336 Million

[WestWind]

It seems that the "potential fetus" argument doesn't provide further clarity to the issue.

If you're looking for a one-size-fits-all easy solution, you're not going to find one. It looks like you're wanting someone to tell you what to think because you can't bother to do it for yourself. The only way clarity comes out of this topic is if things get simplified down to ridiculous, flawed, and basic arguments. I'm not going to do that for you, but I'll at least throw out some ideas that put into perspective why it's not OK to murder children under a year old.

[BigBallinStalin]

It seems that the "potential fetus" argument doesn't provide further clarity to the issue.

If you're looking for a one-size-fits-all easy solution, you're not going to find one. It looks like you're wanting someone to tell you what to think because you can't bother to do it for yourself. The only way clarity comes out of this topic is if things get simplified down to ridiculous, flawed, and basic arguments. I'm not going to do that for you, but I'll at least throw out some ideas that put into perspective why it's not OK to murder children under a year old.

lol okay, settle down, Haus.

I'm asking you to explain your argument, and after you expand on the implications, it appears that you have inadvertently undermined the usefulness of your "potential fetus" argument because you haven't really clarified anything.

Therefore, the most sensible argument is the "personhood" one, which has its benefits and cost yet is superior to the "potential human" or "cuz the Bible" arguments. Evictionism--albeit not technologically feasible yet--has great potential.

RE: the underlined, logic is the best way to determine if an argument is flawed--wouldn't you agree?

[WestWind]

It seems that the "potential fetus" argument doesn't provide further clarity to the issue.

If you're looking for a one-size-fits-all easy solution, you're not going to find one. It looks like you're wanting someone to tell you what to think because you can't bother to do it for yourself. The only way clarity comes out of this topic is if things get simplified down to ridiculous, flawed, and basic arguments. I'm not going to do that for you, but I'll at least throw out some ideas that put into perspective why it's not OK to murder children under a year old.

lol okay, settle down, Haus.

I'm asking you to explain your argument, and after you expand on the implications, it appears that you have inadvertently undermined the usefulness of your "potential fetus" argument because you haven't really clarified anything.

Therefore, the most sensible argument is the "personhood" one, which has its benefits and cost yet is superior to the "potential human" or "cuz the Bible" arguments. Evictionism--albeit not technologically feasible yet--has great potential.

RE: the underlined, logic is the best way to determine if an argument is flawed--wouldn't you agree?

I assumed we were beyond the point where only one argument can exist at a time. The personhood argument is great- it gives us a foundation to work on. However, Mets pointed out a flaw in which it's possible to exploit that argument and kill children, which I feel I'm safe in saying goes against probably 99% of the worldview. So, the personhood argument obviously either needs to be (a)supplemented, or (b) amended. I decided to supplement it with my own views/arguments to at least move us past the bit about killing kids. At least it provides us with a lens where we can understand why, on one hand we say that children under a certain cognitive level aren't fully considered "persons", while on the other we can still recognize why it's not OK to off them.

Evictionism is interesting. Personally, I'd hate to see it and where it might lead, but that's a personal objection.

[Metsfanmax]

I destroy the potential for a new person every minute that I'm not having sex. Yes, I don't deny that one can make the argument that a fetus is much more likely to be a human being. But that argument carries no moral weight. As I alluded to earlier, there's quite a good chance that Prince Charles will take the throne at some point. That is not an argument for treating him right now with the rights of King. The person elected President in 2016 will almost certainly actually be the President in 2017, but you don't give him or her access to the nuclear football until he or she takes the oath of office. I challenge you to give another meaningful example in which we should give something that is potentially going to be X with the rights or privileges of X. I don't think there is one (and it would lessen or destroy what we mean by rights to begin with).

The problem with your argument here is that you're taking a few rare, exceptional cases (i.e. royalty/presidency) and applying it at a general level to make an example for human rights. You're taking a specific, highly specialized case and trying to apply it in reverse to a broader population. That alone should tell you that this argument doesn't hold water. It's not an accepted practice in any branch of science and it's not an accepted argument strategy.

No, I took a general principle -- we don't give the rights of X to a potential X -- and gave a couple of examples of it. What you are doing is what doesn't hold up to logical reasoning; you're asserting that we should give the rights of a person to a potential person, but you are unwilling to defend this as a general principle. Alternatively, you could see my response as applying reductio ad absurdum to your premise. If your understanding of the conception of rights is cherrypicked so that you get the result you want when it comes to abortion, then you don't have a philosophically defensible system.

Your description of the measuring system is accurate, but where you evidently misunderstand me is in assuming that I assert that the transition occurs suddenly. It is certainly obvious from our understanding of human physiology that this is not so. Nevertheless, what is most certainly true is that there is some period of time in which we can definitely say that a human being scores a 0 exactly. Then, the limit at which we should begin to treat the human similar to a full moral person is when we legitimately can no longer say with confidence that the infant has no person-like qualities. Thus, one should pick a relatively conservative standard. I have advocated a time of about one month after birth; before this time, all infants score a 0 on the personhood test.

If you want to get technical, perception of pain is the first "step" on the ladder/spectrum to full personhood. That occurs after 24 weeks, IIRC. Thus, a human would "score" above a 0 after that period. There could be an argument for extending the first step of personhood to simply being alive, but this isn't the place for it.

I explained this earlier in the thread -- but no, perception of pain does not get you anywhere on the personhood ladder. Perception of pain is only what means that your desires should be counted in some sense -- just, as I argue, that we should count the interests of non-human animals (and therefore not eat them). Personhood involves a lot more than merely being sentient -- it involves the ability to be self-aware (stated crudely). Only when an infant develops the proper neurological pathways to gain the possibility of being self-aware does it start to become a person.

[john9blue]

The benefit of dingo-related infanticide is that you are serving two purposes - getting rid of an unwanted child AND feeding a needy animal.

we are forced to conclude that pro-choice people hate dingoes.

[Johnny Rockets]

What you call infanticide, we call abortion. So do many states and countries.
Planned parenthood.
Responsibility for not taking the most important job another human can have and not doing it in a half ass fashion with your " Life at any cost" point of view.

Hmm... I'm not sure how I can make this any plainer. Your position, based on my understanding of your position, is that you'd rather have a child suffer in it's upbringing to various degrees than flush a palm full of cells. I hope you'll clarify if that's not your position, and perhaps bring a little bit more to the table than "Abortion is wrong....derp derp...."

Private organizations have raised and spent 1.2 million to to provide 4000 procedures.
Raising 4000 children from infants to adults in foster care would cost a government over half a billion.

So thanks, but your good luck well wishes are not necessary. People are privately funding intelligent social initiatives that make helpful impacts on society and reduce the number of unwanted children raised in poverty without waiting for the government to get off it's ass or having it's data collectors tell them that the sky is blue.

JRockets

I don't classify abortion as infanticide. I classify infanticide (the killing of infants) as infanticide. Perhaps I'm still missing your point.

I'm actually pro-choice. What you're advocating is not pro-choice so much as pro-abortion. It seems to me that you are in favor of forcing abortions on those mothers who you don't think meet certain qualifications for motherhood. Your assumption that any child born in poverty or with a crack-head mother is, I'm sure, borne out in some kind of stastical analysis which shows that 100% of children classifed as such are drains on society (by your definition of drain on society).

I'm not in favour of forcing abortions. Do you read these posts? I'm in favour of offering cash incentives and free permanent birth control (abet, reversible) to anyone who wishes it, specifically targeting drug addicts.

Fair enough. I wish you the best of luck in securing funding for your ventures in infanticide without any relevant data; hopefully "common fucking sense" is a good enough justification.

Hold on.......Now you don't consider abortion infanticide? You seem to have held that ground a few posts ago in this thread.

Jrock

I think your reading comprehension is suffering. Was your mother perhaps poor or a crack-whore?

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

Keep track of your replies, and to whom you are replying, and the contexts thereof.
The quote wasn't taken out of Met's discussion, or your reply to him. it was taken directly out of YOUR reply to my post.
If you can't keep your shit straight, then shut the f*ck up.

JRock

[WestWind]

No, I took a general principle -- we don't give the rights of X to a potential X -- and gave a couple of examples of it. What you are doing is what doesn't hold up to logical reasoning; you're asserting that we should give the rights of a person to a potential person, but you are unwilling to defend this as a general principle. Alternatively, you could see my response as applying reductio ad absurdum to your premise. If your understanding of the conception of rights is cherrypicked so that you get the result you want when it comes to abortion, then you don't have a philosophically defensible system.

And here's where the problem with your argument pops up. The reason you can't generalize your examples of rulers and leaders is that you're comparing apples and oranges. What you're talking about- the "rights" of the monarchy and presidency- are not rights at all. They're privileges- privileges that we give those leaders. Privileges can be given and taken away. The idea of a right is that it is not given- at least not by humans. Rights are inherent, and cannot be given or taken away. The most that we can do is hold certain rights in trust until an individual is old enough to make full use of them- but we can never take them away.

I explained this earlier in the thread -- but no, perception of pain does not get you anywhere on the personhood ladder. Perception of pain is only what means that your desires should be counted in some sense -- just, as I argue, that we should count the interests of non-human animals (and therefore not eat them). Personhood involves a lot more than merely being sentient -- it involves the ability to be self-aware (stated crudely). Only when an infant develops the proper neurological pathways to gain the possibility of being self-aware does it start to become a person.

Sentience and perception of pain alone doesn't give you personhood status, but it does put you on the spectrum we just discussed. It unarguably puts you above the "0" level. Sentience itself is the first step of personhood- you really can't get much further without it.

[BigBallinStalin]

What you're talking about- the "rights" of the monarchy and presidency- are not rights at all. They're privileges- privileges that we give those leaders. Privileges can be given and taken away. The idea of a right is that it is not given- at least not by humans. Rights are inherent, and cannot be given or taken away. ... but we can never take them away.

How are rights inherent? And which rights exactly?

[thegreekdog]

Right, I agree that's how many people are, but if someone's arguments mainly hinge on emotional reasoning, it doesn't mean they have a good argument. I acknowledge that many people do this, but we should have some standard for determining if an argument sucks or not.

Besides, I'm just running with the potential human argument. If it runs into silly conclusions, then it's up to its defenders to correct for that. If not, then they may have a weak argument, so substitutes or improvements should be found to remedy that situation.

RE: the undesirable bit, does committing suicide refute your last sentence?

Actually, it means they have the best argument. If the argument cannot be applied to the person making the argument; in other words, if Mets makes the argument but won't apply the same rationale to himself, then I think he loses the argument.

[Funkyterrance]

I wish pro-choicers would once and for all just admit that they would probably kill a living, breathing, several month old child if they only had the stomach and it were legal. Improving the planet and all that. It would make these discussions so much streamlined. Grow some balls, people.

[BigBallinStalin]

Right, I agree that's how many people are, but if someone's arguments mainly hinge on emotional reasoning, it doesn't mean they have a good argument. I acknowledge that many people do this, but we should have some standard for determining if an argument sucks or not.

Besides, I'm just running with the potential human argument. If it runs into silly conclusions, then it's up to its defenders to correct for that. If not, then they may have a weak argument, so substitutes or improvements should be found to remedy that situation.

RE: the undesirable bit, does committing suicide refute your last sentence?

Actually, it means they have the best argument. If the argument cannot be applied to the person making the argument; in other words, if Mets makes the argument but won't apply the same rationale to himself, then I think he loses the argument.

You're talking about logical consistency (for lack of a better term). I'm talking about someone asserting an argument which hinges on emotion, which isn't a good argument (recall: appeal to emotion). If we would allow an argument such as, "this is correct because it FEELS correct," then our standard of argumentation would be very low.

I agree with your adherence to logical consistency though.

[Metsfanmax]

No, I took a general principle -- we don't give the rights of X to a potential X -- and gave a couple of examples of it. What you are doing is what doesn't hold up to logical reasoning; you're asserting that we should give the rights of a person to a potential person, but you are unwilling to defend this as a general principle. Alternatively, you could see my response as applying reductio ad absurdum to your premise. If your understanding of the conception of rights is cherrypicked so that you get the result you want when it comes to abortion, then you don't have a philosophically defensible system.

And here's where the problem with your argument pops up. The reason you can't generalize your examples of rulers and leaders is that you're comparing apples and oranges. What you're talking about- the "rights" of the monarchy and presidency- are not rights at all. They're privileges- privileges that we give those leaders. Privileges can be given and taken away. The idea of a right is that it is not given- at least not by humans. Rights are inherent, and cannot be given or taken away. The most that we can do is hold certain rights in trust until an individual is old enough to make full use of them- but we can never take them away.

I don't see why the difference between "rights" and "privileges" bears on my refutation. You're still granting the "rights" (whatever those are) of a person onto a non-person that may potentially be a person at some point. You give no argument for why we should defend such a structure; you simply assert that we ought to do so. So it's not really an argument at all, it's just a way of constructing a nice sounding ethical framework that comports with your ideas, but that isn't really a sound ethical framework at all. In other words, if you want to defend why a potential person should be treated with rights similar to that of a person, you need to argue that they share something in common, which the rights were designed to protect. So, if we agree that they don't share any of the relevant characteristics in common (e.g. memories, self-awareness, etc.) then there's no logical reason to grant them the same rights. If you think that they do, then this argument is a wash (I didn't initially realize that you had linked the two when we started discussing this).

Sentience and perception of pain alone doesn't give you personhood status, but it does put you on the spectrum we just discussed. It unarguably puts you above the "0" level. Sentience itself is the first step of personhood- you really can't get much further without it.

Mere sentience doesn't put you on the personhood spectrum at all. Otherwise, you would be forced to defend that a frog has some aspects of personhood, and should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt and never killed.

[patches70]

What you're talking about- the "rights" of the monarchy and presidency- are not rights at all. They're privileges- privileges that we give those leaders. Privileges can be given and taken away. The idea of a right is that it is not given- at least not by humans. Rights are inherent, and cannot be given or taken away. ... but we can never take them away.

How are rights inherent? And which rights exactly?

I tell you what, BBS, go around killing peoples newborn babies and you'll get a good lesson on where "rights" originate from.

[chang50]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

[BigBallinStalin]

What you're talking about- the "rights" of the monarchy and presidency- are not rights at all. They're privileges- privileges that we give those leaders. Privileges can be given and taken away. The idea of a right is that it is not given- at least not by humans. Rights are inherent, and cannot be given or taken away. ... but we can never take them away.

How are rights inherent? And which rights exactly?

I tell you what, BBS, go around killing peoples newborn babies and you'll get a good lesson on where "rights" originate from.

Seems like mushy stuff--the origin of rights, that is.

[Funkyterrance]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

My post was honestly not an appeal to emotion. I believe it to be true. People are just too fearful of the social repercussions of admitting that they in fact don't attach a lot of value to the lives of other human beings, unborn or otherwise, beyond the scope of their own interests. I think that the fact that so many people are able to choose not to err on the side of caution regarding when/where a human life begins that it's pretty obvious that the matter itself is more or less beside the point as far as they are concerned.

[patches70]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

Haha, too bad you don't understand. I state no threats at all, only merely mention the consequences of Mets position. He thinks it would better the world, he couldn't be further from the truth.

Seems like mushy stuff--the origin of rights, that is.

I suppose, if one thinks rights come from a piece of paper or from a God. But you and I are wise enough to know where our rights come from. Our rights come from the battlefield.

What would inspire men to rise up and fight? To demand and secure their rights as they see them, even using violence and waging war?

Killing their newborn sons and daughters would be a good catalyst.

So let us suppose for a moment that Mets is the King of the World and decrees that the killing of a newborn is no longer murder. The punishment for the unsanctioned killing of a newborn would be punishable akin to at most manslaughter. Likely less than that.
And also, Mets orders that all newborns borne with any disease or marginal to serious impediment should also be terminated. You children at 10 months who develop Juvenile diabetes even. Downs syndrome and all other manner of diseases.

Then Mets orders that all newborns of crack addicts, drug abusers, alcoholics, mentally reduced parents and all such undesirables shall have their newborns killed or mandatory aborted. Those of wealth need not fear.

And then there is also that, isn't there? Those who are too poor in Mets judgment, their babies will be killed. The poor women will have their babies aborted whether they want to or not. Only the right people, with the right wealth, the right education, the right conditions, will be allowed to breed.

Imagine the world, full of rich snobs all arguing about who will have to do the shit work because they'd murdered all the poor, the uneducated.
Imagine the anger that is brought forth at such injustice.

Where would it lead to?

[chang50]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

My post was honestly not an appeal to emotion. I believe it to be true. People are just too fearful of the social repercussions of admitting that they in fact don't attach a lot of value to the lives of other human beings, unborn or otherwise, beyond the scope of their own interests. I think that the fact that so many people are able to choose not to err on the side of caution regarding when/where a human life begins that it's pretty obvious that the matter itself is more or less beside the point as far as they are concerned.

Fair enough you have widened the topic to cover the hypocrisy surrounding basic human selfishness and indifference,surely this is equally present among pro lifers I would reckon.I could easily generalise about religious pro lifers being fearful of the social repercussions within their church/temple/mosque of revealing how little they really care about all concerned not just the fetus,leading them to toe the party line.

[chang50]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

Haha, too bad you don't understand. I state no threats at all, only merely mention the consequences of Mets position. He thinks it would better the world, he couldn't be further from the truth.

Seems like mushy stuff--the origin of rights, that is.

I suppose, if one thinks rights come from a piece of paper or from a God. But you and I are wise enough to know where our rights come from. Our rights come from the battlefield.

What would inspire men to rise up and fight? To demand and secure their rights as they see them, even using violence and waging war?

Killing their newborn sons and daughters would be a good catalyst.

So let us suppose for a moment that Mets is the King of the World and decrees that the killing of a newborn is no longer murder. The punishment for the unsanctioned killing of a newborn would be punishable akin to at most manslaughter. Likely less than that.
And also, Mets orders that all newborns borne with any disease or marginal to serious impediment should also be terminated. You children at 10 months who develop Juvenile diabetes even. Downs syndrome and all other manner of diseases.

Then Mets orders that all newborns of crack addicts, drug abusers, alcoholics, mentally reduced parents and all such undesirables shall have their newborns killed or mandatory aborted. Those of wealth need not fear.

And then there is also that, isn't there? Those who are too poor in Mets judgment, their babies will be killed. The poor women will have their babies aborted whether they want to or not. Only the right people, with the right wealth, the right education, the right conditions, will be allowed to breed.

Imagine the world, full of rich snobs all arguing about who will have to do the shit work because they'd murdered all the poor, the uneducated.
Imagine the anger that is brought forth at such injustice.

Where would it lead to?

Hasn't Mets said he has no intention of killing anyone?This is what I meant by strawmen arguments.Why can't there be a purely hypothetical discussion sticking to the argument he has made?

[Funkyterrance]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

My post was honestly not an appeal to emotion. I believe it to be true. People are just too fearful of the social repercussions of admitting that they in fact don't attach a lot of value to the lives of other human beings, unborn or otherwise, beyond the scope of their own interests. I think that the fact that so many people are able to choose not to err on the side of caution regarding when/where a human life begins that it's pretty obvious that the matter itself is more or less beside the point as far as they are concerned.

Fair enough you have widened the topic to cover the hypocrisy surrounding basic human selfishness and indifference,surely this is equally present among pro lifers I would reckon.I could easily generalise about religious pro lifers being fearful of the social repercussions within their church/temple/mosque of revealing how little they really care about all concerned not just the fetus,leading them to toe the party line.

Perhaps, but the belief systems and the churches mentioned are usually more or less inseparable. Like, you probably wouldn't be part of the church if you didn't agree with the belief system right? So basically the fear of social repercussions would not likely enter into it nearly as much.
We've got this contradiction with pro-choicers where they supposedly can still have a high regard for human life but they are able to make a very certain decision on a not-so-certain subject(when life begins).

[Metsfanmax]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

Haha, too bad you don't understand. I state no threats at all, only merely mention the consequences of Mets position. He thinks it would better the world, he couldn't be further from the truth.

Seems like mushy stuff--the origin of rights, that is.

I suppose, if one thinks rights come from a piece of paper or from a God. But you and I are wise enough to know where our rights come from. Our rights come from the battlefield.

What would inspire men to rise up and fight? To demand and secure their rights as they see them, even using violence and waging war?

Killing their newborn sons and daughters would be a good catalyst.

So let us suppose for a moment that Mets is the King of the World and decrees that the killing of a newborn is no longer murder. The punishment for the unsanctioned killing of a newborn would be punishable akin to at most manslaughter. Likely less than that.
And also, Mets orders that all newborns borne with any disease or marginal to serious impediment should also be terminated. You children at 10 months who develop Juvenile diabetes even. Downs syndrome and all other manner of diseases.

Then Mets orders that all newborns of crack addicts, drug abusers, alcoholics, mentally reduced parents and all such undesirables shall have their newborns killed or mandatory aborted. Those of wealth need not fear.

And then there is also that, isn't there? Those who are too poor in Mets judgment, their babies will be killed. The poor women will have their babies aborted whether they want to or not. Only the right people, with the right wealth, the right education, the right conditions, will be allowed to breed.

Imagine the world, full of rich snobs all arguing about who will have to do the shit work because they'd murdered all the poor, the uneducated.
Imagine the anger that is brought forth at such injustice.

Where would it lead to?

Hasn't Mets said he has no intention of killing anyone?This is what I meant by strawmen arguments.Why can't there be a purely hypothetical discussion sticking to the argument he has made?

Indeed. This argument by patches misunderstands the position, because the discussion of whether an infant is a person or not is not the only relevant factor in determining whether the infant can be killed without it being considered seriously wrong. For example, if the government went and killed the newborns of infants, that would cause serious distress to the parents of that infant, presumably (if they wanted the baby to survive). So I don't advocate that it it should be legal for anyone to kill any infant; I just argue that it should be legal for you to kill your own infant child if you decide (with the advice of a medical expert) that your child will suffer through a life that is not worth living. It would never be ethical in my standard for the government to kill an infant child against a parents' wishes. As for whether this slippery slope argument would really be vindicated? Since abortion has existed for decades and the slippery slope hasn't been slid down yet, we're probably fine.

[Funkyterrance]

Indeed. This argument by patches misunderstands the position, because the discussion of whether an infant is a person or not is not the only relevant factor in determining whether the infant can be killed without it being considered seriously wrong. For example, if the government went and killed the newborns of infants, that would cause serious distress to the parents of that infant, presumably (if they wanted the baby to survive). So I don't advocate that it it should be legal for anyone to kill any infant; I just argue that it should be legal for you to kill your own infant child if you decide (with the advice of a medical expert) that your child will suffer through a life that is not worth living. It would never be ethical in my standard for the government to kill an infant child against a parents' wishes. As for whether this slippery slope argument would really be vindicated? Since abortion has existed for decades and the slippery slope hasn't been slid down yet, we're probably fine.

Yeah we all could see that patches was drawing a long conclusion but don't just answer the easier questions.

[chang50]

Can anyone remember the flak Piers Morgan got for being emotional in the gun control debate?Yet here we have on this page alone two blatant appeals to emotion from FT and patches,the first an untrue generalisation,the second a threat in response to a non-existent position.This is a highly controversial topic but come on lets try and approach it dispassionately without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawmen.

My post was honestly not an appeal to emotion. I believe it to be true. People are just too fearful of the social repercussions of admitting that they in fact don't attach a lot of value to the lives of other human beings, unborn or otherwise, beyond the scope of their own interests. I think that the fact that so many people are able to choose not to err on the side of caution regarding when/where a human life begins that it's pretty obvious that the matter itself is more or less beside the point as far as they are concerned.

Fair enough you have widened the topic to cover the hypocrisy surrounding basic human selfishness and indifference,surely this is equally present among pro lifers I would reckon.I could easily generalise about religious pro lifers being fearful of the social repercussions within their church/temple/mosque of revealing how little they really care about all concerned not just the fetus,leading them to toe the party line.

Perhaps, but the belief systems and the churches mentioned are usually more or less inseparable. Like, you probably wouldn't be part of the church if you didn't agree with the belief system right? So basically the fear of social repercussions would not likely enter into it nearly as much.
We've got this contradiction with pro-choicers where they supposedly can still have a high regard for human life but they are able to make a very certain decision on a not-so-certain subject(when life begins).

I would only say there is the assumption here that church members are generally sincere in their support of the church and it's beliefs,and perhaps,without putting words in your mouth,that others are less moral.I see no evidence that religious adherents are more sincere or moral than others.

[Funkyterrance]

I would only say there is the assumption here that church members are generally sincere in their support of the church and it's beliefs,and perhaps,without putting words in your mouth,that others are less moral.I see no evidence that religious adherents are more sincere or moral than others.

All I can tell you is that I've rarely met anyone that was a member of a faith that was pro-life who wasn't pretty passionate about the subject. Of course there is no way for me to prove the genuineness of their positions or that they are the rules and not the exceptions on a grander scale.

As far as pro-lifers and churchgoers of the aforementioned religions not being mutually inclusive, the door swings both ways as there exist non-churchgoers who are pro-lifers. It seems that a member of this last group would most likely be sincere in their position.

Still to be answered is how someone who has a high regard for human life can make the decision to abort a fetus when the question of when a "person" begins is more or less unknown aside from a legal standpoint. Seems a counter intuitive decision from one who respects human life.

[BigBallinStalin]

Where would it lead to?

That's a roundabout post if I've seen one. Rules and order come from design and also from un-designed, conscious interactions among individuals. Some of these we call 'rights', but that's just a word with special embellishment.

Regarding your King Mets example, you're somewhat right in that the conflict brings out the 'rights', but... it's more of a conflict between property rights. It's the use of one person's property rights by another's trying to impose his control over it (e.g. their kids). We've had property rights for as long as someone said, "this is mine" or "this is ours."

The negative right to life and to one's stuff seems self-explanatory enough. But.. the talk of rights doesn't really resolve much.

1. We can dodge the issue by creating a new fancy phrase called "personhood status"--to sidestep those troublesome species-centric arguments. But why treat a person differently from a human being? Is this really just a novel approach in justifying the killing of 'human beings'?

2. We can mask the issue by talking about rights, but without specifying which ones, and explaining them, then WestWind's arguments are lacking on this front. Evictionism doesn't.



So, what's really involved?

a. Property rights (use rights specifically).
b. Other people's insisting on interfering with other people's bodies (i.e the pro-lifers).
c. Other people insisting on interfering with their own body in regard to an unwelcome living organism.
d. Categorization (e.g. is the fetus a human being? is it a person? what is it, and what kind of sovereignty should be granted to it?)