-IUD or murder-by-abortion" will be met with a shrug of the shoulders or "treat the woman like a criminal." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Any question that gets near the nitty-gritty, any question that requires EL to clearly state where he stands on the practicalities, or now, on the underlying logic, any question that can't be answered by a link to some pro-life propaganda site and he shies away accusing his questioners of the very things he's guilty of. Right here I ask him to put his point simply and clearly but he won't because he can't. Any attempt to come out from behind the acres of quotes and links exposes the weakness in his logic and the feet of clay on which his viewpoint rests. Bob Soles (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Oh, deary me, EL. How on earth can you call my post a Gish Gallop. It has nothing to do with a Gish Gallop, a term you might want to look up. I haven't tried to batter you into submission with endless links and quotes, far from. What I have tried to do is to get you to stop hiding behind the rhetoric and clearly state the logic behind you assertions. I'm not putting up straw men, merely making suggestions as to how I'm understanding your logic and inviting me to correct my assumptions. An invite you're ducking which make me wonder why you won't respond. Bob Soles (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

TheoryOfPractice, I have answered your questions but you are willfully ignorant.

The central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.

Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.

Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.

Both premises have been attacked, people either suggest that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception or that there are human beings that do not need our protection. I think I have protected both premises, and if you like to mess it up by making your own "syllogisms" and asking questions about them, then go ahead, but don't expect me to answer. --Earthland (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How many years in jail? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think for one minute that you have protected both premises. As far as I, and many others are concerned, your syllogism fails because there are subtle differences in what is meant by "life" in premise one and "alive" in premise 2. How "alive" is an embryo as compared to, for example, a spermatozoa or the unfertilised ovum? You have no problems with destroying them but as soon as the ovum is fertilised then, according to you, it becomes "alive" in some special sense that it wasn't before - that it has a "life" that it is wrong to take. This is the crux of the matter. Others disagree, others who have studied the question and not come to their conclusions lightly. Others have decided that a human does not acquire the "life" that it is wrong to take until some later point. Whilst for you your definitions are obvious and undeniable they're not the only ones. You seem to dismiss other peoples views very lightly. Bob Soles (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, are miscarriages the same as manslaughter? Should it have the same penalty? Going the other way, would a pregnancy that either kills the mother or at least puts her life at risk result in a conviction of the child at birth? Certainly if a fetus has rights, it has obligations as well. --Kels (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Logically, a mother who by accidental self-injury causes a miscarriage would be subject to prosecution for manslaughter. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there an accidental manslaughter offense? As in, doing something that normally would be okay but results in a miscarriage by accident. --Kels (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So a pregnant woman in the UK who miscarries after an accident could be done for "Causing death by dangerous driving"? Bob Soles (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Criminally negligent manslaughter charges could be brought as a result of, say, tripping on your untied shoelaces. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)