[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fixed to answer your little question.

So your problem is not with the legalisation of abortion but with the quality of regulation?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Baby Joseph comes to mind.
Who has right to tell Baby Joseph to die? - HealthPop - CBS News

Holy fnck, we went over this months ago. Now you wanna dredge it up again with the same misrepresentations as last time? Baby Joseph isn't being euthanized. Removing life support is already legal, euthanization isn't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So your problem is not with the legalisation of abortion but with the quality of regulation?

For starters, yes. I've long-maintained that we've gone too far down the road of legalized abortion for an outright ban over night. Like most others who are shrewd in their opposition to a policy, would seek to challenge it piece by piece.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For starters, yes. I've long-maintained that we've gone too far down the road of legalized abortion for an outright ban over night. Like most others who are shrewd in their opposition to a policy, would seek to challenge it piece by piece.

Despite the snide remarks about the 3d image I posted, sonograms are one of the best tools. This is why PPFA and other groups are fighting states who want to require sonogram reviews before an abortion can take place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Despite the snide remarks about the 3d image I posted, sonograms are one of the best tools. This is why PPFA and other groups are fighting states who want to require sonogram reviews before an abortion can take place.

Sonogram combined with our individual gut feelings? Do you think that the government should be making these choices for us?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Nearly all medical interventions have side effects. This changes nothing.

You said and reiterated "negate". I'm likely being too literal here, but yeah... actions -->consequences -->living with it.

It is the patient's right to make an informed decision whether the side effects out-weigh the therapeutic effects if and only if the treatment causes no harm to another. So again, the only question at issue is whether the fetus is a person or not.

Absolutely. I completely agree that the crux of the debate is whether or not the fetus is a person, but there's a long continuum of judgments and justifications for the view along the way. In other words there are many fronts to the debate that are more or less successful and/or mishandled easily. Too much focus on one front leaves the other vulnerable, that's all I was trying to say with that.

No, calling it "anti-women" is just as big a misdirection as calling it "anti-fornicator." If the fetus is a person, it's no more "anti-women" than the murder law is "anti-murderer" or the drunk driving law is "anti-drinker." However if the fetus is not a person, then to outlaw abortion is akin to holding the rights of house-pets above the rights of women; even though we might love a house-pet, and even though the law prevents cruelty to house-pets, we can kill them for pretty much any reason we want under medically controlled conditions.

I agree with your analysis Uncle, but IMO "anti-woman" has still been an effective indictment regardless of validity. Unfortunately too many Pro-Lifers may feed this perception unwittingly with the fronts of debate they've chosen and I'd submit the discussions in this thread as evidence of that perception problem. I may have selfishly, in part, used your posts as a means of trying to represent. **

In both these side-angles, the decision follows the personhood question 100%, and the side-angle holds no weight at all.

Ultimately, I agree with you, but in the court of public opinion there are many fronts of a view to open and/or defend.

It's a fair point, and like I said the whole "anti-women" framing is inaccurate (though wildly successful in convincing women who have never had an abortion). But I still want to emphasize that this makes no difference if the fetus is not a person. If the only down-sides to abortion are the medical side-effects, then if men want to "protect their own sexual freedoms" it is not a problem, any more than supporting HIV research for the purpose of sexual freedom is a problem (HIV treatments also have side-effects of course).

See above **

*cough* war on drugs *cough*

Unless surrender = progress, I'm not sure what you mean here.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Despite the snide remarks about the 3d image I posted, sonograms are one of the best tools. This is why PPFA and other groups are fighting states who want to require sonogram reviews before an abortion can take place.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sonogram combined with our individual gut feelings? Do you think that the government should be making these choices for us?

How is requiring a sonogram/ultrasound "The government making choices?"
There are very few abortionist that will perform an abortion past the 2nd trimester. Are they making choices for us by not performing 3rd trimester abortions?
This clinic stops at 17.6 weeks
Fee Schedule

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You said and reiterated "negate". I'm likely being too literal here, but yeah... actions -->consequences -->living with it.

I know you don't believe that, because if you did then you would think stupendousman's point was in support of the pro-choice status quo.

Absolutely. I completely agree that the crux of the debate is whether or not the fetus is a person, but there's a long continuum of judgments and justifications for the view along the way. In other words there are many fronts to the debate that are more or less successful and/or mishandled easily. Too much focus on one front leaves the other vulnerable, that's all I was trying to say with that.

All these other "fronts" are false rationalizations, that topple with the slightest (honest) scrutiny. Like you, I have something of an ulterior purpose for posting, and it is to request that both sides out-grow these extraneous secondary "fronts," as all they do is give people from both sides an excuse to dig in their heels, an outcome that benefits no one. There is only one meaningful "front," the question of personhood, and anything that distracts from this question is a step backwards.

I agree with your analysis Uncle, but IMO "anti-woman" has still been an effective indictment regardless of validity. Unfortunately too many Pro-Lifers may feed this perception unwittingly with the fronts of debate they've chosen and I'd submit the discussions in this thread as evidence of that perception problem. I may have selfishly, in part, used your posts as a means of trying to represent. **

I can understand how you might want to fight fire with fire (fight false rationalizations with other false rationalizations), but on the other hand consider that this hasn't been working too effectively for the last 38 years. Any effort spent towards deadlock only prolongs the status quo, and since the status quo is against you I would think you would want to avoid this strategy. The sooner you can steer the debate towards the real question (personhood), the sooner you have a chance for change.

Ultimately, I agree with you, but in the court of public opinion there are many fronts of a view to open and/or defend.

The court of public opinion is subordinate to facts. Factually, these extraneous fronts are totally bogus.

Unless surrender = progress, I'm not sure what you mean here.

What I mean is that hoping to convince people by making it illegal is folly, as seen in the comically unsuccessful war on drugs. The law must follow morality, not vice versa.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What I mean is that hoping to convince people by making it illegal is folly, as seen in the comically unsuccessful war on drugs. The law must follow morality, not vice versa.

This is not entirely correct. There are lots of people who are (very) anti-drug simply because they are illegal. It should be correct though, and I think with respect to abortion it probably is. Not sure how much morality really comes into it though, the highest abortion rates have always been amongst catholics before and after RvW.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know you don't believe that, because if you did then you would think stupendousman's point was in support of the pro-choice status quo.

Of course I do believe that actions have consequences and they can't simply be negated by medical intervention or otherwise.

All these other "fronts" are false rationalizations, that topple with the slightest (honest) scrutiny. Like you, I have something of an ulterior purpose for posting, and it is to request that both sides out-grow these extraneous secondary "fronts," as all they do is give people from both sides an excuse to dig in their heels, an outcome that benefits no one. There is only one meaningful "front," the question of personhood, and anything that distracts from this question is a step backwards.

I can understand how you might want to fight fire with fire (fight false rationalizations with other false rationalizations), but on the other hand consider that this hasn't been working too effectively for the last 38 years. Any effort spent towards deadlock only prolongs the status quo, and since the status quo is against you I would think you would want to avoid this strategy. The sooner you can steer the debate towards the real question (personhood), the sooner you have a chance for change.

The unfortunate reality is that a rigid adherence to your principle would have people merely sit and wait on others' personal experiences with sonograms for example or someone like me to pop up and convince them of the numerous side-affects of the status quo medical intervention. The crux of the debate has existed for more than 38 years because it is irreconcilable and it is the long continuum of judgements and justifications that solidify or breakdown one's presupposition about the crux of the debate. There are means of hurting each point along that continuum until the presupposition breaks down. I'm not certain I've been wholly ineffective in that.

The court of public opinion is subordinate to facts. Factually, these extraneous fronts are totally bogus.

Facts have not granted an answer yay or nay with regard to personhood. People rely on their presuppositions and employ a long continuum of judgements and justifications to affirm or breakdown their presupposition, often experiential. Some people might swear up and down that abortion is terrible until they find themselves in a position where it would serve them to encourage one. Others may believe abortion is perfectly acceptable until they see the procedure or hear the facts of its side-effects or they see a fetus at the previously acceptable aborted age. These are all factors along the continuum of judgements and justifications.

What I mean is that hoping to convince people by making it illegal is folly, as seen in the comically unsuccessful war on drugs. The law must follow morality, not vice versa.

Like I said to mckenna, I agree with this as we've gone too far down the road of legalized abortion for an overnight ban. Any shrewd opponent of a measure will seek to pick it apart piece by piece. Why? Because the crux of the debate is irreconcilable contingent upon factors that rely more on what one believes they need (often experiential) over whether or not a life is truly at stake. My only point in this was to illustrate that it's not okay just because it is legal.

[Chongo]

There's a saying:
"America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course I do believe that actions have consequences and they can't simply be negated by medical intervention or otherwise.

Did you even read stupendousman's post?

The unfortunate reality is that a rigid adherence to your principle would have people merely sit and wait on others' personal experiences with sonograms for example or someone like me to pop up and convince them of the numerous side-affects of the status quo medical intervention. The crux of the debate has existed for more than 38 years because it is irreconcilable and it is the long continuum of judgements and justifications that solidify or breakdown one's presupposition about the crux of the debate. There are means of hurting each point along that continuum until the presupposition breaks down. I'm not certain I've been wholly ineffective in that.

Your "continuum" in truth is a straw man, or rather an army of them. None of the points on your continuum are logically sound, yet the appearance of you thrashing dozens of straw opponents eventually tires your audience's intellect and they submit to you. After all, the straw-man fallacy is so common because it works, it's convincing. The problem with using a straw-man instead of actual logic, is that the pro-choice enthusiasts are using it too, so you're just trading pawns ad nauseam. As I said before, deadlock. To someone who favors the status quo, this is a satisfactory outcome.

Facts have not granted an answer yay or nay with regard to personhood.

Except that we don't have nearly as much trouble with these facts when it comes to death. Heartbeat and brain function, these can certainly be determined factually.

Like I said to mckenna, I agree with this as we've gone too far down the road of legalized abortion for an overnight ban. Any shrewd opponent of a measure will seek to pick it apart piece by piece. Why? Because the crux of the debate is irreconcilable contingent upon factors that rely more on what one believes they need (often experiential) over whether or not a life is truly at stake. My only point in this was to illustrate that it's not okay just because it is legal.

I don't see what you're referencing, or suggesting. To me the obvious step-wise strategy would be to move the various deadlines earlier in the pregnancy, and adding a late-term deadline after which the only abortions must satisfy the same self-defense standard used for homicide. Why invent a continuum of discrete targets (regulation, ultra-sounds, etc) when there is already a natural continuum (time) on which your ultimate goal (the point of conception) already lies? Is it because that would be too straightforward, and your tactic is to cloud the true issue as much as possible? I'm not being accusatory, because as I said many times this strategy will only lead to deadlock and the furtherance of the status quo, which is fine by me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There are lots of people who are (very) anti-drug simply because they are illegal.

Source?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There's a saying:
"America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion"

If it's not being done to people, it's no different than a mastectomy, cremation, slaughterhouse, pet euthanasia, Real Girl® slumber party, or any number of arguably "gruesome" scenes that are A-Ok, even though they are done on things that bleed, are loved, have human DNA, or have human form. Anything goes, on non-persons, so long as it has a purpose other than cruelty. And nothing goes, on persons, unless it is self-defense. That's why the question is whether it is a person, and nothing else matters.

[Chongo]

It went from "when does life begin?' to "when does personhood begin?" What will it be moved to next? The ability to fend for him/herself?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There's a saying:
"America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion"

How about circumcision videos?

Actually, I think it's time to ban circumcision. Baby mutilation and torture.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

How about circumcision videos?

Actually, I think it's time to ban circumcision. Baby mutilation and torture.

I can post some abortion photos if allowed. 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I can post some abortion photos if allowed. 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

And compare it to blown up or burned babies in Iraq or Vietnam?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sonogram combined with our individual gut feelings? Do you think that the government should be making these choices for us?

We already have a standard for "life" we've used since before R V. W. Let's just use it. That would be the least arbitrary, morally neutral stand. Though, we should let the states decide to do so, as that's what is actually constitutionally mandated, despite the legislation from the courts.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

And compare it to blown up or burned babies in Iraq or Vietnam?

Both, the result of war.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It went from "when does life begin?' to "when does personhood begin?" What will it be moved to next? The ability to fend for him/herself?

"Life" in this context has always been short-hand for personhood. Duh, because cockroaches are alive, but no one is going to cry when they are aborted. Who are we not allowed to kill, living things or people?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Life" in this context has always been short-hand for personhood. Duh, because cockroaches are alive, but no one is going to cry when they are aborted. Who are we not allowed to kill, living things or people?

Just in case I missed it, how do you define "personhood"

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Despite the snide remarks about the 3d image I posted, sonograms are one of the best tools. This is why PPFA and other groups are fighting states who want to require sonogram reviews before an abortion can take place.

Sonograms are indeed a tool, of the pro-life movement. They provide no medically relevant information. Requiring them is a pointless waste of time and money, all because some pro-lifers "believe" it will reduce abortion. Yet another "belief" they want to jam down everyone's throat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Did you even read stupendousman's post?

He mentioned consequence-->living with it in stating that abortion is merely an unacceptable way out of the result of irresponsible sex. You accused him of tomfoolery and now you're saying that consequences-->living with it in his context = status quo of pro-choice which strikes me of the same semantical tomfoolery. In case you missed it, I am not a fan of this angle because it takes two to tango and I believe this leads to the anti-woman perception problem in this discussion. The fact remains however, actions do have consequences. With greater forethought regarding the consequences, more care could be taken up front to avoid the pregnancy dilemma. This argument is intended to serve as a reminder of just what it is we're protecting here because no matter how clouded the issue has become, the overwhelming majority of abortions stem from irresponsible sex. We likely agree however, the "consequences" argument is more a pro-life gripe than a solid argument against abortion, evidently.

Your "continuum" in truth is a straw man, or rather an army of them. None of the points on your continuum are logically sound, yet the appearance of you thrashing dozens of straw opponents eventually tires your audience's intellect and they submit to you. After all, the straw-man fallacy is so common because it works, it's convincing. The problem with using a straw-man instead of actual logic, is that the pro-choice enthusiasts are using it too, so you're just trading pawns ad nauseam. As I said before, deadlock. To someone who favors the status quo, this is a satisfactory outcome.

Hmm... let me approach this another way.
57% oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — "if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby." And opposition soars to about seven in 10 or more for so-called "partial-birth abortions" or abortions conducted in the sixth month of pregnancy or later.

I can only surmise that people question whether or not the fetus is a person contingent upon at times, arbitrary standards and timelines. The majority generally view abortion to be a negative thing for what I can only believe is a feeling that the fetus is a person, but this personhood may be more or less important to them contingent upon other factors.

• It is a person at or beyond 6 months? These are folks who might be convinced of an earlier age by a sonogram or information related to fetal development or they may go the other way entirely if it's their fetus, just made aware of its existence, in the case of a father.
• It is a person worthy of protections unless its father is a rapist or relative of the person's mother or is placing the mother in grave harm? These folks may be convinced by evidence of the rarity of these examples or that standard medical practice already defaults to saving the mother. They might be convinced by information around the impact abortions have on the health of the mother/women and see that the abortion-bad outweighs the abortion-good. While the crux of the debate is personhood, the importance of personhood varies contingent upon other factors. The above arguments comprise the strongest cases for abortion and effectively split the pro-life stance leading to Roe V Wade; entirely independent of the "personhood" conclusion. In short, majority populace opinion seems to suggest the fetus is a person, unless...

There are many fronts to the debate along a lengthy continuum of judgements and justifications either affirming the life-presupposition or breaking it down. Failure to address these judgements and justifications doesn't strike me as effective either. i.e. surrender != progress.

Except that we don't have nearly as much trouble with these facts when it comes to death. Heartbeat and brain function, these can certainly be determined factually.

Yes and death is final, absolute, and unavoidable. You can call it a no-brainer. The problem is that humankind and its thought-processes are more complex than this apparently and failure to address the multitude of factors for the "life-decision" also perpetuates the status-quo.

I don't see what you're referencing, or suggesting. To me the obvious step-wise strategy would be to move the various deadlines earlier in the pregnancy, and adding a late-term deadline after which the only abortions must satisfy the same self-defense standard used for homicide. Why invent a continuum of discrete targets (regulation, ultra-sounds, etc) when there is already a natural continuum (time) on which your ultimate goal (the point of conception) already lies? Is it because that would be too straightforward, and your tactic is to cloud the true issue as much as possible? I'm not being accusatory, because as I said many times this strategy will only lead to deadlock and the furtherance of the status quo, which is fine by me.

You're wishing pro-lifers would address the debate from a singular angle; its most irreconcilable angle. As a shrewd pro-lifer, I think the debate should be addressed from multiple angles and would challenge the pro-choice advise given here. You might say my tactics only cloud the issue, but I maintain the issue is already clouded out of the gate. I can stand on the ground and shake my fist at the clouds or I can hop a balloon of what you believe is "hot air" and meet the issue where it is. It would be much more shrewd to challenge the practice at all levels. Yes, move the various deadlines back as far as you can get them winning the necessary support for your move by appealing to sonogram technology or information on fetal development. Yes, continue to educate on the merits of responsible sex and the proper use of available protection. Yes, for younger folks encourage abstinence and educate on the risk factors involved with engaging the sexual activity and means of avoiding and declining the opportunities. Yes, enforce the laws around abortion to ensure greater compliance with legislation aimed at making the procedure "safe" to do as much good as possible now. Yes, place additional regulations on the practice to ensure more awareness of the choice being made, including the potential risk factors to your health, what it is exactly that is being removed, etc in taking steps to make the procedure truly safe, but rare. Yes, march, educate, peacefully protest, opine, discuss, convince, and be where they are both physically and philosophically.

This is a complex social issue and there is no singular argument that will address it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sonograms are indeed a tool, of the pro-life movement.

Actually, it's a tool used by the health care industry to monitor a baby's development in the womb. You can bet if there were a way to effectively utilize this technology in convincing others of the fetuses' parasitic nature, pro-choicers would be all over it. It just didn't work out that way as advancement would have it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Just in case I missed it, how do you define "personhood"

I'll answer if you agree that this is the only relevant question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He mentioned consequence-->living with it in stating that abortion is merely an unacceptable way out of the result of irresponsible sex. You accused him of tomfoolery and now you're saying that consequences-->living with it in his context = status quo of pro-choice which strikes me of the same semantical tomfoolery. In case you missed it, I am not a fan of this angle because it takes two to tango and I believe this leads to the anti-woman perception problem in this discussion. The fact remains however, actions do have consequences. With greater forethought regarding the consequences, more care could be taken up front to avoid the pregnancy dilemma. This argument is intended to serve as a reminder of just what it is we're protecting here because no matter how clouded the issue has become, the overwhelming majority of abortions stem from irresponsible sex. We likely agree however, the "consequences" argument is more a pro-life gripe than a solid argument against abortion, evidently.

Well I'll just wait for stupendousman to support his own statement then.

Hmm... let me approach this another way.
57% oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy
...
I can only surmise that people question whether or not the fetus is a person contingent upon at times, arbitrary standards and timelines.

That story also says that 57% say abortion "should be legal in all or most cases." I can only surmise that a good amount of arbitrariness comes from the polling methodology, and that 57±3% is far too close to chance, to draw conclusions using so crude a tool as this survey.

The majority generally view abortion to be a negative thing for what I can only believe is a feeling that the fetus is a person, but this personhood may be more or less important to them contingent upon other factors.

• It is a person at or beyond 6 months? These are folks who might be convinced of an earlier age by a sonogram or information related to fetal development or they may go the other way entirely if it's their fetus, just made aware of its existence, in the case of a father.
• It is a person worthy of protections unless its father is a rapist or relative of the person's mother or is placing the mother in grave harm? These folks may be convinced by evidence of the rarity of these examples or that standard medical practice already defaults to saving the mother. They might be convinced by information around the impact abortions have on the health of the mother/women and see that the abortion-bad outweighs the abortion-good. While the crux of the debate is personhood, the importance of personhood varies contingent upon other factors. The above arguments comprise the strongest cases for abortion and effectively split the pro-life stance leading to Roe V Wade; entirely independent of the "personhood" conclusion. In short, majority populace opinion seems to suggest the fetus is a person, unless...

You are confusing determining personhood with effects of personhood. For example, when you say the mother is in grave harm, then the decision to abort is not because the fetus is less person, it is because being a person is less protection. If a grown adult person was putting the woman in grave harm, she would have the right to terminate that person too, to save herself. The complexities you find reflect the fact that interactions between actual persons are complex. But these problems have already been solved, and we don't have to re-invent the wheel just because one person is in the womb.

There are many fronts to the debate along a lengthy continuum of judgements and justifications either affirming the life-presupposition or breaking it down. Failure to address these judgements and justifications doesn't strike me as effective either. i.e. surrender != progress.

Yes and death is final, absolute, and unavoidable. You can call it a no-brainer. The problem is that humankind and its thought-processes are more complex than this apparently and failure to address the multitude of factors for the "life-decision" also perpetuates the status-quo.

Yes, humans are complex, but like computers their seemingly complex problems can still be inherently simple (and this is one of them). For example, last week my hard drive was failing, but the symptoms seemed more complex. The only things affected were applesharing and Matlab. The hard drive's s.m.a.r.t. status was verified, and there were no system log errors about the hard drive. So you see, even the computer itself didn't know how simple the underlying problem was, just as survey subjects often don't realize how simple their underlying issues are. This lack of self-knowledge is precisely why techniques like the straw-man are effective, because the audience doesn't realize they are being manipulated by a simple trick.

Now about whether surrender != progress, I can consider that losing my OS installation and money (by buying a new hard drive) constitutes "surrender," and I can throw up a "continuum" of straw-man fixes for this problem which are easier to implement (anti-virus, network changes, unplugging peripherals, swapping cables, repairing permissions, removing ram modules, etc etc). But these "easier" fixes are not going to fix the hard drive, and pursuing these seemingly "easier" fixes will actually make things harder, due to the fact that they don't address the underlying problem. Your definition of "surrender" is not going to change objective reality, and while replacing the hard drive might not have counted as "progress" in your prior hopes and dreams, it is still more "progressed" than limping along on a still-broken hard drive running anti-virus software. The point is, once you learn the reality (that the hard drive is failing, or that the real question is personhood), you have to adjust your view of what "progress" is to accommodate reality. Because reality is not going to adjust itself to accommodate you.

You're wishing pro-lifers would address the debate from a singular angle; its most irreconcilable angle.

I wish both sides would debate from a singular angle yes (the only accurate angle). And if the "most irreconcilable angle" is the only correct angle, then yes I absolutely choose the "most irreconcilable angle." Even though a new hard drive might be the "most difficult" solution, if it is the one that fixes the actual problem you had better roll up your sleeves and do it anyway, or you're just wasting everyone's time.

As a shrewd pro-lifer, I think the debate should be addressed from multiple angles and would challenge the pro-choice advise given here. You might say my tactics only cloud the issue, but I maintain the issue is already clouded out of the gate. I can stand on the ground and shake my fist at the clouds or I can hop a balloon of what you believe is "hot air" and meet the issue where it is. It would be much more shrewd to challenge the practice at all levels. Yes, move the various deadlines back as far as you can get them winning the necessary support for your move by appealing to sonogram technology or information on fetal development. Yes, continue to educate on the merits of responsible sex and the proper use of available protection. Yes, for younger folks encourage abstinence and educate on the risk factors involved with engaging the sexual activity and means of avoiding and declining the opportunities. Yes, enforce the laws around abortion to ensure greater compliance with legislation aimed at making the procedure "safe" to do as much good as possible now. Yes, place additional regulations on the practice to ensure more awareness of the choice being made, including the potential risk factors to your health, what it is exactly that is being removed, etc in taking steps to make the procedure truly safe, but rare. Yes, march, educate, peacefully protest, opine, discuss, convince, and be where they are both physically and philosophically.

This paragraph reads like a technician that will follow the client through the gauntlet of anti-virus software and permissions repairs, even though you know the real problem is a failing hard drive, just so you can answer their questions and look smart.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well I'll just wait for stupendousman to support his own statement then.

Which statement are you referring to?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which statement are you referring to?

This one:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not at all. While most DO do it [put their sperm where an egg is likely to be found] , there are a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards.

Have to," eh? Ok I'll bite. Please name one thing we do that has consequences which we "have to" live with, despite a readily available remedy.

Maybe you missed it, but you never replied so I'm still waiting

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That story also says that 57% say abortion "should be legal in all or most cases." I can only surmise that a good amount of arbitrariness comes from the polling methodology, and that 57±3% is far too close to chance, to draw conclusions using so crude a tool as this survey.

You are confusing determining personhood with effects of personhood. For example, when you say the mother is in grave harm, then the decision to abort is not because the fetus is less person, it is because being a person is less protection. If a grown adult person was putting the woman in grave harm, she would have the right to terminate that person too, to save herself. The complexities you find reflect the fact that interactions between actual persons are complex. But these problems have already been solved, and we don't have to re-invent the wheel just because one person is in the womb.

Whether or not you appreciate the result of the survey is immaterial Uncle Skeleton. What the survey says, as it does just about any survey you'll see on the matter, is that people are torn with "personhood" when factors like rape, incest, and health of mother are on the table. You illustrate this below by only addressing one of the three complications to personhood. In the cases of rape and incest, the fetus is a person, but compassion for this person is weighed against compassion for the mother. When the mother's actions result in a baby, the baby gets the greater compassion. IMO, it's as simple as that.

Yes, humans are complex, but like computers their seemingly complex problems can still be inherently simple (and this is one of them). For example, last week my hard drive was failing, but the symptoms seemed more complex. The only things affected were applesharing and Matlab. The hard drive's s.m.a.r.t. status was verified, and there were no system log errors about the hard drive. So you see, even the computer itself didn't know how simple the underlying problem was, just as survey subjects often don't realize how simple their underlying issues are. This lack of self-knowledge is precisely why techniques like the straw-man are effective, because the audience doesn't realize they are being manipulated by a simple trick.

Now about whether surrender != progress, I can consider that losing my OS installation and money (by buying a new hard drive) constitutes "surrender," and I can throw up a "continuum" of straw-man fixes for this problem which are easier to implement (anti-virus, network changes, unplugging peripherals, swapping cables, repairing permissions, removing ram modules, etc etc). But these "easier" fixes are not going to fix the hard drive, and pursuing these seemingly "easier" fixes will actually make things harder, due to the fact that they don't address the underlying problem. Your definition of "surrender" is not going to change objective reality, and while replacing the hard drive might not have counted as "progress" in your prior hopes and dreams, it is still more "progressed" than limping along on a still-broken hard drive running anti-virus software. The point is, once you learn the reality (that the hard drive is failing, or that the real question is personhood), you have to adjust your view of what "progress" is to accommodate reality. Because reality is not going to adjust itself to accommodate you.

I like your analogy, but I'm going to take it a different direction to make it more applicable to the discussion. The problem here is your sonogram-equivalent technology is not effective. Sonogram monitoring technology has come farther along in its wheelhouse than the self-monitoring disk analysis in the Mac OS. Even in your analogy you realized how silly it would be to abort the hard drive without exhausting a few avenues first. In other words, no matter how simple you thought the problem was, (only known after the fact) you have to exhaust several avenues to arrive at the proper conclusion. Although in this case you wanted the hard drive and exhausted some steps prior to aborting it. The question is; is the hard drive alive or dead (personhood) and you exhausted multiple avenues to verify the answer. Why? Because the answer is often a peripheral, or corrupted preference or software or lack of proper maintenance to your machine that you must learn to address in working through the predicament. By merely aborting the hard drive without any research into the ancillary factors, you will have learned nothing other than how to reinstall another hard drive (assuming the drive housing components in the chassis weren't compromised upon pulling out the last one) and you'll likely be aborting another one within a year. Because you've learned nothing from the experience.

I wish both sides would debate from a singular angle yes (the only accurate angle). And if the "most irreconcilable angle" is the only correct angle, then yes I absolutely choose the "most irreconcilable angle." Even though a new hard drive might be the "most difficult" solution, if it is the one that fixes the actual problem you had better roll up your sleeves and do it anyway, or you're just wasting everyone's time.

If you continue aborting hard drives because of your failure to maintain your computer and you refuse to listen to those who educate you on proper care of your machinery, you'll likely be aborting more hard drives unnecessarily. Sometimes you need to roll your sleeves back down and listen up.

This paragraph reads like a technician that will follow the client through the gauntlet of anti-virus software and permissions repairs, even though you know the real problem is a failing hard drive, just so you can answer their questions and look smart.

I don't think anyone is bent on wasting others' time merely to appear smart. Their presence has become necessary to protect people from themselves, not unlike the know-it-all who is ready to throw their computer away because it's plugged into a switched outlet that is off.

[ebuddy]

• PL - The fetus is a person.
• PC - No it's not
• PL - Yes it is. Here's exhibit A, B, and C.
• PC - Even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
• PL - The fetus is a person
• PC - That's only your opinion. What about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
• PL - The fetus is a person and here's exhibit A, B, and C.
• PC - Looks like a parasite to me, but even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
• PL - Yes it is a life
• PC - Prove it
• PL - Okay, exhibit A, B, and C
• PC - Yeah, but what about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
• PL - The fetus is a person.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

[LIST][*]PL - The fetus is a person. [*]PC - No it's not[*]PL - Yes it is. Here's exhibit A, B, and C.

The failure of your analysis is your exhibits do not actually exhibit what you pretend they do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The failure of your analysis is your exhibits do not actually exhibit what you pretend they do.

Unfortunately for your analysis, they continue to do more for the pro-life argument.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Whether or not you appreciate the result of the survey is immaterial Uncle Skeleton. What the survey says, as it does just about any survey you'll see on the matter, is that people are torn with "personhood" when factors like rape, incest, and health of mother are on the table. You illustrate this below by only addressing one of the three complications to personhood. In the cases of rape and incest, the fetus is a person, but compassion for this person is weighed against compassion for the mother. When the mother's actions result in a baby, the baby gets the greater compassion. IMO, it's as simple as that.

This is how it goes whenever two people are at odds.

I like your analogy, but I'm going to take it a different direction to make it more applicable to the discussion. The problem here is your sonogram-equivalent technology is not effective. Sonogram monitoring technology has come farther along in its wheelhouse than the self-monitoring disk analysis in the Mac OS. Even in your analogy you realized how silly it would be to abort the hard drive without exhausting a few avenues first. In other words, no matter how simple you thought the problem was, (only known after the fact) you have to exhaust several avenues to arrive at the proper conclusion. Although in this case you wanted the hard drive and exhausted some steps prior to aborting it. The question is; is the hard drive alive or dead (personhood) and you exhausted multiple avenues to verify the answer. Why? Because the answer is often a peripheral, or corrupted preference or software or lack of proper maintenance to your machine that you must learn to address in working through the predicament. By merely aborting the hard drive without any research into the ancillary factors, you will have learned nothing other than how to reinstall another hard drive (assuming the drive housing components in the chassis weren't compromised upon pulling out the last one) and you'll likely be aborting another one within a year. Because you've learned nothing from the experience.

If you continue aborting hard drives because of your failure to maintain your computer and you refuse to listen to those who educate you on proper care of your machinery, you'll likely be aborting more hard drives unnecessarily. Sometimes you need to roll your sleeves back down and listen up.

Ok nice twist. But... "my chassis, my choice" If the hard drive is actually a person, then what you describe would be carnage. But if the hard drive is actually just a dumb soulless mechanism (even that the soul is the software, transferred intact to the new body?), then what harm has occurred? It is their hardware to risk, and you are free to be as conservative as you want with your own computer. I went through the trouble, and I would personally not want to have an abortion, but I would feel very wrong forcing everyone to use their computer the same way I use mine. Unless it meant a person's life was at risk, of course. So again, it all boils down to the personhood issue.

I don't think anyone is bent on wasting others' time merely to appear smart. Their presence has become necessary to protect people from themselves, not unlike the know-it-all who is ready to throw their computer away because it's plugged into a switched outlet that is off.

As is often reiterated on the topic of welfare, you can't hope to save people from themselves. From a practical standpoint, if your goal is to help them in spite of themselves, the best you can do is offer support for those that choose it, and the rest can go to hell.

PL - The fetus is a person.
PC - No it's not
PL - Yes it is. Here's exhibit A, B, and C.
PC - Even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
PL - The fetus is a person
PC - That's only your opinion. What about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
PL - The fetus is a person and here's exhibit A, B, and C.
PC - Looks like a parasite to me, but even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
PL - Yes it is a life
PC - Prove it
PL - Okay, exhibit A, B, and C
PC - Yeah, but what about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
PL - The fetus is a person.

When has that ever happened though? Yes of course, as I said many times both sides of the debate have a habit of falling back on smokescreen topics, which they think would be a short-cut or trump-card (I used to think this too). But it's very rare that either side will recognize the importance of staying on topic, and in fact I've never seen it happen (staying on topic). I'm trying my darnedest to make that happen here, and I don't think I've convinced a single person from either side yet, so I'm a little skeptical that you've ever seen it happen all spontaneous.

What are your A, B, and C anyway?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Please name one thing we do that has consequences which we "have to" live with, despite a readily available remedy.

If fail to do our jobs properly, we could kill our immediate supervisors so that no one would find out, and we could keep our jobs.

That's a situation where there is an action, potential consequences, and a readily available remedy. Though, since our culture was founded on the notion that taking life so that we won't be inconvenienced by the consequences of our chosen actions is morally wrong, we can't legally take that "available remedy."

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• PL - The fetus is a person.
• PC - No it's not
• PL - Yes it is. Here's exhibit A, B, and C.
• PC - Even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
• PL - The fetus is a person
• PC - That's only your opinion. What about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
• PL - The fetus is a person and here's exhibit A, B, and C.
• PC - Looks like a parasite to me, but even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
• PL - Yes it is a life
• PC - Prove it
• PL - Okay, exhibit A, B, and C
• PC - Yeah, but what about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
• PL - The fetus is a person.

Simple Solution

Nurtural person says to
[*]PL Person - Don't get one then[*]PC - Free to get one. Just don't talk about it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Simple Solution

Nurtural person says to
[*]PL Person - Don't get one then[*]PC - Free to get one. Just don't talk about it.

6 Entries found for "nurtural"
Nurture
nurture
nurtured
nurturer
nurturers
nurtures

ABORT!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If fail to do our jobs properly, we could kill our immediate supervisors so that no one would find out, and we could keep our jobs.

That's a situation where there is an action, potential consequences, and a readily available remedy. Though, since our culture was founded on the notion that taking life so that we won't be inconvenienced by the consequences of our chosen actions is morally wrong, we can't legally take that "available remedy."

Once again affirming my point: it hinges entirely on personhood. The reason you can't kill your supervisor is because they are a person. If the supervisor was a machine or animal, you could terminate them at will (assuming no complication from someone else owning the supervisor, which doesn't apply to abortion).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

6 Entries found for "nurtural"
Nurture
nurture
nurtured
nurturer
nurturers
nurtures

ABORT!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Once again affirming my point: it hinges entirely on personhood. The reason you can't kill your supervisor is because they are a person. If the supervisor was a machine or animal, you could terminate them at will (assuming no complication from someone else owning the supervisor, which doesn't apply to abortion).

I've had supervisors that were inhuman and had no personality.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I've had supervisors that were inhuman and had no personality.

Then you missed your chance for a free kill

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• PL - The fetus is a person.
• PC - No it's not
• PL - Yes it is. Here's exhibit A, B, and C.
• PC - Even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
• PL - The fetus is a person
• PC - That's only your opinion. What about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
• PL - The fetus is a person and here's exhibit A, B, and C.
• PC - Looks like a parasite to me, but even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
• PL - Yes it is a life
• PC - Prove it
• PL - Okay, exhibit A, B, and C
• PC - Yeah, but what about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
• PL - The fetus is a person.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What are your A, B, and C anyway?

There are many creatures that do not meet the criteria, yet if you do anything that hinders them, you can end up in prison or lose your land. Right now in California, there are farms and orange groves drying up because the water has been slowed to a trickle. Why? Because of the delta smelt might suffer.

People homes have burned to the ground because they were prevented from clearing the brush around their homes in fear the kangaroo rat would be affected.

In parts of Florida you can incur large fines if you leave your porch light on. It may cause newly hatched sea turtles to head inland instead of out to sea.

Those are just a few.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There are many creatures that do not meet the criteria, yet if you do anything that hinders them, you can end up in prison or lose your land. Right now in California, there are farms and orange groves drying up because the water has been slowed to a trickle. Why? Because of the delta smelt might suffer.

People homes have burned to the ground because they were prevented from clearing the brush around their homes in fear the kangaroo rat would be affected.

In parts of Florida you can incur large fines if you leave your porch light on. It may cause newly hatched sea turtles to head inland instead of out to sea.

Those are just a few.

Are you implying that humans are an endangered species?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Are you implying that humans are an endangered species?

I thought it hinged on personhood. It's been repeatedly said that fertilized eggs are not persons. It should apply to fish and turtle eggs as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Chongo: what do you think is the reasoning behind environmental protection laws, like endangered species, over-hunting, and pollution? Is it because killing is morally wrong?

I would say the reason is to protect a scarce public resource from being "used up," and it has nothing to do with aversion to killing. My answer is supported by the fact that when the threatened resource rebounds, and there is no longer a risk of extinction, then it becomes ok to kill them again. The only concern is permanent depletion, not in the act of killing. Per my answer, it would not apply at all to abortion, as neither babies nor fetuses are resources at all, let alone scarce ones (if anything, there is a surplus).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Out of curiousity (and because I can't find it in this thread but I don't want to read the whole thing), is there a defined point of heartbeat and/or brain function in a fetus?

[Chongo]

Pregnancy week by week - MayoClinic.com

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

6 Entries found for "nurtural"
Nurture
nurture
nurtured
nurturer
nurturers
nurtures

ABORT!

Arrrr *cough* neutral

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Out of curiousity (and because I can't find it in this thread but I don't want to read the whole thing), is there a defined point of heartbeat and/or brain function in a fetus?

IIRC, there's a loose estimate of when it normally occurs, and I think it's shortly before after the end of the first trimester, but I'm too lazy to look it up!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Out of curiousity (and because I can't find it in this thread but I don't want to read the whole thing), is there a defined point of heartbeat and/or brain function in a fetus?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

IIRC, there's a loose estimate of when it normally occurs, and I think it's shortly before after the end of the first trimester, but I'm too lazy to look it up!

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Pregnancy week by week - MayoClinic.com

Approximately during the 5th week.