From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 October 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, (new)(back)


Pro-life is indeed a neologism but it is pretty much exclusive to the US, in the UK we use the more accurate and less emotive 'anti-abortion'. Not meaning to be jingoistic but I think the article should be re-named Anti-Abortion as it is more accurate and less what RationalWiki's arch-enemy, Conservapedia, would want it to be called.

Hey Fellow UKer - why not log on & get a name? (please sign talk pages using 4 tildes ~~~~. Stick around. SusanThe Earth Moved 21:03, 29 February 2008 (EST)

True enough, it is a propaganda term, but the article wouldn't really work if it were renamed since the current name allows the article to point out the obvious: 'pro-life' means pro-life for fetuses only, and not necessarily anyone else. 'Pro-life' often also means pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-stem cell research, anti-govt programs to cut the infant mortality rate...etc... Secret Squirrel 22:49, 29 February 2008 (EST)
Here in the Middle Ages US, there is a semi-truce on terms - we agree to call them "pro life", and they agree to call us "pro choice". Unless they get mean. Then they call us "baby killers". I call them "life ruiners". See how it works? And, yes, PS, please make a user name. You can always throw in a note at your IP user place thing that says who you are once you do. See, we get paranoidier about stacks of IP edits, but if we get to trust you as some random name, life gets easier for all... In the Goat, humanUser talk:Human 01:42, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Numbers 5:11-31[edit]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the exact process they used to arrive at the interpretation that this particular passage is about abortion? I'm rather interested. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:11, 23 November 2008 (EST)

That seems to be Secret Squirrel's edit, so you'd have to ask him/her. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because the passage doesn't mention pregnancy, & the test seems to cause infertility, not abortion/miscarriage. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 18:08, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Yes that was my interpretation and was included with snarky intent. I guess this depends on what translation one uses and how you read the passage. In the New International Version there is "If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away". I read this as causing abortion or miscarriage - but it isn't exactly clear and could be read more than one way. The pro-lifers will say this verse refers to causing infertility, not abortion, citing the next verse, "and she will become accursed among her people. If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children." The Good News Bible renders this passage about the same as above, as does the King James version (albeit with its typical harsher tone, "when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell"). I don't have a copy of the New English Bible but I'm told the NEB specifically translates this passage as causing miscarriage, on the other hand. And the Amplified version uses the words "her thigh fall away" instead of waste away - which sounds more like a miscarriage. But yeah, since this is a disputed interpretation go ahead and change it. Secret Squirrel 19:41, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Interesting, though...if the verse is about causing infertility instead of abortion, that would be a biblical endorsement of birth control, regardless. Secret Squirrel 19:43, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Its interesting that you understood the inherent problems with the abortion interpretation, and yet, just to be "snarky," you put it in there without qualifying it. It certainly struck me as a strange interpretation. If I'm not mistaken, everyone is OK with correcting the section in question? -Zahd 20:07, 23 November 2008 (EST)
We like to be snarky and flippant around here, but that seems to be a lot less prevalent than it used to be. I'm OK with changing it, at least to note that the passage could be interpreted as being about abortion, infertility, or other meanings. Secret Squirrel 20:16, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Yes. The thing with the New English Bible is that it uses a translation method called "wp:dynamic equivalence" which aims to present the text as it would appear in modern language, rather than the more usual "formal equvalence" which translates literally word for word. Or put in another way, what would the text look like if it had been written yesterday? This can be a good approach in many situations, but it does seem questionable when applied to a 2500-3000 year old text which appeared in a completely different mental and cultural context. This passage is actually a pretty good illustration of why that can be a problem.
Personally, I don't read this passage as having anything to do with either abortion or birth control or the like, especially because of the internal evidence - being a law text, Numbers is not usually particularly subtle, so it is likely that if this had been about pregnancy, it would have said so quite clearly instead of making vague references to abdomens and thighs. The text seems more likely to be describing a point of procedure rather than a punishment. It shows how, in the absence of witnesses, to answer the question of fact regarding whether or not the suspected adultery has taken place. It's a trial by ordeal, basically. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 13:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)
I went ahead and fixed it, largely by quoting more of the text. There was a lot to cut out, but the relevant bits are highlighted. -Zahd 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)


Our drive-by troll highlighted this section and I'm inclined to agree. With no citation, it merely looks at somebody's opinion and playing the race card against pro-lifers. Either we can back this statement up, or we delete it. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 11:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a drive-by troll. I was a part of the original group on here, which by your creation date shows that you were not. Please learn what a troll is instead just tossing the term around.--God 11:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm digging in this at the moment. Reproductive rights are not my speciality, so I can't cite anything off the top of my head. It seems that there are two contradictory claims about abortion and race/ethnicity: the claim that low birth rates in the West will lead to it being "out-bred" and the claim that abortion and contraception are a racist plan to minimize the population growth in developing countries (example). --ZooGuard (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they're necessarily contradictory - in the US, it's mostly minorities getting abortions, a fact that's brought up by one side or the other (either casting it as a racist idea, or as a civil rights issue), whereas the fact that developed countries' populations are shrinking compared to the developing world is a frequent talking point in a variety of issues. More to the point, I don't think I've ever seen the issue of race brought up in the way it is in this article, and it just seems like a smear. Sake Fueled (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is badly written and unfairly biased[edit]

Simply put, the entire article is rubbish. There is very little actual text talking about the Pro-Life position itself, its arguments, or anything similar. Every section of the article is dedicated to associating Pro-Life supporters as being anti-life and extremely hypocritical, using weasel words like "often" and "frequently" to refer to very rare opinions and actions. Heck, the description of a Pro-Life person ("in favor of protecting the life of every human fetus regardless of the consequences") is wrong, as it implies all Pro-Life positions still support abortion if it would lead to the mother's death.

The worst part of all is that RationalWiki isn't even supposed to have a position on the abortion debate, as it's near-entirely a debate of morality where rational science has very little involvement. - (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are free to suggest specific changes to the article. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused - why isn't RationalWiki supposed to have opinions? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, we do have a POV. Though logical and well-written objections could change that POV.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"all Pro-Life positions still support abortion if it would lead to the mother's death" - huh what? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, however the hell wrote this. You revisionists won't even permit the foremost, generalized pro-life arguments on the page FOR pro-life arguments. I am absolutely stultified by your arrogance, that you unfairly bias articles, and remove any and all writing contrary to your position. That is simply not how you argue--denying everything your opponent says, dismissing what they say without even providing a substantiated reason, and destroying content like it was never there--that is called denial, unreasonableness, and impropriety. You win arguments be actually REFUTING what your opponent says, and doing so DEFTLY. Simple denial is the least deft device of which I can think.--Animalian (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
People have been refuting your arguments. Look at the responses on this page & the abortion talk page. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Destroying others work is not refutation. It is intellectual dishonesty. To TRULY destroy my work, you actually have to REFUTE it, not just delete it. I would also note that you are being unreasonable when you won't permit pro-life arguments on the page FOR pro-life arguments. If you find the arguments I raise lacking, GIVE the refutations. Make a NEW SECTION like I have been trying to do. If I write bullshit, and you can impugn my bullshit, all the better for you. First, actually learn how to ARGUE and how to EDIT--to refute arguments rather than erase them, ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM CITING THE MOST PREVALENT AND STRONGEST PRO-LIFE ARGUMENTS ON A PRO-LIFE PAGE.--Animalian (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anti-abortion violence[edit]

So I was looking around RW and noticed that we don't really have an article on anti-abortion violence (murdering abortion doctors, bombings of clinics etc.) and was thinking we should have one. This article mentions it and I saw another article on Army of God that was copy and pasted from wikipedia but nothing concrete. I don't think it's really fair to include it in the pro-life article since the majority of pro-lifers would never plant a pipe bomb in their nearest planned parenthood. Any ideas? --Sammygirl (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

General Refutations to Common Pro-choice Arguments[edit]

"Wherefore pro-choice advocates typically justify abortion on the grounds that a fetus is non-human, the child unwanted, and the mother free to regulate her body, pro-life advocates counter with scientific evidence that a fetus is, indeed, human, that unwanted children value their lives independently of parental disdain, and that the right to choose simply fails to take precedence over the right to life, rare cases excepted.

Denying the Human Status of a Fetus[edit]

Denying that a fetus is human is essential to denying any and all rights to the fetus, including the right to life (if you are pro-choice, why are you objecting to this estimation? Most of you agree with it. It's all over your abortion page). To all scientific understanding, however, a fetus is irrefutably human, sharing a vastly similar genome, physiology, and capacity to flourish in the vast majority of cases. All attempts to dehumanize the fetus are but acts of rhetoric which estrange common sense and repudiate scientific consensus (killing infants is ok because they aren't yet conscious, fetuses are alive, and most like grow into well-functioning adults, basic statistics and worldly observations).

Pro-choice advocates may object that fetuses lack rationality and cannot (yet) act as moral agents. To subscribe to this narrow, Kantian view of rights and corresponding duties, however, would justify the indiscriminate and unadulterated abuse of infants, the mentally deficient, and all animals, for by denying “consciousness” to these individuals, we reserve them no rights, and owe them no obligations (Why, again, do you refute this? This Kantian idea litters your abortion page).

Pro-choice advocates may also object to the notion of “potential” life, alongside the intellectual and moral agency which may or may not attend it. Such an argument, again, defies common sense and scientific understanding, in that pregnancies, both documented and undocumented, have a 60% chance of being carried to term (1). Moreover, the probability that the resultant child will grow into a healthy, young adult ranks at least 90% (worldly observation, motherfucking common sense--still needs citation, more precise estimation, and another 2 pages defining what a healthy, young adult is, so appropriate for a condensed article on a different subject!).--Animalian (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


Unwanted Children and Abuse[edit]

Arguments that children will be unwanted or abused are likewise and inexcusably flimsy. If a pregnancy is carried to term, 99% of US women will not abandon their child (1). If abortion were restricted, these rates would remain roughly the same (needs citation), since the maternal bond is among the strongest in nature, reinforced by oxytocin release during childbirth, breastfeeding, and childrearing (2, 3).

In the argument from abuse, it is compelling to ask the following rhetorical questions: 1) Would you drown puppies because their present or future owners a) might abuse them, b) will probably abuse them, or c) do abuse them? 2) Would you kill Cinderella because her step-family abused her? 3) Would Cinderella appreciate that you killed her, assuming she somehow could, to spare her the “intolerable, life-negating” abuse to which she was supposedly subjected?

Unless abuse is truly life-negating, as in many depraved cases of animal vivisection (4), pain so profound, and prospects of recovery so slim (5), there exists little justification to deprive an individual of life, and even then, we would preserve hope for a better life, and seek to ameliorate the very conditions which conduced one so unlivable. All other acts constitute murder rather than euthanasia, and consequently rarely possess sufficient justification (needs a citation, but this is motherfucking common sense).--Animalian (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The Inconvenience of Motherhood[edit]

We now arrive at the final juggernaut in the pro-choice argument, the right to choose. While a mother may possess the right to regulate her body, she should not do so to the extreme detriment of another (utilitarian rights). Murder, unjustified or insufficiently justified killing, which abortion constitutes in the vast majority of cases (needs an extended numerical analysis, so appropriate for a brief rationalwiki article!), is a profound detriment violating those most fundamental and intimate rights to life, bodily integrity, and freedom (fundamental rights, you dying right now would pretty damn detrimental to your self-interest, I fucking presume).

A woman may be forced to accept the inconvenience of motherhood, but does that justify murder? Why should the “right to choose” come before the right to life itself? Anyone who can justify murder on the basis of trivial comforts, unnecessary luxury, or pure whim is not only a threat to her children, but to the world, animals, and humanity at large. This mindset of personal comfort before the lives and rights of others perpetuates extreme poverty (just $200 could get a child through the most perilous years, 2-6), begot the Holocaust (apathy, a comfort with inaction, belief in economic benefit), and leads us to exchange the lives of 60 billion cows, chickens, and pigs for a few tasty nibbles every single year (oh my god, I need to thoroughly validate this last point on a breif article about abortion! 2 pages later...).


Pro-choice advocates, terrain now disappearing from beneath their feet, might desperately flee to the last remaining argument of any substance, that of overpopulation. Abortion, indeed, serves as a form of population control, but it is just as radical and inhumane as genocide or warfare, pertaining not to civilized society. Instead of resorting to such primitive methods of population control, we should economically empower the poor, universalize education, provide better healthcare, and subsidize contraceptives, all more effective and rewarding vehicles of population control and societal progress."--Animalian (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


I will repeat from your talk page.
1) None of that stuff was sourced. You throw out numbers, but you don't provide any citations for them.
2) It's really more appropriate for the Essay category, since it was all conjecture.
3) And adding three, since you bothered to post this here instead of as an essay: all you are providing is your opinion. Unless you can back it up with something, it doesn't belong in article. --Castaigne (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I will add that this text is full of glaring non-sequiturs, such as "if abortion were restricted, these rates would remain roughly the same" and the whole Holocaust thing. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Your refutations are becoming stronger. The claim you cited NEEDS verification, but it follows from common sense, especially when you examine other statistics and consider the IMMEDIATELY preceding discussion of the maternal bond. Could nevertheless use peer-reviewed literature in support it, since it is indeed a controversial claim. As to the holocaust, would you disagree that sheer acts of rhetoric were not essential to its facilitation? As a famous historian once remarked (oh my fucking god, I need a citation for this revelation!), "never was any genocide carried out for such ideological reasons", the very ideological reasons which lead us deny that animals possess consciousness, that they only feel "mere pain", their suffering therefore meaningless, and that we possess no obligation to respect their lives, and may therefore freely exchange billions of lives for a few tasty nibbles. The mindset of personal comfort before the rights and lives of others is a common theme to atrocities, peculiarly, one as of which pro-choice advocates so often perpetrate. These are seemingly unrelated topics, but they are relevant due to ideological connection they share--just like how we identify that the fundamental problem behind believing that trinkets will ward off HIV, killing other people in the belief you end up in heaven with 70 virgins, and praying for better knees rather than accepting medical knee replacement is faith-based belief. Moreover, I disrelish that you and everyone else of a pro-choice suasion can write as snarkily about pro-life advocates as you want, but when I present strong rhetorical arguments, suddenly rhetoric is utterly impermissible!--Animalian (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You haven't presented any strong rhetorical arguments. You have a very high opinion of your arguments, but they're full of logical flaws, false analogies, unfounded assumptions and bare assertions. Take this example, which you claim follows from "common sense": "If a pregnancy is carried to term, 99% of US women will not abandon their child. If abortion were restricted, these rates would remain roughly the same." This is a complete non-sequitur. Sure, women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term almost invariably also choose to raise the child themselves - because that's what they carried the pregnancy to term for. But that doesn't erase the fact that there are many women who choose not to be mother - that's what they have an abortion for. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
What the weasel says. I could sing his comment, if it will help. --Castaigne (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Further, my own personal arguments:
1) I do not agree that all life, fetal or otherwise, is intrinsically valuable. In fact, I consider life to be disposable. Yes, I am disposable too; if I ever come to the conclusion that I am obsolete, I will engage in self-deletion.
2) There is no argument that the fetus is biologically human. You are conflating biological personhood with both conscious personhood and legal personhood. No.
3) The potentiality of the fetus is not relevant.
4) Murder is legal concept in the case of abortion.
5) All arguments about ethics and morals are purely invalid, as ethics and morals are subjective and dependent on personal viewpoint and not objective data.
6) I haven't heard the overpopulation argument used by pro-choicers in decades. I do hear it thrown about by Freepers who argue that Planned Parenthood is engaged in the nefarious conspiracy initiated by Sanger to exterminate the black race. YMMV. --Castaigne (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1) I do not agree that all life, fetal or otherwise, is intrinsically valuable. In fact, I consider life to be disposable. Yes, I am disposable too; if I ever come to the conclusion that I am obsolete, I will engage in self-deletion.
Why is life not intrinsically valuable? The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.
2) There is no argument that the fetus is biologically human. You are conflating biological personhood with both conscious personhood and legal personhood. No.
The fetus IS biologically human. It is not yet conscious or sentient.
3) The potentiality of the fetus is not relevant.
Why? Why is a 60% of growing into a perceptive, loving, caring, functioning adult not a good enough criteria for extending rights?
4) Murder is legal concept in the case of abortion.
The law does not necessarily codify morality. Jean Valjean spent 19 years of hard physical labor repaying his crime, stealing a loaf of bread. Slavery was once legally defended, racism, and sexism.
5) All arguments about ethics and morals are purely invalid, as ethics and morals are subjective and dependent on personal viewpoint and not objective data.
Not entirely true. We can make objective statements about what tends to benefit people or society as a whole. In fact, without rendering objective conclusions from subjective personal experiences, behavior becomes difficult to predict, our theory of mind in personal affairs virtually useless, and we cease to be rational in that, to effectively change society, you have to take into account the subjective experience.
6) I haven't heard the overpopulation argument used by pro-choicers in decades. I do hear it thrown about by Freepers who argue that Planned Parenthood is engaged in the nefarious conspiracy initiated by Sanger to exterminate the black race. YMMV.
That is not what I believe at all. I was just extrapolating that, if we kill 40-50 million fetuses, a year, there would be roughly half-a-billion more people with us today just since 2000. And that is a serious argument against abortion restriction--rampant population growth, resource depletion, environmental degradation.--Animalian (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1a) I have not been shown evidence that life is intrinsically valuable. I have not seen that proven. I do not assume something is true absent evidence it is true.
1b) "Intrinsically valuable" is a subjective statement, as valuable means something different to each individual. In order for me to determine something is valuable outside of my personal opinion, I would need an objective measure of what value is. Provide me with a universal standard of what is intrinsically valuable, and I will evaluate empirical evidence you provide against it.
2) I meant to say that there is no argument that the fetus is not biologically human; my apologies. But the fact that the fetus is biologically human gives it no special status, just as me being biologically human does not give me special status. I am just as disposable as the fetus, in fact.
3) Because I don't regard life as being sacrosanct or intrinsically valuable, whether potential or actual.
4) Moral arguments are subjective, not objective, and therefore irrelevant. I do not care if the law does or does not codify morality. Change the law, then I will consider your argument.
5) We can talk about what tends to benefit people or society in a measurable manner. Morals and ethics cannot be measured; they cannot be experimented on in a lab and noted in moralitrons or ethicules. My own subjective personal experiences only have meaning to me; they are worthless in applying to other people.
6) I don't find overpopulation or underpopulation arguments convincing. In fact, the continued existence of the human race is irrelevant to the universe at large. The universe does not care.
7) You're not going to convince me with moral, ethical, or rhetorical arguments. I don't respond to them. Prove to me mathematically, with data, that your pro-life arguments are correct. Link to scientific papers supporting this. Until this is done, don't look to me to reply to you again. --Castaigne (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologize if it takes me a while to respond—I am invested elsewhere in my life. Moreover, I am one against three, with only one other to join me so meekly as to, in no more than a few lines of text, suggest we assimilate the “abortion arguments” page with the abortion page itself, and briefly reassert his conviction, with which I rather disagree, and wherefore, as to your position, a deadly chorus of birds may strike, in brief, animated kerfuffles, and return to the branches, disinterested and uninvolved for the time being, to attack once more by capricious, aleatoric happenstance. Fighting rather single-handedly against several persons, I have chosen to address the best objections thereby raised, and, particularly, the most concise, perspicuous statement thereof, hereinbelow. However, as I now concede, having written several pages already, I shall answer a great glut of your questions with a hypothetical melded allegory. “Periander had sent a herald to Thrasybulus and inquired in what way he would best and most safely govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander outside the town, and entered into a sown field. As he walked through the wheat, continually asking why the messenger had come to him from Cypselus, he kept cutting off all the tallest ears of wheat which he could see, and throwing them away, until he had destroyed the best and richest part of the crop. Then, after passing through the place and speaking no word of counsel, he sent the herald away. When the herald returned to Cypselus, Periander desired to hear what counsel he brought, but the man said that Thrasybulus had given him none. The herald added that it was a strange man to whom he had been sent, a madman and a destroyer of his own possessions, telling Periander what he had seen Thrasybulus do. Periander, however, understood what had been done, and perceived that Thrasybulus had counselled him to slay those of his townsmen who were outstanding in influence or ability; with that he began to deal with his citizens in an evil manner.” Just as Periander understood the cutting of the wheat, so shall you understand—or fail to understand, just as the herald —the allegory of yourself, your mother, and the doctor. But the bearer of this malignant evil shall we this time reverse—
“1a) I have not been shown evidence that life is intrinsically valuable. I have not seen that proven. I do not assume something is true absent evidence it is true.”
I find such an objection curious in that you probably assent, to the best of my capacity for inference, that we should reserve the woman the right to abortion as extension of the right to regulate her own body. This presupposes, to my estimation—and with which you may scant disagree, but as to which you must provide morally relevant distinction—a certain value assigned to freedom. As such, you must validate the value assigned to freedom, intrinsic, instrumental, or otherwise, with evidence of the purely scientific sort you demand of me. Though I do not satisfy my own burden of proof, I have demonstrated that you possess your own burden of proof, which, to my philosophical and empirical standards, has yet to incur sufficient justification, and I so state reasonably, particularly as that my work has earned the approval of persons, including my philosophy professors and one sir who attended college, solely to chase his sweetheart, and who, due to extreme talent and a perfect or near perfect on the SAT, a couple decades ago wherefore it served more strictly as an IQ test, entered Washington University, hailed as the Harvard of the Midwest, selected from an applicant pool of nearly 500 as one of eight to receive a full-ride scholarship thereto. You may reject my argument as an appeal to authority, but I do earnestly hope to have demonstrated that extremely intelligent people steeped in learnedness, familiar with virtually every philosophical theory of ethics, including antecedent meta-ethics, have arrived at the general conclusion, through such respectable ethical theories such as utilitarianism, as opposed to highly objectionable, fundamentally and irredeemably flawed theories as divine command theory, that abortion is immoral, exceptions permitted. Unless our interpretation, definition, or application of such ethical differ in some logically relevant capacity or perpetrate perhaps some other error or number of errors, we cannot be simultaneously both be correct in our general assessment of abortion as moral or immoral, exceptions permitted.
In this regard, via the numerical argument, my set of common refutations, and the final paragraph of “the equilibration of rights”, I have provided sufficient evidence to support that conviction that, while women seek abortion for a variety of reasons, these reasons rarely—and even more rarely in the US and other wealthy nations—reflect genuine concern for the welfare of the fetus. Those born to poverty, chronic hunger, or other hardship almost universally—though you might demand a citation for this radical observation, your common sense depleted, at least insofar as we concern ourselves with abortion—value their lives, EVEN IN SPITE OF SUCH HARDSHIP. Since—another radical observation which screams “citation needed!”—the innate drive to survive is so powerful, matters such as euthanasia are often particularly difficult to assess, for, even in a vegetative, painful, or disabled state, the subject may still wish to live, and yet may be incapable of communicating this desire. My great-grandma, who I loved dearly and passed away just two and a half weeks ago, loved life and the family which surrounded her—cracking jokes from her deathbed at the age of 96 just the day before she died, the last time I ever saw her. We gave her 10mg of morphine each day to ensure her death was as painless as possible, simultaneously respecting her wish to remain alive—though she verbally, intentionally, and consciously requested a “do not resuscitate” status in the event of her death, quite noticeably, she never asked for us or any medical professional to kill her, even if by the virtually painless means of morphine overdose, during even the two most miserable, final days of her life—the day before which, again, she was still cracking jokes, consciously aware, though breathing very rapidly and shallowly and, at that point, just barely conscious. The very next morning she died as her heart failed, one hand hot, the other cold, one knee swollen and purple, the other chilly pale, and even then, you could sense the relief on her face as we pet her hair, her favorite simple pleasure from the days when we would comb her hair from her wheelchair, and tickle her with a wire “octopus”.
It would have been a horrifying experience to watch my great-grandma die during the final hours of her life, profoundly disturbing to watch as a life vanished before our eyes, her most basic functions of breathe and pulse lost into a dull nothingness. I would trust you have, to the neglect of witnessing a loved one die, known a grandma or another elderly soul in a wheelchair, exhausted, senile, and apparently miserable. And yet if you ever approach such a person, leaning over, seeming dead already, so many, even in the intensive care unit, will come to life and greet you with great cheer if you pay them the respect to stop and talk. After extensive “touring”, playing my cello at nearly a dozen different old folks homes, whether for pay, or, more often, just for the fun of it, the joy, the good spirit of it all, I speak from a large base of personal experience, and rest plausibly more authoritative upon the matter of the lives of the elderly than most others you would meet hereabout. I thereby submit once more that the elderly value their lives and take joy in it, if only with the proper stimulation. Often, talking with the old folks—I lend my ears to those with much to say, and am hesitant to depart those with a message to impart—though many such attempts are just babble—the elderly will discuss their depression, but take refuge in past memories, free of the burden of old age and impending death. Such persons often live a rich, though somewhat tormented, inner life, alternating between despair of the future, and fondness of the past, and though regrets often materialize, the richness of their past life sustains them, happifies and rejuvenates their spirit. Some residents will engage in repetitive, sub-conscious behavior, with strange fidgets, often asking “help me” as you walk near them. At this point, most people, I justly imagine, do not mean to communicate their wish for you to kill them, but experience some pain, discomfort, or social need currently unmet which, to communicate, strains them. I cite this “baby’s cry” having observed the elderly satisfied when some unmet need was remediated when I talked to them, when the staff, generally knowing what “help me” really meant, and my great-grandma, despite moments of surprising clarity, which was so constant, though steadily diminishing through the age of 95, that we were able to engage in meaningful, rewarding exchanges, would resort to uttering “help me” in her weaker moments, particularly as the night wore on.
From these personal experiences, we may draw the following commentary. Namely, given my experience with the elderly, which probably exceeds your own, having given many an ear over the past couple years as a travelling cellist and visitor, it appears that even these people, among the most vulnerable in society, value their lives, to such extent as that I have never, for all the despair, heard one elderly person ask myself or another to “end it all”. Although the elderly may occasionally succumb to the delusion that they are playing some game from which they seemingly cannot escape, this is more so an expression of existential despair than a request to die or be killed. Moreover, the elderly respond positively, and often intensely so, to good old-fashioned interpersonal interaction, particularly with more youthful persons, exuding vitality and plasticity, which reflects the desire to be young and energetic once more, with a life of bountiful opportunity before you, the same desire for which many of the elderly, though somewhat despondently, reflect upon of even regress to warm, fond memories. Regrets may persist, but the warmth of recalling past loved ones, the idealism of youth, the bounding vitality, and memories of past homes, neighbors, friends, and environs, introduces a great deal of sentimentality and happiness which overrides the regret that the grandeur of their former life has passed, that they are left only fond memories of what once was.
The similarity between the struggles and despair of the elderly and the hardships and poverty which await the unborn lies in that both represent afflictions through which people daily trudge, and against which, even in cases of extreme adversity, people daily fight, even if only to survive by the narrowest of margins. Even the atrocities which befell the Jews, political dissidents, homosexuals, gypsies, and other undesirables in the Nazi Holocaust, such persons persevered through all odds—only a few, on the brink of death, in utter hopelessness, approached the barbed wire fences to be shot from the scaffolds that SS guards may shoot them and their suffering be no more. Look up the pictures, the starvation, deprivation, and inhumanity of it all, gaze upon it horrified by humanity disgraced, and tell me that, if people, by the hundreds of thousands, would endure such brutality, that millions would endure until they dropped dead, or died upon a frosty night, cold and alone, surrounded by other cold, lonely bodies, that the will to survive is not among the strongest forces of nature—demand a citation; I dare you. Even if a being would suffer terrifically, in the concentration camps, aboard a ship trapped in the doldrums, that, even against starvation to the point of death, eating the unpalatable hide of filthy shoes, clothing, and corks, even with the potential to willfully choose death over a life so miserable—for could not the seaman asked one among his crew to decapitate his head with the decisive downward stroke of a cutlass?—or of the elderly to ask for overdose upon morphine, as my great-uncle killed my grandpa in the final throes of life wretched from cancers grown fatal, without ever the consent of my grandpa—, that being, almost invariably, would value its life so highly that even under conditions of protracted torment, such beings would not forsake it, leaving themselves to die a variety of hideous deaths instead.
Moreover, such life-negating conditions are rare even in the slums of India and the rural subsistence communities of Africa. Tribesmen who live in yurts, hovels, or straw huts in extreme poverty with no more than could fit in a couple suitcases would almost certainly fail to relinquish their lives simply because of under-nutrition and lack of material possessions, and in fact, many people living in extreme poverty enjoy, amid such strife as poverty and even parental abuse, great joys and happiness, at communal festivals and during celebrations, reveling in feasts, the beat of drums, dancing, elaborate headdresses, and ceremonies millennia old. To deny the richness and vitality even the poorest third of humanity enjoys I find tantamount to rejecting the richness and diversity of the human condition, and, to such extent, imposes a most iniquitous inhumanity to the realm of human culture and experience.
Perhaps such denial stems from the materialistic prosperity emphasized by consumerist society. While we cannot categorically reject the material, nor deny its role in happiness, for we all need food and our children toys, alongside intellectual and emotional outlets, we overemphasize both the need of and the satisfaction derived from ever increasing levels of material prosperity. In fact, beyond annual salaries of $100,000 or more, the no statistically significant relationship between income, attendant material prosperity, and happiness has been found. In fact, above and beyond such salaries, overall life satisfaction stabilizes around 80%, if I remember correctly, and may even drop one or two percentage points toward the rightmost end of the spectrum. I posit that the strife surrounding “material deprivation” in the US—dubiously quoted, given that the material wealth of our poorest citizens, living in crumbling projects, with electricity and clean, running water from a municipal supply, enjoy vastly better living conditions that one who must trudge three miles twice a day for dirty water, without adequate housing, and almost certainly without electricity—, results from the glaring economic inequality, whereby the bottom 80% of Americans control but 7% of this nation’s wealth, and the top 1%, more than 40%, especially wherefore these people are constantly marginalized by society and the wealthy, to such extent that many are evicted from the projects on an unknown exodus so such units may be converted to posh housing in “trendy” neighborhoods for the rich and ultra-rich, particularly wherefore local schools and businesses have been closed, and the local police force disbanded, to make life, once tenable, highly undesirable in these areas. Beyond this process of deprivation, marginalization, and gentrification, it quite invariably remains the case that inner city slums exist alongside wealthy neighborhoods and gated communities, evidenced if you have ever driven through a major metropolitan area, soothed by stately avenues of oak trees surrounding lavish Victorian homes, and besieged the next block with graffiti, violent crime, boarded up windows, broken-down cars, broken bottles, and other rubbish lining the filthy, offal-laden streets. Living in such close proximity to the, by comparison, ultra-wealthy, in lives riddled with bills and the stresses of crime, drugs, and shady, untrustworthy people, while the wealthy live lives of such ease and breezy nonchalance, certainly reinforces a certain distrust, envy, or even hatred of the wealthy. If common sense fails yet again to betray this apparent reality, do ask for citations, since I for once find the social repercussions of extreme inequality within extreme proximity handsomely captivating, despite the morbidity inherent to orgiastic wealth against a backdrop of relative or even extreme poverty.
From the elderly, to the victims of the holocaust, to the African village and the inner city slums, I derive the conclusion that people, even those forced to cope with less than desirable circumstances, extreme privation, or even the worst atrocities, tend to value their lives so highly they would not forsake themselves to death before starvation cements their demise, as it and related conditions killed my great-grandma, scarcely 60 pounds upon death—I miss her—she was so lovely, so kind and always equipped with her quirky sense of humor, knowing just how to scratch your back for just one titillating, tantalizing moment. My sentiments aside, I believe it that people value their lives in that they are willing to endure miserable ones, even if we cannot articulate almost certainly the most profound and deeply-nestled of drives, the drive to survive. If people did not value their lives, why then would relatively few march from their crowded, cold, defecated bunks to their prompt death, shot down by SS guards? While many ran to the fences in attempt to win back their freedom, the extreme stress so maddened them like the elephant who finally rebelled, so terribly abused that he overcomes his gentle, understanding, and altruistic nature to deliberately crush the skulls of his callous, inhumane trainers and bystanders in a rampage after years of tyrannical abuse and silent plight. Otherwise, the majority of people refuse to abandon life, even a miserable one. It is precisely because humans and other beings seek so profoundly to preserve their lives even in the face of extreme adversity that I, and a great many ethicists, choose deem life as an intrinsic good and right. This attribution is neither inviolable, nor absolute. Rather, it represents claims to life of increasing strength, from insentient life, such as trees, which engage in self-preserving processes, to conscious behavior reflecting strong valuation of life, as in dogs and octopi, to rational appreciation of life and an abstraction thereof, degrees between and within each step along this fluid “hierarchy”. We may impose certain criteria for “personhood” and induct animals such dolphins, elephants, and chimpanzees as more or less persons, with depreciating value placed on the “rights” of ever less complex beings who satisfy the criteria of “personhood” to ever lesser extent. This is why no reasonable right to life activist will ever proclaim that a bacterium, virus, or even tree possesses a right to life, since the claims to this right are so weak, let alone declare that the right to life is equal between all human beings or beings in general. But we should recognize that other people, even the unborn, possess a strong claim to life, or the “right to life” for reasons discussed below.
Let’s assume that you are on life support in a coma after a near fatal car accident. You are relatively young, and otherwise in decent health. The doctor informs your mother that you have a 60% chance of surviving, but that you likely will not awaken for nine more months, striding away hurriedly. For whatever reason, your health insurance won’t cover the cost of your bills, and the hospital is so misanthropic that they will not keep you on life support much longer without payment in advance for a month of life-saving medical intervention. Due to the criticality and delicacy of your predicament, it would be impossible to transport you elsewhere without seriously jeopardizing your life—you would probably die if your mother chose to wheel you away by ambulance and hook your body to drastically inferior equipment—the present equipment represents a multi-million dollar investment in cutting-edge, state-of-the-art equipment found nowhere else in the world, and which should not reach the general market for another year or three. We may reasonably assume therefore that any attempt to disconnect you from this miraculous machine and reconnect you to vastly inferior equipment would result in your death, 97% of the time, plus or minus 2%.Your mother is faced with the dilemma of whether to pay a thousand dollars a month to sustain you, or allow doctors to pull the plug, guaranteeing your death. Your mother flips a coin—heads, she pays your bills and you stay on life support, tails, she does not pay for your bills and doctors remove you from life support. She, however, puts the dilemma in terms more meaningful to her—heads, I do the best to provide for my son, even though it may be difficult, perhaps too difficult—tails, I do not pay for my son—I feel as though I cannot support him. Holding her breath in utter anxiety, she flips the coin. Heads. She wonders whether she should obey the results of this coin toss, resolving to accept her responsibility for your life—you have no one else to help you, everyone else is too poor, apathetic, or even “misanthropic” to support your cause—your return, readjustment, and rehabilitation to life.
The doctor soon reappears to inform your mother, that, on further review of your case, if you survive this vulnerable state, from which you should emerge in several months, unless you die beforehand, your mother will need to spend a thousand dollars a month for roughly twenty years on further medical services to rehabilitate you, and that the first few years will be the most difficult. The doctor refrains, reading the disbelief, the brokenness, and the deep confliction on your mother’s face, and consoles her, telling her “the first few years will be the most difficult, but as he becomes increasingly autonomous, each year shall grow successively easier to care for him. His personality will become ever more distinct and you recognize him ever more distinctly—he will regain his identity, and remain the same person you have always known. I would be very worried over the next weeks—this is the most dangerous time in his recovery. But if he survives this critical period, you will probably have your son back. You will need to care for him, yes, but you will have your son back.” The doctor strides away once more. The mother, deeply divided and emotionally distressed, feeling helpless, decides to flip the coin once more, as if to charm her bewitched predicament, her ethical dilemma. She flips it, but drops it. It rolls under a chair, and she bothers to recover it. She pockets the coin and walks away. “I can’t be a mother, I can’t provide for him”, she thinks, tearful but resolved. Heads.
Three weeks later, the doctor, sympathetic to the man whose mother abandoned him, exhausts his last lifeline—the collection agency will no longer grant his requests to extend the payment deadline. Ledger lines now recording a loss of $800, the doctor tries ever more desperately to contact the mother of this abandoned man—but he knows just as well as the collection agency that the mother has rescinded her responsibility, and has refused all further contact. Pulling an inventory on records, the collection agency also knows that he lied for a full week , claiming he was in contact with the mother, and that she had agreed to pay—she just needed to gather the money. “Damn”, thought the doctor, “I should have covered my tracks… but then again, what more can I do? The mother still has guardian rights, and she won’t renounce them. I called her once, telling her that I would pay for the bill, but she refused, because she had resolved against this. She couldn’t stand to see him if he survived. I told her he could live with me, but she still refused… damn law! She preserves guardian rights until he gets out of the coma! And it looks like he’s going to pull through! Damn woman! She won’t even let me give her the money! And I still can’t reach her! I am running out of time, and she has apparently left the state… we don’t even know which state she’s in!” Swiveling around in angry gusto, the doctor leaves home with volancy. As he drives home in the dark, he darkly reflects “this mother abandoned her child, ignored all attempts to save him, and, if I can’t reach her and eke that god-awful permission from her, he will die because of her negligence! Even when I told her repeatedly my wife and I would support him and cover all expenses!”
11:59 p.m. Facing your body, but averting his gaze elsewhere in some distress, he waits for a last-minute call from your mother, an audio recorder ready—for weeks, he has tried to reach your mother. “If only I could get her consent! I could pay for the bills, and I would even pay twice the bills worth to save this man’s life! Damn collection agency… good enough to pull the plug, but too good to let me pay the bill—‘she could sue’. Bullshit! I don’t care if she sues for a million dollars—these bastards deserve to pay for pulling the plug on so many other people. But not on my watch! Not in my unit! Not on my floor!” The doctor begins to feel more nervous as the clock continues to tick—12 midnight is the deadline. For all his adamant internal dialogue, he begins to despair, as the unreal reality of death approaches this man. He fidgets. “If only I could weasel from this bitch permission to pay… I’ve called from nearly a dozen different phones, and left her twice as many messages… perhaps I have been harassing her, but I will not defend her behavior. And I’ve tried everything to track her down, but the police department is partial to her—won’t tell me anything about her credit card transactions or her cellphone number… they know her number, and can access the credit information… can’t violate her right to privacy but she can kill her child! ” He hears shuffling from down the hall. “This is it. She has to call now, I have to record her permission, I have to show the janitor, I have to get it to the collection office tomorrow morning…” Bill the janitor knocks on the door—the hospital has assigned him tonight to the regrettable but legally ordained task of pulling the cord. The doctor swivels and greets him catatonically—he’s invested himself emotionally in this case—it will be the first person killed on his watch who would probably survive. “Bill was always so friendly… why does he have to do something so cruel?”
12:03 a.m. No call. Nothing in the outlet. You gurgle to death.
Who killed you?
--Animalian (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not bothering to read this drivel. Again, I repeat: Prove to me mathematically, with data, that your pro-life arguments are correct. Link to scientific papers supporting this. Until this is done, don't look to me to reply to you again. --Castaigne (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You're being needlessly antagonistic to them. We can intuit that there are ethical frameworks where abortion is "wrong", and that already feeds into every pro-choice person's understanding of the issue. He doesn't need to construct "mathematically" that it's wrong. It would help if he could articulate why a fetus' right to life would overshadow a human mother's right for self determination of her body. It would help if he could understand and articulate how that comes from specific ethical frameworks that lack universality, and thus shouldn't necessarily have the force of law behind them. There's a lot here, and the biggest problem is that Animalian is attacking this from the perspective that we don't understand why abortion might be morally objectionable to some people. Ikanreed (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not being needlessly antagonistic. He doesn't listen. This is how I treat people who don't listen. He's not going to understand, and so he's not going to articulate, and I refuse to waste time responding conscientiously to I-just-took-my-first-ethics-course blather. And frankly, I'm being kinder than I usually am about it. In fact, I am kinder about such things on RW out of respect for RW; elsewhere, I would already be gearing up to make the kid's life a living hell. So I'll just keep doing what I do, thanks. :) --Castaigne (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(Restarting indentation--nine is too many.) Castaigne, read the second and third paragraphs. It can't take you but a minute, nor the entire piece much more than seven, for which, having spent more than half-an-hour reading the various wiki pages related to abortion, several pro-choice essays, and numerous editorials, I find you utterly unreasonable in simply crying "length" rather than having the fortitude and integrity to actually read it rather than dismiss it categorically, preemptively, or even rashly, as I so believe the case to be, similar to how, insofar as insularity, close-mindedness, self-preservation, and irrational tactics are concerned, religious fundamentalists become intensely emotional, despiteous, angry, and broken wherefore you have destroyed the last grossly unfounded argument in favor of their presuppositions by a) threatening to call the cops because of their grave misfortune that somebody more intelligent and knowledgeable than them decided to refute their arguments (perhaps because they were proselytizing their religion at a college, where students come to learn and exercise critical thinking skills, not have them corrupted and permanently disfigured by religion), b) "I am entitled to my opinion and you to your opinion even though you believe in science and I believe in a timeless spaceless being who resides beyond creation who can never be tested, measured, or verified by any means to any extent whatsoever, and whose interaction with the physical universe is an absolute impossibility, and even though god, because my theology, through revisionism and “purification”, has systematically and deliberately pushed him into the realm of unprovability, is, as a timeless spaceless being who resides beyond all creation and who can therefore never be tested, measured, or verified by any means to any extent whatsoever and whose interaction with the physical universe is an absolute impossibility, technically unprovable, I will continue asserting as absolute truth that which cannot possibly be known, while you scientismists be damned for asserting things which are evidently true through scientismistivism!”, c) “People died for my right to believe bullshit, but for whatever reason, not your right to criticize my bullshit beliefs! Can’t you see? They died for my freedom of speech, not yours!”, d) social rejection, bullying, and beating, or e) any combination of the above (I have scored all five in one sitting!). I will corral you precisely as I corral the religious, in that, you must, at the very least, bother to expose yourself to my position, especially since its presentation, lexicon, and phrases are unique and may contain further novelty as of which you have never seen before. Declaring seven minutes of reading unreasonable, dismissing ideas solely on the length of their presentation—why bother to read 200-page books? Too long to read?—is itself unreasonable. Go back and actually examine what I wrote, because decrying “length” does nothing to counter my arguments, just as “it’s my opinion” does nothing to strengthen religious belief, nor weaken secular belief.
Naturally, I have much more to sufficiently counter, and I informed you that it shall take a while to so do. But I have rendered many of these refutations, their forerunners, in my above allegory, which is only two pages long and beings at "let's assume..." Next, I note that I am one against many--though one among you by some grace has become more reasonable, and whose reasonableness I deeply appreciate--and I have only countered 1a) of your objections. Further objections will be far shorter, since I have already laid the philosophical, hypothetical, and allegorical framework in which to assess particular instances of abortion, whether in my seven page refutation above, or scattered about in my essays--which have yet to appear in the abortion section--perhaps I need to redirect them...--but which you may find under my contributions. I would also note that last I checked, no one commented on any of these essays--though one is more so an essay than the others--let alone on my "utilitarian argument" against abortion. Lastly, I note that I shall provide an allegory analysis for dummies, which simplifies and condenses the content while exploring meaning and connections even an extremely intelligent person may have missed.--Animalian (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I lost what I just wrote. Instead of spending another 20 minutes retyping it, I will just reiterate that you can actually edit rather than toss out arguments entirely. Weaseloid, those aren't non-sequiturs. They follow from the thrust of current statistics, evolutionary theory, and the maternal bond. It is drastically more difficult to dispose of a child to whom you have given birth. (Even the mother who instigated Roe v. Wade cared for her child, and to this day renounces abortion as an ethically sound decision in the majority of cases.) We need more data, we need more research--since you aren't the one making the claims, it falls on me. But you can actually edit arguments rather than completely remove them. I make valid points, and you completely shield everyone else with them because you like to nitpick over points which matter far less than the right to life, than killing children. I have to resort to more practical considerations because, as with meat-eating, convincing people that forcing animals to live and die in horrid conditions isn't enough for them to make an ethically informed choice, but requires beleaguering them with information about just how terrible meat-eating is for the environment and the rest of humanity.--Animalian (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, they'd be better if they were framed from which ethical framework you think is validating it. For most rationalists that comes to one that is fundamentally humanistic and centered on the core traits that drive that make people persons, which is how the present tone of the article got to where it is. Ikanreed (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ikanreed, I appreciate your reasonableness. Though I was greatly delayed by writing more than thirty pages of refutations just to get pro-life arguments on the pro-life page, I did succeed in writing an overview of the right to life, meaning that I have assessed abortion from the standpoint of rights and law, which we intend to derive, in the US, at least, from the bill of rights--notice how rights are even in the name! It goes without saying--except for people like Castaigne--that rights are central to our law, and that we must justly equilibrate them. I argue, to further extent in my "utilitarian argument", that the scales of justice are not properly calibrated, for which we regularly allow women to override the right to life of her own child with, in the vast majority of cases, insufficient justification. The defense and attack of abortion within these theoretical frameworks, traditional rights-based deontology or some variant thereof, and utilitarianism, has been greatly delayed for I have had to defend my ideas at great length against an unreasonable troll. His name is Castaigne. Moreover, I am now in contact with Pro-life Humanists, who have asked me to submit my essays, for which I feel finally acknowledged, understood, and greatly relieved. They warned me not to debate here, since the people who control and "manage" these pages are unreasonable. "You won't get past the gate-keepers in leadership and cannot expect to change their minds (most of them are not freethinkers, they're opinionated individuals who are steadfast and dogmatic in their beliefs) but you do have a chance at reaching everyone else."--Animalian (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

Animalian, you are making arguments that exceedingly biased to a particular strict moral/ethical view towards the "sanctity of life" that is not provable. Stahp. --Castaigne (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Castaigne, you have dug yourself quite a grave. You will have to defend your belief that morality is non-existent in my the comment section I left below. Now, you can't defend your belief like religious fucktards, so you are going to have to actually consider my fundamental argument, address my fundamental argument, accurately restate it, and deftly refute it. Simple nitpicking at some lines you don't like WON'T work. It is about the WHOLE.--Animalian (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You ninny, I haven't said that morality is non-existent. I've said that morality is completely subjective. This is why everyone has a different morality; they are all seeing it from a personal POV. Yes, socio-cultural interactions create a shared morality in generalities across ethnic, cultural, and religious groupings, but that's not an objective, i.e. skeptical viewpoint. Arguments are irrelevant. All that matters is empirical evidence and data. --Castaigne (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And what does the evidence say about the essentiality of morality to human thought, meaning, and society? That anti-social tendencies and psychopathy tend to erode society? You keep telling me
It doesn't say anything, nor do I accept "essentiality of morality to human thought, meaning, and society" as being an automatic axiom. Sorry. Also, my general response would be "essentiality of WHICH morality?" Accordance to our Lord God Cthulhu, it is moral for mankind to become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and reveling in joy. Well, joy for SOME. Everyone has a different POV on what that is too. --Castaigne (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I am saving ALL my work so I can restore it against the revisionist attitude on this website, and receiving advice from my professor on how to nail you to the cross for your reprehensible worldview. --Animalian (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I honestly do not care about your opinion on my worldview. You go right ahead and discuss it with your professor.
Also, I recommend you read up on what we're about here at RW. Your arguments belong in the Essay or Debate categories, not here on the article page. Essays and debates are for you philosophical maundering. --Castaigne (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Numerical Argument[edit]

Moved to Essay: The Numerical Argument. --Castaigne (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Animalian: I wish you'd stop calling it "the numerical argument". What you're saying is "A significant amount of the aborted fetuses would've resulted in non-miscarriage births if they hadn't been aborted." The exact numbers don't matter, really. Also, I'd add that this is a very uncontroversial statement. What's more controversial is your implication that this uncontroversial factoid necessarily dictates that abortion needs to be strictly justified. Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but you won't convince a pro-choicer with this 'argument'. (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The need for pro-life arguments on a pro-life page[edit]

There can absolutely be alternate viewpoints...but not on the actual article, a-la Balance fallacy. Have you tried making your own essay? Maybe a debate page? Sandbox version of how you think it should look, for people to comment on as they care to? All of these are a much better course of action than whining about your "work" being deleted. So yes. You're wrong. Trick (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
As to the balance fallacy--we are neither debating evolution and creationism, nor am I a creationist who perpetrates the balance fallacy, wherefore that with no empirical evidence whatsoever shall be affirmed in the classroom as equal in merit to evolutionary theory, with a fossil record now so rich to match it paleontologists often no longer know where to draw the line between a species and its immediate precursors. Moreover, since abortion is a heated, divisive debate, even in academia--Peter Singer, on the one hand, advocating for the choice to kill newborn infants out of respect for the parents "preference utility", and Tom Regan, on the other hand, disaffirming abortion on the grounds it violates the rights of the unborn--it is reasonable to suppose that our debates on rationalwiki will be likewise divided, various positions outlined, attacked, and defended. Presently, only the weakest pro-life arguments appear on the abortion page, and not a single one on the pro-life page. Rationalwiki members, such as yourself, actually perpetrate a REVERSE balance fallacy in that, rather than defend your beliefs against my criticisms--notice NO ONE has refuted my criticisms 1b-7, also moved to a purgatory know as "debate space" where they can all too conveniently be forgotten--you uphold these beliefs absolutely. It is as if you all assume your position is unassailable without bothering to actually prove its unassailability, even against my criticisms, which, after more than 72 hours, no one has yet refuted. I posit therefore an unscrupulous partiality. To overcome this partiality, you must actually read my work, criticize, and refute it. This is called logical argumentation, intellectual integrity, and human decency, as opposed to the revisionism, intellectual dishonesty, and denial of ignoring and systematically removing my work without so much as even reading it, let alone refuting its major points deftly.
To simplify--if you truly wish to render my position as weak and unfounded as creationist drivel, you must demonstrate its egregious inaccuracy, its logical unfoundedness--start with my refutations 1b-7. Unless or until such time, your claim that I perpetrate the balance fallacy so severely, or, at least, to comparable, objectionable extent, as a creationist advocating "equality" between creationist drivel and the maddeningly verified position of evolutionary theory, must be regarded itself as unfounded.--Animalian (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Toward the refutation of Castaigne[edit]

Yeah, if you want to argue about the subject, open a debate: namespace article. Have fun RationalWiki:Debates. If you want to change the article to present other rationalist perspectives, do so in a manner that doesn't come out as antagonistic. Ikanreed (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and if you want to actually win the argument at hand, you actually have to ARGUE, something which, after 72 hours, you and others have failed to do, especially in regard to refutations 1b-7, as to which your collective failure has been utter. Castaigne, when I finally cracked the fundaments of his belief, even rescinded his responsibility to defend his (and your) beliefs, completely abandoning the burden of proof which all you have yet to take upon yourselves to satisfy, in a purely emotional, irrational fit of rage, as you encounter whenever you shatter the last presupposition of the religious for the last time. You must refute my refutations 1b-7, do what Castaigne evidently will not, for these counter-arguments apply to ALL of you whomsoever hold pro-choice convictions. Elsewise, I win by default insofar as my refutations are concerned, as per the standard rules of formal debate, and my objections may be considered valid until demonstrated otherwise, especially since, in the more than thirty pages of refutations I have expended, I have, to my most dispassionate estimations, sufficiently satisfied my burden of proof. It is your turn to satisfy YOUR burden of proof. So far, all you have done is sit back and deny what I say. I have responded to many of your criticisms--it is your turn to respond to my own.
I apologize for being "antagonistic", in that I challenge your beliefs, possibly--and most certainly in the case of Castaigne--evoking an emotional response which clouds your thinking, a defense mechanism you, if I am correct, share with the religious, who, rather than win debates with superior logical argumentation, call the cops instead, after you have shattered their last presupposition for the last time, because people died for their right to believe bullshit, but not my right to criticize bullshit. I do, however, admit the disdain which often enjoins my writing, a certain contempt. But ad hominem remarks or even attacks upon the traits I perpetrate in my writing shall never in themselves overcome the arguments I have composed. To so destroy, systematically dismantle, and eviscerate my arguments, you must must actually argue and argue deftly. Start with refutations 1b-7, to be systematic and to ensure you (and others) actually address my arguments without overlooking them, unintentionally or otherwise. Do as I have done, argue, and defend your position. It is your turn, and I am merely reminding you of it.--Animalian (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)