Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

The thread's about abortion, not infanticide.

I was going to make a general reply, but these two points are (in my opinion) rather fundamental.I'm pro-choice - but I am decidedly NOT "pro abortion". I wish there were NO unnecessary abortions. i wish there were NO abortions. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world, so since time immemorial there have been abortions - both spontaneous and induced, and having them not available only ever really hurts the woman and their existing families.As has been said earlier in this thread, MOST "pregnancies" end up with spontaneous abortions that the "mother" never even notices.Having sex, if you want to be picky about it, kills about, what, 150+ million sperm? And that's even IF a pregnancy results (whether it aborts or not).But let's carry on a bit - a woman gets pregnant. If she's lucky, it's not due to rape or incest or dumb-fuck ignorance. she's got this bundle of cells inside her, growing.Before we even take a single peek at whether she wants it or not, you have to answer the question of "name the person in this equation."If you're a smart-arse and say there's two, then tell me, what is your thought on slavery?If YOU would deny the right of SOME OTHER PERSON to choose what they do with their body, then you're not pro- or anti- abortion, you're pro-slavery first and foremost.Like it or not, but demanding that a woman is subject not only to something within her own body, but to somebody else's whim and somebody else's penis turns a woman into the lowest form of slave - nothing less and certainly nothing more than cattle, nothing more than breeding stock and as much as I hate abortions, I hate that more.Like it or not, the only logical thing to do since we're living in a non-perfect world where abortions happen one way or another, and where contraception isn't perfect (ESPECIALLY not "abstinence"), is to state that at some point, a fetus is NOT a person under the law, and not only that but even if it is dangerously close, that the life of the mother (should she choose to exercise her right to life) trumps that of the fetus.The truth is, most of the fuss about abortions is to do with very late-term abortions that are a minor, minor part (something like less than 2%) and are ONLY done when not doing it is worse for the the mother or fetus than an abortion (what's worse than death? How about hideous pain and torture and THEN death).What gets right up my nose is the lies told by "pro-life" people who don't care about the life of a woman - they say that abstinence works (it never has, it never will). They say the condom doesn't work (it does, and is one of the most effective forms of not only contraceptive but prophylactic). They say the pill kills "babies" when the pill actually does three things:

• prevents ovulation - NO EGG


• prevents fertilization - NO FETUS


• and if all else fails, very rarely, prevents the fertilized egg bonding with the cell wall - at a stage far below consciousness and the standard result of most unprevented and successful pregnencies

They talk as if only insane women (surely to stupid to be real people and to have thought things through) would want an abortion, when the reality is a bit different:Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone SolutionsSo yeah, i get worked up - it's not difficult when the catholic church (for example) have recently come to light for systematically covering up rape and paedophilia within their own ranks and see rape, paedophilia and incest as a non-crime, but the abortion to save the life of the girl raped by her father is a crime for which (on second thoughts) they wouldn't only have condemned the doctors and the mother but the child too.It's not only the catholic church - there are horrific tales of a woman who went to the police because she was RAPED, and they subsequently chucked her and her boyfriend in gaol, but forgave the rapist (well, his punishment was little more than a slap on the wrist). It's not difficult when a female soldier who got pregnant in the army (yes, she was stupid) was forced to give herself an abortion and almost died because she wasn't allowed one, and was summarily discharged for something that's not illegal.It's not difficult to get worked up at all.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

Here's the thing.This debate is WORTHLESS. It will NEVER achieve anything.There are two groups in the public. Those who think abortion should be not be illegal and those who don't.There is only ONE GROUP in the legislature. Those who think abortion MUST remain legal.It doesn't matter HOW MANY voters don't like abortion, there is NO WAY that the law will change.Here's why:A left leaning candidate will fight to prevent it from being illegal.
A right leaning candidate raises money off the fact that it is legal.If the right were to ACTUALLY get rid of abortion, they would lose a HUGE part of their platform.Wanna see what I'm talking about? Review the 2004 Presidential Election.What was the primary issue? The war? No. The Economy? No. Kerry's war record? No.The Primary issue was GAY MARRIAGE.Bush and co. promised an AMENDMENT to prevent gay marriage. That was their rallying cry up until 5 seconds before the polls closed.Then what? Absolutely nothing. Dropped completely. Not so much as a peep about it.They never intended to ban gay marriage. If they had, then they wouldn't be able to USE GAY MARRIAGE as a part of their platform.Abortion has been around since the BEGINNING OF MEDICINE. It's _not_ going away. It can be legal. It can be illegal. It will still be there.The question is, do you criminalize women who have abortions? Watch the youtube video when Anti-Abortion activists were asked and see just how well they've thought through their arguments:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5PBtIH8i4UEdited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

It is not, nor will it ever, be a life-sustaining organ like the kidneys are. *sigh* Honestly... First of all, this only corroborates that it is illegal like I said, but that really is beside the point. I'm not talking about prosecution of suicide, I am referring to the fact that you cannot attempt to commit suicide where authorities, if knowledgaeble of the action, will not try and stop you, by force, if necessary.Shit, you can't even legally not wear a seatbelt. In every single state, if any authority figure caught wind that someone was trying to kill themselves, they would do whatever they could to stop them exercising their choice with their body. That's my point. But that's my point. Why would they be more willing to remove a fetus than a tubal ligation in young women? I lol'd. And you are Mr. Sensitive.Try and bear in mind that I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here. If there was an anti-abortionist in here, I'd probably be debating them too with a similar tenacity. Look. No pro-lifer on the fucking planet is against choosing things in general. They are against abortions, SPECIFICALLY. When a Pro-Choice advocate talks about having the right to choose what they want for there body, they're only refering to one thing... ABORTION.Therefore the debate is about ABORTION. There is really little else to deduce. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are just stupid terms invented by both sides to illicit sympathy for their cause. They are pro-execution. If the topic is about execution, and you favor the use of execution, why on earth would that not be "pro-execution?"

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I'm sure that's of little consolation to those on the chopping block. If you said, "I wish there was no need for nuclear bombs," but then vaporize an entire continent, it kind of looses its sentimental value, don't you think?You like it enough to allow it. That's really the only factor here. Sentimental notions like describing your utopian values offers nothing substantive to the debate. I'm not seeing the relevance. Can you explain where you were going with that? The interesting thing about pregnancy is that if you want to be melodramatic enough, you could use the same arguments for either side. Lets take your slavery notion.By forcing a woman to not kill the fetus is slavery to that woman. It forces her to deal with the baby.By not allowing the baby their natural right to life, they are in essence a slave to their master's desires and wishes. Maybe it forces women to confront their responsibilities. Lets be honest here, please. The fetus, I'm sure you are aware, did not create itself. The woman and man are directly responsible for bringing that baby in to existence, but the baby alone pays for the mistakes of their parents. Yes, but this where the divide is, hence the crux.Unfortunately I have to get going and I can't save this information. You bring up interesting points that I'd like to address tomorrow. So until then, enjoy.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I'm sure you meant mere hyperbole when comparing abortion to nuclear holocaust, so I'll not talk too much about off-topic things like choosing the lesser of two evils.I wish you hadn't ignored the rest of the statement though - you go straight into "responsibility" and bypass the whole "most women don't have the right to choose not to have sex" thing, along with the "most women don't get to use contraception" thing.I might have "utopian" values (thanks! Glad to see you'd like the world I describe) but at least I don't have my head in the clouds.Plenty of women get raped, plenty of women are forced to have sex for one reason or another. Plenty of women do not have access to either prophylactics or contraceptives.There is no talk of "responsibility" in those cases.Ignoring those, you're getting to the thing I *was* talking about - there are seemingly enough women out there who have been lied to about the condom, lied to about human nature (abstinence, once again, doesn't work) and lied to about the pill, and for some reason they think abortion is a valid form of birth control.I would hope, sincerely, that you agree with me that it should not be. I don't think it should be that difficult in western society to bring down abortions considerably - and that's IF the abortions that are happening now are due to mainly ignorance. You haven't heard? That every sperm is sacred? I thought we were talking about the creation of life here?It's not my belief, but some religious people think masturbation is evil because it kills sperm, but those same people don't seem to understand that even in sex, 149,999,999 of 150,000,000 "die" - the key here is a little perspective.I'm glad you don't think anything that stupid, right? The interesting thing about pregnancy is that if you want to be melodramatic enough, you could use the same arguments for either side. Lets take your slavery notion.[/qs]You missed the important word - person. You ignored my reasoning. A woman - a thinking, feeling, reasoning, articulate woman, MUST be considered above an unthinking, unfeeling, unreasoning and, yes, inarticulate fetus up until such time as the fetus is viable outside the womb - you are aware that is, essentially, the text of the roe vs wade decision?Before the point that the fetus can survive as an independant entity, it is not a person and it has no rights - and certainly should never have rights that trump that of a person who most assuredly does. I think you meant that it's not slavery to "force her to deal with the baby" ?Well it is, that's the 13th amendment.

quote:

---

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

​

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

quoted from wikipedia. They have no natural right to life because the fetus is not a person - at the point it is, it DOES.I am saying that before the fetus can live by itself, it is not a person and therefore has no rights, because otherwise the inalienable rights that the woman has are violated. So what about rape and incest?so what about the rights of the woman - a person under the law? Does a woman have no rights the second a penis enters her body? I totally agree - the ruling in the american courts was something like "until doctors, biologists, philosophers and theists can come up with a unified, central statement proving when life begins, it is not the purdue of the courts to mandate one".So, their ruling instead talked about personhood (I'm quite sure parts of this are horribly wrong, please feel free to correct me) - and their definition was such that until a fetus can survive independantly, it is not to be considered a person.That means first trimester abortions without question, second trimester abortions in the case of harm to the mother or fetus, and third "late term" trimester abortions only in life-threatening situations for the mother or fetus. The late-term abortions are a really small percentage, and the first two trimesters are before there is any sort of nervous system.I happen to think that's pretty sensible, but I wish (sincerely) that more would be done to bring down the number of abortions rather than to make abortions illegal (which doesn't bring the numbers down, it just makes it a crime and harms those who need one).Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

You could say that, but technically you'd be incorrect. Technically, there is a specific definition for the term "daughter", whether it correspond to asexual reproduction as in binary fission or budding (cloning), or sexual reproduction, and this definition specifies "daughter" to be the entire descendent entity, not just the first descendent cell produced (with the exception of single celled life forms).However, given that, I actually like your definition better. It leads to the concept of all of humanity, from its earliest members to the present, as a form of integrated ooze on the face of the earth. It is estimated that the total number of humans that have ever been born is about 100 billion. Each human has approximately 100 trillion cells. Thus, this ooze reproduces almost exclusively by asexual binary fission with only an infrequent incidence of horizontal gene transfer- at an substantially rate than the incidence of gene transfer observed in bacteria. That this ooze tends to partition into small clumps (and that those clumps tend to exhibit the strange and unproductive behavior of posting in internet forums) does not detract from the validity of this view of humanity, which we'll henceforth call the 'huooze'. This view also immediately leads to an obvious resolution of the whole issue about abortion/anti-abortion/choice/anti-choice.(I threw in that last line so that the moderators wouldn't accuse me of going off topic.)

If I bypassed it, it's because it isn't true. Rape accounts for less than 1% of unwanted pregnancies. The vast majority is due to carelessness. That's because it is an altogether different matter, and a strawman conveniently thrown in to the fray to distract from the overwhelming majority of people who do not take sex respsonsibly. Abstinence is actually 100% effective. The only problem is that few have the resolve to abstain, nor feel there is any reason to do so. It is an unrealistic goal. The creation of life only occurs during the fertilization process, so the rest is moot. Good thing I'm not religious. Well, the same could be said of a newborn, no??? So why stop before birth with that rationale? Why not just get rid of the damn thing the second it becomes a burden, because let's be honest, that's all it really is about -- getting rid of burdens. I'm sure you are aware that all children, including everyone in here at one time, had the same progression from less autonomy to greater autonomy. Babies, toddlers, and even young children cannot survive independent of their parents, so really you invalidate the personhood of babies and children in your quest to dehumanize the unborn. You are comparing having to care for your own child as slavery? That's rich... Well, then, I guess it is slavery for a man when he has to pay child support for a child he doesn't want then? Or do men only enjoy 2/3 of a woman's rights?Because it seems a woman has the unfettered right to deny her baby, but the man doesn't have the right to say whether he does or does not want to keep it. She decides it all. Who says? See, that's the problem, hence the crux of the argument. One side says they are human beings because they are human for all intents and purposes. They have human DNA through and through, they are human. The other side says they only become human when it passes through the birth canal. That's odd, but that's the belief. Well then you just described ages 0-12 (depending upon the child). Tell me one thing: What is wrong with adoption? Mother gets to alleviate her troubles of raising a child from a rapist, adopting parents get the bundle of joy they always wanted, and the child gets a chance of survival, such as you. You would prosecute that raping piece of shit the same way with any other rape case. No baby can survive independent of help. None... Not one... Alright, well, I'll let the cat out of the bag. Where I really stand on the issue (I was playing devil's advocate) is that I am on the fence. There are good arguments made by both sides. And while I unapolgetically lean towards the side I was defending, I'm not so inept to realize that the application of such a prohibition is almost impossible to enforce realistically.If someone is determined enough, they are going to do it. They will find a way. And even if they were "caught," how do you prosecute? How do you investigate such a thing? It's impractical and would be unfair to assume guilt every time someone miscarries (legitimately) and subject her to scrutiny.So for me, I allow the law to make those determinations and only follow my own moral compass with my personal life. Since it is legal, I respect that fact. But for the sake of debate, I'll throw my two cents in as I've done here.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Hi, AiG. Any way you go with this, you're splitting hairs. Asexual reproduction is messy. Monozygotic twins aren't formed by budding, but by fission. As such, neither resulting embryo really came before the other, so neither can be considered the parent of the other.So, it would be more accurate to call them both "grand-daughters," with the "daughter" being no longer existent.----- First, did you mean to say "...substantially lower rate..." or "...substantially higher rate..."? You kind of skipped a word there.Second, it does kind of turn into a bizarre worldview, doesn't it? Factor in organ transplants and chimeras, and you turn normal, everyday humans into something really creepy!To me, this is what makes abortion such a confusing thing: like everything in religion, it's just about drawing a line and asserting that the line actually represents an important distinction. It's confusing enough to me that I don't think it's appropriate for one specific opinion on the subject to dominate.That's kind of the whole point behind the "pro-choice" argument, isn't it?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

At what point is this dividing line between life having been created and not created? There is no "point". there is no "moment". The entire process is graduated to some degree. There used to be a guy here who advocated that nobody be deemed a full human being until they reached the age of 1.I didn't agree with this but it did help to make the point that any such distinction is almost entirely arbitrary within certain boundaries that we could all (well... most) probably agree upon. It will always come down to what is considered "human" and what isn't. And this will always be necessarily arbitrary to a large degree in biological terms.Cancer cells are alive and contain a persons DNA. But we don't fret about eliminating those. Thus there must be more to an argument than that simplistic biological one.Most legislation in the Western world makes abortion up to X weeks legal (in the UK I believe it is 24 weeks but that anything after 12 weeks is difficult to obtain). These laws are necessarily arbitrary to some degree although science can inform the decision in terms of things like assessing levels of cognitive awareness at different stages of development etc.Ultimately there is no biological "point" at which we can meaingfully declare a fetus to be human. Thus I think we need to get past defining that "point" as any sort of criteria upon which to make such judgements.

In the US, the stated reasons give this 1% - like all statistics you should take it with a grain of salt. I think it likely that a woman, when offered a way out that would cause less trouble for herself or her family would take it rather than say her boyfriend pressured her...of course, hard to prove, no?The stated reasons still give at least 7% for health, rape or incest reasons - and by the sound of it you wouldn't deny those women an abortion (at least I hope not) and I think you'd want the same as me and want the other 93% to come down.The thing that worries me is things like this: In my book, if few have the resolve to abstain then it is a failed method because nobody can do it reliably. This is one of the reasons that contraception is listed not only in terms of the ideal result but in terms of the general working result.This is one reason why religious communities often have a far higher rate of abortions; abject ignorance and misinformation and "not being responsible about sex". NO!After a certain period of time, the fetus CAN survive by itself - survival does not mean fending for itself. Either you're being deliberately retarded or you're really that dumb. If it's the latter, then allow me to explain:survival in this context means the fetus can breathe by itself, grow by itself, eat by itself, crap by itself, move, see, hear and make sounds all by itself. This limit is usually put at about 24 weeks - before then, if a fetus is removed from the womb, no matter what you try to do, it will die. Yes a baby is helpless, but that's not the same thing as being unable to survive. No, I'm comparing forcing a woman to servitude to somebody else's whim with slavery. Sadly, yes - her body, her rules.The second it becomes possible for a man to be pregnant, and/or to swap uteri, this "issue" will go away. The government? Seriously though, we're talking about legal personhood, and that can only be granted by the government the same way it can be taken away if you end up in guantanamo. you're 12 weeks too late with that definition of personhood (24 weeks!)- unless you're a biblical literalist who sees life as beginning with the first breath (after actual birth). If you're a roman, you get to say what happens to your kids until they're adults.We happen to live in a society where personhood has been pushed back to 24 weeks of gestation thanks to the scientific method.My finger has human DNA through and through, yet I can cut if off if I want. So do both of my arms, both hands, my legs...If I thought my legs were becoming a "burden", should I be allowed to cut them off? They are, to all intents and purposes, human? I think adoption is a fine idea, and for people who can't have kids naturally it's going to be the only way they can "have kids" - and in no way am I suggesting that adoption should be made illegal or replaced with infanticide. The thing is, I'm not a woman and even if I were, I do not believe I could say what somebody else should do. All I can say is that somebody else should have choice.All I can say is that people who weren't using condoms or the pill (or other forms of contraception), or weren't using them properly should be primarily educated about the consequences and offered the alternatives a long, long time before they should have to choose. This is, indeed, part of the reasoning behind Roe vs Wade - a citizen's right to privacy. Before it was legalized, women DIED from abortions in far larger numbers, and many more were injured. Now it's safe (unless some pro-lifer decides to shoot you). There have always been "methods" available (the trusty rusty coathanger for one), and in my mind the "alternative" to safe, legal abortion is far worse.As I said, I'm really rather pro-life, and more should be done to lower the number of abortions - but rationing and guilt-tripping is NOT the way to do it.

A baby of 24 weeks old will need to be put in an incubator in order to stand any chance of survival though won't it?As medical science progresses we may well be able to take a foetus of only a few weeks old and keep that alive external to the mother too. Would you lower the abortion threshold to take such developments into account?I am pro-choice and I even get what you are saying re the whole "independent life" thing. But I still think that the abortion threshold is necessarily arbitrary to some extent and that this is a case of attempting to define some "point" in terms of biology when no such "point" exists.

Personally? Yes, I would. I would do so because it is so arbitrary a limit - but right now, it's the only practical one.At some point you hit my other personal limit which is "ability to think and feel" which would say that, ability for the fetus to grow or not, below this biological limit and sort of complex conscious thought is impossible - so you can "do what you like" (within ethical reason).Same reason I think people in PVS shouldn't be kept alive against their pre-defined wishes nor against the wishes of those in a position to make such decisions.

Well you are being consistent and I agree that it is currently the right practical limit.Where things get more blurry for me is if medical science does progress and a woman doesn't want to have a baby and wants termination after a few weeks of pregnancy what do we do? Do we abort it? Do we remove it and develop it external to the mother? The honest answer for me here is that I don't know. I would be tempted to keep things as they are now on the basis that it works as a pragmatic compromise. Again as a broad indicator that is fine. But law requires definites whilst biology doesn't provide definites. So once again 24 (weeks or whetever) becomes an arbitrary legal thing. Nobody sane would say that a fetus of 23 weeks and 6 days was significantly less aware than a fetus that was 24 weeks and 1 day old. But we need an arbitrary legal limit for the law to be applied. I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia in principle but I think the arguments are slightly different. But that is another topic.

I agree!Whatever we do, unless we have a practical test that can be administered with results that can be quantified, we will be setting arbitrary limits.There's no practical difference between somebody who is 15 years and 364 days old and somebody who is 16 years old exactly, yet sex with that person would not be legal in most countries in the world.There's no practical difference between somebody who is 17 years and 365 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes old, yet they can't legally drink alcohol until 60 seconds later...I think the upshot of my reasoning is that I would keep 24 weeks as an upper limit for most cases. At some point in the future, we may grow up as a species and make pregnancy impossible unless actually wanted, and there WILL be no unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.