Talk:Abortion/Archive1

I think it would be fair to mention that most all pro-choicers accept a cut-off point for abortion. Usually concurring with the legal requirement in many countries of about twenty weeks. Usually a embryo is aborted long before it becomes a fetus. And when a fetus is aborted it looks nothing like a baby but more like a tadpole.

One for the pro-lifers: Don't kill my babies

Perhaps provide some balance to counter what CP writes about Abortion. There's some strange stuff there.

WhatIsG0ing0n 09:15, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

From my readings, although I've been a bit lax lately, abortion is really a central issue to feminism, on the grounds of body autonomy. "My body, my business" is a very strong sentiment in modern feminism, not simply on grounds of abortion but contraception and other treatments as well, and ties in with opposition to practices such as female genital mutilation in African and elsewhere. So from that perspective, "pro-choice" is much wider than "anti-abortion", it's just that the abortion issue is a very hot front right now. --Kels 09:27, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh, forgot to add, your point regarding not wanting to be seen as incubators might benefit from a mention of Bush's pre-pregnant concept. --Kels 09:29, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Of course, most feminists do see pro-choice as central. But interestingly enough, the same things you brought up about birth control, etc, are often big parts of the anti abortion movement. "Tell me your views on abortion, and I can tell you 99.5% what your views on birth control are."--PalMD^{-yada yada} 09:53, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, that's hardly a surprise since a lot of the leaders of the anti-abortion movement take a generally pro-controlling-women stance, largely from a religious Paulist (girls are icky) perspective. --Kels 10:59, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Yep. It seems to me, there's a couple different ways to get to a pro-life position. The first is, "humans have rights because (they have minds|they have souls|they just do); fetuses have those rights from the moment of conception because they're human and share the (mind|soul|just-do-ness) of other humans; killing a fetus is just as much murder as killing any other human". This is the rhetoric used by the bulk of the pro-life movement, and it's a position I can respect.

The other way is something like, "women aren't really moral creatures and can't make their own decisions, but need the threat of punishment to keep them in line; they exist to have their husband's babies. If they get pregnant and aren't married, they get what they deserve for having sex. If they are married, they have an obligation to have the kid for their husband. Either way, no abortion for them." Few people are willing to make this argument out loud.

However...a lot of the other pro-life behavior only makes sense in terms of the second rationale, not the first. Should women who get abortions be sentenced to life in prison or death for pre-meditated murder? No -- because it isn't really murder. Should a woman who was raped be allowed to have an abortion? yes, because she didn't really make the 'wrong' choice. Should we make conception control easily available? no, because then they can make the wrong choice with impunity. --jtl^talk 11:29, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Side-by-side this bitch ([[User AmesG:Abortion/AmesTriesSoHard|Sandbox here]])

Someone needs to side-by-side this bitch. I'm going to try. Wish me goatspeed.-αmεσg 20:45, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Goatspeed! ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 20:56, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, someone now needs to make the arguments better. Oh.... fine. It's me.-αmεσg 20:56, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Someone needs to bring "balance to the Force" of this article: can anyone of us godless liberal atheist goat-botherers argue the other side? I'll try, but I wanna take care of a sick girlfriend.-αmεσg 21:07, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I thought you were gay... human^{be in} 21:10, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Seriously? I mean, come on, boobs. Nah, straight, but a big gay rights believer.-αmεσg 21:15, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I actually have a lot of respect for some of the folks who are against abortion...i just don't agree with them. I can help out a bit. --PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:45, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Fuck, i cant figure out how this template works to add content to the left side...Help!--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:48, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

You can't edit section by section, which I don't fully understand. But you have to edit the page as a whole :-P-αmεσg 21:49, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Commenting blind here, but for section-by-section editing, you need to make the top of each section a header. That creates the edit link that brings up everything before the next header. human^{be in} 22:25, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Can you halp :-) ?-αmεσg 22:45, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I think I just mangled to do it. Make sure it's ok with you. human^{be in} 01:05, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Pro life arguments for addition by someone who understands teh internets

1. Culture of Life: failure to respect life in one area diminishes it everywhere
2. Life begins at fertilization. Without drawing this line, how can you decide when life begins? When it's viable, when it's cute, when it talks?
3. There is no inherent right to abortion
4. There are viable alternatives, such as adoption
5. A woman's freedom ends when its exercise would end a life
6. Abortion has serious health and psychological consequences on the woman

God, i feel icky. --PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:56, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

So do I -- the article page history now shows me adding all those. --jtl^talk 22:11, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Pro Life arguments

May I suggest that we try to find the best phrased arguments at pro life sites? And not the crazy "preaching to the choir" ones, if possible - the ones that, say, are open public statements by, perhaps, lobbying companies, major religious denominations, etc.? That way they can be quotes and footnoted, and we can't be accused of making straw men to tear down. human^{be in} 12:26, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Catholic Church might be a good start...they tend to have well-reasoned, intelligent arguments.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 12:27, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I was thinking of them when I wrote "major religious denomination" - they are also, honestly, anti-death penalty. human^{be in} 12:44, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting bit buried in Catechism of the Catholic Church: they use an equal protection argument, claiming that allowing abortion undermines civil society. Not sure if this is worth including (as I have never heard a pro-lifer use anything like it), but worth a look for someone who knows how to edit the side-by-side. Link is http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2273; abortion section begins at 2270, relevant passage is at 2273. I can't think of an immediate rebuttal, as the viability of this argument hinges on larger questions of the rights of the fetus's status/rights and the woman's control of her body.--MountainTiger 00:13, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe one of these days one of us will go to a few places on teh internets and get the "non-straw man" pro-life arguments - Catholic, as said, pro-life america, etc. A good representation. Then we offer up their words verbatim, at the very least, out of fairness, with footnotes. Don't we have any "pro life" editors here? Whar did HG go, I'd suspect based on his stand on guns that the chanes are over 90% that he is pro life. human^{be in} 12:55, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd say more like 95%. Where is The Fly when we need his special talents?--MountainTiger 12:57, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I wouldn't call myself particularly pro-life, but I'm always happy to play Devil's Advocate if necessary. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:14, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I just consolidated the sprawl that had developed on the pro-life side of the side-by-side. I'm currently sorting through the propaganda for solid, intellectual statements to quote on that side.--MountainTiger 13:29, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, I developed both sides on the health claims and provided links. I'm not pleased with the Right to Life stuff, as it seemed to be a pamphlet from the late '90s. I'll look for something newer when I'm ready to return to their world (gruesome places, those pro-life websites). Any suggestions on other groups to look at on that side of things?--MountainTiger 01:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Refs from CP debate

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:

1. NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
2. British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
3. Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
4. Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
5. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
6. British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
7. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
8. International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
9. European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
10. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
11. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
12. American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
13. Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
14. International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
15. Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
16. International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
17. British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
18. International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
19. Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
20. American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
21. British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
22. Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
23. Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
24. International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8

Murray 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

And here's the link to the cp conversation imported here--PalMD^{-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice!} 19:47, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Can you grab a permalink on any of it that matters, too? human^{be in} 19:53, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

UK Public 'backs easier abortions'

UK Public 'backs easier abortions' BBC report Susan^{talk to me} 03:20, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

New Technology

Interesting overview of the new drug technologies and how they're likely to change the abortion battlefield over here. To summarize, the development of an abortion pill that women can take at home (administered by a doctor, not a pharmacist) could have a profound impact on the whole anti-abortion movement, and reduce the number of late-term surgical abortions, which is in itself a good thing. Interesting read, be further interesting to see what comes of it. --Kels 10:09, 26 January 2008 (EST)

US/UK Spelling

This is not Conservapaedia. If an editor uses the UK spelling of foetus then let it stand. I think everyone knows what we are talking about. And if you are American and didn't realise that we often spell realize with an 's' or fetus with an 'oe' then regard it as an addition to your education. Genghis ^Marauding 13:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I actually prefer it when we successfully mix Commonwealth and US spellings. human 17:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Partial birth abortion

Ok, I know that isn't the real name, but I think this needs a section, if not an entire page to itself. The fact that this site lacks it almost seems like the issue is being dodged (admittedly, it's one point where the religious right seem far harder to attack).

I was messing around...

And I came across some of the stuff that Black Panther had put up about abortion last year, and wondered if his arguments vs. abortion shouldn't be included. They get trotted out often enough in minority/liberal communities. The basic gist of the argument is that, because Margaret Sanger was a flaming racist, then all birth control and abortion is really an attempt to wipe out the black community. You'd be surprised how prevalent that notion can be, even though the logical fallacy is pretty apparent. Researcher 08:37, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

On the other hand...

In the book of Luke there's a scene where Mary goes to see her cousin Elizabeth, who is prego with John the Baptist, and Liz says, "Lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." But that doesn't fit the pro-abort ideology of RW, even though it's in the section that is using the bible to define the status of a fetus as human or just plain tissue. Francine 23:03, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

That passage barely makes sense, let alone illuminates a position. Care to elaborate? ħuman 23:20, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

um, Jews believe that a baby who has passed quickening can be recognized as a baby in some contexts of the law, yes... but what does that have to do with "pro-abort" arguments? No woman here who is a mother of a wanted child thinks the baby is some how not a baby -- nor does she think that an unwanted baby is less a human because it is not wanted. What pro choice people think is that women are more than walking wombs and have every right to say "now is not the time for me to have a child". If the babe lept in teh womb, it was not in the first trimester, which is when 95% of all abortions occur. Care to clarify your position?--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 00:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

How does this make sense?

In a very real sense, "life" does not begin at conception since both egg and sperm are "alive". ^{— Unsigned, by: 137.132.3.7 / talk / contribs 10:24, 4 March 2009}

How does it not make sense?--Hillary Rodham Clinton 11:53, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Life begins at conception

Sorry, but this is scientific fact that you can not ignore.

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.”

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.”

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.”

The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science 1994, p 340: ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple life cycle consisting of fertilization of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.”

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.”

Human embryologist say:

Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)

William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)

Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.)

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.)

Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)

Even wikipedia admits life of new individual human being starts at conception.

Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book 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.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176)

The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity. The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life, but of an actual life. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.

--193.40.113.3 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Truly epic quote mining. I'm not reading all of that (is anyone?), but I actually do agree that life begins at conception. At the same time, I have no problem with said life getting snuffed out.--PitchBlackMind ^{Am I asleep or awake?} 17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The BoN can cite all the science the BoN wants, but the question of whether a fetus is human or not is instead of a philosophical nature. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. Life begins before conception. Sperm and eggs are alive. Next time you rag, you're negligently slaughtering something with the potential to become a human by not giving it the sperm it needs to survive. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

True. Also, every crap you've ever taken is loaded with life. Think about the genocide you're committing every time you flush the toilet. How can you sleep at night BoN?--EcheNegraMente ^{A handshake of carbon monoxide} 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Srsly, though... I put the chances of something metaphysical happening at conception being about as likely (and well-grounded) as reincarnation. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sorry, but this is scientific fact that you can not ignore." I agree. Now what? If there's a point you wish to make, do so. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I particularly like "Even wikipedia admits life of new individual human being starts at conception." The word admits suggests that WP is forced against its will to concede the point. Damn pinko commies. Bob Soles 17:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A concise definition of "life" would be nice too.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That'd be difficult, I've just added the "concise" version of the definition to the life article (the whole issue of abortion rests on the "narrative" definition I added at the top). With respect to abortion, the issue isn't when life begins (as indeed, gametes are alive by some definitions) but when consciousness and viability begins. And, like the issue of life beginning, this isn't a black and white, clear cut issue. There are tests which indicate that humans don't fully develop their sentience until they're almost a year old - with 6 month olds being considerably less sentient than apes. And if you want to talk potential, then every wasted gametes (and any man would be a mass murderer there...) is also a lost human being.

I also highly object to "this is a scientific fact you can't ignore", while quoting encyclopaedias, which, while accurate, do tend to popularise their topics and language a quite a bit, and using the term "fact" as there aren't really "scientific facts" at all. But that's needless nitpicking. ^sshole 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding an acceptable definition of "life" (itself a pretty big ask) which has life beginning at the moment of conception while not being present in the sperm and egg. Neveruse513 makes a similar point above. Whatever "life" is, I would submit that it doesn't begin at conception.

Of course, what the writer presumably meant to say is something like "the life of an individual human" but that takes us into the question of when we can call somebody an individual human. Do you need thoughts, memories and suchlike? --Bob^{Not Jim} 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike sperm and ova, the cells produced at conception can reproduce, which is a defining characteristic of life. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sterile people are dead? Z3ro^talk 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A sperm can't reproduce like you can't reproduce. Sperm can reproduce by finding an egg, fertilizing, growing up and masturbating. Anyway, can't cells within the sperm reproduce? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Convenient edit and undent

As far as I'm aware, individual sperm cells cannot under mitosis. ^sshole 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

kind of what I was thinking too... But I can't help but think that anything cellular like that is alive. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Monks don't (usually) reproduce. Old people don't reproduce. Viruses do reproduce but are they alive? One could argue that fire can reproduce. Some other chemical reactions can generate new reactions as long as there is source material - are they reproducing?--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this stems from conflicting definitions of "reproduce". Bastard harmonic Hoover! 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly obvious that I meant cellular reproduction... ListenerX^TalkerX 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 5 trillion DAMMIT!) The definitions of life are too abstract, odd and varied to even be useful in an abortion debate so it's probably best to agree that it should be irrelevant. ^sshole 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

God damnit, I have a moral obligation to figure this out. ARE MY SPERM ALIVE??? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) What Armondikov said. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Read both the RW article on Life and the Wikipedia one. The stuff I recently spunked onto it about what is and what isn't life should muddy the waters enough to convince you that it's not clear cut. But you are reminding me of the t-shirt I saw that stated "millions of my unborn children died on your daughter's face last night". ^sshole 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I dont think its abortion is "murder" and its not "life" until your down the slip'n'slide that is the uterus and your scared the shit out by some weirdo in a white coat. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, the life of new human individual begins at conception. therefore, abortion is direct killing of other, individual human person. That's the point.

Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. Of course all of our cells are alive, but, I repeat, the ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species - personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

--193.40.113.3 08:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between born and unborn is a very objective one. There is also the argument that before viability, the fetus is not a life form in its own right, since it cannot be removed from its mother's body alive. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing this with BON. He or she 'knows' that (s)he's right and that anyone who dissents is a godless commie baby killer and (s)he's not here for discussion. The fact that there are two very strongly held differing opinions on this one is neither here nor there. He or she has made up their mind and that's an end to it. Bob Soles 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do enjoy seeing them prodded. I think it's funny that the BON 'knows' something is alive...and that that something could not possibly 'know' it. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree here that an objective point would be best. But "life begins at conception" is extremely self-serving, it's only used for anti-abortion arguments. And as "life" is a semantic clusterfuckk, "life" is a near useless term to use in this. However, I'd like to postulate the same issue that Thunderf00t raised to Ray Comfort (making Comfort, uncomfortable, hurr-hurr). This is; if "life begins at conception", what happens when the baby is born without a head? (the answer "then someone would make a shit film out of it" has already been put forward). This is a major issue here, that doesn't occur if you start using a better and more accurate terms like "viability" or "sentience" which can go from 0% to 100% over a period of time - without this very useless black & white, clear cut issue of "life" entering the equation at all. ^sshole 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. So the quote "He or she has made up their mind and that's an end to it" goes for those who don't admit it. (or say that, though science can tell us the exact moment when human life begins, this question is more of philosophical nature. come on... you call yourself rational wiki against pseudoscience and for science??)

Btw, I am not religious, I don't even consider myself conservative.

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

The right to live doesn’t increase gradationally with the stage of development. Otherwise three years old baby should have less right to live than fifteen years old adolescent, but this adolescent should have less right to live than adult person.

Viability means in general "capacity for survival" and is more specifically used to mean a capacity for living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. None of us could survive outside our natural environment, on the moon without space suit, for example, because this is not our natural environment. However, unborn baby is in his natural environment with full capacities for development. Taking him out of his natural environment means direct killing, taking us out of our natural environemtn means killing us (if someone puts me or you onto moon without space suit, it means murder)

Viability is an arbitrary concept. Why not associate personhood with heartbeat, brain waves, or something else?

The point of viability changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Humanity remains the same, but viability changes. Viability measures medical technology, not one's humanity.

In a broad sense, many born people are not viable because they are incapable of surviving without depending on others. A one-year-old baby is no more viable than an unborn baby. Neither can survive alone. That could also be said about people who are severely handicapped or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are senile, comatose, unconscious, or under general anesthesia. If the ability to survive without others is what creates the right to life, these people have no more right to life than the unborn.

Is viability not just an extrinsic criterion imposed upon the fetus by some members of society who simply declare that the fetus will be accepted at that moment as a human being? In other words, the viability criterion seems to be arbitrary and not applicable to the question of whether the unborn is fully human, since it relates more to the location and dependency of the unborn than to any essential change in her state of being. This criterion only tells us when certain members of our society want to accept the humanity of the unborn.

--193.40.113.3 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)"Life" is a moot point because it's badly defined and usually used emotively, which clouds the major issues and results in Pro-Life groups doing weird things like holding candlelight vigils and naming babies without the mother's input or consent in order to create their campaigns. Science can tell us the moment human consciousness begins ("life" is still just a muddy issue of semantics and definitions which can be twisted in anyone's favour), and this is a far more important, measurable and relevant point (It's still irrelevant completely next to the reproductive rights of the mother and her personal choice and you can't mandate against that, however). A doctor can run an EEG or numerous other scans on a woman's womb and find the exact point where brain activity starts to become meaningful - this is an objective point, we can measure and test it. This point isn't at conception by a long shot, it's a few months in at the earliest but I don't recall off the top of my head when, exactly. At the point of conception you might have some cellular "life" but not conscious life. Essentially this amounts to the same degree of "life" in a newly amputated limb, or a fresh pork sausage that has some still-functioning pig cells in it - and your narrative view of "life" isn't going to call those "alive" by a long shot.

Now, for viability, we're talking about the ability for the fetus to survive separate from it's mother (breathing on its own, etc. which is quite different to children being dependent on their mother or disabled individuals needing care - to clear it further, we're specifically talking about the ability for this embryo/fetus/baby to survive without the womb of the mother not the mother's input into it's post-fetal/embryonic development), saying that the "womb is the natural environment for a fetus" is just moving the goalposts and mostly detracts from what has currently been fairly productive. The point of a developing baby is to be born, so viability is what is the possibility that it can be born and survive (no one has considered a different definition of "viability" here, I'm sorry it's had to be spelled out). Finally, that thing about "three years old baby should have less right to live than fifteen years old adolescent" is deliberately mis-constructing the idea of gradual viability - which, by the previous section, is basically the odds that the fetus can survive being born, from 0% as a fertilised egg to practically 100% just prior to natural birth at 9 months. A baby becomes viable (although a clear point is technology dependent and is still just arbitrarily deciding a cut-off point that a combination of medical technology and other conditions) around 24 weeks (well, at 99.9% or so), before that, much less, after that, it's still viable. Hence conscious and born human beings have the same rights to exist regardless of their age because in the viability stakes, they've actually "won" the viability game so to speak, by being born. ^sshole 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Convenient edit no.2

BoN, since you appear to reject the arguments involving the "potential" of the fetus, how would you differentiate a fetus, pre-viability, from a tumor? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that particularly applies as a tumour doesn't really develop into anything other than a tumour. It's clear that our BON prefers the use of "life" over "viability" for reasons of arbitrary definitions - I'm the opposite, for the same reasons, but I consider "life", which we can barely define in an agreeable sense, to be far more arbitrary than "viability" which we can test for, apply a value to, and use a judgement call for the cut off (the essential arbitrary nature of this I will not dispute, but you can make a very good, educated and reasoned for where to draw the line much better than you can with "life"). Though, as a thought, if we get any more large posts, I will switch to using the SBS template it may work out easier. ^sshole 17:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But the BoN appears to reject the potential argument, so it is irrelevant that the pre-viability fetus has the potential to develop into an independent life form and the tumor does not. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I have misunderstood you. If the "potential argument" requires you to accept the option of "viability" and then argue on the grounds that the fetus has the potential to be viable, then I agree with you. But I think because the BON's reasoning is rejecting viability, which begins whenever, in favour of life, which begins at conception (assuming I'm interpreting this correctly) then they would differentiate tumours and fetuses with the feature "one has life, the other doesn't", potential wouldn't come into it at any stage. This difference being fairly instinctive; a gut feeling that an embryo is alive while a tumour is not, no further rationales necessary. ^sshole 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm all confused... I thought BON rejected viability and embraced potential. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The BoN said, "The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life, but of an actual life." Without the argument of potential, there is very little to differentiate a pre-viability fetus from a benign tumor: both are lumps of tissue alive at the cellular level; both would perish if separated from the host body. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually in one sense the BON is right. If we define its statement "Live begins at conception" to mean "The individual cellular existence of a particular foetus begins at conception" then I don't think that I'd have too much of a problem with it. In fact I'd say it was obvious. How does that change things?--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(I'm the same person you refered as "BoN", whatever it means. I decided to open my own account).

• ListenerX said: "both are lumps of tissue alive at the cellular level; both would perish if separated from the host body."

The most logic answer is, that one is individual human being, the other is not. Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance. Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is—a human being. As we all consist of different tissues, every human being can be called a "blob of tissues". But at the moment of conception, these tissues belong to certain human individual and are not just some kind of abstract organic matter that some day may become a human individual.

• Embryo is clearly not only potential human being. As we all have some opportunity to develop - to get smarter or stronger, we all have potential to become bigger and better, but this does not measure our humanity. The only difference between our potential and the potential of embryo, is that embryo's potential is really huge, she grows billions of times bigger than he was at conception, but she already is human being. The ovum and sperm can be called potential humans, because they clearly are not human but may become human some day - only if they meet each other...

• ArmondikoV said: ""Life" is a moot point because it's badly defined and usually used emotively"

All the quotes from encyclopedias that I pointed out, used the word "life". Wikipedia, in its abortion article, goes even further. I quote: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death."

Therefore, life and death are neutral scientific terms. If those words create emotions, it's because reality is emotional and abortion is just as bad as it sounds - it "terminates" life of other human being.

--Earthland 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's say that we accept either my definition "The individual cellular existence of a particular foetus begins at conception", or - for the sake of argument - your wording: "Life begins at conception". What then?--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bob, it's really funny that some of those quotes from encyclopedias sound like pro-life arguments. I especially liked this one - 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.”
Therefore, ... the new individual is established at the time of fertilization. It is also clear, that this individual is human 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.”
Embryo does not develop to become human being, it develops as human being. Therefore, abortion is direct killing of other, individual human being. Said in a very lame sense, killing other human being is bad.
I am sure that you have arguments that, even though abortion indeed results in death of other human being, mother has the right to kill that human being. I can even imagine what kind of arguments you have, but I'd like to hear them from you.

--Earthland 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well (and going with your argument) There are a whole spectrum of rights we give to potential humans and humans. Sperm and eggs usually have no rights unless they are frozen in which case the law may become interested. Fertilized embryos are further along in legal status. Then babies. Children are pretty much controlled by their parents and later the law lets them have sex, smoke cigarettes, vote, own guns or whatever. So we are comfortable with a spectrum of rights. My assumption is that you want to give lots of rights to embryos . Others put the line elsewhere.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, sperm and ovum are potentially human, but fertilized egg is a real human. A very tiny, but real. And it is true that as we get older we get more positive rights, such like right to vote. However, there are fundamental human rights that belong to all human beings. Unborn are human beings, therefore they have the same human rights like born human beings. Human rights are not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence. --Earthland 06:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the International Declaration of Human rights. Are you seriously suggesting that a bunch of four cells should have all these rights?--Bob^{Not Jim} 07:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A fertilized egg is not a real human. Hell, I've met or heard of people 50 years old who don't qualify yet. Is Rush Limbaugh "human"? I see no evidence yet, I can only hope he gets there. Yeah, I'm an existentialist: existence precedes essence, not vice versa. 'Twas Plato's mistaken legacy to us that essence comes first. ħuman 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

...that one is individual human being, the other is not. This is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@ ListenerX: "individual" has clear biological definition. Most of encyclopedias use word "individual", when refering that, after fertilization, a new individual is established.

And if it is individual human being, it logically has all the rights that belong to human beings, and there should be no different if it is bunch of four or bunch four billion cells. Quantity doesn't matter.

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. 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.

This idea of development – as the continual presence but gradual appearance of a being – lies deep within us. 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.

Scott Gilbert in his book 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.”

--Earthland 13:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Earthland. You previously wrote: Unborn are human beings, therefore they have the same human rights like born human beings. I pointed out the the list of fundamental human rights can be found here. Do you maintain that all these fundamental human rights should be given to a group of four cells?--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of encyclopedias use word "individual"... Please to quit quote-mining encyclopedias, and otherwise appealing to authority, and begin explaining the reasons why said authorities purportedly consider a fetus to be an individual human being. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Bob, did you even read what I wrote? I can quote myself: "if it is individual human being, it logically has all the rights that belong to human beings, and there should be no different if it is bunch of four or bunch of four billion cells." Can I make myself even more clear? I try next time, if you still didn't understand.
ListenerX, please prove somehow that I "quote-mine" encyclopedias. I'm sure you can go to library and read the full text. Encyclopedias usually represent scientific consensus, therefore I'm not quoteing them for the reason you pointed out.
--Earthland 17:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So a bunch of four cells should have the following rights chosen at random for the universal declaration of human rights:

• to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
• to own property alone as well as in association with others
• to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• the right to work, to free choice of employment

Come on Earthland, it's absurd to suggest this.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob, governments do not act to deny the fetus any of those human rights, so it could be argued that the rights are given to fetuses today.

Earthland, he who makes the quote must prove its authenticity. All you have to do to establish that you are not quote-mining the encyclopedias is to provide some of the quotes in context, which should not be too hard if they actually convey the meaning you ascribe to them. But in the opinion for Roe v. Wade, it was noted that medical people were unable to reach consensus on when the fetus's life begins. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Governments give foetuses the right to work?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no law prohibiting a fetus from working. Neither are there any companies who would deny a fetus any work that the fetus was capable of taking on. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we claim a fetus as a dependent? Can it obtain unemployment benefits or lodge discrimination complaints against potential employers? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block}

Also, I want Christians to stop celebrating pagan, liberal "birth days" and focus on the much more important, Christian "conception day". The more I think about this, the more I like it. I can't wait to suggest this to the more Christian-conservative people I know. It's so ridiculous yet theologically sound. "Think about it...what are you really celebrating? Atheists are just trying to divorce you form the idea that life begins at conception. Jesus knew you since you were in the womb and that's what we should be celebrating. Will you celebrate your conception day as a symbolic expression of the beginning (and renewal) of your relationship with Jesus Christ?" ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lx - so these four cells also have the right

• to take part in the government of his country
• to education
• to form and to join trade unions

are you sure?--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Replace "four cells" with "newborn babies" and I think you will see what I am driving at. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Classic LX. Not a fooking clue what he's talking about, and the only thing you can be sure about is that you're probably being condescended to. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A musing on earthland's thoughts

Earthland, like many pro-lifers, are not thinking through their positions fully. Last year in the US, 1.2 million abortions were performed, a number which actually was on the decline. Looking at all those cases, if we suppose that life begins at conception, what, exactly, would you do to care for all those unwanted children? I'm assuming that many of those that would have been aborted will instead be given up for adoption (a solution prolifers always suggest). How would you help an already over-stressed foster system by dumping an additional million kids a year on it, exactly? Z3ro^talk 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The "unwantedness" of the baby is not so thoroughly immutable a characteristic as is often supposed; there are those people who, upon carrying the unplanned and/or unwanted baby to term, change their minds and decide that the baby is wanted. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But if even half the parents gave the kids up for adoption, that would still present a huge challenge for the foster system. Z3ro^talk 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is true. But at any rate, that is not a good argument in favor of aborting a fetus if you believe the fetus to be fully human; one could with those same arguments support "mercy killings" of children who appear destined to be a burden on the foster care system. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't fund abortion, fund the foster system (but don't fund the foster system because we're T.E.A). There's a short circuit in Christian-conservative logic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 19:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; I'm not suggesting abortions as a way to reduce the strain on the foster system. I am merely pointing out that if the pro-lifers plan was implemented, they would need to explain how they would fund the foster system and take care of these kids, something they never do because they only care about the kid until their born. Z3ro^talk 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I've always thought the neocon position was a little self-contradictory... "Don't have an abortion, give the kid up for adoption! We'll flip the bill for all that shit...wait...no we won't!" I think most of them stop thinking at that point. The foster system is free and pizza pays for the cable. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 19:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• @Bob. One year old baby is also unable to exercise his right to work. However, this is not enough to take away his other rights. And, yes, unborn people can't exercise most of their rights, but the right to life belongs them naturally.

• Neveruse513: Birthday is not the celebration of the beginning of the life of new human being – it is the celebration of birth. However, our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific. i repeat; there is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth - it just changes the location of baby: inside or outside of the uterus.

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.”

• Z3rot said: what, exactly, would you do to care for all those unwanted children?

A new human being is already brought to this world – at the moment of conception. "Unwanted" describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them.

Btw, there are really over a million abortion in one year (in USA), but about two million couples waiting to adopt.

--Earthland 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree that neither a sperm nor a foetus nor a newborn can exercise their right to vote. That was the point I made before about a growing spectrum of rights associated with age and physical development.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First, the birth thing was kind of a joke, but honestly, when do you think Jesus first knew you and would that day be worth celebrating (remember, this is still just kinda joking, so don't belabor yourself with a terribly meaningful response)? Second, about the adoption thing, your figures may very well be true (cites, please!), but the cost would rise nonetheless. The process of application, approval, background checking, temporary custody, etc. Plus, how many of those kids are "unadoptable"? Do you want a 14 year old misanthrope? Or maybe a 6 year old hemophiliac with ADD? I bet your state has plenty to choose from. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Many will take hard-to-place children with special needs. Actually there are lists of people who want to adopt children with spina bifida or with down syndrome. (Sources: The Abortion Factbook, National Committee for Adoption, June 1989; NCFA Memos). I absolutely reject the argument that some people simply must die so that other people could live better. Killing people is not solution.--Earthland 16:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that position and believe it is with merit, but are you as fiscally conservative as you are ideologically? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A complete opposition to abortion from conception onward is not properly a "conservative" position. The cutoff used to be quickening. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Aptly observed. I'm sure there are plenty of fiscal conservatives who would gladly man the shop-vac and more than enough Christian conservatives who would oppose abortion at stupendous costs to taxpayers. I think those people are internally consistent on those issues. However, I believe the venn diagram of this situation is dominated by people who neither allow abortion, nor want to pave the way for the unaborted. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the difficulty in getting earthland to answer my simple question. I'm not suggesting that others must die so we can live better; I am asking how do you propose the potential million children a year that would be put up for adoption? Whether there are people who want them or not are debatable (most of the waiting lists are for newborn white children), but there is a cost associated with putting someone into the foster system. How do you propose to pay that cost? Z3ro^talk 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

spontaneous abortion

It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.

There seems to be no great moral outrage about these 50% of all conceptions, and I wonder why not. This is obviously a vastly greater number that the number lost by induced abortion - yet nobody seems to care very much. If all these 50% of all conceptions should be regarded as fully-fledged humans then this would seem to be much bigger issue, but it isn't. The only answer I can think of is that they are not, in fact regarded by society - and even by the anti-abortion campaigners - as fully-fledged human beings.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that can be done to prevent these spontaneous fetal deaths, and if there were something to be done about it, we would see it advocated; lowering the infant mortality rate has been a major aim of modern medicine. On the other hand, if abortion doctors were to stop plying their instruments, most of the deliberately aborted fetuses would survive. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you know nothing can be done? Shouldn't there be a massive research and development programme undertaken to see what can be done to save all these poor people? It's 50% of the human race!--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ListenerX's argument also forgets why these eggs abort in most cases; because they are not viable, and will not grow into humans, thus obscuring the whole "fully human from the moment of conception" argument. Z3ro^talk 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the "fully human from the moment of conception" argument is overly semantic. Yes, it's "fully human" as in not being something else. It just doesn't actually mean anything because it has no attributes that define "life as we know it" (or humans as we know them). I liken the interpretation to stepping on a caterpillar and killing a butterfly(...or serving you frog legs from a tadpole). ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Answers to the previous

Z3ro: As there are more people who want to adopt children than women who get abortion (About 2 million couples are waiting to adopt. Source: National Committee for Adoption, Adoption Factbook. Washington DC: 1989. As quoted in Hsu, Grace. "Encouraging Adoption". Family Research Council: 1995. Up to 36 couples are waiting to adopt per child available for adoption - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_20050229/ai_mark05048327/ There are about 1.3 million abortions per year. Source: Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001 and 2002, Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005), and if these people are unable to adopt, abortion is not the issue, problem is elswhere. I don't know exactly, how to make it easier to adopt, but I don't even live in USA. However, in USA, there are probably 3000 abortions day (sources: http://media.barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2008/01/23/News/3000-Crosses.For.3000.Abortions.In.One.Day-3163089.shtml, http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/2007/01/1516/are-there-really-3700-abortions-each-day-in-the-us/). Meanwhile, since this holocaust began, America has suffered huge increases in teen pregnancy, homelessness, hunger, welfare, divorce, poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, deadbeat dads, gangs, illegal drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, high school drop outs, and the list goes on and on. The fact is, every single social problem which the pro-choice mob said will get worse if abortion is made illegal, actually became worse after abortion was made legal. Beyond that, the financial burden of these social problems is overwhelming. Any way you cut it, the American taxpayer is subsidizing the abortion industry (don't you believe abortions are tax-payer funded?? or that there are more child abuse, divorce and teen pregnancy than before abortion?? well, I'm not saying it is because of abortion, but abortion has not solved these problems, though some people thought it would).

And, once abortion is illegal, every woman with an unplanned pregnancy will not place her baby for adoption. Even the most unwanted pregnancies do not automatically produce unwanted babies.

By the way, I think I'm getting a bit tired of your stereotype that anti-abortion people are certainly (or at least 9 times out of 10) religious. I am not.

About spontaneous abortion: If a man dies of a heart attack, from a moral perspective that is quite different than if he had been shot to death by a carjacker. That distinction also exists between a miscarriage and an induced abortion. --Earthland 13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1) the "Adoption Factbook" is illusive. Can you find a link, please?[1] 2) I'll say again, as long as cost is not an issue, I think you've got a coherent case. IS COST AN ISSUE? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference - but we do all we can to stop human beings dying of heart attacks. But nobody cares about the 50% of embryos who disappear - and that is because they are not regarded as human beings.--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I forget where I had the argument, but there was a study showing private, religious schools had a higher rate of teen pregnancy and got more abortions than their public school counterparts. I think the opponent said it was all because public school girls couldn't be trusted to accurately give such information. Most of what you cited (STDs, teen pregnancy, hunger, welfare, divorce, poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse) correlates very nicely with religion. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a few tags to your claims. Also, please explain rationally how abortions lead to divorce, child abuse, deadbeat dads, gangs and illegal drug use. When you say "problem is elsewhere" please elaborate on where the problem is. Javasca₧ Banhammer, Renamer, and Goat 14:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit tired of your stereotype... I would put it more at 99 out of 100; where is there a major secular anti-abortion organization? ListenerX^TalkerX 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a little surprising and kinda refreshing. I don't think I've ever had a conversation with a non-religious anti-abortion supporter. I still want to know to what extent Earthland is a fiscal conservative. As well as religion and anti-abortion go together, fiscal conservatism is right there with them. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the Pope and the other adherents of Catholic social teaching... ListenerX^TalkerX 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many actually follow that. I'm sure they all say they do, but think about how many die hard republican/Catholics there are. Michael Moore calls capitalism evil, Fox News and Sean Hannity (a 'devout' Catholic) go ballistic. The pope condemns capitalism and...well...shit, let's sweep that under the rug...or just agree and be dissonant. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A very large number of Catholics only vote Republican over the abortion issue. Jim Wallis reported on this in God's Politics. In Minnesota there is almost always an anti-abortion majority in the legislature. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are in fact some real statistics on this. to the surprise of nobody Christian views do correlate with anti-abortion. But, from a quick scan of this, it's perhaps not as strong as one might expect.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What I wanted to say, even if all anti-abortion people were religious (but they are certainly not), very few pro-life arguments are religious. I see you have a nice article about Ad hominem. --Earthland 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

...very few pro-life arguments are religious... In exactly which cloud have you got your head stuck? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The Matthew 28:20 project" is simply a part of bigger website. I'm not sure, if their other arguments are overwhelmingly religious. However, this concrete project seems to be addressed to other Christians and is not a general anti-abortion.. um, thing. I can be wrong, of course.

• Randall Terry is simply one person. You can't say he represents pro-life movement. Otherwise it would be correct to say that Hitler is a blueprint of pro-choice people.

• If "Operation Rescue" is really as "extremist" as Rationalwiki points out, it's still simply one sad example. However, I can't see a link between their alleged extremism and religiousness of their arguments, and this is what we are talking about.

• "Evangelium Vitae" is specific christian book written by pope. This is how church takes an attitude on abortion. (but Evangelium Vitae is not only about abortion). However, the fact that Chruch has certain views on abortion, doesn't make it a teaching of Church that has nothing to do with non-religious people.

• I actually made a comment on "The silent scream" before this. And I can't understand how "The silent scream" is associated with religious views.

• The website "prolifeacrossamerica" is really doing bad job, because they really use religious arguments and this really is really bad.(bad grammar intensional)

• constitutionparty.org is not an anti-abortion website, but simply a website that briefly talks about abortion. It really states that all human beings are created by God, but their other arguments are not so religious (on the topic of abortion).

• Conservapedia is simply a bad joke rejected by other conservatives. But I'd like to point out that "Abortion and the Bible", as it name already states, is not an article full of pro-life arguments but an article that explores connections between abortion and the bible.

The view that abortion is immoral is no more "religious" than view that innocent people should not be killed. Actually there are movements like Catholics for Choice, but there are also Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League and Feminists for life and Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.--Earthland 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The encyclical alone falsifies your proposition that "very few" anti-abortion arguments are religious; Catholics are an enormous part of the anti-abortion movement. Prolife Across America has its billboards all over the place. The Constitution Party was founded specifically as an anti-abortion party, which is shown by the prominent position of the anti-abortion plank in its platform. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question, you've merely handwaved it away. There are currently children in the foster system, meaning that not every adoptable child is adoptable; this is beyond refutation. Even if most of the new children produced by outlawing abortions are adopted, some won't be, as there are currently unadopted childern. Even those who are adopted, must go through a legal process that costs the state money; it's not as simple as finding baby moses in the reeds. Once again, where would you find the funding to pay for the extra burden that would be placed on the foster system? Z3ro^talk 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is a little boring, so I wrote an essay, or what I consider to be an essay, Why I oppose abortion --Earthland 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Do they seriously believe abortion is racist?

Do they look at that and think it sounds clever?

It doesn't make sense! It's like saying the concept of love is racist!

Also I noticed they use this Reagan Quote; 'I notice that all those for abortion are already alive.'

WE DON'T WANT TO ABORT EVERYONE. Gur. Kwilky 10:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They are of the opinion that the practice of abortion in the U.S. today is racist, having bought into conspiracy theories about Planned Parenthood trying to exterminate blacks via abortion. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why mention the biblical views?

Ford god's sake, why does this article need section for biblical views? Do you want to say that the practice should be permitted because it isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible? Following this logic, the article on homosexuality should include statement that Christians should feel free to kill homosexuals because Bible says so.--Earthland 19:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bible is brought up very often in arguments about abortion. We would be dodging the Bible-based arguments if we did not have a section on them. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that might be an interesting extension to the homosexuality article. I guess it would come nicely under "crank ideas" and "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism".--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:homosexuality, there's a lot of argument about whether such an 'argument from silence' (Jesus doesn't mention it once, for example, and Paul only lists it in his great big long lists of 'bad things', without specifying it) is justified (did it mean he didn't have anything to say about it (=no change), or did it mean it simply wasn't important for him (=more liberal), so if that's not mentioned, then there's certainly an opening there. On this article, the Bible's had a massive influence on historical and contemporary culture, so whatever you think about it, it probably still merits a mention even if only as a historical document. I might go tidy it up a bit though. -מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

It was certainly death in the OT.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm iffy on abortion but...

I really don't know where I stand on abortion. I've been reading about it for years and needless to say I'm much more confused than I was when in complete ignorance. However this sentance does make me pause for thought: Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. If people accept that life begins at conception, realistically should this not make the argument a case closed? My major problem with the supposed 'pro choice' people is that they seem to ignore this - or else argue that no life can really be life without self awareness (Hence sentience). I find that argument a little weak - Does a vegetative person (Someone with severe brain damage) suddenly loose their 'personhood' as soon as they loose their sentience? Does this make it OK to kill them? Are there no moral problems attached to this?

It goes without saying that my major problem with the 'pro life' side is that they base most of their arguments via religion. Weak. However I have to say that if my mother decided to have an abortion I wouldn't be around right now, and the same goes for everyone else on the face of this planet. How many Einsteins, Dickens, Spinoza's and Zola's has the world lost by the killing of the unborn child? MarcusCicero 20:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Paramecia are also alive, but there is no dilemma in killing them. I think few people argue about life beginning at conception, but really humanity is the point of contention.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 20:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you've answered anything. Humanity is a fickle social construct, I think sentience is the issue. Which also leads to the question of whether people in a vegetative state, who lack sentience, are essentially not a 'person' and hence have no legal rights. MarcusCicero 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer "sentience" or "personhood" to "humanity," that's fine. In this context, they mean only slightly varying degrees of the same thing.

And yes, that does bring up such a question. I recommend Singer's Practical Ethics and Animal Rights to help answer it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 20:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the pomposity I was talking about TomMoore. You even italicised the titles of the books for me. MarcusCicero 20:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, what kind of jackass tries to make it easier to read the book titles he was recommending to an asshole? I'm terrible.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How about you try Hegels The Philosophical Propaedeutic MarcusCicero 20:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find such a work in English. Link?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 20:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cén fath? MarcusCicero 20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I can't find it to read it, that's why. And no Irish, please.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong with Irish? Fascist! MarcusCicero 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You're just showing off. 및 나는 나아져. 真剣に.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't too difficult to find. Check project Gutenburg if you want the online version. Any academic library would have it. Or maybe I spelt it wrong, but I don't think I did. And I'm most certainly showing off. Omádhan. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

How far off on the title do you think you might be? [2] Might you mean this? ħuman 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your showing off would go better if you could only figure out how to log in. And Gutenberg doesn't have it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Best I can find is a fairly substantial translated fragment of Hegel on self-consciousness here. OULS doesn't have any e-versions, either, so it probably doesn't exist, I'm afraid Tom. I'd have to echo Marcus - an academic library on philosophy (or the mighty Amazon, if you can be want to pay) is probably your best bet. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

That's okay. I don't care.--Tom Moore

^{fiat justitia} 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Amazon link. Good luck - its the only readable Hegel I've ever come across (Every other book of his I've approached has usually ended with me chucking it against a wall half way, much more confused than I was when I started, but this is readable) And I didn't read him for poncy reasons either - it was a noble attempt of mine to unravel the historical thought of Tom Carlyle. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

People unable to make decisions for themselves don't lose their legal rights, but their decision making is abdicated to someone else. Perhaps that's where the line is drawn? --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My awful grammar

Let's suppose my grammar is awful. Please show me those mistakes I made.... --Earthland 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Abortion results in death of fetus" "but to human at particular stage of development" "Fetus is not a person with a right to life," and speaking of abortions: this bit of word-salad is one in and of itself: "As religious people believe, life begins at the moment of ensoulment. The default inference is that human life begins at the earliest understood moment of human existence, because the exact time of ensoulment has not yet been understood. If there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus is ensouled or not, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another." RaoulDuke 21:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then it's simply my awkward use of English, not certain grammatical errors. Or maybe I should go back to school and attend my English class properly. --Earthland 22:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Earthland, from some of my experience proofreading for friends, I suspect your native language hails from some part of the ex-CCCP? I guess this based on the fact that "most" of your grammatical errors consist of not using the words "the", "a", or "an". (definite and indefinite articles) ħuman 22:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm from Estonia. --Earthland 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. If you make smaller edits it will be easier for other people to copyedit them for you. When people see a large edit in which the first few sentences display, shall we say, "foreign grammar", they are more likely to revert than to embark upon what might be a huge cleanup project. Or add what you want to say in some of those sections here so we can work on them bit by bit? Obviously, at some level I would expect that your voice, your perspective, should be reflected in the "arguments against" column, since you are a representative of that viewpoint. ħuman 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Life does not begin at conception?

In a very real sense, "life" begins at conception, if defined as the moment when (a?) new individual human being comes into existence. This is commonly accepted truth amongst human embryologist.--Earthland 17:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't suppose you'd have a link, would you? Also, 'life' is present before conception, in every cell - when A human life begins is the issue for debate here. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

The place you guessed you needed an "a" is correct. There should also be one before "commonly". However, I disagree with your assertion. ħuman 19:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, "don't count your chickens until they are hatched" is a commonly accepted truth among experts on animal husbandry. ħuman 19:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Conception is when a bunch of replicating cells becomes a "individual human being"? Miscarriage should be considered manslaughter, then? --Kels 19:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember something about the Catholic Church grudgingly allowing that, in the first ten or so days, there is no 'individual human being' because it could still be twins at that point. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Yes, Wikinterpreter, the life of new human individual begins at conception, not "life". You can easily find many quotations from human embryology textbooks above, or click here and read.

Twinning is considered to be a sort of asexual reproduction. It's analogous to cell division - cell divides into two or more daughter cells, but the cell developed as individual unit of life before the division. Embryo developed as individual before turning into two embryos. --Earthland 08:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The comparison to egg and sperm is idiotic. Ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body. Imagine that different types of cells, let's say, human sperm cell, a single human egg cell, a fertilized human egg, single cell from the skin of a human finger and a single human cancer cell (as those are your favorite comparisons to fertilized egg) are given an appropriate environment and supplied with all necessary nutrients. The sperm and egg cells survive for a time but do not multiply, while the skin cell and cancer cell multiply but form only shapeless masses. Alone among the five different types of cell, the fertilized egg begins to grow and multiply, not just in a shapeless mass, but in a purposeful pattern, following the normal pattern of human development. In other words, it develops as a human individual.

A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn’s genetic code differs from his mother’s. Therefore fertilized egg is no more simply a part of its mother's body. Of course, DNA, by itself, is not conclusive: every cell in my body possesses human DNA, but this does not make each separate cell a distinct human individual. As Mark Nutter has said:

"Where did that human adult come from? It came from a child; the child grew and developed and became the adult. We all know that the physical factor that made the adult an individual human was already present in the child. The child possessed the PHI factor, and as a result the child grew into an adult who also had the PHI factor.

Where did the child come from? The child is what the baby grew into. The baby grew into a human individual child because the physical human individuality factor needed by the child was already present in the baby. The baby, being a human individual, grew into a child who was a human individual and who, in turn, grew into the adult human individual.

Where did the baby come from? The baby is what the fetus grew into. The baby is the fetus, only a little more mature. The baby is an individual organism because the fetus is an individual organism. Thus, by observation, we can deduce that the same PHI factor that was present in the baby was also present in the earlier fetus. Where, then, did the fetus come from? Did some of the mother's cells suddenly and spontaneously decide to quit developing as mere parts of her body and start developing as a biologically individual fetus? Of course not: the fetus came from the embryo. Genetically distinct from the cells of the mother, genetically coherent with each other, the cells in the embryo are busy developing the structures needed for a complete and healthy fetus. Why? Because the embryo possesses, within itself, that physical human individuality factor that tells it to grow and develop as a human individual.

The PHI factor is how the embryo "knows" it's not just a clump of cells like a wart or a bundle of muscle fibers. Because of the PHI factor, the embryo "knows" that, by the time it grows to be a fetus, it is going to have only those bodily resources that it prepared for itself while still an embryo. In other words, we observe that the zygote "knows" it needs to develop into an individual fetus--something we do not observe in random clumps of unrelated cells, or in tumors, or in individual organs within a larger individual. Therefore we deduce that the zygote, too, possesses the PHI factor."

Well, is that enough explanation to remove this comparison to sperm and egg in the article?

--Earthland 14:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even write it yourself... it was obvious upon reading, and googling "A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn’s genetic code differs from his mother’s" turned up two hits. ħuman 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

no. RaoulDuke 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a short answer almost counts as "yes", you know. --Earthland 14:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More like "I don't care." Women have abortions. Always have, always will. Nothing you can do to stop that, and making it illegal just means more women will die/really hurt themselves in the process. No argument you make will ever change the reality of that, or change the mind of the majority of people in the US who disagree with you. You can leave another 3000 characters of wors salad here in response, and my response will still be--"so what." RaoulDuke 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually discussing the differnce between fertilized egg and sperm/egg and if the statement in the article is scientifically true. Btw, majority of people in USA agree with me. This is quite irrelevant information.

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. The history of abortion in Poland invalidates claims that making abortion illegal would bring harm to women. Sources: Illegal abortion as public health problem (PDF), Confession of an ex-abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Worldwide Illegal Abortion Study Relies on Bogus and Biased Statistics.

I don't know how many words my answer includes, but so what. I know you probably "don't care", well maybe someone cares. --Earthland 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, life doesn't begin at conception, you spawn of Satan's science! Life begins BEFORE conception. The male seed (I will not use the pornographic name!) and female egg cells are alive. Every time a man commits the Sin of Onan or a woman has her unclean time, human lives are murdered! Why do you think both are so messy with blood and other unmentionable bodily fluids? Killing a full-grown person is just as gross and messy! That is why men need to control their base sexual urges and only release their seed into their wives in order to get them pregnant. And wives must allow men to do this whenever they want so that no egg cells are murdered! If a woman is having unclean times and not trying to get pregnant, she is guilty of mass murder! SoldierInGodsArmy 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how you can cherry pick statistics. EarthLand trolls that illegal abortions do not cause death. The WHO, a reasonably august body suggest that the figure today is 200 women a day Bob Soles 17:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's God's judgment upon the wicked!!! SoldierInGodsArmy 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob Soles, according to WHO, yes, but still only 0,4 % of women who undergo "dangerous" abortions die, according to this statistic from the real source. It's also interesting how you all avoid answering any real arguments.--Earthland 18:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell. According to Earthalnd's source

• Approximately 40% of all unsafe abortions are performed on young women aged 15 to 24. It kills an estimated 68 000 women every year globally. It accounts for 13% of all pregnancy-related deaths.

How many more young women would die if abortion were illegal and all abortions were unsafe? The mind boggles!--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It probably means that we (not "we", I just need to use pronoun) should put some effort into fighting those illegal abortions also. (And still less than 0,4 % of women who undergo unsafe abortions die). Btw, although I support the view that abortion should be illegal, I don't support it right now. I mean, it really wouldn't be best solution if all abortions were suddenly made illegal. The first step should be obligatory counseling and public education about the issue. --Earthland 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You do know that, given a choice, people won't do an illegal and unsafe abortion, right? So you are aware of the fact that the reason that such practices exist is because you're already fighting the safe stuff. You're going to get NOWHERE, "fighting those abortions too". However, the rest of it is simple enough, didn't you know that decent sex education and knowledge of other methods of contraception also reduce abortion, by preventing pregnancy in the first place? ^sshole 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it is a tragedy when even one young woman loses her life in this way. However, there is a way to protect women against illegal abortions without killing other human beings. Laws concerning abortion have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. You should probably ask if the central horror of illegal abortion is not the same as central horror of legal abortion - as legal abortion assures that 650,000 females are killed each year in United States only.

Don't forget that every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion – whether it was legal or illegal – was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice.

Noone has answered the question concerning the comparison to sperm and egg I raised above. --Earthland 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Earthland's link "19 million are terminated in an unsafe condition". But he says: "And still less than 0,4 % of women who undergo unsafe abortions die" - although I can't see that in his link. But any percentage 19 million is going to be a lot of people. And no matter what you do that 19 million is going to go up if you make abortion generally illegal or more difficult. Sex education and free contraception are obviously good ideas - but making abortion generally illegal would certainly result in more deaths of real grown-up people - whatever it does for hypothetical ones.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, just do the maths. You have your "650,000 murders" or you can have "650,000 murders, plus all the accidents and brutal painful deaths of real people, with families, and conciousness and memories". Do the maths. You have, net, a reduction in death by giving access to safe medical procedures rather than back alleys and bottles of bleech. ^sshole 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob: 19 million pregnancies are terminated in unsafe conditions, and it kills an estimated 68 000 women every year globally. It gives us 0,4 %.

As I've said several times: that harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for having no law. The law can guide and educate people to choose better alternatives. And we must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous. --Earthland 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I read this from Earthland - "Don't forget that every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion – whether it was legal or illegal – was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice." - and have come to the conclusion that he/she is a real prick for saying that. Dickhead. Ace^McWicked 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You just don't understand human nature do you? If you illegalise something, you push it underground and make it more dangerous. Especially if it's a product someone wants, it's the same with drugs; when legal, they're clean, safe (and taxable), when they're unsafe, they're underground, shady, shrouded in gang warfare. So if you want to save lives, you need to have this available and you need to educate your way to fewer abortions, not illegalize it and hope it all goes away. ^sshole 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK Earthland. Using your "hey it's only 0.4% argument" how many more than the existing 68,000 women do you think would die if abortion were made generally illegal?--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What Armon said. Abortions will always take place, illegal or not some woman will always put themselves forward. What if they are raped? Incest? My former partner had an abortion (yes the child was mine) and I am glad we did because I was to young and unready. Ace^McWicked 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Armandikov, then why not to legalize terror acts? Otherwise, terrorist may feel they sometimes need to blow themselves up with the victims. But if it is legal, it is also much safer. We have choice if innocent people and terrorist die or only innocent people. So, what do you think? --Earthland 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He is right on that one; to the pro-lifer, legalizing abortion is tantamount to legalizing murder, and I doubt that most people here would favor a policy of having murder available and educating your way to fewer murders. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So now women who have abortions are the same as terrorists and we shouldn't worry about their deaths. Is that Earthland's position?--Bob^{Not Jim} 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Like all who take a hard line on complicated issues as far as Earthland is concerned black is black and white is white, there are no shades of grey and abortion is murder, full stop. As such any who hold an opposing view are tarred with the same brush. I think he fails to understand how there can be opposing views. We pro choicers are simply morally evil in his eyes and he's been ranting on (and on and on and on and on and ....) about it for ages. Just what he (and I'll give good money Earthland is male) hopes to achieve by all this ranting (if just one life is saved... maybe) is beyond me. Bob Soles 09:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying that women are terrorists. I do not even call them murderers. But killing is killing. I was talking about the principle.

Bob Soles, the fact that my views on abortion are not vague does not mean I see only black & white colors. This arguments is almost as creative as saying "You seem to live in 19th century". And, believe me, I don't think you're "evil" because you don't see it as I see, but it's true I try to convince you that abortion is wrong. Of course there is no way how I can make you believe it if you don't want.

What you actually wanted to say is that I'm close-minded simply because I haven't change my mind after arguing you. How could I, if you don't even adress the question I originally raised? Maybe someone can answer now?--Earthland 13:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd still be interested to know if you've made any calculation about how many more women would die from unsafe abortions if abortion were generally outlawed.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Earthland - you say you don't call women who have abortions murderers. Well, firstly you did in one of your early drafts and secondly you now only avoid it by using some very weasel words. You make t quite clear that any woman who has an abortion is morally wrong. Who the fuck are you to judge? Bob Soles 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some problems

As it seems, Human deleted even those mere hints about pro-life arguments from the article. (and wasn't there previously two arguments against the "fundamental right of choice"?)

(Human, maybe you just didn't like that reference for the pro-life argument came from non-religious, libertarian source?)

However, introduction currently states that pro-life views are not merely a religious stance, and yet the whole article is written as if only religious people opposed abortion.

Btw, is censroship considered to be a scientific method?

--Earthland 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about EL? The article opens with a description, a broad based "against" argument, and a broad-based "for" argument - which was then argued against in the opening. That's what I deleted. The entire rest of the article is side-by-side arguments on each side! ħuman 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What non-religious reason do you have for opposing abortion? Ace^McWicked 21:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Read about the religiousness of pro-life people.--Earthland 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to read an essay, I am asking you why? Is it because you believe the fetus to be sentient? I can tell you from experience that the mess of cells I saw did not look like any sort of sentient being. Ace^McWicked 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. I don't really care. It doesnt matter anyway. Legal or not abortions will tak eplace. The only thing gained from legalisation is a safe, supportive environment for those having the abortion. Make it illegal and you destroy that network. Ace^McWicked 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The non-religious argument is, in two words, human rights. I'm tired and I'm watching the football so my margin is too small to contain this argument, but there are definitely non-religious arguments against abortion. Before I get flamed to a charcoal-scented spot on the floor, let me state that I'm not arguing for a ban on abortion, restrictions on abortion or anything else. And Lyon just equalised. Fuck. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I really should be writing my essay, but there are non-religious arguments - concerning the psychological impact on the mother, and the ability of the foetus to feel pain - against abortion. I don't think that they're up to much, and I can say with 95% probability that they're actually put forward by people with a religious angle to supplement their argument, but we should definitely list them, then explain why they're wrong. We're not the place that denies the other side representation because they're actually engaged in conservative deceit and support class-room prayer. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

we should definitely list them, then explain why they're wrong - but they're not necessarily wrong. Let's not be as intolerant as EarthTroll. This is an issue that comes down to some very, very hard moral questions, especially as we move towards late term abortion. Hey, abortion with 24 hrs of conception - no problem. That's called the coil. Abortions in the 24th week... er... that's a lot harder to justify. The best we can do is explain our position and hope others will agree. The worst we can do is call the other side bigots or murderers. Bob Soles 21:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

When I said 'explain why they're wrong', that's exactly what I meant - 'explain our position and hope others will agree'. It's just more intellectually honest if we allow the arguments we're against voice first, and then respond to them. For the record, I do find late-term abortions tricky to justify. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

(UI) If EL has arguments that aren't listed, he should add new section(s) to the left side. Help him out if he bungs the formatting, and fix his use of articles. Then add the right hand side... ħuman 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire rest of the article is side-by-side arguments on each side!

More exactly, the rest of the article is side-by-side refutations of alleged pro-life arguments. I do have very big problems with the current representation of those alleged "for" arguments.

New sections? What about the old ones? "Abortion = murder" (although I wouldn't use the word "murder") has only one "for" argument, and that "argument" sounds more like making fun of pro-life side than a real argument any anti-abortionist would offer for consideration.--Earthland 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we could do with a section on the greater number of women who would die from illegal abortions if abortion were more generally illegal.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is always possible to leave out the question of banning abortion and simply debate whether abortion is moral or not. (Of course, the issue of banning abortion could never be left out in real life).--Earthland 19:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to avoid mentioning the practical consequences of banning abortion in any debate. And I would have thought that guaranteeing the death of some additional real adult human beings would be a moral question.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting

We're going to have to update the right-hand-side commentary as Earthland updates the left-hand-side. ħuman 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparative rights

From the latest edit

Pregnant women don’t become some kind of unanimous and passive life-support system for someone else. And it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

"Temporarily with an inconvenience" - there speaks some one who is (a) a man and (b) who has never been a parent. Trust me, my "temporary inconvenience" has just left home aged 21 - and he's still my greatest worry (and pride). I'm pretty sure my dad would say that his "temporary inconvenience" has lasted 56 years - and counting.

Parenthood is massive, life changing, and the biggest single event that can happen to anyone - bar none. In many ways women do become a "unanimous and passive life-support system for someone else" for around five years minimum. For the first few years of the child's life a mothers life is a dedicated life support system - and it doesn't stop there; it just changes emphasis. To dismiss it as a "temporary inconvenience" shows how ill thought through the comparison is. Bob Soles 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you put what you just wrote, or a version of it, in the right-hand side? ħuman 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sort of done. It may well be that the point that is being expressed is that it's only nine months and then the child can be put up for adoption - that's the "temporary" bit. Even so it still glosses over the immense upheavals that the process involves. Bob Soles 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm of course very thankful that someone actually answered me instead of deleting my edit. But it looks quite incomplete. Currently the right-hand side simply tells that unborn is not "person", although the left-hand side of "abortion=murder" addresses this question. The right-hand explanation is that "...defining the start of personhood is far more complex and many authorities..." But these are just weasel words. Could you at least give reference to these "many non-religious" authorities"?--Earthland 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll start with the British GMC and the UK courts. That will do for a start. It's the basis on which most legal decisions around abortion are made. Bob Soles 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally the LHS of Abortion = Murder may address this question but does not dismiss it - it merely gives on of many view points. The definition of the start of personhood is complex and is definitely not settled as 'at the moment of conception'. Bob Soles 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If so, then "personhood" is purely a subjective construct, and is subject to whatever personal opinions and prejudices are shared by the majority. So long as human rights are based on such subjective crietria, there will be no protection for those human individuals who are viewed as being in some sense inferior or inadequate in the opinions of the majority. Many different societies have denied the personhood of certain human groups. (e.g., African slaves, Chinese etc). And who determines the criteria? Those in power, of course. Whenever personhood is defined according to one's functionality, the "line" between persons and non-persons will be a decision of will by those in power. And it will be based on self-interest.

Only by basing protection of human rights on a scientifically observable and verifiable standard can we guarantee equal protection of human rights for every individual member of the human species. The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood. It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

--Earthland 16:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But, for all your banging on (and on and on and on) about it there is no scientifically observable and verifiable standard. You, as you have made oh so clear, would pick fertilization. Others, many with fine scientific pedigrees, would pick others but there is no consensus as to when personhood starts, or even if there ever can be a particular start point chosen. Let me put it as clearly as I can - THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE BASIS ON WHICH ANYONE CAN PICK ANY PARTICULAR MOMENT AS THE START OF PERSONHOOD. I know you think otherwise but you have an axe to grind and have shown no personal experience of the real issues involved. Bob Soles 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. You keep talking about "personhood", which could be taken as philosophical term. Are you saying that the unborn may be biologically human and individual, but not person, or do you say that person equals human being, as most dictionaries define it (but life somehow does not start at conception)?

If you say that there is no consensus as to when life of certain human being starts, you're obviously wrong. You're "knowledge" is purely based on one article, and of course you're not eager to search for more, because this fits to your point of view. Scientific consensus is reflected trough encyclopedias. Can you cite any encyclopedia that states that life of every human individual does not begin at conception? Of course, because encyclopedias give such straightforward answer that additionally does not fit with your point of view, you may claim that encyclopedias are "no real source" for scientific truth. I have given refernces to numerous other sources, medical textbooks, quotes from famous human embryologists and so on. But you still claim that there is "no consensus"! Well, why? Because one physicist has written a book where he claimed that embryo is not human being before it has nervous system. Given such undeniable evident, we can peacefully conclude that there is no consensus as to when the life begins.

It's like saying that there is no consensus as if evolution is true or not, because some creationists claim the opposite.

However, if you claim that personhood is the "sticking point", then yeah, it is philosophical not scientific question. "Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between "life" and "non-life" purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities - subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly."

I claim that personhood begins when you're 70. Can I kill you because your purely subjective thoughts about the beginning of personhood should not be forced upon me?

(Of course, when it comes to this "forcing beliefs" issue, the most important point is that 45 to 50 million dead human beings have had the pro-choice mob’s beliefs forced on them)--Earthland 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of pregnancy

I added the "fact" template, because the article states that "A pregnancy is defined as the implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb", while

Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that pregnancy is "Process of human gestation that takes place in the female’s body as a fetus develops, from fertilization to birth (see parturition). It begins when a viable sperm from the male and egg from the ovary merge in the fallopian tube (see fertility; fertilization)."

Wikipedia tells us that pregnancy occurs "as the result of the female gamete or oocyte merging with the male gamete, spermatozoon, in a process referred to, in medicine, as "fertilization," or more commonly known as "conception." "

The only ones who define pregnancy as the implantation of the fertilized egg are organizations such like The American Medical Association and British Medical Association. These organizations have passed a resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter, and one of the claims in the resolution was that hormonal contraception that may affect implantation "cannot terminate an established pregnancy."

Also the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "pregnancy" as "from conception until birth."

--Earthland 16:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So in the absence of implantation, you claim there is still a "pregnancy" if the sperm and egg successfully unite? ħuman 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit disingenuous to say that only ones who define pregnancy as the implantation of the fertilized egg are organizations such like The American Medical Association and British Medical Association - firstly, these are two of the most august medical bodies in the world and they are far from the only ones. Secondly these organizations are those at the coal face, so to speak, those who have to face up to the ethical issues rather than preaching from on high. They're the one who really understand what it's all about. Bob Soles 23:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To Human: It's not "me" who says that. Give some credit to my references.

Bob Soles, we either believe encyclopedias and medical dictionaries or organizations which have their political agenda behind their "resolutions"? If pregnancy begins at conception, then some methods of birth control might be considered abortifacient. --Earthland 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

False dilemma & poisoning the well. Also, anybody can quote-mine Wikipedia to prove anything. From the same article you cited, "pregnancy is often defined as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus" (WP:Pregnancy#First_trimester). Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting "false arguments". I can't detect any "association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument". If pregnancy starts at conception, some contraceptives pills are abortifacients indeed. False dilemma means that there should be third option. Obviously there is no third possibility, only two possible definitions of the beginning of pregnancy.

Oh well, wikipedia gives two answers to one and the same question in one article, hurray to Wikipedia. What about encyclopedia Britannica and the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary? --Earthland 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) What about them? Are you living your life according to their teachings? Good luck with that.

Suggesting we distruct the medical establishment because it might have a "political agenda" (i.e. do or say some things you don't like) is poisoning the well. The false dilemma I was referring to was "we either believe encyclopedias and medical dictionaries or organizations which have their political agenda" - like as if these are the only two possibilities in the universe. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As ever I can't decide if you deliberately or naively misunderstand the arguments against you. You quote mine Wikipedia to give a false impression. The false dilemma is focusing on the start of pregnancy, the start of pregnancy isn't the issue, it's the start of pesonhood for the foetus and what rights, if any it has. Then you assume that the BMA and AMA both have political agendas whilst completely ignoring your own agenda, or that of many of the references you give. Whilst I'm sure you'll dismiss this as appeal to authority, I'll listen to the BMA before I'll listen to someone with such an obvious obsession as yours. Bob Soles 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "quote mine" Wikipedia, I simply didn't read it till the end because what I searched for seemed to be at the beginning.

I am indeed not a "source", such you could cite, Bob Soles. I indeed have my "obsessions", such like belief in human rights. You have also. One of us is probably wrong, therefore we must turn to more neutral sources. If an organization passes a resolution simply to make "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter, is it biased or neutral ("or something between")? Well, it is debatable. But can you debate that Britannica is full of pro-life propaganda (such like calling the embryo straightforwardly the "unbron child")? Or the medical dictionaries are filled with anti-"contraceptive" obsessions?

Weaseloid, I wanted to compare those two (as we were talking about these conrete examples), not to say that there are no more possibilities in the universe.

How many of "those references I gave" have political agenda?--Earthland 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Convenient edit point

@Earthalnd - One of us is probably wrong - NO!!! NO!!!! NO!!! - with complex ethical issues like abortion there is no absolute right and wrong - any such belief is effectively religious in nature. There are different shades of opinion; different weights put on different values. That's what really pisses me off. You're so convinced that you're right, that there is a right, that you totally fail to see just how complicated this issue really is. Anyone who tries to pin such a complex issue down to a simple black/white solution doesn't understand the issue. You dismiss those who disagree as having an agenda - because you fail to see that someone who disagrees could possibly reach their conclusions without being morally suspect. Bob Soles 21:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Culture of Life" section and Ad hominem tu quoque

I don't really believe that the "culture of life" section is very important or so.... But it currently states that

Furthermore, many pro-life activists and politicians who use this language show a particular disagreement about the "sanctity of human life" when the life in question belongs to a felon or a foreigner.

This is called logical fallacy "tu quoque" ("You too!"). If Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective.

A makes criticism P.

A is also guilty of P.

Therefore, P is dismissed.

--Earthland 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If these people hold two inconsistent positions, one is probably illogical. I don't think we're making conclusions based on the inconsistency, just highlighting the cognitive dissonance of some anti-choicers. Take it out if it really bothers you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

I don't know if this is the right place to put this question but some kind person will probably tell me if I'm wrong. We don't have abortion on Jupiter where I come from so I find all this difficult to understand. On Jupiter we just will new beings into existence when old ones "go away" and they are all wanted. We would never kill them immediately afterward. And the little Jovians are full individuals with all the rights of the rest of us. Why don't you do the same? For example why don't you give them the right to vote? We don't have a democracy on Jupiter actually, but if we did I bet we would allow all the little ones to vote, so why don't you? It would seem only fair as they are individuals like everybody else. I think it's very very unfair.--Skynet 18:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Foetuses which are of legal voting age are legally permitted to vote, same as anybody else. Please tell me more about the system of government on Jupiter. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm very young for a Jovian so I don't form part of the government or anything like that. The High Command make all of our decisions on our behalf. The High Command is led by the High Commander and his word is what really counts and all of the rest simply advise him. The High Commander gets to be High Commander by living longer than everybody else. Usually thousands and thousands of years. Usually beings simply "go away" when they feel really old though, so the command does change regularly. Though maybe with your carbon-based timescales you may not call terms of a many thousand years "regular".

Somewhat unusually the High Commander changed because of an actual "death" a few of Earth "years" ago. Something just dropped through the sky and "killed" the old High Commander. That's one of the reasons I'm here actually.--Skynet 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume that it was the Galileo probe. What was Shoemaker-Levy like? Bastard harmonic Hoover! 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah HA! A confession! So you Earthlings sent the machine and the comet! My mission starts to bear fruit! Was it you Mr Hoover and your FBI who were responsible?--Skynet 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I confess that Galileo was us; I deny all connection with Shoemaker-Levy. It's your own fault, anyway; if you can't be bothered to duck when a great big space probe is flying at you, you deserve everything you get. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

Why is it so important? I thought the side-by-side in this article was supposed to cover the most commonly encountered arguments for & against abortion (rather than arbitrary comments by other RWians). Unless the EB has some kind of important role in the abortion debate, introducing a quote from it only to refute the source seems like a pointless tangent. I suggest removiong it from the for & against columns. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. TheoryOfPractice 19:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It should stay in the arguments for banning section. --Earthland 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Y? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Guys, the edit warring over this article is ridiculous. Please discuss changes. Earthland, the side-by-side here is supposed to be an overview of the abortion debate & the arguments most commonly presented - not a commentary on your own personal arguments: that's what essay & debate space is for. Please stop replacing familiar content with chunks of your own essays. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently I simply want to keep the original text. And as the article is not "an overview" of the debate but "refutations" of pro-life arguments, why shouldn't I broaden the left-hand side? --Earthland 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you're "broadening" it by putting in edits that are designed to undermine it. if you want to counter the counter arguments, fine, that's the whole point--but do that in its own space. Write another one of your stupid little essays that I can ignore, perhaps. TheoryOfPractice 19:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the right-hand side of the article meant to "undermine" the left-hand side? So why shouldn't I do that with the left-hand side? Because RW has too strong bias?--Earthland 19:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but your right-hand-side edits were meant to undermine the right-hand-side. not cool. TheoryOfPractice 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

How is it better to claim anything as fundamentally inviolable? Belief in inviolability is a more accurate description, I believe. That's why I rolled my own recent edit to Earthland's version. Kindly show me an ideological axe being ground in that... Sprocket J Cogswell 19:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A better man than me once said

“”We have even more trouble with becomings. Our minds attach labels to things in the surrounding world, and we interpret these labels as discontinuities. If things have different labels, then we expect there to be a clear line of demarcation between them. The universe, however, runs on processes rather than things, and a process starts as one thing and becomes another without ever crossing a clear boundary. Worse, if there is some apparent boundary, we are likely to point to it and shout "that's it!" just because we can't see anything else worth getting agitated about. How many times have you been in a discussion in which somebody says 'We have to decide where to draw the line'? For instance, most people seem to accept that in general terms women should be permitted abortions during the earliest stages of pregnancy but not during the very late stages. 'Where do you draw the line', though, is hotly debated - and of course some people wish to draw it at one extreme of the other. There are similar debates about exactly when a developing embryo becomes a person, with legal and moral rights. Is it at conception? When the brain first forms? At birth? Or was it always a potential person, even when it 'existed' as one egg and one sperm? The 'draw a line' philosophy offers a substantial political advantage to people with hidden agendas. The method for getting what you want is first to draw the line somewhere that nobody would object t, and then gradually move it to where you really want it, arguing continuity all the way. For example, having agreed that killing a child is murder the line labelled 'murder' is then slid back to the instance of conception; having agreed that people should be allowed to read whichever newspaper they like, you end up supporting the right to put the recipe fro nerve gas on the internet. If we were less obsessed with labels and discontinuity, it would be much easier to recognise that the problem is not where to draw the line; it is that the image of drawing a line is inappropriate.

—Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen

I'd like to include this if there is agreement. Bob Soles 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The universe, however, runs on processes rather than things, and a process starts as one thing and becomes another without ever crossing a clear boundary.

“”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

I'd like to include this if there is agreement.

--Earthland 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this one also:

“”The reason the fertilized egg develops as a human individual while the other cells don't is because the fertilized egg has some physical human individuality factor (PHI factor) that is not present in the other cells. No supernatural or miraculous interventions are necessary; the phenomenon can be more than adequately explained in terms of natural physical processes operating according to the normal, natural laws of biology and physiology. Of course, everyone knows that the physical factor that makes you a human being is your DNA, right? Well, partly right. The reason we refer to this physical factor as the PHI factor rather than just DNA is because DNA, by itself, is not conclusive: every cell in your body possesses human DNA, but this does not make each separate cell a distinct human individual, nor are your cells likely to suddenly start growing and developing into separate individuals just because they each have human DNA. Though DNA is an essential part of the PHI factor, it is not the only part. How can we deduce the presence of the PHI factor? Let's start with an adult human individual. Where did that adult come from? It came from a child; the child grew and developed and became the adult. Is that at all surprising or miraculous? No, because we all know that the physical factor that made the adult an individual human was already present in the child. The child possessed the PHI factor, and as a result the child grew into an adult who also had the PHI factor. Where did the child come from? The child is what the baby grew into. The baby grew into a human individual child because the physical human individuality factor needed by the child was already present in the baby. The baby, being a human individual, grew into a child who was a human individual and who, in turn, grew into the adult human individual. Where did the baby come from? The baby is what the fetus grew into. Is this surprising, miraculous? Not at all. The baby is the fetus, only a little more mature. The baby is an individual organism because the fetus is an individual organism. Thus, by observation, we can deduce that the same PHI factor that was present in the baby was also present in the earlier fetus. Where, then, did the fetus come from? Did some of the mother's cells suddenly and spontaneously decide to quit developing as mere parts of her body and start developing as a biologically individual fetus? Of course not: the fetus came from the embryo. Genetically distinct from the cells of the mother, genetically coherent with each other, the cells in the embryo are busy developing the structures needed for a complete and healthy fetus. Why? Because the embryo possesses, within itself, that physical human individuality factor that tells it to grow and develop as a human individual. The PHI factor is how the embryo "knows" it's not just a clump of cells like a wart or a bundle of muscle fibers. Because of the PHI factor, the embryo "knows" that, by the time it grows to be a fetus, it is going to have only those bodily resources that it prepared for itself while still an embryo. In other words, we observe that the zygote "knows" it needs to develop into an individual fetus--something we do not observe in random clumps of unrelated cells, or in tumors, or in individual organs within a larger individual. Therefore we deduce that the zygote, too, possesses the PHI factor.

—Mark Nutter

--Earthland 13:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your first suggestion...

Except that your suggestion is total bollocks and disproven by modern research. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. That's exactly what does happen inside the womb - they are moulded, in many, many ways they are formed and defined from the outside. We are not genetically determined from the moment of conception - environmental factors play a massive and decisive part in determining the finished person. If, Earthland, you want to rely so strongly on science as the basis for your morality you need to get it right. So, in short, I disapprove strongly. Bob Soles 13:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your second suggestion

Nutter's PHI factor is pseudo science of the worst kind written to further an obvious agenda. I'd no more welcome it here than the outpourings of AIG. Bob Soles 13:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Further research shows very little evidence of Mark Nutter having any expertise. The only link I can find is to 'The Comprehensive Human Rights Initiative' who's web site is in Japanese(?) which I cannot read. What is certain is that he uses the banana fallacy in order to promote a very obvious pro life agenda. Along the same lines Richard Stith is a professor of Law, not any form of science, who writes for a religious organisation and has an obvious axe to grind. On the other hand, whilst Pratchett is a writer of fiction, Stewart and Cohen, who do the science, have some pedigree here and have no axe to grind in the abortion debate. Bob Soles 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This all looks very TL;DR, & there's enough of that already in the current version of the article without needing to pad it out with epic slabs of raw quotation. Right now I think this article, at least the abortion debate side-by-side part of it, needs trimming down more than it needs fattening up. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first of ELs quotes, it's an argument by bad analogy - the writer creates an interesting mental picture, for which he already has a "demolishing" riposte. But he picked the analogy, not his "opponent". So it's a strawman. The second, TL;DR, starts "The reason the fertilized egg develops as a human individual while the other cells don't is because the fertilized egg has some physical human individuality factor (PHI factor) that is not present in the other cells" which is blatantly false. Cloning is not done from zygotes or embryos (and thinnk not just, say, sheep cloning or mouse cloning, but plant cloning). ħuman 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous Information/Loaded Language?

I'm rather new to this site, but I have read most of the articles relating to the ongoing conflict between Conservapedia and RationalWiki, so I understand the desire to disparage our rivals, but is it really necessary to state that Andy Schlafly "teaches kids in a church basement"? As despicable as his behaviour may be, I think it is enough to state that he has a degree in Engineering and Law, which should amply prove that he is not qualified to make any statement that correlates abortion to an increased risk in breast cancer. Furthermore, it could be argued that it is an example of loaded language. LeRajah

I think it's to highlight the fact he has no medical qualifications to teach that sort of thing. If you think it's too much, edit it down. 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed it, but apparently the revisions is not universally liked. I'll concede but I find it rather puerile in its original form. LeRajah (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with LeRajah on this one. I think that merely stating his degrees is ample information to disqualify his medical expertise. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is loaded language, but I think he deserves it. nothing the guy does or says is worthwhile so piling on the opprobrium is valid. Pippa (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) However, it's worth noting that he does nothing with his engineering degree and almost nothing with his law degree. Andy is more well known for teaching children in a church basement than he is as a lawyer or engineer. --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We needn't stoop to his level to refute him. Perhaps a rewrite to include his current profession in a separate sentence would be more appropriate then. LeRajah (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about taking out the personal stuff entirely? Conservapedia as an "encyclopedia" is kinda known for the abortion-cancer link and the spat with PalMA (is it?) about it. So there's no need to discuss Andy himself at all. 17:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, most of the abortion/cancer stuff at CP has always come from AS, so it's relevant to mention who he is & what he does. Conservapedia should probably also be mentioned by name too. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious Society of Friends (AKA Quakers) Propaganda

File:Dinosaur Eggs Oatmeal.jpg

Exisitence of dinosaurs AND condoning abortion? Damn liberal Quakers.

I would have put this on an abortion "Fun" page if it existed. Now it is in the talk page for recommendation of addition to this article. Signed (yes, I'm actually signing this), TetraEleven (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Flow of article with side-by side

While I like the information in the "side by side", i personally think it makes the article awkward to read, and it focuses the article on the arguments against a women's right, rather than (again just my opinion) first focusing on why abortion is important and necessary. I would like to discuss the option of moving that side-by-side to it's own important article, and make this one flow a bit more organized and logical(ly? - is that an adverb?). --En attendant Godot 17:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This has bugged me too. Side-by-sides are meant really for refutation so we have the source text available to read. All this point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint isn't easy to read. ADK^{...I'll overthrow your leaking roof!} 17:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I build a sandbox on my user page. Let me play with it for an hour or so, and I'll set it out there for people to compare and see what works and what doesn't.En attendant Godot 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting a new page

I have seriously reworked the/an abortion page that I'd like the mob to look at, as a replacement for this page. I took out the "side by side" arguments, as I didn't think they fit well here, and made them their own page, linked to this page. They also need some reworking, but that's another story. As you review to see if you think it's "better" (or whatever), please also feel free to make any changes. My biggest concern is that (as others have a bias in the 'is Jesus real' for example), my personal opinions (total disgust at laws that hinder women's ablity to live her life as best she can) override the RW level of just how much opinion we want.

Anyhow, here is the main one. suggested replacement The side by side is pretty much word for word, just pulled onto its own page. side by side. Thanks. Godot. En attendant Godot 15:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bumping to get some comments. En attendant Godot 16:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gets my vote as is. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Virtually all

Even in PRC, this is serious discussion about the legal right to abort after you find out the child is a girl. It is technically illegal to abort for that reason, yet it is done all the time. Also, there has been significant debate in China about late term abortions. I'll leave your "many" in, but i don't buy it. I think it is a very real topic everywhere, just because it is an issue of control, of emotion, of life itself. and that's never an easy issue anywhere.--En attendant Godot 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just doubt that every country in the world has the same debate as Western countries do. I think that may be a bit of a Western-centric approach, assuming what is a major issue in the countries we are familiar with most be so in all countries. In some countries, there may be little debate, it will be considered a settled issue for or against (and possibly their political system doesn't permit public debate of such issues either.) Given there are like 200 countries in the world, some quite exhaustive investigation would be required to really justify a claim like "virtually all". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right they don't have "the same issues". but i think it is quite a serious issue world wide. but again, i get why you changed it, and agree it's a western centered view. En attendant Godot 05:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is abortion moral?

It seems kinda barbaric. Moonshot926 (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, how profoundly controversial. ^theist 13:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be illegal. Moonshot926 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is, in some countries. Still happens in those countries, though. Might as well keep it safe and regulated. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is always adoption. Moonshot926 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is. Been around for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, y'know. Most people are familiar with the concept. But they still have abortions anyway. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to get an abortion, at least pay for it. Tax dollars should not be going to fund abortions. Moonshot926 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get an abortion. As a taxpayer, though, I have no problem spending my money to support medical procedures in order to ensure that all people have access to the same level of care and professionalism and safety. It's money well spent. If people can't afford to pay for an abortion and go somewhere for an unregulated procedure done poorly, the resulting costs to society risk being higher. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I'll rise to the bait. You say Tax dollars should not be going to fund abortions. - Why? Just because you say so? Well, who made you moral arbitrator? I say they should. I say that any woman ought to be able to get a free, no questions asked, abortion up to, say, the start of meaningful brain activity in the foetus (around 20 weeks). We disagree. This is not a simple area and simply stating opinions as if they are immutable facts is not helpful. Bad Faith (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, i find most wars, (including the 'war on drugs') to be far more immoral than abortion, as it amounts to the legalized killing of born persons. So I should not have to have my tax dollars funding wars. right? So here's what we'll do. My taxes will ALL go to funding abortions, and yours can go to war. how is that? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well. It seems that was wrong. Federal tax dollars do not fund abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment Moonshot926 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How unbelievably arrogant that you should think your country's laws apply to everybody else. But then, you seem to be of the view that the bodies of other individuals should be subject to the sovereign demands of your values set. Brendiggg (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

He's actually misreading the Hyde Amendment, cause of course money goes to fund abortions, but only those that are medically necessary. But it had to be said, just to contradict the idiot. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)