NationStates Jolt Archive

And you don't quote them, provide a number of quotes, or any evidence of how well those invited to speak represent the general community.

Thus, it is *incredibly* dishonest to claim that you have evidence of the opinions of a majority.

I didnt say it included a majority of all of the medical profession. I said it included a majority of those who participated in the report. And given their positions in their fields, it would be rather shocking for them to believe this and to be in the places that they are.

I'm suprised to be defending Adriatica but the point is, he has a reason to begin with, his "real" reason I geuss. However this reason cannot be used to legisalate, being based on religion, so in order to legally oppose abortion, he needs a secular line of reasoning, which he has. He has also made no attempt to hide his "real" reasons, his isn't being dishonest about why he wants to ban abortions, he's not trying to sneak some hidden agenda past everyone.
But as I pointed out earlier, he does not really believe his own secular argument. It would be different if he believed both things, if the secular argument was in harmony with his religious argument. But the two arguments are fundamentally opposed, and Adriatica himself admits that he only puts forth the secular argument to push his agenda. He would prefer to abandon it in favor of the religious one. So he's not being honest.

But you're not compromising. You are not proposing a system that would satisfy the needs of both those who oppose abortion and those who want to preserve the right to choose. If that's what you wanted you would not have to do anything at all because we already have a system that (a) allows people who oppose abortion to choose never to have one no matter what the circumstances while still allowing others to make a different choice; (b) allows people who oppose to try to persuade others to agree with them and also choose not to have abortions; and (c) already restricts certain types of abortions, indicating that compromise has already been reached.

What you are really doing is complaining about having to wait to get your way because current politics block you from just imposing your views on society. At the same time as you say this, you also admit that you do intend to push through your agenda piecemeal, without compromise, as changes in public opinion allow you to. That is not a program of compromise.

Compromise does not nessecarly mean capitulation. Compromise means you do not get everything your own way. It doesnt mean it is split down the middle. I will not compromise on some parts and on others I will. For example, the case of abortion in the case of rape I will allow because of the reasoning I have previously stated.

But as I pointed out earlier, he does not really believe his own secular argument. It would be different if he believed both things, if the secular argument was in harmony with his religious argument. But the two arguments are fundamentally opposed, and Adriatica himself admits that he only puts forth the secular argument to push his agenda. He would prefer to abandon it in favor of the religious one. So he's not being honest.

When did I say I didnt believe my secular arguement. I agree it is not completely what I want, but I compromise in so far as I accept that it is all that can be put into force.

I didnt say it included a majority of all of the medical profession. I said it included a majority of those who participated in the report.

Then it is useless in the debate.

And given their positions in their fields, it would be rather shocking for them to believe this and to be in the places that they are.

Are you kidding? The head of neurology at MCG believes that neural stem cell research has been done that proves adult stem cells can be used for all neural diseases - a ridiculous claim. I've met a person with a Ph.D. in chemistry who believed that the dinosaurs never existed (because they weren't mentioned in the Bible). A top nanotech researcher at Georgia Tech is a big proponent of getting himself frozen and brought back to life in a few hundred years - a ridiculous industry with a near 0% chance of working, based on what we know of freezing tissue. I've met a physicist who thinks that he can disprove God with physics equations.

A person can get to high positions in science and still believe some pretty ridiculous things.

But as I pointed out earlier, he does not really believe his own secular argument. It would be different if he believed both things, if the secular argument was in harmony with his religious argument. But the two arguments are fundamentally opposed, and Adriatica himself admits that he only puts forth the secular argument to push his agenda. He would prefer to abandon it in favor of the religious one. So he's not being honest.

What's to believe in the secular arguement? If I want to multiply 24 and 15, I'd use a calculator, for ease. If I can't use one I can multiply pencil-and-paper style so as to get the same solution. It's not as though I don't think the paper and pencil method is right, It's just my next best option to reach the same answer.

Compromise does not nessecarly mean capitulation. Compromise means you do not get everything your own way. It doesnt mean it is split down the middle. I will not compromise on some parts and on others I will. For example, the case of abortion in the case of rape I will allow because of the reasoning I have previously stated.
Actually compromise does mean an even split, to the extent that both parties believe the outcome to be sufficient to their needs and don't feel they've given up too much. You already have total freedom never to have an abortion and to persuade others to stop supporting abortion rights, yet you complain about being asked to "capitulate"? What, precisely, are you giving up under the current system?

And once again, I'll point out that your professed tolerance of a rape exception is false because you have also made it clear several times that you will continue to work for a total ban on all abortions. That would include in cases of rape. You are merely accepting such an exception for now. That's not compromise on your part.

What's to believe in the secular arguement? If I want to multiply 24 and 15, I'd use a calculator, for ease. If I can't use one I can multiply pencil-and-paper style so as to get the same solution. It's not as though I don't think the paper and pencil method is right, It's just my next best option to reach the same answer.
Huh?

Then it is useless in the debate.

Not really. The reports conclusion I have just discoverd was this

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

Some quotes from said report

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Not to mention this decloration from the AMA in 1857

"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime - a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .

"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [410 U.S. 113, 142] and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76.

I have yet to find any evidence that said report was retracted at any date. But I am still looking

Actually compromise does mean an even split, to the extent that both parties believe the outcome to be sufficient to their needs and don't feel they've given up too much. You already have total freedom never to have an abortion and to persuade others to stop supporting abortion rights, yet you complain about being asked to "capitulate"? What, precisely, are you giving up under the current system?.

Your confusing a comproise with the action of compromising.


And once again, I'll point out that your professed tolerance of a rape exception is false because you have also made it clear several times that you will continue to work for a total ban on all abortions. That would include in cases of rape. You are merely accepting such an exception for now. That's not compromise on your part.

Erm. You'll have to look long and hard because you wont find it. I am fine with the rape exception and if it is the only abortion that is allowed then I will be happy in a purely legal sense. I would like there to be no abortions at all but I recognise that, legally speeking, I cannot go any further than the rape exception, so I will stop. I will admit that I came to that position only in the last few months, but it is my position now

I'm sorry. But I just had to laugh at this. It is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my life.

How humble.

What you are talking about is simply politics. I have an opinion. I believe that abortions are wrong. That opinion comes from my religious point of view. However, religious points of view cannot be legislated, under normal circumstances. So hence a secular logic is constructed which supports the same idea but is not complete in its aplication. I do not like that but I have to accept it. Its called compromise. People (politicans in particular) have to do this all the time.

Yes, it is just politics. Politics is a game of lies, deceptions, and half-truths. It is a game of compromise, where you always have to give up a little of what you believe. Most importantly, it is a secular game, a game of the world. Don't you ever feel the least bit uncomfortable being so...entangled? I know, you're not going to be lectured on matters of faith by an infidel, but I really do think you might want to examine just how much the movement you have alligned yourself with bends the rules.

Still, here is my strictly secular problem with your line of thinking. You are not a dispassionate follower of reason. You have made a decision(based entirely upon religious conviction) and you then attempt to prove that you are right. You bring up out of date scientific studies because they support your view. You invoke US government studies that you should know show bias. You are making the biggest mistake anyone talking about science can make, you are trying, by your own admission, to prove your point rather than just follow the data.

Why is this a problem? Well, because it doesn't really matter what your justification is, you are trying to legislate your religious views. When faced with the realization that you cannot do so, you attempt to construct a secular way of acheiving the same goal. That is decietful. It is dishonest. You are still trying to legislate your religion, which you know in your heart to be illegal, but you are attempting to use secular arguments to do so.

It is as if I walked up to you, said "I do not like you because you are black" and punched you in the nose. When police arrived I wouldn't be able to argue my way out of being arrested because I could come up with a convincing hypothetical reason for having been justified in striking you, I made my intention known and acted upon it. It doesn't matter if I had reason to believe that you were a threat to me, my motive for striking you was the color of your skin and I announced it up front.

I would also aprecieate you not making your accusations personal saying "You are dishonest and underhanded" is extremely offensive. You may say "The pro life movement is dishonest and underhanded" at which point you would be required to provide examples, but to call me that is exceptionally rude and bordering on flaming. In your view the reasoning is not as strong, but I would beg to differ.

I think I've made a pretty good argument for why I believe you are being dishonest. It is not flaming to call someone on something you honestly believe they are doing. I am, by nature, a direct person. I feel that it is best to say exactly what I mean, with as little obfuscation as possible, so that there is no question as to what I intended to say.

I feel that your reasoning is weak because I have yet to see a compelling legal argument from the pro-life movement. There is clearly dissent in the medical community as to when life begins, but that really isn't the issue. Life is, well, cheap. We kill human beings all the time in this world for all sorts of reasons. Determining that a fetus is a life only serves to give you justification for mounting some kind of legal argument as to why a fetus should not be aborted. I've yet to see it.

You have presented a verbal contract-based argument, but that has been refuted. Do you have another, or are you perhaps hoping that you can force enough "compromises" to win by attrition?

I know, that is an accusation by implication, so I'll back it up. Why is it that pro-life politicians seem to be the exclusive supporters of laws that would work to "make abortion clinics safer" when clinics already conform to the localstandards for medical facilities doing similar kinds of procedures with similar levels of risk and invasiveness? If there is a concern about saftey, why are these laws directed at abortion providers(and generally only those that perform a certain number of abortions a year) and not the medical comunity as a whole?

As for playing hard and fast with science, I would like some evidence of this. I've already provided evidence of a United States government report that concluded (with only a minortiy of one disagreeing) that life began at conception. Thus any definition of personhood is legal only, unscientific and ultimately arbitary.

A study not published in a peer-reviewed journal is next to worthless. Can you please cite a study published in a peer-reviewed journal which has come to a conclusion that "life begins at conception?" That seems like something of an inherantly unscientific statement. The argument about when "life" begins centers around issues of the purely spiritual(when does a being get a soul), the purely ethical(which has little to do with the law), or issues of viability, which a clump of undifferentiated cells certainly does not meet.

US Government studies aren't worth very much. Anyone in the scientific community views non-independant studies as suspect because the political pressures put on scientists to get the "right" result taint the entire process. This is beyond the initial problem of incumbent political leaders choosing to fund studies that are likely to prove their point of view and refusing to fund studies that might call their policies into question(try to get clearance for a study that might show a positive use for a controlled substance and you'll see what I mean).

As for the point about making abortions safer, the following investigation shows that the legalisation of abortion actually has a massive increasing effect of the number of illegal abortions and that if abortion were criminalised, many women would not seek out illegal abortions

An interesting technique, but unpersuasive. First I would like to point out that both of the individuals you quoted have(or had) vested interests in the abortion debate. These are not unbiased individuals.

Second, the effects experianced in Scandanavia during a period of abortion law liberalization do not necessarily have a great deal of external validity. I do not have the entire study, nor the specific ways in which laws changed. We cannot assume external validity with the level of information you have quoted. We do not know how the laws in Scandanavia changed, how long they took to change, or what social/legal barriers were presented to women seeking legal abortions.

As for Reardon, without seeing his methodology, the exact questions asked in his survey, what populations were surveyed, etc, his numbers become useless. Statistical analysis is all about context. An assertion about what happened in one small population coupled with numbers stripped of context or methodological explaintion from a second unrelated source is not science. It isn't proof.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about playing fast and loose with science.

In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins.

Not science. You are talking about the testimony of hand-picked "experts" at a subcommittee hearing. You are talking about opinion. Quarter century old opinion.

I didnt say it included a majority of all of the medical profession. I said it included a majority of those who participated in the report. And given their positions in their fields, it would be rather shocking for them to believe this and to be in the places that they are.


Belief =/= science. Belief =/= proof. Belief = subjective opinion.

Compromise does not nessecarly mean capitulation. Compromise means you do not get everything your own way. It doesnt mean it is split down the middle. I will not compromise on some parts and on others I will. For example, the case of abortion in the case of rape I will allow because of the reasoning I have previously stated.


Because, though you still believe it to be murder, it is expedient.

Come out and say it, for the sake of expedience you are willing to allow the murder of some babies because it might save the lives of others.

Not to mention this decloration from the AMA in 1857


Are you kidding me?

Yes, it is just politics. Politics is a game of lies, deceptions, and half-truths.

Very pesimestic. I prefer the much more neutral "Poltics is the art of the possible" Aristottle


It is a game of compromise, where you always have to give up a little of what you believe.

Hence my support for the rape exception. I dont like it but I am willing to give it up to compromise on my part.


Why is this a problem? Well, because it doesn't really matter what your justification is, you are trying to legislate your religious views. When faced with the realization that you cannot do so, you attempt to construct a secular way of acheiving the same goal. That is decietful. It is dishonest. You are still trying to legislate your religion, which you know in your heart to be illegal, but you are attempting to use secular arguments to do so..

Erm. No it isnt. If you have stated that is the case then you have not lied. Lying inhertnetly implies deception. I have not decieved anyone. The whole point of decit is people are not supposed to know that you have done it. If they do, your deception has failed. You yourself are doing more than anyone else to prove I have not decieved anyone.


It is as if I walked up to you, said "I do not like you because you are black" and punched you in the nose. When police arrived I wouldn't be able to argue my way out of being arrested because I could come up with a convincing hypothetical reason for having been justified in striking you, I made my intention known and acted upon it. It doesn't matter if I had reason to believe that you were a threat to me, my motive for striking you was the color of your skin and I announced it up front.

Flawed analogy. In your analogy the person actually acts upon it in full force and for no other reason other than what is stated. He doesnt restrict his force at all where as I restrict my desire for a complete ban to accept a paritial. If you were to have a person say "I dont like Africans" and then he may notice an African in the street, carrying a gun and behaving in a threatening manner, then calling the police, he may have been motivated in the first place to notice him because he dislikes Africans, but his actual motive is fair.


I feel that your reasoning is weak because I have yet to see a compelling legal argument from the pro-life movement. There is clearly dissent in the medical community as to when life begins, but that really isn't the issue. Life is, well, cheap. We kill human beings all the time in this world for all sorts of reasons. Determining that a fetus is a life only serves to give you justification for mounting some kind of legal argument as to why a fetus should not be aborted. I've yet to see it.

Firstly there is no such dissent. The AMA produced a report in 1857 on this point and since then as far as I am aware it has not been retracted or stated that it is no longer accurate.


You have presented a verbal contract-based argument, but that has been refuted. Do you have another, or are you perhaps hoping that you can force enough "compromises" to win by attrition?

I fail to see how it is refuted. It still stands. If a woman has consentual sex, she implictly accepts a posibility of becoming pregnant. She can lower that possibility as much as she likes with contreception but she cannot eliminate it.

The normal refutation of this argument is the old fashioned "I dont accept being in a car crash by driving" to which the answer is "yes you do". You implicity accept it by driving in the first place. However the diffrence between the two is the solution to the isssue. The solution to the issue of being involved in a car crash is to be cut out of your car by the emergency services. That does not involve someone lossing their life. However an abortion does require someone lossing their life, for definite.


I know, that is an accusation by implication, so I'll back it up. Why is it that pro-life politicians seem to be the exclusive supporters of laws that would work to "make abortion clinics safer" when clinics already conform to the localstandards for medical facilities doing similar kinds of procedures with similar levels of risk and invasiveness? If there is a concern about saftey, why are these laws directed at abortion providers(and generally only those that perform a certain number of abortions a year) and not the medical comunity as a whole?

Most likly becaues the medical community as a whole is not performing the abortions. Only abortion clinics are. However I am not arguing on this issue so I fail to see why you brought it up.


A study not published in a peer-reviewed journal is next to worthless. Can you please cite a study published in a peer-reviewed journal which has come to a conclusion that "life begins at conception?" That seems like something of an inherantly unscientific statement. The argument about when "life" begins centers around issues of the purely spiritual(when does a being get a soul), the purely ethical(which has little to do with the law), or issues of viability, which a clump of undifferentiated cells certainly does not meet.

The AMA report would satifisy that as far as I can see (am still lacking any sign of a retraction on that one)


US Government studies aren't worth very much. Anyone in the scientific community views non-independant studies as suspect because the political pressures put on scientists to get the "right" result taint the entire process. This is beyond the initial problem of incumbent political leaders choosing to fund studies that are likely to prove their point of view and refusing to fund studies that might call their policies into question(try to get clearance for a study that might show a positive use for a controlled substance and you'll see what I mean).

You going to have to provide proof of this. Since representives of both pro-choice and pro-life groups were invited, I fail to see how pressure would be sensably applied. Also this report was under Jimmy Carter's presidency, a democrat, who would (if I'm understanding American politics correctly) would be pro-choice supporting


An interesting technique, but unpersuasive. First I would like to point out that both of the individuals you quoted have(or had) vested interests in the abortion debate. These are not unbiased individuals.

Your going to have to be able to prove which way biased. Besides, yelling "bias" all over the place proves nothing. Everyone is biased in one way or another


Second, the effects experianced in Scandanavia during a period of abortion law liberalization do not necessarily have a great deal of external validity. I do not have the entire study, nor the specific ways in which laws changed. We cannot assume external validity with the level of information you have quoted. We do not know how the laws in Scandanavia changed, how long they took to change, or what social/legal barriers were presented to women seeking legal abortions.

As for Reardon, without seeing his methodology, the exact questions asked in his survey, what populations were surveyed, etc, his numbers become useless. Statistical analysis is all about context. An assertion about what happened in one small population coupled with numbers stripped of context or methodological explaintion from a second unrelated source is not science. It isn't proof.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about playing fast and loose with science.

Well short of questioning his research, why not actually look into it. I'm sorry but you cannot criticise something you know nothing about with any validity. All you know are the results.

When did I say I didnt believe my secular arguement. I agree it is not completely what I want, but I compromise in so far as I accept that it is all that can be put into force.
By "not believe" I meant that you don't believe it is a valid exception that you would support if you were not forced to, meaning you are not tolerating it willingly and you would turn against it if you could and as soon as you can. I'll parse out how I reached this conclusion by parsing out the internal contradictions in your argument through the latter pages of this thread.

First, let's be clear about one thing: You do advocate the banning and criminalization of abortion, don't you? You are a proponent of the movement that specifically seeks to pass laws that will do that, right? Based on your posts here and in other threads, it's clear to me that this is your view. You have been pretty vehement in refusing to dilute this stance.

Second, throughout this thread you have been arguing points that conflict with each other. In your posts #s 122, 127, 145, and 151, you press the argument that pregnancy and childbirth are binding contractual obligations attached to a woman's decision to have consensual sex. This argument itself is shaky, as it is contradicted by contract law and by the fact that the decision to have sex is not a contract, but leaving that aside...your point is that a woman has no right to abort a pregnancy. Your big exception to this is if she didn't consent to have sex.

But in post # 145, you state that by becoming pregnant, women give up rights to control their own bodies. That's a pretty strong view, and it is weakened by exceptions because it puts you in the position of saying sometimes the fetus controls the pregnant woman's body and sometimes the pregnant woman does and it all depends on what she wants. Well, what if she wants to quit being pregnant? If she controls her own body, then why she wants to end the pregnancy does not matter. If she does not control her own body, then she has no basis on which to argue that someone else forced her to be pregnant against her will, as her will doesn't come into it. If you allow an exception for unwillingness, then a woman can easily argue that you are forcing her to be pregnant against her will by denying her access to elective abortion, thus triggering the unwillingess exception. She could even trigger the exception by claiming that the fetus is forcing her to be pregnant against her will, if we grant the fetus status as a person.

Third, in your posts #s 222, 224, 228, and 241, you specifically state that you believe abortion is wrong and should be criminalized. You also specifically state that the only reason you are willing to tolerate a rape exception is because current politics demands it. That's current politics, not justice or civil rights. You make reference to seeking the support of majority opinion and to supposed benefits of criminalizing abortion. You also make reference to an ongoing movement to accomplish these things. What conclusion are we to reach but that you view the rape exception as temporary and, when you think the time is right, you will try to get that banned, too? If you would like a more pointed challenge to this specific set of views, please see my post # 233.

In conclusion:

1. Following your own argument, if we accept an exception for rape, we must accept all elective abortions because an exception based on a woman's right to control her own body cannot exist within a rule that says women do not have that right. She either controls or she doesn't. Period. BTW, if the woman does not control her body, she cannot agree to contractually submit it to be used for pregnancy because it is not hers to put under obligation. Clearly that negates your entire argument for why abortion should not be allowed.

2. You are a staunch opponent of abortion rights and a proponent of the total banning of abortion. I do not believe you would support any rule that would undermine that as outlined in (1) above.

3. Your statements about the anti-choice movement indicate that, for you, it is an ongoing battle that you will continue to participate in on all necessary fronts with the goal of banning and criminalizing of abortion in general. Yet you ask me to believe that you are willing to compromise with me on an exception for rape -- an exception that undermines the rest of your agenda, as indicated. I don't believe it.

4. I also don't believe you to be stupid or unable to follow your own arguments. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying about your stance re rape exceptions.. For instance, would you support a law that said a woman who gets pregnant from a rape may abort that pregnancy, if it makes no mention at all of other circumstances under which she may not abort a pregnancy? I don't think you would because that would create a precedent from which the exception could be expanded to more circumstances. I think you are only considering such a rule as a limited exception to a more general ban on abortion and that you reserve the right to eliminate that exception once your more general ban becomes politically secure.

(PS: For some reason, my thread tools don't work, so I couldn't link to the posts.)

Your confusing a comproise with the action of compromising.



Erm. You'll have to look long and hard because you wont find it. I am fine with the rape exception and if it is the only abortion that is allowed then I will be happy in a purely legal sense. I would like there to be no abortions at all but I recognise that, legally speeking, I cannot go any further than the rape exception, so I will stop. I will admit that I came to that position only in the last few months, but it is my position now
1. No, I'm not.

2. I did, and I did. :D

Not science. You are talking about the testimony of hand-picked "experts" at a subcommittee hearing. You are talking about opinion. Quarter century old opinion.


They were not hand picked. Invitation was offered to both groups. A platform was offered for pro-life and pro-choice experts to stand on why they believed what they did. Only one said we could not tell when life began. And not to mention the vast array of literature that supported the case.



Belief =/= science. Belief =/= proof. Belief = subjective opinion.

However that is all we have. Opinions. Like many have said before in other debates, science can prove nothing. The opinions have obviously come from evidence as they are experts in the field to which the question is relating.


Because, though you still believe it to be murder, it is expedient.

Come out and say it, for the sake of expedience you are willing to allow the murder of some babies because it might save the lives of others.

I dont think I ever denyied that I would accept the rape exception if it meant the ban of abortion in every other case


Are you kidding me?

Like I said, there has been no retraction of that statement of opinion by the AMA so untill there is one, it would seem to be that that is their opinion. Given the ammount of debate on the issue if they had good reason to change their viewpoint now would be the time.

1. No, I'm not.

Yes you are. A compromise is an agreement to which all sides are happy to an extent

The act of compromising is to accept that in a decison making process there are some things you will not be able to have your way and thus you let them go. You can still compromise yourself and not get a compromise simply because you may not wish to compromise on things others need you to compromise on in order to get a compromise.


2. I did, and I did. :D

No you havent. You have yet to quote me to say that I would not accept an abortion ban except the rape exception. While I would not be entirely happy, I would accept it.

Not really. The reports conclusion I have just discoverd was this



Some quotes from said report



Not to mention this decloration from the AMA in 1857



I have yet to find any evidence that said report was retracted at any date. But I am still looking

Since all of these opinions are stating that it is indisputable fact, then one of them must have written a peer-reviewed published paper that makes this argument, no? Where is it? Where is the actual argument that supports the opinion? I notice you posting the opinion as if that carries ANY weight at all. We have shown you the arguments. Over and over. All you can give are the opinions of a bunch of people who shockingly have an agenda of being anti-choice.

Yes you are. A compromise is an agreement to which all sides are happy to an extent

The act of compromising is to accept that in a decison making process there are some things you will not be able to have your way and thus you let them go. You can still compromise yourself and not get a compromise simply because you may not wish to compromise on things others need you to compromise on in order to get a compromise.



No you havent. You have yet to quote me to say that I would not accept an abortion ban except the rape exception.. While I would not be entirely happy, I would accept it.
1. So you're saying that, while you may not be compromising in the sense of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement with your opponents, you are compromising in the sense of undermining your own beliefs and principals for political expendiency? Still doesn't make me trust that you won't renege on your supposed compromise first chance you get, as it's clearly not based on any agreement from you.

2. You may want to rephrase the bolded line. It doesn't make sense as written.

Or you know what? Don't bother, because all you're doing now is retreating into narrower and narrower niches. Soon you'll be accusing me of failing to quote where you used the word "turnip."

However that is all we have. Opinions. Like many have said before in other debates, science can prove nothing. The opinions have obviously come from evidence as they are experts in the field to which the question is relating.

Those opinions minus how those opinions were arrived at are worthless. Show their objective support of their opinions. They declare it like a truism except their disciplines define life in a way that the conceptus does not and cannot meet. If you think opinions is all that exists, your flaw is that you don't understand science. Scientific opinion is the simplest and most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. Your kind begins with the conclusion in hand, as you have admitted repeatedly, and only accepts evidence that supports the conclusion, as you've admitted repeatedly. That's not science. It's not objective. And it's why our side has kicking your side's ass for thirty years.

1. So you're saying that, while you may not be compromising in the sense of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement with your opponents, you are compromising in the sense of undermining your own beliefs and principals for political expendiency? Still doesn't make me trust that you won't renege on your supposed compromise first chance you get, as it's clearly not based on any agreement from you.

2. You may want to rephrase the bolded line. It doesn't make sense as written.

Or you know what? Don't bother, because all you're doing now is retreating into narrower and narrower niches. Soon you'll be accusing me of failing to quote where you used the word "turnip."

1. Well, everyone would want to have everything, but they can't. The 3/5ths compromise? South wanted blacks to count, so they'd have more representation. North didn't want that (Unless, you know, they could vote as well). They would both "renege on [their] supposed compromise first chance [they] got" But compromises are generally like that.

2. It made sense, the accept, except, exception thing might be confusing.

Very pesimestic. I prefer the much more neutral "Poltics is the art of the possible" Aristottle

I'd prefer to be referred to as the Sultan of Cheesemountain, that doesn't mean its the case. Yeah, I'm pesimestic. Yeah, I'm cynical. I'm also right. Politics is a dirty game played by dirty people.


Erm. No it isnt. If you have stated that is the case then you have not lied. Lying inhertnetly implies deception. I have not decieved anyone. The whole point of decit is people are not supposed to know that you have done it. If they do, your deception has failed. You yourself are doing more than anyone else to prove I have not decieved anyone.

Just because you aren't very good at deception doesn't mean you aren't a liar. I've caught my 3 year old niece doing something she knew she shouldn't more times than I can count and, on occasion, she has tried to deny what she did. Just because I didn't believe her doesn't mean she didn't lie.



Flawed analogy. In your analogy the person actually acts upon it in full force and for no other reason other than what is stated. He doesnt restrict his force at all where as I restrict my desire for a complete ban to accept a paritial. If you were to have a person say "I dont like Africans" and then he may notice an African in the street, carrying a gun and behaving in a threatening manner, then calling the police, he may have been motivated in the first place to notice him because he dislikes Africans, but his actual motive is fair.

Thats the whole problem, though, your motive isn't fair. You are following the African around, taping him, waiting to find an offense so you can call the cops. When you have trouble with that, you use questionable testamony and bring up everything he has done wrong since infancy. You point to things he did that were illegal under Jim Crow laws and then argue that because they were once wrong they must still be, despite advances society has made.


Firstly there is no such dissent. The AMA produced a report in 1857 on this point and since then as far as I am aware it has not been retracted or stated that it is no longer accurate.

Are you honestly making that argument? Neither ethics nor biology has changed in a significant way since 1857? Fine, you want to see if the AMA changed it's mind? Mosey on over to the pro-life clearinghouse abortionfacts.com and look at this: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_37.asp#This%20is%20quite%20a%20contrast%20with%20today.
Has the AMA retracted it? No. Does it still work under those guidelines? No.

You're playing fast and lose, again. Organizations rarely retract past statements, even if those statements no long conform to the views of the group.


I fail to see how it is refuted. It still stands. If a woman has consentual sex, she implictly accepts a posibility of becoming pregnant. She can lower that possibility as much as she likes with contreception but she cannot eliminate it.

I've done so at least twice during this thread. One last time, do try to pay attention.

You argue that, by having sex, a woman enters into an implied contract to carry a pregnancy resulting from that sex act to term. Now, she isn't entering into that contract with her partner so she much be doing so with the child(who is not yet even conceived).

Now, in order to even get to your contract you have to bend the rules of contract law and assume that an implied contract can be formed between two parties through the actions of a third party(a mother and father who have sex are creating a contract to which a child is made a party). You must agree that human organs can be the subject of a lease and are so legal objects for the puposes of a contrat. Finally, you must assume that there is a reality of consent on the part of both the mother and a yet-to-exist third party.

Once you've made those reaches you must prove that your contract is not flawed and void on it's face under contract law. There are five circumstances that would make an otherwise valid contract void. If any single circumstance is present, the contract is voided. Lets go over them one by one, shall we?

1) Purpose of contract is illegal.
Under the 13th amendment of the US constitution, involuntary servitude is illegal. An employer is not allowed to force you to work if you do not want to. Even if you sign up for an extended term, you can leave at any time. You CANNOT enter into a contract which creates a situation of involuntary servitude. The very moment a woman decides she does not want to be pregnant, any contract to bring the baby to term becomes void.

I find this argument compelling, but I admit that it is not the strongest of the contract based pro-choice arguments.

2) Completion of contract is impossible due to act of God or operation of law.
No problems here when it comes to the contract you suggest. All this circumstance would do is void the contract you assert in the even of a miscarriage or conscription.

3) Contract is forged.
Again, no real problems here.

4) Contract lacks consideration.
Now we come to a serious problem in your theory. What you have proposed is, essentially, a lease. In your hypothetical contract, the fetus is not alive to grant any kind of legally valid valuable consideration(it has no money) and thus it cannot form a binding contract.

5) A party to the contract lacks mental capacity.
Here is your second major hurdle. A fetus lacks any capacity before sperm and egg meet, so it cannot have entered into a contract. Even if you hold that the contract happens at the moment of conception, the fetus is unable to consent to a contract and it's guardian is the one who wants to abort it.


You going to have to provide proof of this. Since representives of both pro-choice and pro-life groups were invited, I fail to see how pressure would be sensably applied. Also this report was under Jimmy Carter's presidency, a democrat, who would (if I'm understanding American politics correctly) would be pro-choice supporting

The opinions of a group of individual handpicked by a subcommittee(which has nothing to do with the president) does not constitute scientific research. It is not a study, it isn't even a report in any meaningful sense, it is the opinion of a handful of professionals speaking from data that is, at the very least, 25 years out of date.

Oh, and Carter, though a democrat, is pro-life.



Well short of questioning his research, why not actually look into it. I'm sorry but you cannot criticise something you know nothing about with any validity. All you know are the results.

No, all I know are a sliver of results that you provided out of context and without important methodological data. You cannot advance something a proof and then say that it cannot be criticized because you didn't bother to present all of the information. I know nothing about it because you brought only a small bit to the table as evidence.

I can criticize what you brought to the table as not rising to the level of proof because you did not bring complete information. What you quoted, on it's own, has zero validity. You're the one trying to prove the point, the burden does not lie on me to do your research for you. You misrepresented your data by claiming that it proved a point you were trying to make when what you brought was unable to support your argument.

They were not hand picked. Invitation was offered to both groups. A platform was offered for pro-life and pro-choice experts to stand on why they believed what they did. Only one said we could not tell when life began. And not to mention the vast array of literature that supported the case.

You've never seen an American subcommittee hearing, have you? These are not fact-finding hearings. They are jokes. Members of the committee invite people to speak, give them a limited amount of time, talk over them, and routinely "invite" opposition on such short notice that attendence is unlikely. These are not great scientific studies, they are political showboating raid designed to score points with a given constituency.



However that is all we have. Opinions. Like many have said before in other debates, science can prove nothing. The opinions have obviously come from evidence as they are experts in the field to which the question is relating.

I'm not even sure what to say to that. There is a difference between fact and opinion, they are not equal. Science CAN prove a great many things, it can show things to be objectively true. It is not the opinion that a heart pumps blood through the circulatory system, it is fact. It is not simply a widely held belief that hemoglobin carries oxygen throughout the body, it is demonstrable fact. These aren't things that we are reasonably sure of, these are things of which we are certain.

One of the problems with the entire debate about when "life" begins is that it is not a question of science but one of ethics. It is a subject which is inherantly unsupportable by empirical evidence.



I dont think I ever denyied that I would accept the rape exception if it meant the ban of abortion in every other case

No, you haven't, which is the entire point I am making. You are willing to compromise some lives to save others, you are willing to give up on even your most deeply held beliefs in order to...win. You are willing to allow what you consider to be murder because it allows you some measure of victory. Why? So that you can enforce the will of an omnipotent God?

Who are you to interfere, unless you believe that God needs your help, that he is too impotent to protect his Children? The pride and arrogance of your stance is disgusting.

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.990.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=5&

It is clear that the AMA no longer agrees with the posting by our friend who thinks Medical Policy from 150 years ago is a good argument.

EDIT: Actually it appears the AMA does have a policy as to when they consider there to have been a death in regards to pregnacy. 22 weeeks.

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-420.988.HTM&s_t=death&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&st_p=15&nth=10&
The AMA encourages acceptance by health statisticians and state health departments nationwide of the following definition of a stillborn infant for statistical purposes: stillbirth - death prior to expulsion, extraction, or delivery in which the fetal weight is greater than 500 grams or, if weight is unknown, the duration of pregnancy exceeds 22 completed weeks' gestation. When neither birth weight nor gestational age is available, a body length of 25 cm (crown-heel) is considered equivalent to a 500 gram weight. (Sub. Res. 31, I-83; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. 1, I-93; Reaffirmed: CSA Rep. 8, A-05)

In other words, according to the AMA there is no death prior to this time or stage of development. Still birth refers to a death of the fetus of any type. Interesting that their policies HAVE changed since 150 years ago.

In other words, according to the AMA there is no death prior to this time or stage of development. Still birth refers to a death of the fetus of any type. Interesting that their policies HAVE changed since 150 years ago.


Hah, but show me where they voted to rescind their 1857 report. You can't, which means they still believe that, which means that life begins at conception, which means that all doctors who know what they're doing believe that life begins at conception, which means that life begins at conception because thats what they believe and science can't prove anything. QED, bitch!

Oh, wait, he probably won't say that last part: the use of any vulgarity shows a paucity of vocabulary. Likely because it is generally used by filthy, uneducated, commoners of questionable breeding.

Hah, but show me where they voted to rescind their 1857 report. You can't, which means they still believe that, which means that life begins at conception, which means that all doctors who know what they're doing believe that life begins at conception, which means that life begins at conception because thats what they believe and science can't prove anything. QED, bitch!

Oh, wait, he probably won't say that last part: the use of any vulgarity shows a paucity of vocabulary. Likely because it is generally used by filthy, uneducated, commoners of questionable breeding.

I know this is a strawman, but I laughed out loud.

You've never seen an American subcommittee hearing, have you? These are not fact-finding hearings. They are jokes. Members of the committee invite people to speak, give them a limited amount of time, talk over them, and routinely "invite" opposition on such short notice that attendence is unlikely. These are not great scientific studies, they are political showboating raid designed to score points with a given constituency.

My advisor recently went to a senate subcommittee hearing in GA on a law that would have banned all cloning, including therapeutic cloning. The rules of the Senate state that the first member of the public to sign in speaks on the law first, and so forth. She was there an hour early and was definitely the first to sign in. She had been told that she would be able to start with a short, 5 minute lecture which would define stem cells, how they are obtained, what therapeutic cloning is, etc.

However, the chair of the committee was also the main author on the bill. When he began the meeting, he took her computer away and told her that she could not use it. He then called his own "experts", not a single one of which had any experience in stem cell research at all. One of them testified to something so ridiculous, that when I heard about it, I laughed out loud. It was *painfully* obvious that his so-called "experts" were droning on and on and on, trying to run down the time in the entire hearing. Luckily, once enough patient advocates had shown up, the chair realized that there was going to be a revolt if he didn't let anyone else talk.

When she finally got up to speak, she had to correct some of what his "experts" had said, as it was simply wrong, which is acceptable, given that they weren't even experts in this area. He continually interupted her, even with nonsequiturs such as, "I think we'll keep the definitions we have. I'm not going to let you put a human embryo in a pig uterus." {WTF????} Finally, when he had interrupted her yet again, she stopped what she was saying, looked at him, and said, "You're trying to legislate these things and you can't even define a stem cell for me." The room went quiet.

Of course, in the end, none of the senators left any more informed (although the members of the public might have). They had walked in with their votes already in hand. At most, the senators learned that public opinion wasn't entirely with them, and thus switched the bill to only ban reproductive cloning. The senator in question hasn't toned down his rhetoric, however, and was clear that he was only doing it to get the bill through.

Politicians are rarely, if ever, truly informed on the decisions they make. This is why so many of the laws they make are ridiculed by those in the fields they are to regulate - they are idiotic.

What the HELL Happen to my ssf where did it go :upyours: :mad:

1. Well, everyone would want to have everything, but they can't. The 3/5ths compromise? South wanted blacks to count, so they'd have more representation. North didn't want that (Unless, you know, they could vote as well). They would both "renege on [their] supposed compromise first chance [they] got" But compromises are generally like that.

2. It made sense, the accept, except, exception thing might be confusing.
1. My argument with Adriatica is over whether he's being dishonest when he says he's willing to compromise on a rape exception to abortion bans. By implying that anyone who agrees to a compromise is likely secretly reserving the option to renege on it later -- i.e. lying -- you are not helping him.

2. It makes sense grammatically, but it does not make sense in the context of his argument. Adriatica's phrase:
<snip> I would not accept an abortion ban except the rape exception.
According to this:

1. He would not accept an abortion ban. We all know that's not true.

2. He thinks the rape exception is an abortion ban, and, dagnabbit, it's the only one he'll accept. I don't think he meant to say that either.

1. My argument with Adriatica is over whether he's being dishonest when he says he's willing to compromise on a rape exception to abortion bans. By implying that anyone who agrees to a compromise is likely secretly reserving the option to renege on it later -- i.e. lying -- you are not helping him.

Well, if that's what you consider lying...*shrug* I don't feel like defining the word "lie", I assumed that was common ground.


2. It makes sense grammatically, but it does not make sense in the context of his argument. Adriatica's phrase:

According to this:

1. He would not accept an abortion ban. We all know that's not true.

2. He thinks the rape exception is an abortion ban, and, dagnabbit, it's the only one he'll accept. I don't think he meant to say that either.

Well....yeah, context doesn't make sense, grammatically it does, whatever.

I know this is a strawman, but I laughed out loud.

Should parody count as a strawman? ;)

Well, if that's what you consider lying...*shrug* I don't feel like defining the word "lie", I assumed that was common ground.

Well, if we want to be precise, I guess that what Adriatica was doing would be termed prevarication or paltering.

Should parody count as a strawman? ;)

Technically, yes, though it's since it's less an argument and more about teasing, I think perhaps it's worth overlooking.

Well, if we want to be precise, I guess that what Adriatica was doing would be termed prevarication or paltering.

He told us his base reasons right? He's as explained, reapeatedly, why he wasn't arguing with those reasons. I don't see where any truth evasion, or misleading, or unclarity comes into this...One can hold multiple lines of reasoning for a conclusion, It doesn't make one right and the rest less truthful.

Well, if that's what you consider lying...*shrug* I don't feel like defining the word "lie", I assumed that was common ground.
Not between me and Adriatica, it's not. What can one do? :rolleyes:

Not between me and Adriatica, it's not. What can one do? :rolleyes:

One can work towards a defenition both can understand....

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Now....where does this happen exactly?

He told us his base reasons right? He's as explained, reapeatedly, why he wasn't arguing with those reasons. I don't see where any truth evasion, or misleading, or unclarity comes into this...One can hold multiple lines of reasoning for a conclusion, It doesn't make one right and the rest less truthful.
Truthfulness in this case is in the intent of the speaker.

Adriatica chooses to use a secular form of argument that does not reflect the actual nature of his opinion, which is religious. That itself would not be inherently dishonest if Adriatica had come into the debate stating this was his approach to it. But instead he argued as if his opinion was based on secular reasoning (which it is not) until he was challenged on it by Ashmoria. He did not misrepresent his stance on abortion but he did misrepresent himself, and that is a form of dishonesty which has the effect of misleading people as to who they are talking to.

Further, Adriatica claims that he is willing to compromise on a rape exception to abortion, but at the same time, he admits that he is only doing so for political expediency so that he can see abortion bans put into law as soon as possible. He also admits that he really wants all abortions banned and that he is active in a movement that is working for that end and intends to keep working for it as long as it takes. If you say you are willing to agree to a compromise today, but you are really intending to renege on that agreement a year from now, that's not much of an agreement, is it? By saying this, Adriatica is misrepresenting his intentions, and that is another form of dishonesty which has the effect of lulling his opponents into a false sense of security by making them think they have reached an agreement with him.

One can work towards a defenition both can understand....

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Now....where does this happen exactly?
See my post # 287.

But it doesn't matter. Adriatica and I will never agree on this. Adriatica could easily rephrase his statements to make our objections moot, but he refuses to. And I refuse to stop calling him on the internal conflicts of his statements. Clashing rocks.

Truthfulness in this case is in the intent of the speaker.

Adriatica chooses to use a secular form of argument that does not reflect the actual nature of his opinion, which is religious. That itself would not be inherently dishonest if Adriatica had come into the debate stating this was his approach to it. But instead he argued as if his opinion was based on secular reasoning (which it is not) until he was challenged on it by Ashmoria. He did not misrepresent his stance on abortion but he did misrepresent himself, and that is a form of dishonesty which has the effect of misleading people as to who they are talking to.

His opinion can be based upon both religious and secular arguement, the secular arguement isn't somehow less honest because that's not his original opposition to abortion, it's just as much the nature of his opinion as the religious stance is.


Further, Adriatica claims that he is willing to compromise on a rape exception to abortion, but at the same time, he admits that he is only doing so for political expediency so that he can see abortion bans put into law as soon as possible. He also admits that he really wants all abortions banned and that he is active in a movement that is working for that end and intends to keep working for it as long as it takes. If you say you are willing to agree to a compromise today, but you are really intending to renege on that agreement a year from now, that's not much of an agreement, is it? By saying this, Adriatica is misrepresenting his intentions, and that is another form of dishonesty which has the effect of lulling his opponents into a false sense of security by making them think they have reached an agreement with him.

If he didn't compromise, he wouldn't get anywhere. He wants all abortions banned, and he's working to that, but right now he can't do that so he must compromise. That's the whole point of compromising, the word has even been defined for you. This is like, textbook compromization, Compromises 101. Honestly, there's no "lulling into false sense of security" they have reached an agreement, temporary or no. What of the person who's willing to agree to abortions up to week 28, but really wants them legel till birth? They compromise on 28, and if they want to, continue to attempt to move the time up to birth. Escpecially if you tell everyone this, it's hardly dishonest.

See my post # 287.

But it doesn't matter. Adriatica and I will never agree on this. Adriatica could easily rephrase his statements to make our objections moot, but he refuses to. And I refuse to stop calling him on the internal conflicts of his statements. Clashing rocks.

You'll never agree because you simply disagree with him on principle, I don't agree with his position, but it's not a dishonest one because I don't like it.

He told us his base reasons right? He's as explained, reapeatedly, why he wasn't arguing with those reasons. I don't see where any truth evasion, or misleading, or unclarity comes into this...One can hold multiple lines of reasoning for a conclusion, It doesn't make one right and the rest less truthful.

Paltering is to speak or act in an insincere of misleading way, as a concept it is closely tied to equivocation. Prevarication is to stray from or evade the truth in a significant manner, oftentimes in order to mask one's intentions.

The problem I have with Adriatica's argument is that it is arbitrary and capricious. At it's core it lacks a rational basis(as he has admitted that he is using secular argument purely to justify legislation of his religious belief), it is subject to almost constant revision without regard to consistancy, and it is generally unsupported by the rule of law or the weight of ther most current evidence. Adriatica willingly muddies the waters and reaches back to proclaimations that are over one hundred years out of date(from organizations whose current opinions do not support his argument) in order to form his argument. The way in which he acts is dishonest, the fact that he willingly admits his argument is disingenous does not absolve him.

If you look closely at Adriatica's arguments you see a very clear pattern. There is no eye towards consistancy, there is only a series of opportunistic statements that are designed to challenge specific statements by the oppositions. When taken as a whole, Adriatica's argument lacks any sort of cohesion: it is not the argument of someone who is searching for truth in a secular society by that of someone who is simply trying to defeat an opponent in order to pave the way for a secular justification for the enforcement of religious edict.

Imagine that you used a similar style of argument as a child when you had been caught doing something your parents disapproved of. Would they have allowed your behavior to slide because you were able to present a bundle of unrelated arguments for why specific portions of your misdeed were justified, or would they have increased your punishment because of your dishonesty?

Would the "everyone else does it" argument have flown?

What about the "well what if?" argument?

How about "when I was three you let me?"

If he didn't compromise, he wouldn't get anywhere. He wants all abortions banned, and he's working to that, but right now he can't do that so he must compromise. That's the whole point of compromising, the word has even been defined for you. This is like, textbook compromization, Compromises 101. Honestly, there's no "lulling into false sense of security" they have reached an agreement, temporary or no. What of the person who's willing to agree to abortions up to week 28, but really wants them legel till birth? They compromise on 28, and if they want to, continue to attempt to move the time up to birth. Escpecially if you tell everyone this, it's hardly dishonest.

I'll point this out though. It IS dishonest to offer one thing without mentioning a clause where you get to take it back 5 days later. Kinda like hiding stuff in the small print that is less than 0.01 font size.

That's what Adriatica is doing. He's selling you a BMW, but what you're really getting is not even a bicycle. It's actually a time bomb.

I'll point this out though. It IS dishonest to offer one thing without mentioning a clause where you get to take it back 5 days later. Kinda like hiding stuff in the small print that is less than 0.01 font size.

That's what Adriatica is doing. He's selling you a BMW, but what you're really getting is not even a bicycle. It's actually a time bomb.

It's hardly fine print that he wants all abortions banned, that's kinda been loud and clear here.

It's hardly fine print that he wants all abortions banned, that's kinda been loud and clear here.
You seem to just not want to get this point. Try to think of it as an online car purchase. You shop for a used BMW, you see a picture of a certain BMW you want, you look up the posted specs, you look up the posted accident history, you compare the asking price to the Blue Book value of similar BMWs, you agree to buy the BMW, you put down a non-refundable down payment. But what the seller delivers to your house is not a 2-year-old blue BMW with a clean accident history, but a 20-year-old lime green Gremlin that was totaled and rebuilt. The down payment you made is more than this car is worth, but tough shit, the seller has already disappeared with your money.

So now you tell me, did the seller lie to you?

Now for Adriatica: Let's say I'm looking to strike a compromise agreement on the issue of abortion that will end the political conflict but still protect at least most of my rights under the law. Adriatica comes to me and says he is willing to negotiate such a compromise because he has also reached the conclusion that he can't have everything he wants and something is better than nothing. So we sit down and hammer out an agreement. Both of us agree to give up something to the other. We make it a law and it gets passed. Immediately after that, Adriatica begins advocating, lobbying, and demonstrating for repeal of all the parts of the law that represent his part of the compromise. He agreed to a rape exception, for instance, and he now tries to get the rape exception banned. He causes the conflict to start all over again as if it had never ended only now he has other bans in place that he didn't have before. It turns out that getting those bans in place was the only reason he came to talk to me about compromise in the first place.

So put all that together and tell me, did Adriatica ever actually intend to compromise on abortion? If not, then he was lying when he said he did.

His opinion can be based upon both religious and secular arguement, the secular arguement isn't somehow less honest because that's not his original opposition to abortion, it's just as much the nature of his opinion as the religious stance is.


If he didn't compromise, he wouldn't get anywhere. He wants all abortions banned, and he's working to that, but right now he can't do that so he must compromise. That's the whole point of compromising, the word has even been defined for you. This is like, textbook compromization, Compromises 101. Honestly, there's no "lulling into false sense of security" they have reached an agreement, temporary or no. What of the person who's willing to agree to abortions up to week 28, but really wants them legel till birth? They compromise on 28, and if they want to, continue to attempt to move the time up to birth. Escpecially if you tell everyone this, it's hardly dishonest.
It looks as if you don't know what a compromise is. Compromise is not about getting what you want. It's about both parties settling for less. Adriatica is not settling at all. He is just saying he is willing to do so in order to advance his agenda in parts. That's manipulation, not compromise. It's a perfectly legitimate tactic, but to call it compromise is dishonest.

And here's another question for you -- why would anyone in their right mind agree to a such a temporary compromise? Let's say Adriatica comes to me and says "I'll give in on the rape exception if you'll give in on elective abortion for consensual sex without contraceptives." Why the hell would I agree to that if I have reason to believe Adriatica will renege on it? Why would I enter any agreement with Adriatica if he's certain to renege on it?

Especially since I'm not the one who has to compromise. Remember, I'm fighting to keep the status quo. The law is already the way I want it to be. Adriatica is the one asking for change and he has very little leverage to force that change, so he has to come begging compromises from me. Well, it's quid pro quo, friend. What is he offering me to induce me to give him this? His assurance that if he gets this, he'll stop fighting with me? Evidently not, so the hell with his so-called compromise.

It looks as if you don't know what a compromise is. Compromise is not about getting what you want. It's about both parties settling for less. Adriatica is not settling at all. He is just saying he is willing to do so in order to advance his agenda in parts. That's manipulation, not compromise. It's a perfectly legitimate tactic, but to call it compromise is dishonest.

Again, you confuse the action of compromise for a compromise itself. I am willing to compromise on the issue of the rape exceptipn


And here's another question for you -- why would anyone in their right mind agree to a such a temporary compromise? Let's say Adriatica comes to me and says "I'll give in on the rape exception if you'll give in on elective abortion for consensual sex without contraceptives." Why the hell would I agree to that if I have reason to believe Adriatica will renege on it? Why would I enter any agreement with Adriatica if he's certain to renege on it?

Why am I certian to renege on it?

<snip>
If he didn't compromise, he wouldn't get anywhere. He wants all abortions banned, and he's working to that, but right now he can't do that so he must compromise. That's the whole point of compromising, the word has even been defined for you. This is like, textbook compromization, Compromises 101. Honestly, there's no "lulling into false sense of security" they have reached an agreement, temporary or no. What of the person who's willing to agree to abortions up to week 28, but really wants them legel till birth? They compromise on 28, and if they want to, continue to attempt to move the time up to birth. Escpecially if you tell everyone this, it's hardly dishonest.
You also seem to be missing the point of what an agreement is.

When you reach agreement, the debate is over. Dispute resolved, conflict ended. Forever. You don't keep fighting about it. If you did keep fighting, you wouldn't be in agreement. Fighting and agreement are mutually exclusive conditions. There's no such thing as a temporary agreement.

There are temporary truces, but they don't involve agreement, just cessation of hostilities. Nobody agrees to anything other than to stop fighting for x period of time. Certainly, nobody "temporarily" agrees to give up some part of what they are fighting for -- i.e. nobody temporarily compromises.

Here's a thought-test of what I'm saying: You and I are fighting over a volley ball. We both claim to own it. You agree to give up your claim to own the volleyball and I take it. Then you come back to me 3 days later and say that was only temporary, it's still my ball, give it to me. Do you think I will give it to you?

Now for Adriatica: Let's say I'm looking to strike a compromise agreement on the issue of abortion that will end the political conflict but still protect at least most of my rights under the law. Adriatica comes to me and says he is willing to negotiate such a compromise because he has also reached the conclusion that he can't have everything he wants and something is better than nothing. So we sit down and hammer out an agreement. Both of us agree to give up something to the other. We make it a law and it gets passed. Immediately after that, Adriatica begins advocating, lobbying, and demonstrating for repeal of all the parts of the law that represent his part of the compromise. He agreed to a rape exception, for instance, and he now tries to get the rape exception banned. He causes the conflict to start all over again as if it had never ended only now he has other bans in place that he didn't have before. It turns out that getting those bans in place was the only reason he came to talk to me about compromise in the first place.

So put all that together and tell me, did Adriatica ever actually intend to compromise on abortion? If not, then he was lying when he said he did.

I'm sorry but would you kindly offer proof that I would do this. I have stated time after time I would settle for a rape exception. This is just charachter assaination. Your assuming I would do something that I wouldnt.

Again, you confuse the action of compromise for a compromise itself. I am willing to compromise on the issue of the rape exceptipn



Why am I certian to renege on it?

1) No, you're not because 2) you said so. Read the thread to refresh your memory.

1) No, you're not because 2) you said so. Read the thread to refresh your memory.

Your going to have to provide proof. I have said I want all abortions banned but would settle for the rape exception. I'm not going to look in the thread for proof of your arguement

I'm sorry but would you kindly offer proof that I would do this. I have stated time after time I would settle for a rape exception. This is just charachter assaination. Your assuming I would do something that I wouldnt.
And you've been lying time after time. I have already detailed my proof in the form of your own avowed dedication to the anti-abortion movement and its platform, which is specifically set against any compromise on abortion.

The inconsistencies in your own statements lead to the conclusion that you are lying, and that's what I am calling you on. You may call it character assassination, if you like. I'm aiming at your statements. Any hit to your reputation would be collateral damage.

And you've been lying time after time. I have already detailed my proof in the form of your own avowed dedication to the anti-abortion movement and its platform, which is specifically set against any compromise on abortion.

A person and a movement are not one and the same. I oppose abortions, but will settle for the rape execption. What is so hard for you to understand about that


The inconsistencies in your own statements lead to the conclusion that you are lying, and that's what I am calling you on. You may call it character assassination, if you like. I'm aiming at your statements. Any hit to your reputation would be collateral damage.

You still havent provided proof of this inconsistancey. I oppose abortions, but will settle for the rape exception. There is nothing inconsistant about that. I'm sorry but your repeating yourself with no proof.

Your going to have to provide proof. I have said I want all abortions banned but would settle for the rape exception. I'm not going to look in the thread for proof of your arguement
Well, neither am I for the simple reason that my system is apparently not entirely compatible with Jolt. I can neither search nor link to posts. This annoys me no end because if I could do it, I would be throwing your own words back at you nearly every page.

The progress of our argument is here for you, me, and everyone else to read. I know perfectly well that you've said you would compromise on a rape exception. I also know other things you've said about abortion, and because of that, I just plain don't believe you.

A person and a movement are not one and the same. I oppose abortions, but will settle for the rape execption. What is so hard for you to understand about that



You still havent provided proof of this inconsistancey. I oppose abortions, but will settle for the rape exception. There is nothing inconsistant about that. I'm sorry but your repeating yourself with no proof.
I understand perfectly what you are saying. I don't believe it.

The proof is scattered througout this thread and comprises a lot of posts. Neither one of us has the time, it seems, to go look for it now, but if you insist on having your words thrown up to you, I'll work on it when I can.

very well argued, Muravyets!

it is, of course, not just adriatica who operates this way, its the entire "prolife" movement

that is why the prochoice side never agrees to compromise even with issues that would make little difference like "partial birth" abortions (in that banning the procedure wouldnt change the number of abortions or the availabilty of aborting severely damaged late term fetuses). the prolife contingency is just trying to get its foot in the door in its campaign to outlaw all abortions. even in some cases those that would threaten the life of the mother (though not all are so extreme).

there is no compromise, just giving in a little at a time or standing firm. they dont WANT compromise, they want their way and will contunue fighting for it no matter what concessions society gives to their ideas of right and wrong.

if they got what they SAY they want, outlawing abortions except for rape, incest and the life or health of the mother, they would continue fighting to get those "loopholes" closed. the notion of compromise is their dishonest and underhanded way of getting what they want a litte at a time.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. I don't believe it.


Well your going to have to provide a reason why you dont believe it, and just refusing to frankly is not evidence. You act as if I am some kind of evil monster sneeking his evil view in at every oppotunity. But this is just slander without any proof. Attack the pro-life movement, fine. But me and the pro-life movement are not synonomous. I do not want any abortions, I dont like the rape exception, but I have to accept it.

very well argued, Muravyets!

it is, of course, not just adriatica who operates this way, its the entire "prolife" movement

that is why the prochoice side never agrees to compromise even with issues that would make little difference like "partial birth" abortions (in that banning the procedure wouldnt change the number of abortions or the availabilty of aborting severely damaged late term fetuses). the prolife contingency is just trying to get its foot in the door in its campaign to outlaw all abortions. even in some cases those that would threaten the life of the mother (though not all are so extreme).

I would argue that the pro-choice movement has already made a huge compromise by allowing the pro-lifers to define the modern terms of the debate. How often to you see a discussion about biology or when life begins becoming the major line on which the battle is fought? I only rarely see the abortion debate being fought on legal grounds.

I understand that biology is an important emotional component of the abortion debate, but even allowing it to come into the discussion clouds the issues and forces the battle to take place in an arena that favors the pro-life point of view. The modern pro-choice movement needs to remember that Roe v. Wade was about how much authority the government has over an individual's body. Every single legal case pertaining abortion has been about either personal sovereignty or who deserves primacy in a situation of competing rights. When life begins or how quickly it develops is not generally salient to the question of when an individual's rights can or cannot be effected by government coercion.

very well argued, Muravyets!

He hasnt "argued" anything. He's slandering me. Which frankly isnt fair. There is no evidence based logic so I cant argue back.


if they got what they SAY they want, outlawing abortions except for rape, incest and the life or health of the mother, they would continue fighting to get those "loopholes" closed. the notion of compromise is their dishonest and underhanded way of getting what they want a litte at a time.

Prove that, please.

very well argued, Muravyets!

it is, of course, not just adriatica who operates this way, its the entire "prolife" movement

that is why the prochoice side never agrees to compromise even with issues that would make little difference like "partial birth" abortions (in that banning the procedure wouldnt change the number of abortions or the availabilty of aborting severely damaged late term fetuses). the prolife contingency is just trying to get its foot in the door in its campaign to outlaw all abortions. even in some cases those that would threaten the life of the mother (though not all are so extreme).

there is no compromise, just giving in a little at a time or standing firm. they dont WANT compromise, they want their way and will contunue fighting for it no matter what concessions society gives to their ideas of right and wrong.

if they got what they SAY they want, outlawing abortions except for rape, incest and the life or health of the mother, they would continue fighting to get those "loopholes" closed. the notion of compromise is their dishonest and underhanded way of getting what they want a litte at a time.
Why, thank you! :) Indeed, we must beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Frankly, Adriatica can be willing to compromise on anything he likes -- it's moot anyway. Rape victims can already get abortions if they want them, so I see no reason to give him anything in order to get something I already have.

Well your going to have to provide a reason why you dont believe it, and just refusing to frankly is not evidence. You act as if I am some kind of evil monster sneeking his evil view in at every oppotunity. But this is just slander without any proof. Attack the pro-life movement, fine. But me and the pro-life movement are not synonomous. I do not want any abortions, I dont like the rape exception, but I have to accept it.

I would direct you to posts #272 and #273 on page 19 of this thread for an explaination of why many people in this discussion refuse to take what you have to say at face value.

He hasnt "argued" anything. He's slandering me. Which frankly isnt fair. There is no evidence based logic so I cant argue back.



Prove that, please.
She.

And as for a charge of slander, truth is an absolute defense. I'm working on that. Be patient.

I would argue that the pro-choice movement has already made a huge compromise by allowing the pro-lifers to define the modern terms of the debate. How often to you see a discussion about biology or when life begins becoming the major line on which the battle is fought? I only rarely see the abortion debate being fought on legal grounds.


Guess what. If something is true (IE life does begin at conception) then the law has to work around that. Biology is the key issue and it does support the pro life camp. As for the morality behind it, the website you gave me give a series of comparisons to those who perform abortions today and the views of doctors performing experiments on Jews during the holocaust

Well your going to have to provide a reason why you dont believe it, and just refusing to frankly is not evidence. You act as if I am some kind of evil monster sneeking his evil view in at every oppotunity. But this is just slander without any proof. Attack the pro-life movement, fine. But me and the pro-life movement are not synonomous. I do not want any abortions, I dont like the rape exception, but I have to accept it.
I did. I cited inconsistencies in your statements as the reason I don't believe you. As I've said, proof of this is coming. You may expect an extremely long but elegantly presented compilation of quotes from you, just like Edward R. Murrow did to Joe McCarthy. I hope to complete it in less than 24 hours. TTFN

I would argue that the pro-choice movement has already made a huge compromise by allowing the pro-lifers to define the modern terms of the debate. How often to you see a discussion about biology or when life begins becoming the major line on which the battle is fought? I only rarely see the abortion debate being fought on legal grounds.

I understand that biology is an important emotional component of the abortion debate, but even allowing it to come into the discussion clouds the issues and forces the battle to take place in an arena that favors the pro-life point of view. The modern pro-choice movement needs to remember that Roe v. Wade was about how much authority the government has over an individual's body. Every single legal case pertaining abortion has been about either personal sovereignty or who deserves primacy in a situation of competing rights. When life begins or how quickly it develops is not generally salient to the question of when an individual's rights can or cannot be effected by government coercion.

we are going to have to get off our asses and get that message out. i dont know how it will play to the country in general but it speaks very loudly to me. i dont want the government to be able to make my most important personal medical decisions for me.

but really, the abortion rights decision has been so utterly WON for so long that its hard to get all worked up about it. except for times like now when the president has worked so hard to stack the supreme court with extreme right wing ideologues. we will find out soon enough if he has succeeded in putting men on the court who are willing to put the states back into the business of running our reproductive lives

its so WON that it seems that the prolife people spend much time in exaggerating the basic facts of abortion. i dont know how typical the posters in NSG are, but many of them post about how horrible it is to kill a baby by sticking a needle into its head and sucking its brains out, as if that is the average abortion. they dont seem to know that most abortions are done well before the fetus could survive outside the womb, that they have no thoughts or feelings of pain.

all im saying is that someone is working on peoples emotions with lies.

Guess what. If something is true (IE life does begin at conception) then the law has to work around that. Biology is the key issue and it does support the pro life camp. As for the morality behind it, the website you gave me give a series of comparisons to those who perform abortions today and the views of doctors performing experiments on Jews during the holocaust
Post # 312 will definitely be in the compilation. "Life begins at conception" is an assertion, not a fact, and one based entirely on a religious point of view -- this will go to the inconsistency between your staunch religious opinion and your supposedly tolerant secular argument. Thanks! Keep 'em coming. :D

You've never seen an American subcommittee hearing, have you? These are not fact-finding hearings. They are jokes. Members of the committee invite people to speak, give them a limited amount of time, talk over them, and routinely "invite" opposition on such short notice that attendence is unlikely. These are not great scientific studies, they are political showboating raid designed to score points with a given constituency.


Untill you can give proof of any of this it is meaningless hearsay. I have provided proof. The report itself, and the opinions of those on it, who are qualified biologists and experts in the field of which they are discussing.


I'm not even sure what to say to that. There is a difference between fact and opinion, they are not equal. Science CAN prove a great many things, it can show things to be objectively true. It is not the opinion that a heart pumps blood through the circulatory system, it is fact. It is not simply a widely held belief that hemoglobin carries oxygen throughout the body, it is demonstrable fact. These aren't things that we are reasonably sure of, these are things of which we are certain.

Of course there is. But in the minds of the scientists I have quoted, the zygote being a human life from conception is a fact. Can you disprove these scientists?


No, you haven't, which is the entire point I am making. You are willing to compromise some lives to save others, you are willing to give up on even your most deeply held beliefs in order to...win. You are willing to allow what you consider to be murder because it allows you some measure of victory. Why? So that you can enforce the will of an omnipotent God?

Who are you to interfere, unless you believe that God needs your help, that he is too impotent to protect his Children? The pride and arrogance of your stance is disgusting.

I am willing to compromise because I know it is all I can do. I am unable to push the ban on abortion any further than that. If that is all I can do then it is all I can do and I accept that.

Post # 312 will definitely be in the compilation. "Life begins at conception" is an assertion, not a fact, and one based entirely on a religious point of view -- this will go to the inconsistency between your staunch religious opinion and your supposedly tolerant secular argument. Thanks! Keep 'em coming. :D

Erm, I've already provided medical opinions of this fact. Repeatedly. Do you want them again?

Of course there is. But in the minds of the scientists I have quoted, the zygote being a human life from conception is a fact. Can you disprove these scientists?

Absolutely. As soon as you post their proofs, I'll set to work on it. Otherwise, their OPINION means as much as your OPINION.

Erm, I've already provided medical opinions of this fact. Repeatedly. Do you want them again?

You did not. Without medical evidence or scienitific evidence, those opinions are neither medical nor scientific. Ever opinion a doctor holds is not a medical opinion. Otherwise, Dem is a scientist and believes in God. I guess the existence of God is a fact by your definition, no?

Guess what. If something is true (IE life does begin at conception) then the law has to work around that. Biology is the key issue and it does support the pro life camp. As for the morality behind it, the website you gave me give a series of comparisons to those who perform abortions today and the views of doctors performing experiments on Jews during the holocaust

Mmm, I've always loved argument with a tastey Godwin center.

The website i directed you to was a pro-life website, I was simply underscoring the fact that your assertion about AMA policy was false. Even members of your own movement recognize that proclaimations from 150 years in the past do not accurately represent the current views of the AMA and it's membership.

You believe that biology supports your argument. Some of it does, some of it does not, and most of it strays far outside of science and into the purely subjective field of biomedical ethics. Your belief that life begins at conception is an inherantly unscientific one because it asks a question that is unprovable by science. The bulk of biological and medical thought on the abortion issue is split. No one in the medical community(outside of the extreme pro-life campe) would consider an undifferentiated clump of rapidly deviding cells to be a human being. As the ftus develops you see more and more people considering it to be human. Among the professionals I have personally spoken to(including more than one ethicist) there seems to be something of a concensus that a fetus becoms human around the time when it would be viable outside of the womb. Indeed, it is around this time(the third trimester or so) that one begins to have trouble finding doctors willing to perform an unecessary abortion on ethical grounds. At best, you could argue a medical concensus at this point that a fetus is a human being.

Even were your assertion to be true, your argument that law needs to work around biology is flawed. The abortion issue is not about whether a fetus is or is not life. The abortion issue revolves, legally, around two questions: under what circumstances can personal sovereignty be influenced by the coercive power of government and how is primacy to be determined in the issue of competing rights. Proving that a fetus is life is essentialy worthless because life is not universally protected. Our system of laws allows individuals to end the lives of others for all sorts of reasons, from preventing the murder of another to preventing the theft of property. There are quite a few jurisdictions in the United States where lethal force is authorized against individuals who are attempting to commit theft.

we are going to have to get off our asses and get that message out. i dont know how it will play to the country in general but it speaks very loudly to me. i dont want the government to be able to make my most important personal medical decisions for me.

As with most issues, I feel heavily armed press-conferances are the best way. Every planned parenthood clinic should have a sniper on the roof and a guard with a shotgun inside.

In the immortal words of Peter Steele: "Lets start bustin' heads!"

Untill you can give proof of any of this it is meaningless hearsay. I have provided proof. The report itself, and the opinions of those on it, who are qualified biologists and experts in the field of which they are discussing.


But it isn';t science, it isn't an experiment or a study. It is the opinion of individuals invited for the specific goal of proving a political point at a political hearing on a political issue.


Of course there is. But in the minds of the scientists I have quoted, the zygote being a human life from conception is a fact. Can you disprove these scientists?

I can disprove them no more than they can disprove me. They are scientists speaking about an unscientific issue. When life begins is a question of biomedical ethics, not demonstrable fact. It is a belief.



I am willing to compromise because I know it is all I can do. I am unable to push the ban on abortion any further than that. If that is all I can do then it is all I can do and I accept that.

So you are willinbg to sign off on something you know in your heart to be wrong because it is better than the alternative?

Untill you can give proof of any of this it is meaningless hearsay.

Go to one. See for yourself. That's about all the "proof" of this you can get.

I gave an adequate description of a senate subcommitee hearing just below that. Those in charge break the rules, bring "experts" who know nothing about the area and try to intimidate any who oppose them, even if those who oppose them actually are experts in the area.

I have provided proof. The report itself, and the opinions of those on it, who are qualified biologists and experts in the field of which they are discussing.

You have provided no proof of that. The one "expert" that was looked up turned out not to be an embryologist at all.

Of course there is. But in the minds of the scientists I have quoted, the zygote being a human life from conception is a fact. Can you disprove these scientists?

Not without their rationale for their opinions, which they did not give. If I say, "Red is the best color," can you disprove that?

Meanwhile, in the minds of many scientists, a zygote *not* being human life is a fact. Of course, a great deal of those scientists are honest enough to admit that their opinions are their opinions, not scientific fact.

You did not. Without medical evidence or scienitific evidence, those opinions are neither medical nor scientific. Ever opinion a doctor holds is not a medical opinion. Otherwise, Dem is a scientist and believes in God. I guess the existence of God is a fact by your definition, no?

No. Because science is not a study into the existance of God or not.

No. Because science is not a study into the existance of God or not.

It doesn't matter what the opinion is. Without evidence it is just an opinion. No matter what it is on. What about if her opinion is that earth appeared ten days ago? Science does study the age of the earth. Or any of a number of things. They're just opinions without evidence. The funny part is that you have NEVER tried to actually support those opinions but you keep citing them as proven. It's not just a little dishonest. You clearly know that these opinions are not facts, nor proven, but you claim that they are. I learned that was wrong the first time my mother yelled at me for saying I didn't break the cookie jar.

Seriously, be dishonest if you like but call it like it is. You're not into legislating morality. You're into legislating morality for other people. If it was law against swearing, you'd be all over it. But if they wanted to pass a law that you're not allowed to be intentionally misleading, you'd be complaining it's a violation of your free speech. It's very convenient that all the laws you wish to pass don't require you to do anything differently.

You can try to pass any law you like, but please, please, quit claiming facts that are not in evidence.

Adriatica, my darling thing:

You asked me to show you where you made misleading or dishonest statements and where you gave any indication that you would renege on a compromise on a rape exception. So I copied this entire thread to my desktop and went through it. I selected specific quotes which I analyze and respond to. I may get yelled at for the extreme length of this post -- in fact, I think I may split it into two parts -- but I decide to quote rather than link, in case you're too busy to follow links. Part 1 is my assertion that what you claim is a secular argument is in fact a religious/moralistic one. Part 2 will be about my assertion that you are not honest in saying that you would compromise in favor of a rape exception to an abortion ban. Enjoy.

PART 1

I begin with a series of quotes in which you claim to be presenting secular arguments that are based on rationalism and not morals. I maintain that, in fact, they are not only moralistic arguments but religious one, in that they are the preferred arguments of fundamentalist religious groups against abortion rights and that they can only be accepted as logical if you first accept spiritual/religious definitions of “life” and “person.”

In general, you present arguments from potential; assumption of personhood of the fetus (undermined by your own stance on the rape exception); presumption that only voluntary sex carries an obligation to be pregnant; presumption that only women who agree to have sex must submit to such an obligation -- the last two adding up to a moralistic argument against sexual freedom of women.

It’s pretty much the fundamentalist platform, and it has nothing to do with secular reasoning. With these, I am challenging your honesty in saying that you are presenting a secular argument. I maintain that you have merely cherry-picked phrases from law and medicine which you then try to manipulate to support a religious argument. That is not the same as holding a secular viewpoint that complements your religious views, as you claim.

In my responses I point out how you are disguising your argument. I also point out errors in your facts and reasoning.

Adriatica POST 90:
A white blood cell is PART of someone elses body. The embryo is not. This is obvious by the fact that it is a complete human entity. This can be proven by the devolopmental path it is taking. The embryo's developmental path clearly shows it to be a whole human.
Religious argument disguised as a secular one: This is an argument from potential, which is one of the primary talking points of the religious opposition to abortion rights, related to the idea that it is god’s plan for this thing to become a person. I know of no secular opponent of abortion who argues from potential.

Direct rebuttal:
An organism’s development path is a path, not a state of existence. A monarch butterfly caterpillar is not a monarch butterfly complete with wings. A human embryo is not a “whole human” as, through most of its development, it lacks all the parts of a human. If a bird eats the caterpillar, we do not say that it ate a butterfly. Likewise, when a pregnancy ends early -- in the first trimester, say -- a collection of cells that were in the process of building a human have died, but not a human being, because the cells had not finished the process of becoming a human. If I give you a plate of raw tomatoes, raw garlic, dried noodles, a solid chunk of parmesan cheese, and a drizzle of olive oil, have I served you a spaghetti dinner? No, dinner is not served until the food has reached the end of its development path.


Adriatica POST 90 CON’T:
But what if you had gambled fairly and knowelably and known that one of the outcomes would be to be locked in a closet. When a woman has consentual sex, she knows that one of the possible outcomes is a child. She can limit the posibility of this outcome with contreception, but at the end of the day it is a possible outcome.
Another religious argument disguised as a secular one:
This is part of what I call the “Scarlet Letter” argument which posits that pregnancy is a price women must pay for having sex. It is always linked to the idea that women have too much freedom (restriction of the woman’s freedom is inherent in describing pregnancy as an obligation she should not be permitted to get out of). It is also related to the idea that this is a problem of a society that has become debauched recently. It is a moral argument created and used exclusively by religious anti-choicers, i.e. another religious argument. This time it is disguised as a secular argument about contractual fairness.

Direct rebuttal:
CONTRACTUAL: There are many problems with this argument. First of all, the “contract” envisioned here is inherently not fair because only one person is obligated by it and there is no way to dissolve it. This is not acceptable under contract law. Every legal contract has “outs” -- ironically known as “kill clauses” -- which continue to be effective for the duration of the contract, after the initial signing. In particular, no one can be locked into an obligation until after they have already received benefit from the person they become obligated to. For instance, I lease an apartment. I give my rent to the landlord in advance. Now the landlord, having already been paid, is obligated to let me into the apartment, but he doesn’t have to before I pay him. Or for another instance, I sign a promissory note promising that if you will lend me $2million I will pay it back in x-amount of time and with x-amount of interest. It doesn’t matter when I sign the note, though; it does not become effective until after you give me the money.

So what has the fetus given the woman that would obligate her to let it use her body for 9 months? Nothing. If she is lucky in love, she may have gotten an orgasm out of the original sex act, but she didn’t get it from the fetus. So she owes the fetus nothing that could obligate her to do anything for it. In addition, society acknowledges that the fetus bears no obligation to its mother. After it’s born, it has no obligation to be or do anything for her as repayment for having been allowed to gestate inside her. So pregnancy-as-contract seeks to bind the woman in obligation to a fetus in exchange for nothing at all, either before or after.

Also, if you are going to describe sex-leading-to-pregnancy as a contract, you must clarify who the parties to the contract are. The fetus cannot be a party to the contract because the fetus did not exist at the time the sex was had and was not involved with that agreement. Your own argument leaves the man out of the equation altogether, indicating that you don’t think he is a party to any such contract, but even if he is, what precisely is he contracting for -- a baby or an orgasm? Since you do not include fathers in your pregnancy-as-contract scenario, you clearly are not thinking that the man is contracting to exchange sex for a baby. But even if he did want to do that, he couldn’t because you can’t put a third party under obligation to a contract to which it is not a party -- no agreement between a man and a woman can be binding on a fetus. Whatever the man may want from a baby, the baby is not obligated to deliver it, no matter what the woman may have promised on its behalf.

So, on the basis of no fair exchange for obligation and no clear parties, the contract you describe would be neither legal nor binding.

MORAL: Your argument is completely dependent on the idea that a woman should be obligated pay a price for having sex -- in this case, the price is servitude to a fetus. There is no foundation for such a thought unless you start with the prior idea that women’s sexual activities need to be curtailed somehow. And you wouldn’t think that unless you thought women were having too much sex just for the sake of having sex. I believe I can state without fear of successful contradiction that such complaints are a staple of religious fundamentalist movements. I know of no one else who posits such ideas.

The primary flaw in this is that sex decisions and pregnancy decisions are not related. Women have been taking direct, after-sex action to limit the number of children they have to raise for as long as our species has existed, from herbal abortifacients even up to infanticide. This includes women who only have sex with their husbands and who do not get pregnant very frequently. This is because abortion is a decision made from necessity, not convenience. Even women who have every intention of getting pregnant from sex may still have to choose not to have the child after all. That is just the way life works. Morality or the amount of sex a person has or the presumed purpose of sex, have nothing to do with it.


JOCABIA’S POST 100, QUOTING ADRIATICA’S POST 97:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adriatica II
Becasue people like you bring them up so much as reasons for not considering an embryo a true human life. A person on a life support machine cannot behave fully as a system anymore, but they are medically considered alive. I've already provided the medical opinion from many sources which state that conception is a unique time and regarded as the begining of life. Therefore any other ruling on brainwaves or heartbeat or "personhood" of another kind is arbitary.

Actually, they are not medically considered alive. The medical community considers death to occur when the brain fails. The time on the death certificate is in consideration of the family. Secondly, a brain-DEAD person has the same legal rights as a person who is not on life support. Are you actually arguing that the emotional consideration of the family should decide when life begins and ends?

Your statement is a reiteration of the religious argument from potential, that an embryo is a human because it has the potential to be a human, again being presented as if it is science.

Adriatica POST 122:
If a woman dont consent to having an embryo use the resource of your body then she shouldnt have sex. The fact is she implictly accepts it as a posibility by having sex in the first place. In the same way if you role a six sided dice you implicitly accpet you will get an outcome from one to six. You can lower that posibility all you want, but you cannot eliminate it.

This is a reiteration of the religious argument that women are bound in obligation to fetuses.
The common counter arguement to this is "I dont consent to a car crash by driving" to which I say "yes you do". Implictly by driving you accept that you could be involved in some kind of accident. However, the difference between the two is the solution of the issue.

In the case of a car crash, the issue of you being traped inside your car is solved by the emrgency servivces cutting you out of it. It is not required that you kill someone to solve that issue. Whereas in the issue of pregnancy, if you wish not to be pregnant the only solution is abortion and abortion does involve killing someone, for certianty.
This statement indicates that you think women should not be allowed to try to get out of a pregnancy, even if they had tried to prevent it by using birth control. A driver in an accident, whether it was their fault or not, is allowed to accept help in getting out of the wreck, but a woman is not allowed to do the same for an unwanted pregnancy. This only makes sense if you admit that you think of pregnancy as an obligation, not a risk of sex. And if you think pregnancy is an obligation that cannot be gotten out of even if she had taken measures to try to prevent it, then this weakens your professed support for an unwillingness exception for rape, as you would not allow her to claim that her use of contraception was evidence that she was unwilling to be pregnant.
For those who say abortion does not involve killing someone, I have already demonstrated a rather consdierable body of medical opinion that would disagree. The foetus is definitely a human life. Therefore any definition of "personhood" or something simmilar is an arbitary legal defintion that could theoretically be applied in many possible locations (first sign of heartbeat, first brainwaves, begining of formation of heart/brain, first fingerprint formation etc). The simple truth is that "personhood" is not an objective idea and thus not one that should be legislated around. However the notion of concetption being the first stage in human development is objective.
This paragraph contains several red flags, starting with the word “opinion.” You have cited the opinions of doctors as if those are actual facts, but it has been amply pointed out that an opinion is not a fact. At best, it is only an interpretation of facts, and it may very well be a correct one, but that does not make the opinion itself a fact. Also, you have ignored the worthlessness of opinions expressed by people who are not experts in the field -- such as your gerontologist who took a course in embryology once. I needn’t care what such people think about when life begins any more than I care what tonight’s cab driver thinks about it.

Another problem is that you are once again presenting a religious belief -- personhood of the fetus -- as if it were fact, even though there is no general medical consensus about it.

As for your final statement that conception is the first stage of human development, it does not automatically follow that a conceptus is a human life. You are once again arguing from potential -- a religious argument.
So why does the rape exclusion come in. Well my earlier point regarding the implict consent to the posibility of a child only aplies to when a woman has consentual sex. She cannot consent to the posibility of a child if she does not consent to sex in the first place. While I would not agree with abortion in the case of rape, outlawing it would go beyond the logic of my arguement.
Your insistance on the willingness of the woman to have sex belies the moralistic nature of your argument and that it is based in religion, not secular reasoning, despite your claims otherwise. The fact that you make no distinction between willingness to have sex and willingness to be pregnant also belies that you are basing this in the religious argument that women must pay a price for having sex and therefore the two cannot be separated. The fact that you say it’s okay to kill a baby if the woman didn’t want to have sex but was forced to by a rapist, but it’s not okay to kill a baby if the woman didn’t want to be pregnant but was forced to by a failure of birth control belies that you are treating pregnancy as a punishment for women making what you see as immoral decisions -- another religious argument. All of these religious arguments are being disguised as secular ones, but that doesn’t make them any the less religious and moralistic.


Adriatica POST 126:
Adriatica II

Originally Posted by The Sutured Psyche
Can you provide me with a single reason why a fetus should be granted, at the expense of a private individual, certain rights(food, housing, shelter) that other citizens are not?

Simple. You entered into an element of chance where you implicity accepted that was an outcome. If a woman has consentual sex, she implictly accepts that a possible outcome is pregnacy. She can reduce the chance with contreception but she cannot eliminate it. A comparabe situation would be if there was a homeless person and you and him agreed that if you rolled a dice and the number was 1-5 he would leave, but 6 and he would stay. You didnt have to go into that agreement and you didnt have to roll the dice but you did. In the same way a woman does not have to have sex.

Unlike the homeless person, the woman did not make an agreement with the fetus. According to your silence on the subject of fathers, we must conclude she made no such agreement with her lover either. So who attached this pregnancy obligation to sex? The state? I doubt it. Sex and pregnancy existed long before governments. Nature? But nature also provides the means to abort a pregnancy -- according to field zoologists, pregnant monkeys in poor food environments have been observed eating abortifacient herbs which they do not eat under more comfortable circumstances. So who then? God perhaps? We don’t seem to be left with anyone else. So this is yet another version of a religious argument pretending to be secular.
*

Adriatica POST 127:
Because you were aware of the long term consequences in the first place. Can you imagine what would happen if your logic was applied to other areas. What if a crimial said to a court "I've changed my mind. I didnt want to have broken the law, so its unfair to put me in jail". Thats tough. He made a choice and was aware of the possible consequences. In the same way in consentual sex a woman is aware of the posibility of pregnacy as an outcome.
I like that you choose to compare abortion to a crime. Another sign of the moralistic basis of your entire argument.

Adriatica POST 127 CON’T.:
You are not permited to injur someone to the point of dying if they left your house. Thats a more comparable model. Basicly you create a person within your house who did not choose to be there but cannot survive if you force him to leave. You did not have to create them, but you did. It is not their fault that they are there, not was there any forcing element for you to created that person.

The nature of a threat is not defined by your own decision. It is decided by a court. Unless the embryo is a medical risk to the mothers life, your analogy of a "threat" does not stand.

More disguised religion: Once again, you are arguing the religious belief that a fetus is a person as if it is a fact, despite that (a) no such fact has ever been proven, (b) there is no medical or scientific consensus on the spiritual condition of fetuses, (c) the legal definition of “person” is specifically not applied to fetuses.

Direct rebuttal:
You are wrong on the facts because if I wish to remove an unwanted tenant from my property, I do not have to wait until he is ready to leave and has somewhere else to go. If necessary, I can call on the authorities to remove him (marshalls), and if he resists, the marshalls may use physical force, and if he threatens them, this may end with his death. If I confront him myself and tell him to leave and he threatens me, I can defend myself, even if it ends with his death.

Also, I do not have to wait for a court judgment to respond to a perceived threat. If I think you’re threatening me, I can take you down. A court may be asked later to decide if I was right or not, but I don’t have to wait for that -- and even if a court decides I was wrong, if it also decides that under the circumstances my mistaken belief that I was being threatened was reasonable, the court will let me off. So, in fact, the nature of a threat is defined by my decision based on my perception.


JOCABIA’S POST 129 QUOTING ADRIATICA’S 127:
Originally Posted by Adriatica II
I've given medical opinion that it is a life. Your just ignoring the facts there

Yes, yes, your gerontologist. The opinion of a doctor does not make it medical. He fails to explain how it meets the definition of life in both medicine and biology. You've shown flawed verbiage, but you've yet to show anyone that makes a reasoned argument for how an embryo is a life. You tried to make one of your own and your argument was anihilated by a biologist.

EDIT: I love how you keep offering up this assertion like we didn't debunk it or somehow agreed to it. We spent pages and pages showing the flaws and your argument amounted to "meh, I say he's right."

You only use sources that are approved by anti-choice groups. You do not rely on scientific sources for your information. You’re not going to NIH or AMA, reading their papers and reaching these conclusions based on their studies. No, you are starting with the conclusion you want and using a pre-selected list of articles that have already been filtered to make sure they can be used to support you. And the conclusion you are starting from is religious and moralistic, not secular and scientific.


Adriatica POST 131:
No you cannot do that. If you kidnap someone and the injur them to the point of death if they leave your home and then force them to leave, who is in the wrong. That person did not choose to be there, and you are the one who caused them to be in that situation.
Here you appear to be saying that the woman is forcing the fetus to gestate within her. Does this mean that you think there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy? That any time a woman consents to have sex she is not just consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant but actually planning to? Then how would anyone get pregnant from a broken condom? Who would use condoms if every episode of intercourse is supposed to end in pregnancy?

And where did the woman kidnap the fetus from? Heaven? If it’s in her uterus against its will, why should she be stopped from freeing it to return to its home? By implying that a fetus has a physical life so independent from its mother’s body, you are begging the question of where this fetus-person came from -- where did it get its tissue from, etc? No, the fact is the fetus grows as a combination of the woman’s DNA with invading DNA from a man, an event that easily might not have happened at all, no matter how much sex they had. It grows according to its own processes, using her resources, and there is nothing in particular keeping it in place. The woman herself did not put it there and she does nothing to keep it there.

Arguments that equate the fetus with a fully realized person are based on an assumption of spiritually defined personhood -- not medically or legally defined. In other words, it is a religious argument.


Adriatica POST 132:
The analogy is not flawed. If the agreement in the begining is time fixed (in the case of pregnacy 9 months) then you cannot break that arrangement. If part of the agreement includes the problem of the homeless person dying if he leaves. Its not as if new clauses come up halfway through. People are aware of this from the begining.
I guess you don’t enter into a lot of contracts. None of this is true. Agreements of any kind, even those with deadlines, can be amended, extended, and/or terminated early based on changing circumstances.

Considering how vehemently you argue this contract scenario, your lack of knowledge about how contracts actually work is an indicator that it is just a front that you picked because you thought it would fit your religious argument that the fetus is a person in order to make it appear secular.


Adriatica POST 145:
Following are a series of quotes provided by you, which you took out of context and presented as saying something they do not actually say. Also, the cited source for these quotes is a pro-life organization which starts with their desired conclusion and look for quotes that can be used to support it. That pre-deterimined conclusion is a religious one which, again you are trying to disguise as secular.
Originally Posted by Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 2-18.
"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

This is an argument from potential. Beginning of process is not conclusion of process. I notice this is the gerontologist’s quote.
Originally Posted by Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp. 1-17.
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

This does not actually say what you want it to say. Biology uses the word “individual” to differentiate one organism from another as discrete objects. It in no way implies personhood as you wish it to.
Originally Posted by O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 5-55.
"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…"
Same as immediately above.
Originally Posted by Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania)
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
This contains no information beyond stating the belief of this one person.
Originally Posted by Dr. Jerome LeJeune (University of Descartes)
"after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being."
Heh. “I think, therefore I am”? That lets the fetus out, doesn’t it? Snarkiness aside, where is this speaker’s supporting evidence? How does the speaker account for embryos that fail to form properly from the beginning of cell division? Is every mass of cells created by fertilization automatically a human being, even if it never develops any organs at all?
Originally Posted by Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic)
"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
By all criteria of molecular biology, life is present from the moment the correct mix of chemicals is heated to the appropriate level in a volcanic pool. Life does not automatically mean the presence of a person.
Originally Posted by Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School):
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"
The same as immediately above. Life does not equal person.


Adriatica POST 145:
Here I challenge your sincerity on the rape exception.
Except by having sex, if those liberties exist (I dont see "right to control of body" in any legal document I've ever seen) then the woman agrees to relinqush them implictly by having sex.
So here you admit that, in fact, you believe women do not have a right to control their own bodies and that they may be forced even against their will to carry pregnancies to term. This completely undermines the supposed logic of your support for a rape exception.

Regardless of whether she was raped or not, why should she not be forced to carry the pregnancy if someone else says so and if she has relinquished her rights? Who has she relinquished her rights to -- the fetus or who? If to the fetus, what possible difference can it make how the fetus got made? And why should rape make a difference at all? If she can be forced to be pregnant, why can’t she be forced to have sex? Why can’t she be forced to donate organs, or have her life artificially extended, or even artificially shortened? We either control our bodies or we don’t. You have failed to establish any fact that supports your claim that pregnancy is some kind of special state.

Tell me this: If a woman can be forced to bear a pregnancy as the price of having consensual sex, can a man be forced to bear half the financial burden of raising the child for the rest of its life as the price he must pay for having consensual sex? I put it to you that if only the woman is forced to pay a price, then what you are really saying is that the woman must pay a price for having a uterus. I know of no secular group or individual who believes this. It is a religious argument.


Adriatica POST 149:
Another challenge to your sincerity on the rape exception:
Exactly. Very few carry a risk worhty of needing an abortion

Here you are judging someone else’s risk for them. You’ve got a lot of nerve. That willingness to leap to an unsupported conclusion that so directly affects someone else makes me suspect that you really don’t care about the risks or consequences to others as long as you get your way. I would not be the slightest bit surprised to see you lying through your teeth to get what you think you need to get, no matter what “compromises” you had agreed to with me.

Also, if risk does not warrant an abortion, then why should rape?


Adriatica POST 176:
Well doctors know when a condition is terminal or not. There is always a risk of it becoming terminal but it is not terminal yet. In the same way a pregnacy may become endangering to the womens life but it is most of the time far from certian.
Ha! Are you now arguing against development paths? A pregnancy has the potential to be terminal but we should not therefore treat it as a terminal condition? Whatever happened to sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander? This statement of yours undermines all your other arguments from potential. If the potential to become is not the same as being, then do you think that an embryo is in fact not a whole human?

END OF PART 1

PART 2 WILL FOLLOW SHORTLY.

Ah, Adriatica,

Here is Part 2 of my reply to your request for examples of what I say is your dishonesty in this thread. This part concentrates on whether you are sincere in saying you would compromise on a rape exception. It contains posts much more recent than Part 1, so I snipped more and paid attention to points that are very on point or that I had not highlighted before.


POST 219:
Adriatica II
Originally Posted by Entropic Creation
this thread was meant to be about the exception in anti-abortion laws, not about when a zygote becomes a "life".

I think the original purpose of this topic was to discuss why, given the anti-abortion position that abortion is murder, is this murder then justifiable in the case of rape.

So, why is it justified to kill this 'child'?

I would propose it is because the rape exception is a Machiavellian attempt to make an abortion ban a little more palatable to the general populous. They are willing to allow some to be killed so long as they can get this first step passed – then they will move on an outright ban.

My logic behind it is since consentual sex is the occation when she implictly accepts the possibility of having a child, obviously in the case of rape she doesnt ergo she has the right to not have it if she did not want it in the first place.

Yet again, you act as if women only have sex with the plan of getting pregnant. Why then do we buy condoms and other means of birth control? A woman whose birth control failed is pregnant against her will. If you really want to allow an exception for unwillingness, then you must allow her to abort as well. And if you allow that, then you must also allow abortions to a woman who does become pregnant voluntarily but then finds that circumstances change, making the pregnancy a bad thing for her and her family. Thus one exception for unwillingness can be expanded to include all circumstances of unwillingness and we’re right back to abortion on demand. This you will not tolerate, so your compromise on a rape exception which would undermine your entire cause is false. Even if you mean it now, you will renege the first time a legal challenge to expand the exception occurs. Your only other choice would be to abandon your cause.


ADRIATICA POST #? RESPONDING TO SUTURED PSYCHE
I'm sorry. But I just had to laugh at this. It is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my life. What you are talking about is simply politics. I have an opinion. I believe that abortions are wrong. That opinion comes from my religious point of view. However, religious points of view cannot be legislated, under normal circumstances. So hence a secular logic is constructed which supports the same idea but is not complete in its aplication.

Here you admit that your motive is political expediency in order to advance the rest of your agenda.
I do not like that but I have to accept it. Its called compromise. People (politicans in particular) have to do this all the time. I would also aprecieate you not making your accusations personal saying "You are dishonest and underhanded" is extremely offensive. You may say "The pro life movement is dishonest and underhanded" at which point you would be required to provide examples, but to call me that is exceptionally rude and bordering on flaming.
Sorry, but in this thread, you have been the example, as a representative of your movement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Abortion in Europe" Christopher Tietze, MD. Cited in Diamond, This Curette, p102
Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aborted Women: Silent No More, by David C Reardon, 1987, Crossway, Westchester, IL p321-322
In various surveys 40-85% of the women said they would not have aborted their babies if it had been illegal

Neither of these quotes contains any actual information about the affect of laws on abortion, but the fact that you quoted them supports my assertion that, compromises on exceptions notwithstanding, you will continue to work toward ever increasing bans on abortion. Hence your compromise on rape is temporary, false, and untrustworthy.


ADRIATICA POST 246:
It is not dishonest to compromise. That is what I am doing here, compromisng. I am freely and openly admiting that I have religious reasons for my views. However, I cant legislate my views. That does not mean I am not entitled to discuss secular reasons also for banning abortion. If there are secular arguments for it why is it dishonest to put them forward. It is a position. I wish to ban abortion. I wish to do so because of my own faith based reasons but I am not using the faith itself as an argument as to why you should ban abortion. I am using secular reasons. That is not decitful at all.
You cannot ban abortion and still tolerate exceptions to the ban. I maintain that you will renege on any compromise on an exception in order to achieve your ban. In addtion, I point out that in this post, although you claim to be compromising, you do not suggest that you will be content with only restricting abortion. No, you are calling for a general ban, as you have been through the whole post up until this point. Please see my post in response # 250.


ADRIATICA POST 260:
Erm. You'll have to look long and hard because you wont find it. I am fine with the rape exception and if it is the only abortion that is allowed then I will be happy in a purely legal sense. I would like there to be no abortions at all but I recognise that, legally speeking, I cannot go any further than the rape exception, so I will stop. I will admit that I came to that position only in the last few months, but it is my position now

This conflicts with your stated position as an active supporter of the anti-abortion movement and conveniently ignores the arguments I had already brought up in which I outlined how the rape exception can be expanded to allow other forms of abortion. You need to stay more alert if you want to tell a story I’ll believe.

ADRIATICA POST 302:
Adriatica II
Originally Posted by Muravyets
And you've been lying time after time. I have already detailed my proof in the form of your own avowed dedication to the anti-abortion movement and its platform, which is specifically set against any compromise on abortion.

A person and a movement are not one and the same. I oppose abortions, but will settle for the rape execption. What is so hard for you to understand about that

And now you are trying to disassociate yourself from your own cause? Is that because we have proven that their platform is too shaky and you hope to escape being tarred with the same liar's brush as them?


And because I promised:
MURAVYETS POST 315
Muravyets
Originally Posted by Adriatica II
Guess what. If something is true (IE life does begin at conception) then the law has to work around that. Biology is the key issue and it does support the pro life camp. As for the morality behind it, the website you gave me give a series of comparisons to those who perform abortions today and the views of doctors performing experiments on Jews during the holocaust
Post # 312 will definitely be in the compilation. "Life begins at conception" is an assertion, not a fact, and one based entirely on a religious point of view -- this will go to the inconsistency between your staunch religious opinion and your supposedly tolerant secular argument. Thanks! Keep 'em coming.

Followed by:
ADRIATICA POST 317
Erm, I've already provided medical opinions of this fact. Repeatedly. Do you want them again?
You mean those articles that have been debunked at least 4 times so far? See my comments regarding them above.

Finally, I'd like to end with my POST 264, taken out of order. This was the post in which I very neatly summarized my entire argument about I think you're lying, and which you even more neatly ignored. Now, with all the supporting quotes in these two posts for your quick and easy reference I hope you will address it. But please, nothing more from that debunked gerontologist.

MURAVYETS POST 264:
Muravyets
Originally Posted by Adriatica II
When did I say I didnt believe my secular arguement. I agree it is not completely what I want, but I compromise in so far as I accept that it is all that can be put into force.
By "not believe" I meant that you don't believe it is a valid exception that you would support if you were not forced to, meaning you are not tolerating it willingly and you would turn against it if you could and as soon as you can. I'll parse out how I reached this conclusion by parsing out the internal contradictions in your argument through the latter pages of this thread.

First, let's be clear about one thing: You do advocate the banning and criminalization of abortion, don't you? You are a proponent of the movement that specifically seeks to pass laws that will do that, right? Based on your posts here and in other threads, it's clear to me that this is your view. You have been pretty vehement in refusing to dilute this stance.

Second, throughout this thread you have been arguing points that conflict with each other. In your posts #s 122, 127, 145, and 151, you press the argument that pregnancy and childbirth are binding contractual obligations attached to a woman's decision to have consensual sex. This argument itself is shaky, as it is contradicted by contract law and by the fact that the decision to have sex is not a contract, but leaving that aside...your point is that a woman has no right to abort a pregnancy. Your big exception to this is if she didn't consent to have sex.

But in post # 145, you state that by becoming pregnant, women give up rights to control their own bodies. That's a pretty strong view, and it is weakened by exceptions because it puts you in the position of saying sometimes the fetus controls the pregnant woman's body and sometimes the pregnant woman does and it all depends on what she wants. Well, what if she wants to quit being pregnant? If she controls her own body, then why she wants to end the pregnancy does not matter. If she does not control her own body, then she has no basis on which to argue that someone else forced her to be pregnant against her will, as her will doesn't come into it. If you allow an exception for unwillingness, then a woman can easily argue that you are forcing her to be pregnant against her will by denying her access to elective abortion, thus triggering the unwillingess exception. She could even trigger the exception by claiming that the fetus is forcing her to be pregnant against her will, if we grant the fetus status as a person.

Third, in your posts #s 222, 224, 228, and 241, you specifically state that you believe abortion is wrong and should be criminalized. You also specifically state that the only reason you are willing to tolerate a rape exception is because current politics demands it. That's current politics, not justice or civil rights. You make reference to seeking the support of majority opinion and to supposed benefits of criminalizing abortion. You also make reference to an ongoing movement to accomplish these things. What conclusion are we to reach but that you view the rape exception as temporary and, when you think the time is right, you will try to get that banned, too? If you would like a more pointed challenge to this specific set of views, please see my post # 233.

In conclusion:

1. Following your own argument, if we accept an exception for rape, we must accept all elective abortions because an exception based on a woman's right to control her own body cannot exist within a rule that says women do not have that right. She either controls or she doesn't. Period. BTW, if the woman does not control her body, she cannot agree to contractually submit it to be used for pregnancy because it is not hers to put under obligation. Clearly that negates your entire argument for why abortion should not be allowed.

2. You are a staunch opponent of abortion rights and a proponent of the total banning of abortion. I do not believe you would support any rule that would undermine that as outlined in (1) above.

3. Your statements about the anti-choice movement indicate that, for you, it is an ongoing battle that you will continue to participate in on all necessary fronts with the goal of banning and criminalizing of abortion in general. Yet you ask me to believe that you are willing to compromise with me on an exception for rape -- an exception that undermines the rest of your agenda, as indicated. I don't believe it.

4. I also don't believe you to be stupid or unable to follow your own arguments. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying about your stance re rape exceptions.. For instance, would you support a law that said a woman who gets pregnant from a rape may abort that pregnancy, if it makes no mention at all of other circumstances under which she may not abort a pregnancy? I don't think you would because that would create a precedent from which the exception could be expanded to more circumstances. I think you are only considering such a rule as a limited exception to a more general ban on abortion and that you reserve the right to eliminate that exception once your more general ban becomes politically secure.

I'm sorry. But I just had to laugh at this. It is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my life. What you are talking about is simply politics. I have an opinion. I believe that abortions are wrong. That opinion comes from my religious point of view. However, religious points of view cannot be legislated, under normal circumstances. So hence a secular logic is constructed which supports the same idea but is not complete in its aplication.

M, I can't believe I missed this. It's such an obvious admission of AII.

One, he admits that he made a decision before looking at the evidence. He admits that he didn't draw a conclusion based on the evidence or even look to see if one was there, but simply selected evidence that supported his argument no matter what an actual review of that evidence should lead one to conclude. He admits in this statement that his argument doesn't support his ACTUAL conclusion, but that it does support his compromise.

When looking at all this, it become clear that AII cannot make the argument that he has examined the evidence and it leads one to believe there is a life at conception. In fact, he says to draw that conclusion one has to "construct" the argument rather than examine all evidence and come up with the most reasonable conclusion.

Notice the difference between these two statements. Both are written by me as examples:
My religion tells me that abortion is immoral. However, I know this argument cannot be made in a secular government so I examined all the evidence to see if it is also a scientific conclusion. I have and it does.

My religion tells me that abortion is immoral. However, I know this argument cannot be made in a secular government so I collected and interpreted evidence in such a way as to make it support my preformed conclusion to make my argument seem like a secular argument.

If you torture the facts enough they will confess to anything - Some guy whose name I don't remember.

M, I can't believe I missed this. It's such an obvious admission of AII. <snip>
It's fun, isn't it? But be careful, it's addictive. I spent 7 hours on this and hardly felt it.

I'm very happy. When I quit my job as a legal secretary, I thought this would be the one part I'd miss -- the part where the lawyer would dump a stack of files on my desk and say, "I don't know what these people are talking about. See if you can figure it out." Thanks, NSG! :D

By the way:
If you torture the facts enough they will confess to anything.
Fabulous! I want to add this to my greeting card catalogue.

It's fun, isn't it? But be careful, it's addictive. I spent 7 hours on this and hardly felt it.

I'm very happy. When I quit my job as a legal secretary, I thought this would be the one part I'd miss -- the part where the lawyer would dump a stack of files on my desk and say, "I don't know what these people are talking about. See if you can figure it out." Thanks, NSG! :D

By the way:

Fabulous! I want to add this to my greeting card catalogue.

I think the actual quote is - if you torture the fact sufficiently they will confess to anything.

At any rate the newer version sounds better.

I think the actual quote is - if you torture the fact sufficiently they will confess to anything.

At any rate the newer version sounds better.
Hmm...I'm already illustrating it in my head...

nice job Muravyets!

reading through it ( and i seldom read through a post that long) it reminded me of the post i just made in the polygamy thread

the mormon church decided to end its practice of polygamy not because they came to the conclusion that it was religiously immoral but because they recognized that it was politically impossible to exist in the united states in peace and be polygamists. it is a purely pragmatic decision on their part that can (and probably would) be immediately reversed if polygamy became legal in the united states. nothing changed in the heart of the church, only in its temporary application.

similarly, adriatica didnt come to the realization that forcing a woman to bear the child of rape is cruel and immoral. he came to the realization that insisting on it made it less likely for his position to be accepted at all. so he is dropping the "all abortion must be illegal" stance in hopes that he can get MOST abortion criminalized. if, later on, it becomes politically possible to ban abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother (leaving the possibility that his morality would allow abortion to save the life of the mother) he would immediately start working toward that goal.

this isnt compromise. its taking what you can get now in hopes of getting the rest later. and it still rests on the foundation of punishing women for having sex and on the idea that a woman should not have control over her own body and her own life.

nice job Muravyets!

reading through it ( and i seldom read through a post that long) it reminded me of the post i just made in the polygamy thread

the mormon church decided to end its practice of polygamy not because they came to the conclusion that it was religiously immoral but because they recognized that it was politically impossible to exist in the united states in peace and be polygamists. it is a purely pragmatic decision on their part that can (and probably would) be immediately reversed if polygamy became legal in the united states. nothing changed in the heart of the church, only in its temporary application.

similarly, adriatica didnt come to the realization that forcing a woman to bear the child of rape is cruel and immoral. he came to the realization that insisting on it made it less likely for his position to be accepted at all. so he is dropping the "all abortion must be illegal" stance in hopes that he can get MOST abortion criminalized. if, later on, it becomes politically possible to ban abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother (leaving the possibility that his morality would allow abortion to save the life of the mother) he would immediately start working toward that goal.

this isnt compromise. its taking what you can get now in hopes of getting the rest later. and it still rests on the foundation of punishing women for having sex and on the idea that a woman should not have control over her own body and her own life.
Thanks, Ashmoria. I knew I was making an insanely long pair of posts, but he pissed me off, and this is what happens. ;)

As far as I'm concerned, our work here is done. We called him on his misleading tactics; he demanded proof; bingo -- here it is. I will be extremely surprised if he responds with anything other than more quotes from those same articles of his and another round of "I never said that." In fact, I'll be surprised if he responds at all (<wiggles bait>).

I know I'm a bit late on the praise wagon, but still 10 points for Muravyets.

If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.
-Fred Menger, chemistry professor (1937- )

However, I'm quite certain he wasn't the first one to think of such a thing or the last.

This is what is generally known as forum filibustering. IE you make a reply so long no one can hope to respond to it fully


In general, you present arguments from potential; assumption of personhood of the fetus (undermined by your own stance on the rape exception); presumption that only voluntary sex carries an obligation to be pregnant; presumption that only women who agree to have sex must submit to such an obligation -- the last two adding up to a moralistic argument against sexual freedom of women.

Personhood is an abritary designation, one not supported by science. So if you keep mentioning it, your not going to get anywhere.


It’s pretty much the fundamentalist platform, and it has nothing to do with secular reasoning. With these, I am challenging your honesty in saying that you are presenting a secular argument. I maintain that you have merely cherry-picked phrases from law and medicine which you then try to manipulate to support a religious argument. That is not the same as holding a secular viewpoint that complements your religious views, as you claim.

Er, yes it is. You see your arguement based on personhood has no scientifc reasoning behind it. There is no scientificly agreed upon defintion of a "person" where as I have presented evidence to prove that the embryo is an individual human life.


Religious argument disguised as a secular one: This is an argument from potential, which is one of the primary talking points of the religious opposition to abortion rights, related to the idea that it is god’s plan for this thing to become a person. I know of no secular opponent of abortion who argues from potential.

Direct rebuttal:
An organism’s development path is a path, not a state of existence. A monarch butterfly caterpillar is not a monarch butterfly complete with wings. A human embryo is not a “whole human” as, through most of its development, it lacks all the parts of a human. If a bird eats the caterpillar, we do not say that it ate a butterfly. Likewise, when a pregnancy ends early -- in the first trimester, say -- a collection of cells that were in the process of building a human have died, but not a human being, because the cells had not finished the process of becoming a human. If I give you a plate of raw tomatoes, raw garlic, dried noodles, a solid chunk of parmesan cheese, and a drizzle of olive oil, have I served you a spaghetti dinner? No, dinner is not served until the food has reached the end of its development path.

Rebuttal:
A developmental path does define a life form. An embryo and a child are both on differnt stages of the same developmental path. That is the path of a human. And asside from how developed they are, there is no defining moment where it is a person or it is not. Even if you were to take EEG readings as a defining moment, that is 6 weeks into the pregnancy, the point at which after 70% of abortions happen

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception.


Adriatica POST 90 CON’T:

Another religious argument disguised as a secular one:
This is part of what I call the “Scarlet Letter” argument which posits that pregnancy is a price women must pay for having sex. It is always linked to the idea that women have too much freedom (restriction of the woman’s freedom is inherent in describing pregnancy as an obligation she should not be permitted to get out of). It is also related to the idea that this is a problem of a society that has become debauched recently. It is a moral argument created and used exclusively by religious anti-choicers, i.e. another religious argument. This time it is disguised as a secular argument about contractual fairness

Direct rebuttal:
CONTRACTUAL: There are many problems with this argument. First of all, the “contract” envisioned here is inherently not fair because only one person is obligated by it and there is no way to dissolve it. This is not acceptable under contract law. Every legal contract has “outs” -- ironically known as “kill clauses” -- which continue to be effective for the duration of the contract, after the initial signing. In particular, no one can be locked into an obligation until after they have already received benefit from the person they become obligated to. For instance, I lease an apartment. I give my rent to the landlord in advance. Now the landlord, having already been paid, is obligated to let me into the apartment, but he doesn’t have to before I pay him. Or for another instance, I sign a promissory note promising that if you will lend me $2million I will pay it back in x-amount of time and with x-amount of interest. It doesn’t matter when I sign the note, though; it does not become effective until after you give me the money.

So what has the fetus given the woman that would obligate her to let it use her body for 9 months? Nothing. If she is lucky in love, she may have gotten an orgasm out of the original sex act, but she didn’t get it from the fetus. So she owes the fetus nothing that could obligate her to do anything for it. In addition, society acknowledges that the fetus bears no obligation to its mother. After it’s born, it has no obligation to be or do anything for her as repayment for having been allowed to gestate inside her. So pregnancy-as-contract seeks to bind the woman in obligation to a fetus in exchange for nothing at all, either before or after.

Also, if you are going to describe sex-leading-to-pregnancy as a contract, you must clarify who the parties to the contract are. The fetus cannot be a party to the contract because the fetus did not exist at the time the sex was had and was not involved with that agreement. Your own argument leaves the man out of the equation altogether, indicating that you don’t think he is a party to any such contract, but even if he is, what precisely is he contracting for -- a baby or an orgasm? Since you do not include fathers in your pregnancy-as-contract scenario, you clearly are not thinking that the man is contracting to exchange sex for a baby. But even if he did want to do that, he couldn’t because you can’t put a third party under obligation to a contract to which it is not a party -- no agreement between a man and a woman can be binding on a fetus. Whatever the man may want from a baby, the baby is not obligated to deliver it, no matter what the woman may have promised on its behalf.

So, on the basis of no fair exchange for obligation and no clear parties, the contract you describe would be neither legal nor binding.

You are treating it as if its like every other contract. It isnt. It doesnt have any kill clauses and it doesnt have any ways out. This however cannot be helped. Your making it out like every other legal scenerio. It is unique. It has comparisons to other scenerios but they cannot always be accurately drawn. And it is true that women must expect the possibility of a child from sex. It is always a possibility, one which cannot be dealt with. For a point of record I do think the man has a responsability to the situation also. However it is not a direct biological one unlike the relationship between the mother and the fetus. The fetus depends on the mother in a completely diffrent way to the father.


MORAL: Your argument is completely dependent on the idea that a woman should be obligated pay a price for having sex -- in this case, the price is servitude to a fetus. There is no foundation for such a thought unless you start with the prior idea that women’s sexual activities need to be curtailed somehow. And you wouldn’t think that unless you thought women were having too much sex just for the sake of having sex. I believe I can state without fear of successful contradiction that such complaints are a staple of religious fundamentalist movements. I know of no one else who posits such ideas.

Its not "paying a price" as you put it. Its fact. The fact is that it is possible for a woman to become pregnant as a result of sex. She can use contreception to prevent it (which I have no problem with) but it is a possibility and it is implictly accepted by having sex.


The primary flaw in this is that sex decisions and pregnancy decisions are not related. Women have been taking direct, after-sex action to limit the number of children they have to raise for as long as our species has existed, from herbal abortifacients even up to infanticide. This includes women who only have sex with their husbands and who do not get pregnant very frequently. This is because abortion is a decision made from necessity, not convenience. Even women who have every intention of getting pregnant from sex may still have to choose not to have the child after all. That is just the way life works. Morality or the amount of sex a person has or the presumed purpose of sex, have nothing to do with it.

I didnt say it did. What I did say however is that it is a possibility that she will become pregnant, and if she doesnt like that possibility she can lower it with contreception. But she cannot eliminate it.



Your statement is a reiteration of the religious argument from potential, that an embryo is a human because it has the potential to be a human, again being presented as if it is science.

Adriatica POST 122:

This is a reiteration of the religious argument that women are bound in obligation to fetuses.

This statement indicates that you think women should not be allowed to try to get out of a pregnancy, even if they had tried to prevent it by using birth control. A driver in an accident, whether it was their fault or not, is allowed to accept help in getting out of the wreck, but a woman is not allowed to do the same for an unwanted pregnancy. This only makes sense if you admit that you think of pregnancy as an obligation, not a risk of sex. And if you think pregnancy is an obligation that cannot be gotten out of even if she had taken measures to try to prevent it, then this weakens your professed support for an unwillingness exception for rape, as you would not allow her to claim that her use of contraception was evidence that she was unwilling to be pregnant.

The use of contreception may prove that she does not want a pregnancy but it is not a "get out clause". All it does is reduce the posibility of pregnancy. So far no contrecption elimintates it entirely. The reason the driver is allowed help out of his car but the woman is not allowed an abortion is that an abortion kills someone where as helping someone out of their car does not.

This paragraph contains several red flags, starting with the word “opinion.” You have cited the opinions of doctors as if those are actual facts, but it has been amply pointed out that an opinion is not a fact. At best, it is only an interpretation of facts, and it may very well be a correct one, but that does not make the opinion itself a fact. Also, you have ignored the worthlessness of opinions expressed by people who are not experts in the field -- such as your gerontologist who took a course in embryology once. I needn’t care what such people think about when life begins any more than I care what tonight’s cab driver thinks about it..

They are embryologists opinions (with one exeption) about embryology. They are scientific opinions. If you are prepared to discount them because they are just opinions, you should also discount the testimony of forensic experts in courts.


Another problem is that you are once again presenting a religious belief -- personhood of the fetus -- as if it were fact, even though there is no general medical consensus about it.

Medically speeking "personhood" doesnt exist. Personhood is an abritary concept that could be placed in any number of other times (first heart beat, first brainwaves etc)


As for your final statement that conception is the first stage of human development, it does not automatically follow that a conceptus is a human life. You are once again arguing from potential -- a religious argument.

No, a logical arguement on the basis of the earliest time of the existance of an individual human. There is nothing like it in terms of development in the rest of the humans life.


Your insistance on the willingness of the woman to have sex belies the moralistic nature of your argument and that it is based in religion, not secular reasoning, despite your claims otherwise. The fact that you make no distinction between willingness to have sex and willingness to be pregnant also belies that you are basing this in the religious argument that women must pay a price for having sex and therefore the two cannot be separated. The fact that you say it’s okay to kill a baby if the woman didn’t want to have sex but was forced to by a rapist, but it’s not okay to kill a baby if the woman didn’t want to be pregnant but was forced to by a failure of birth control belies that you are treating pregnancy as a punishment for women making what you see as immoral decisions -- another religious argument. All of these religious arguments are being disguised as secular ones, but that doesn’t make them any the less religious and moralistic.

The fact is there is no distinction between wanting to have sex and wanting to be pregnant. If you have sex you may not want to be pregnant, but practically speeking you have to accept it as a possible consequence. Its rather silly to suggest you can seperate the two. It would be like going boweling when you want to roll the ball down the lane at the pins but are unhappy when the pins fall over.


Unlike the homeless person, the woman did not make an agreement with the fetus. According to your silence on the subject of fathers, we must conclude she made no such agreement with her lover either. So who attached this pregnancy obligation to sex? The state? I doubt it. Sex and pregnancy existed long before governments. Nature? But nature also provides the means to abort a pregnancy -- according to field zoologists, pregnant monkeys in poor food environments have been observed eating abortifacient herbs which they do not eat under more comfortable circumstances. So who then? God perhaps? We don’t seem to be left with anyone else. So this is yet another version of a religious argument pretending to be secular.

You still dont get it. The agreement is being made with the action. IE the possibility of outcome. When you role a dice you accept a 1-6 outcome. You make an implict agreement by the action.

I may respond to the rest another time. I have other things to do

This is what is generally known as forum filibustering. IE you make a reply so long no one can hope to respond to it fully

No, it's not. It's called "ripping an argument apart piecemeal", and it's usually reserved for people who are furious with their opponent in a debate.

I await your response to his two-post rending of your arguments. :)

Personhood is an abritary designation, one not supported by science. So if you keep mentioning it, your not going to get anywhere.

Not in law, it's not. That's the problem with your side of the debate. You want to make it arbitrary, a decision subject to vote and NOT the product of study. I'm happy to see at least one of the anti-choicers admit they are simply trying to set an arbitrary line. Good to know.

Personhood is an abritary designation, one not supported by science. So if you keep mentioning it, your not going to get anywhere.

It may be arbitrary, but it is vital. In our society we do not extend rights to non-persons. A chair does not have the same civil rights as you or I, neither does a horse. Personhood matters because a pro-life argument cannot be asserted until it has been established. You have been confusing a strict biological definition of when something is considered a separate life from when something is granted the rights and privilages of a person.

Sure, saying that personhood comes at conception is an easy answer supported by your faith, but it is not supported by the laws of the land. Even conservative jurists like Samuel Alito recognize this simple legal fact.



Er, yes it is. You see your arguement based on personhood has no scientifc reasoning behind it. There is no scientificly agreed upon defintion of a "person" where as I have presented evidence to prove that the embryo is an individual human life.

But the entire argument hinges on a definition of personhood. All life does not get the same rights. You need to be very careful with the argument you are making, because the logical conclusion would grant full civil rights to anything creature which fufills the scientific requirements for "life." Are you ready to give up eating meat and animal testing for medical advacnes? Are you prepared to have your land-use rights radically altered because improving your property might adversely effect "life?"


You are treating it as if its like every other contract. It isnt. It doesnt have any kill clauses and it doesnt have any ways out. This however cannot be helped. Your making it out like every other legal scenerio. It is unique. It has comparisons to other scenerios but they cannot always be accurately drawn. And it is true that women must expect the possibility of a child from sex. It is always a possibility, one which cannot be dealt with. For a point of record I do think the man has a responsability to the situation also. However it is not a direct biological one unlike the relationship between the mother and the fetus. The fetus depends on the mother in a completely diffrent way to the father.

Part of a free society is a uniformity of law. You do not get to have special contracts in order to justify your position. You must play within the defined rules of the game. That is the cost of the rule of law, that is the drawback of living in a free society. Yes, it means that sometimes people will do things that shock or offend you.



Its not "paying a price" as you put it. Its fact. The fact is that it is possible for a woman to become pregnant as a result of sex. She can use contreception to prevent it (which I have no problem with) but it is a possibility and it is implictly accepted by having sex.

Stop being disingenuous. You have already made it clear that you do have a problem with all non-barrier methods of contraception. Further, you have made it clear in another threat(which you started) that one of the reasons you oppose abortion is because you oppose promiscuity. Such a stance would imply that you oppose anything which would promote promiscuity, including birth control. Indeed, you favorably mentioned the restriction of birth control as a legitimate means of reducing promiscuity. You cannot have it both ways.



I didnt say it did. What I did say however is that it is a possibility that she will become pregnant, and if she doesnt like that possibility she can lower it with contreception. But she cannot eliminate it.

But she only has available to her those means of contraception which you are willing to allow her to possess, and you exclude all of the most effective means because of a small possability that they might prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Further, your reasoning for limiting available contraception is(at least in part) to increase the risks associated with sexual activity and thus reduce such behavior which you find offensive. That brings us back to the religious basis of your stance, and your excreable desire to impose your will on the personal choices of others.

They are embryologists opinions (with one exeption) about embryology. They are scientific opinions. If you are prepared to discount them because they are just opinions, you should also discount the testimony of forensic experts in courts.

Again you confuse fact with opinion. A forensic expert in court presents scientific findings backed by evidence that has been accepted by both the scientific community and the courts. It is not the opinion that a specific sequence of DNA has a 1 in X chance of belonging to an individual other than the defendant, it is a statistical fact. That ratio is the degree of certainty with which the expert makes their assertion. You will almost never see a legitimate scientist say that they are 100% right, they will always qualify with a degree of certitude unless they have demonstrated an objective fact. Even then, the scientific community tends to test and retest their findings to make sure nothing is missing.

The opinion of a scientist is not scientific opinion. What you have presented are the opinions of experts in the absence of any evidence. That is worthless. It is less than worthless. A forensic expert in a court can(and often does) turn to dozens of studies that have appeared publicly in peer-reviewed journals to back up their claims. Your experts did not, at least not in any of the quotes you brought to the table.

Further, science is not a static field. The body of scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and 25 years is a very long time. Obsolescence is par for the course in the research community.



Medically speeking "personhood" doesnt exist. Personhood is an abritary concept that could be placed in any number of other times (first heart beat, first brainwaves etc)

Personhood needs to be defined in a legal context if you are to be discussing legal issues.

Face it, at the core of your argument you believe life and personhood to be the same thing, to be the time when that individual is imbued with a soul by God. That is the 400 pound gorilla in the room which you refuse to acknowledge. Your entire secualr argument comes undone when the foundation is purely religious.



The fact is there is no distinction between wanting to have sex and wanting to be pregnant. If you have sex you may not want to be pregnant, but practically speeking you have to accept it as a possible consequence. Its rather silly to suggest you can seperate the two. It would be like going boweling when you want to roll the ball down the lane at the pins but are unhappy when the pins fall over.

And to you I say "welcome to the new world." Sexual politics and reproductive rights have been dominated by paternalistic impulses for far too long. The monotheistic faiths and their "father gods" have kept the passions of humanity chained for far too long. Humanity has advanced to such a degree that we no longer need to control who has sex with who in order to keep society functioning and ensure a fresh generation of farmers and soldiers. We have moved into a time when we have the ability to control when we have children, we can have sex for recreation without fear of pregnancy, we have the power to control our destiny. I know that disgusts you. I know that your faith tells you that sex is for procreation, limited to those who have entered into a union of one mand and one woman in the eyes of your God. Too bad. We live in a free society, human beings have a right to decide how their bodies will be used without the dictation of fathers, gods, or legislators. We are our own sovereigns. Its a wonderful time to be alive.

Thanks, Ashmoria. I knew I was making an insanely long pair of posts, but he pissed me off, and this is what happens. ;)

As far as I'm concerned, our work here is done. We called him on his misleading tactics; he demanded proof; bingo -- here it is. I will be extremely surprised if he responds with anything other than more quotes from those same articles of his and another round of "I never said that." In fact, I'll be surprised if he responds at all (<wiggles bait>).

Jeez, really had nothing better to do? Did you miss the part where he can't mislead you if he tells you the truth? What do you have to be pissed off about?

Jeez, really had nothing better to do? Did you miss the part where he can't mislead you if he tells you the truth? What do you have to be pissed off about?
No, but apparently you missed the part where he's not telling the truth.

This is what is generally known as forum filibustering. IE you make a reply so long no one can hope to respond to it fully
Well, since you managed to respond to this much, I guess the thread will survive, eh? And now we can break it back down to manageable levels and continue.

Personhood is an abritary designation, one not supported by science. So if you keep mentioning it, your not going to get anywhere.
Then why did you keep you mentioning it? Because you are correct -- it is an entirely arbitrary concept with no grounding in science, yet you repeatedly referred to it.

Er, yes it is. You see your arguement based on personhood has no scientifc reasoning behind it. There is no scientificly agreed upon defintion of a "person" where as I have presented evidence to prove that the embryo is an individual human life.
Once again, you are attempting to disassociate yourself from your own argument. It's amazing to watch you slice yourself up this way. Everyone can see that you described fetuses as "person," "human," "human being," "individual," and various combinations of those interchangably. And now you're trying to claim you never said "person" -- as if that's true and as if it would make a difference to your meaning if it was. This is just like when you tried to disassociated yourself from the anti-choice movement after telling us all how devoted you were to it.

Rebuttal:
A developmental path does define a life form. An embryo and a child are both on differnt stages of the same developmental path. That is the path of a human. And asside from how developed they are, there is no defining moment where it is a person or it is not. Even if you were to take EEG readings as a defining moment, that is 6 weeks into the pregnancy, the point at which after 70% of abortions happen
This is just repeating the argument from potential which I and many others have already rejected as (a) religion masquerading as science and (b) unsupported by either facts or logic. Just repeating the argument does nothing to persuade us that we are wrong about it.

Oh, and by the way, you're describing the embryo/fetus as a "person" in this quote. So I guess that cancels out your claims that you don't do that (above).

You are treating it as if its like every other contract. It isnt. It doesnt have any kill clauses and it doesnt have any ways out. This however cannot be helped. Your making it out like every other legal scenerio. It is unique. It has comparisons to other scenerios but they cannot always be accurately drawn. And it is true that women must expect the possibility of a child from sex. It is always a possibility, one which cannot be dealt with. For a point of record I do think the man has a responsability to the situation also. However it is not a direct biological one unlike the relationship between the mother and the fetus. The fetus depends on the mother in a completely diffrent way to the father.

And this is why it's not a contract. Not even like a contract, in fact. Let me explain something to you: When a comparison cannot be drawn accurately, it's a bad comparison. Pregnancy is not a contract; it doesn't work like a contract (which you are admitting right here); therefore to describe it as a contract is nonsensical. You might as well have spent pages and pages explaining in detail how pregnancy is just like a ham sandwich.

Its not "paying a price" as you put it. Its fact. The fact is that it is possible for a woman to become pregnant as a result of sex. She can use contreception to prevent it (which I have no problem with) but it is a possibility and it is implictly accepted by having sex.

I didnt say it did. What I did say however is that it is a possibility that she will become pregnant, and if she doesnt like that possibility she can lower it with contreception. But she cannot eliminate it.

Don't pretend to be thick. You know perfectly well that "paying a price" refers to the fact that you want the woman to be prevented from avoiding pregnancy by banning abortion. By the way, I happen to know that in the "Why is it bad to oppose promiscuity" thread you are arguing for restrictions on contraception, too, so sorry, but it looks to me like you think a woman should not be allowed to try to avoid pregnancy by any means. And since in this thread you are insisting on a difference between a woman choosing to have sex or being forced to, and in the other thread you are condemning "promiscuity," it starts to look a lot like you are trying to control women's choices and using pregnancy to punish them for making choices you don't approve of.

The use of contreception may prove that she does not want a pregnancy but it is not a "get out clause". All it does is reduce the posibility of pregnancy. So far no contrecption elimintates it entirely. The reason the driver is allowed help out of his car but the woman is not allowed an abortion is that an abortion kills someone where as helping someone out of their car does not.

Oh, so you admit that the only deciding factor is whether the woman chose to have sex, not whether she chose to get pregnant. So you are saying that pregnancy is the price she must pay for her choice, despite your claim otherwise, above.

Also, here again, you are talking about the fetus as if it is a person. Do you want to keep claiming that you don't do that because it's an arbitrary and unscientific thing to say?

They are embryologists opinions (with one exeption) about embryology. They are scientific opinions. If you are prepared to discount them because they are just opinions, you should also discount the testimony of forensic experts in courts.

Moore is a gerontologist, not an embryologist. Oh, and even an expert opinion is still nothing but an opinion. That's why, in trials at court, both sides present experts of their own who present opposing opinions on the same topic (such as interpreting what the forensic evidence means), which the jury must choose between.

Medically speeking "personhood" doesnt exist. Personhood is an abritary concept that could be placed in any number of other times (first heart beat, first brainwaves etc)

Correct, which is why it is pointless to cite it as a reason to ban or restrict abortion. So why do you keep doing that?

No, a logical arguement on the basis of the earliest time of the existance of an individual human. There is nothing like it in terms of development in the rest of the humans life.

Nope, you were once again talking about the fetus as if it is a person.

The fact is there is no distinction between wanting to have sex and wanting to be pregnant. If you have sex you may not want to be pregnant, but practically speeking you have to accept it as a possible consequence. Its rather silly to suggest you can seperate the two. It would be like going boweling when you want to roll the ball down the lane at the pins but are unhappy when the pins fall over.

Let's parse out your argument here. On the one hand you say a woman who has sex must accept the possibility that she might become pregnant, and on the other hand you are saying that a woman who has sex actively wants to become pregnant. That's nonsense. Every day we're alive, we must accept the possibility that we may die before dinner. Does this mean we are trying to kill ourselves?

And yet again, I ask you to account for the use of contraceptives. Obviously, a woman who uses contraceptives is aware of the possibility that she may get pregnant and she doesn't want to so she takes steps to prevent it. Clearly, it is possible to want sex without wanting to be pregnant.

And your bowling analogy is just another example of this weird idea you've got that women only have sex to get babies. If you want to argue that women should only have sex to get babies, that's fine, but pretending we already think that way isn't fooling anyone into accepting it as a fact.

You still dont get it. The agreement is being made with the action. IE the possibility of outcome. When you role a dice you accept a 1-6 outcome. You make an implict agreement by the action.

And you still don't get it -- there is no such thing as an "implicit agreement." Agreements are deliberately made mutually between participating parties. You might be able to say that some actions carry an implicit promise from the person doing the action. Or you might argue that some actions carry an implicit meaning, referring to the beliefs or motives of the person doing the action. But unless there is a deliberate and mutual plan to agree, then there is no agreement. And if the woman used contraception, then obviously, she was not agreeing to get pregnant.

PLUS, you didn't answer the question: If you think the woman made an agreement, tell me who she made it with.

I may respond to the rest another time. I have other things to do
Take your time. Dinaverg is right -- I don't have much else to do, as I recently quit my job. I can wait. :)

Personhood is an abritary designation, one not supported by science. So if you keep mentioning it, your not going to get anywhere.

The definition of personhood is a philosophical one. But some such definitions can be supported by science, in that science can designate when they are met.

Er, yes it is. You see your arguement based on personhood has no scientifc reasoning behind it. There is no scientificly agreed upon defintion of a "person" where as I have presented evidence to prove that the embryo is an individual human life.

Wrong. You have provided no evidence. You have provided a bunch of quotes without a shred of evidence to back them up. That, my dear, is useless in the debate, because the reasoning behind them cannot be examined.

A developmental path does define a life form. An embryo and a child are both on differnt stages of the same developmental path.

So are a sperm and an egg. And a rotting corpse. It is not the path that defines a life form, or a corpse would be an organism, as would the sperm and the egg. It is the traits of a given entity that must define it as either living or non-living.

You are treating it as if its like every other contract. It isnt.

Then it isn't a contract at all.

Its not "paying a price" as you put it. Its fact. The fact is that it is possible for a woman to become pregnant as a result of sex. She can use contreception to prevent it (which I have no problem with) but it is a possibility and it is implictly accepted by having sex.

But, as you know, "possibility of becoming pregnant" does not mean that one must agree to carry a pregnancy to term or give birth to a child.

They are embryologists opinions (with one exeption) about embryology.

I'm sorry, did you actually provide evidence of this? I didn't see you provide the credentials of each quote.

They are scientific opinions.

No, they aren't. They are no more scientific opinions than my opinion that the the color purple is the best color is a scientific opinion. Scientific opinions are only made after an examination and a presentation of empirical evidence. You have yet to provide any empirical evidence for these opinions, which leads me to believe that none was given.

If you are prepared to discount them because they are just opinions, you should also discount the testimony of forensic experts in courts.

Forensic experts collect evidence which they present, either on the stand or in a written report, to the jury. Do you understand the word EVIDENCE? In scientific circles, we find it to be important. It isn't enough for a forensic expert to get up on the stand and say, "The defendent did it. Execute him." Nope, sorry, there is more to it than that. The expert in question must examine all the evidence, and must be able to explain how he arrived at his conclusion from that evidence. If the jury cannot follow his thought processes, his testimony is ignored.

The fact is there is no distinction between wanting to have sex and wanting to be pregnant. If you have sex you may not want to be pregnant, but practically speeking you have to accept it as a possible consequence.

You directly contradict yourself here. You basically say, "Any woman who has sex wants to be pregnant, except that some don't."