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

I still don't see how your particular opinion relevant. Why not the person who has the fetus growing in them? Why is there opinion not the ONLY valid one? Why is yours as important if you will never have anything to do with the fetus, or anything to do with it when it is born? Again, it still doesn't mean anyone else's opinon is of value, only the person with the growth in them, that has to see to it that not only it's incubated properly, but has to deliver it and perhaps raise it. I have 2 daughters, and they are 13 and 11 years old. They would have the same reaction as they would if they saw what happened to puppies at the Humaine Society.They would act that way because they are children.But...lets say she's 22 years old, gets drunk and unfortunately has unprotected sex (not that they haven't been talked to about it, but lets just say she fucked up and didn't take proper action before sex). She gets prego. But she also has a few years of school left and in no way wants a child. Do you think her reaction is going to be the same as when she was 13 and saw a picture of a dead fetus? No. Not at all. So what's the point?Like Tim Tebow. Sure he's pro-life...cuz he's a virgin. Let him become a pro football player and get some black stripper from Atlanta pregnant. Shit. He'll beat her in the stomach with his Heisman trophy.Everyone is pro-life untill they get tested...then they're glad there is an option. No it doesn't. And you couldn't possibly know the intent...unless you want to be of the opinion that what ever you think the intent is, that's what it is. If that's the case then cool, enjoy sticking to your one-sided opinion Mr. Bunker. Your description is inaccurate. And you act as though people are scared of abortion and don't want to think about it. Dude I do jokes about it on stage, so don't think I care that abortions exist.It's a process that is needed, like the murder of thousands of dogs every day by the Humaine Society. But you don't give a shit about puppies, right? Just human pups... It has nothing to do with conceptualizing it, it has to do with the fact that no one cares about living things but pretend to care about a fetus because it has the word "baby" implied. If it was a dog you wouldn't care. If it was an adult you wouldn't care.But a fetus?! Oh NO! All of a sudden every single fetus is the messiah. But as soon as the kid is born we go back to not giving a shit again. I don't, I've just assumed the roll of Bullshit caller. I'm EvC's Penn and Teller. - Oni

Ok. I get what you meant. So only to a specific group of people. I get what you meant now. I guess I just don't see how it's morally wrong to have an abortion, when someone has made their own choice on it based on what they felt was best for themselves.- Oni

Even if you assume that the fetus has personhood?If it does, do you see how the following makes sense:

quote:

---

Are you simply stating that if it happens naturally it's cool, but if someone makes the decision to end it on their own terms it's not cool?

---

I don't assume that at all.To me, women, who unfortunately make eggs even if they don't want to get pregnant, can choose to do to their body whatever they want. I know if I had to carry that burden I wouldn't want anyone's opinion affecting my decision.It's growing in their body, how annoying to think someone else can decide what you should do.- Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Distinct from the mother in what sense? And is not "distinct from the mother" the exact same argument made by those who advocate that the abortion threshold should be set on the basis of when the fetus can survive independently of it's mother? Is that not in fact the basis of current abortion laws? Is that not what you are opposing here? You have defined a fertilised egg as a "human being". Do you think it desirable that all conceptuses reach full term? If you really wanted to save "human lives" (as per your definition) we should be desperately researching the tragic loss of "human life" that makes up the majority of conceptuses. The majority never implant in the uterus post fertilisation. A collection of cells incapable of thought or feeling of any sort. Harm to what? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus. They are lost in most cases without anyone ever even knowing they existed. Thus if a conceptus is considered a human being (as you have defined it to be) the majority of humanity is being unknowingly flushed down the loo. I got the 70% figure from a book. But I can look this up if you want?

I know. But I think whether or not the fetus is a person is a big factor in the morality of the situation. And if it is a person, then it is more immoral than if it isn't. Plus, there's legal rights for persons. Unfortunately too, they get hungry even if they don't want to eat But if the fetus is a person, then it wouldn't be just a part of the woman's body and they no longer would be able to do whatever they want to it. Well, it might not be a bad idea to have a doctor (or family/spouse) affect your decision (either way for appropriate reasons). I don't mind an "annoyance" so much as I do rights.But I can see it a few ways...From a theistic point of view, with the fetus being a person...From a legal point of view, with either the fetus being a person or not...From an evolutionary perspective, with the point you made about every single viable pregnancy comming to term...Its just not a cut-and-dry issue for me.

Sneaky? It has been a law in 34 separate states, not to mention the very open Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Is that 35 instances of sneaky lobbying?It makes a lot of sense if you stop to think about it. A woman who is pregnant and is carrying the baby seemingly wants to carry the child to term. Lots and lots of people actually want to get pregnant, believe it or not. I don't know if you've been informed but all species actually rely on procreation.What do you expect an expecting mother to do if some asshole killed her child?No rational person on the planet would reasonably be against such a law. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"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

What?!?! By that reasoning we shouldn't make murder illegal if it doesn't personally happen to us. Or we should never allow CPS to ever intervene if the beaten or neglected child is not ours. Or we should never care if we see a person abusing their dog because it's their dog. The list goes on. Maybe that is a good thing. We tend to become desensitized as we age. Is there not any sense of "If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime?" Is there no sense of personal ownership or responsibility in the thought process? I understand what you're saying and to a degree I certainly can empathize. But there is something that seems deeply troubling about the whole thing. I don't think that is why he's a virgin. He's a virgin because of his religious beliefs. In many cases that is true, sadly. Is that anything like soliciting an assassin to kill your wife, meeting with them, discussing money and instructions on the hit, not intent? They aren't. They involve crushing skulls, burning the skin with high concentrations of salt, tearing limbs from the body, etc. Do some research, it's not just about taking a morning after pill. I do care about puppies actually. I only support no-kill shelters and always have. Um, yes, I would and do. I can tell you though why most people feel so vehement about it is because there is a sense of innocence. What is inside the womb has never done anything to anyone, ever. People can at least feel some sense of justice with executing murderers. But just so you know, I don't support the death penalty. Give me a break. Who doesn't care about children? Seriously... You assume that in order to care one has to follow a fetus around their entire life in order to "care." That's unrealistic. Just because I don't know which fetus is about to be aborted in (pick a random city) doesn't mean that I somehow am not allowed to dislike the premise.I dislike the premise of torture but don't personally know of anyone who was tortured. Does that mean I don't really care?

---

"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

Distinct in that it was not there, and then it is there only because TWO distinct people are needed to create a NEW being. Are you really saying that children are not distinct people from their mother? No baby can survive independently, whether unborn or born. Autonomy grows as children grow and mature. Everyone knows a fetus cannot survive independently from its mother. What exactly is your point? Not just any egg, a human egg. A fertilized chicken egg, is a chicken. A fertilized ball python egg, is a ball python, a fertilized Bald Eagle is egg, a bald eagle. Straggler, a solitary egg passes down through the fallopian tubes from the ovaries. A single egg, not hundreds as you allege. A woman has many immature eggs awaiting fertilization, but they aren't all dispensed at the same time. It's actually a rare occurrence that more than 1 egg be pushed from the ovaries through the fallopian tubes during menses.So what phantom fertilized eggs are you referring to? All living matter is a collection of cells, including you. What does thinking or feeling have to do with anything, not that it matters, since thinking and feeling occurs as early as the 12th week of gestation. After the 12th week a fetus simply grows larger. The human being. Yes, I would like to read about how 70% of fertilized eggs are unknowingly flushed down the toilet. I find it interesting that a figure of 70% is deduced, yet is also not known at the same time. I would also like to know what your point is, because even supposing that 95% of fertilized eggs never implant, what does it have to do with the one's that do and are intentionally aborted versus the one's that are no fault of anyone?A staggering 100% of human beings die or will die. That's a medical fact. Are we doing things to prevent deaths? Yes. Will it still occur despite our good efforts? Yes. Does it mean that I weep for every passing soul? No, because death is a natural phenomena that has remained static since time immemorial.Is dying of natural causes the same as killing someone?

---

"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

Hyroglyphics writes: The average egg with coitus only works about 1/3 of the time (I'll defer to Straggler's 70% from a better source).Let's see: 14-50, or about 36 years X 13 (full moons) = 468 shots at best. But (you agree?) most of these are lost in The Curse ("only women bleed"), so our problem is how many times - when the Catholic Method is ready, does it actually work? On average, I'll take Straggler's 30%, given the market for Fertilization clinics & even such weird things as Viagra.BUT
But there's a bigger issue here.I object to Onifre's characterization of a "lump of cells".The issue is when the fetus becomes a person. Because, as we all learned from Dr. Suess, a person's a person, no matter how small.For this I would (as others have done) refer to RAZD's definition of Alive or Dead. This is CLEARLY well after conception. It is also clearly well before the baby is born.It is not a "lump of cells", it is not a parasitical tumorous thing. It is mostly an instruction set & materials for building a person up until some point. Now, given the Gaussian distribution of just about everything - and the current inability to detect "personhood" of when the fetus shows it, we have to be on the "safe" side and, for now, use the current law, as it evolves through the years.BTW, on another completely different issue, I think a mother should be able to terminate pregnancy up to 21 years. (He didn't really say that, did he?)

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

The 70% is in reference to the number of blastocysts that get implanted in the uterine wall.From wiki:

quote:

---

A related issue that comes up in this debate is how often fertilization leads to an established, viable pregnancy. Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time.[28][29] Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (after the woman's Last Menstrual Period).[30] As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 50% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth.

---

But we don't care, see that's the thing. If I told you a dog was killed you may sympathize, sure, I would too. But the truth is dogs are killed every hour, every day, and we do nothing to stop this.Now, I'm not saying it isn't a necessary service. I get that it has to be done. People choose to take the dog to be put to sleep. Choices are made, we can't save all of them. And the same goes for a pregnancy. We have enough people who are poor, starving, living bellow standards, who will grow up to be criminals, develop drug addictions, and, go on to have more fuckn' kids who will repeat this never ending process.We don't need every pregnancy to go to term. People die of starvation every day. The world, and the US, is over populated. Source

quote:

---

In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.

​

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.

​

The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate nutrition among pregnant women. The U.S. ranks 23rd among industrial nations in infant mortality. African-American infants die at nearly twice the rate of white infants.

​

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

---

Abortion is a necessary service. And the numbers above are just for the US. Globally, it is sickening. I think what we actually do is grow up and rationalize things. If resources were abundant, jobs abundant, food abundant, living conditions equal for everyone, money equal for everyone, then you could set up a mandatory "do the time" situation. But the reality of the matter is we have too many unwanted children who will grow up in poverty, some starve to death, some grow up to be criminals, drug addicts, have many kids of their own.....And all for what? So we can feel good about ourselves that we didn't allow someone to terminate a pregnancy?Reality is a lot more real than you are viewing it as. I know. But he's pro-life because he's a virgin.Like I said, and you agreed, everyone is pro-life until they get tested. Then reality punches them in the face and they wake up from the fake world of no consequences. No. You said they had the intent to "murder a baby." That is just wrong. That is not the intent. They don't "jam a vacuum up a crotch," dude. You say it as though everyone is enjoying the fuckn' thing - like it's a fetus vacuuming party.It sucks. It can be depressing. But it is necessary. Every murderer was a fetus.But more to the point, no one is having an abortion to kill babies, as though they wanted to. They judged the situation and felt it would be best to not bring another unwanted life into the world.But don't worry, most unwanted kids grow up to be criminals, perhaps even murderers, then we can execute them and feel a "sense of justice." The very government who would impose a law against abortions! Ask any inner city kid if anyone in the government cares for them and is taking measures to see to it that they grow up with a good education, with food, a place to live, etc....In fact, lets look at the numbers again:

quote:

---

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.

​

The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate nutrition among pregnant women. The U.S. ranks 23rd among industrial nations in infant mortality. African-American infants die at nearly twice the rate of white infants.

​

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

---

No one gives a shit in the sense that no one will be responsible for the child as it grows up. That sole responsibility is for the person who had them. If that is the case, then they have full rights to decide to have it.There are enough unwanted kids, man.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I understand that. And I did like Stile's take on the issue with the "when is someone alive" point that he made.Maybe something like that can, and does in some cases, come into play. LMAO! Nice one, dude. Agreed. If it's a person. But equally it would have to be decided that at some point it is not a person, and just a collection of cells, and thus an option to remove them should be given to anyone who has to take on the burden of a child.We can't just arbitrarily decide that its a person, it needs to be established scientifically. Before the line it's OK to abort, after the line it is not OK to abort. I could agree with that. Sure, I guess that would be cool. But not just any random dude with a fundamentalist ideology. I pick who is a rational contributor of opinions in my life. Again, I, I, I...am the decider. As a personal choice, for someone theistic, of course. Each individual has their own values that they...well...value.But this should not influence, and for sure should not be forced on, someone else of a different opinion. And vice-verca. I think this is the best way. With educated people in a variety of fields deciding based on evidence what constitutes a "person".Or we can take Bill Hick's opinion: "You're not a human being until you're in the YellowPages." If you take a look at the source for world hunger that I linked to Hyro, you'll see that this is a grave issue to concern oursleves with. We don't need more humans, especially not anymore unwanted ones.Also, have you seen the traffic lately? - Oni

I would say that - in a nutshell - the problem of just about everything we have as a society, and even individually, ultimately boils down to the fact that there are already way too many people on the planet.Parenthetically i would add that anti-abortionist, the established churches and the rightwingnuts are only exacerbating the situation by insisting that every life possibility be encouraged (forgetting the follow-up social costs). It is as if they think that the more babies we have before the Rapture, the more fun it will be up in that damned thing they call Heaven.Fuck them. They live in a fantasy world. Let's take a cool look down here on planet Earth. The human species, aside from running roughshod over everything in it's path, has never taken a real good look at the damage it does. Maybe Celine was right, the best thing a human can do is die, but I dont think so. I still think we can all figure this out (silly me).

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Think about this for a second: your wife gets raped tonight on her way home from whatever she is doing. That rape results in a pregnancy. What do you do?Pro-Life: you get to play daddy to a rapists child. They grow up and find out. How are they going to like that?Pro-choice: you get to choose what you want to do.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan