…

Premise 1: Human life is precious.

Premise 2: We cannot reliably say at which point human life begins.

Inference: We cannot reliably say at which point a fetus becomes precious

Premise 2 and its inference are factually incorrect. I did not state these things. This is your worldview… let my words speak. If you cannot do that then end the discussion.

Conclusion: We should not kill any fetus to avoid the risk of killing a human.

Factually incorrect. I did not say this. If this were true then there would never be miscarriages, at-risk pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancies.

Anyways, I might have screwed up the steps but thats basically the gist.

When you’re basically making an argument for another person who never said most of what you posted, I would say that’s an error in judgement on your part.

Natuarlly, I disagree with premise 2. Can we move on now?

Nothing is keeping you in this forum… only your natural impulse to make your argument more acceptable to the rest of us (or just me) who disagree with you.

If you genuinely offered me a “peace branch” then why make this post? Why be so disrespectful about my point of view, or even “pretend” to take this discussion seriously if you take this road? Argue your own points. Your words in my context doesn’t make them my words. They are just words that suit your argument better.

You are not an authority on this topic anymore than I am. You do not speak for women, as I am sure you know that. I do not appeal to emotion… this subject is inherently emotional… not for you. I find it rather condescending and patronizing that you feel you can speak for me or for other women or for that matter tell us how we should feel.

I do not understand you nor do I want to. For someone who’s “leaving the door open for children,” I find your worldview ironic even incompatible. I’m also not interested in your reading list… you will not change my mind and I will not change yours.

Are we done now?

This is geting old so let me just make your arguement for you:

Premise 1: Human life is precious.

Premise 2: We cannot reliably say at which point human life begins.

Inference: We cannot reliably say at which point a fetus becomes precious.

Conclusion: We should not kill any fetus to avoid the risk of killing a human.

Anyways, I might have screwed up the steps but thats basically the gist.

Natuarlly, I disagree with premise 2. Can we move on now?

You don’t have to have a “soul” per se to be alive

equivocation again.

because then you really are putting human (higher order mammals) on the same plane as other species.

No, I’m putting human fetuses on that plane. Not developed humans or fetuses in later stages. I’ll admit though, I am not sure I think its OK to hunt chimpanzees for sport (for instance), I am still exploring that idea though. Deer and such are OK, IMHO.

You’re basing this on the premise that you’re eliminating an egg’s potential, be it fertilized or unfertilized.

No, as I said I’m basing it on the premise that a fetus is not “alive.” In any case, I think you at least understand that we are working with different premises and you realize we won’t agree.

As a man, I really don’t think you understand the many reasons why women take birth control.

Not sure which one this is, but sounds like “appeal to authority.” Either way, another fallacy.

Most of the rest of that and the next paragraph is argumentum ad populum and “appeals to emotion.” Which I don’t know why you keep doing because likely you, I, and maybe Danke are the only ones still reading.

how do you account for conditions like hydrocephalus

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus

Usually, hydrocephalus need not cause any intellectual impairment if recognized and properly treated.

So, I don’t see how this is relevant. If you are talking about a brain malformation that renders a person a “vegetable” or “brain dead” then I would say no matter if they are a fetus, baby, or fully grown, they are “dead.” I would defer the decision to “pull the plug” to the family however.

to say that the joining of a man and women creates a “bundle of cells” that you do not consider to be a living human being

..do not consider a human being until LATER ON in the pregnancy. Our disagreement is only in a matter of weeks – months.

The creation of life is meaningful

It’s amazing, it’s overwhelming, and it’s remarkable, it is meaningful, why do you think I believe otherwise because of a matter of weeks?

If you are truly interested in my point of view I would recommend Richard Dawkins as he is far more eloquent than I. Be warned though, you won’t like his ideas about foreign policy and neither do I. In all fairness though, I understand he is coming around and accepting ideas closer to Christopher Hitchens in that regard.

1. There would be some atheists who would disagree with you. You don’t have to have a “soul” per se to be alive or you would be discounting a lot of folks. I disagree with your “sentience” argument because then you really are putting human (higher order mammals) on the same plane as other species. Once the egg implants itself into the uterus it’s already developing the precursors to the the nervous system and the brain. I would say that qualifies as “sentience.”

2. Look, I’m sorry but birth control and abortion aren’t on the same moral plane. Many women take birth control besides not to get pregnant. You’re basing this on the premise that you’re eliminating an egg’s potential, be it fertilized or unfertilized. As a man, I really don’t think you understand the many reasons why women take birth control.

3.Again, your “sentience” argument doesn’t account for things like miscarriages, especially in the 2nd trimester. You do not account for things like human perception of pregnancy and the comfortable platitudes that people use like the “non-person” argument to make themselves feel better about abortion.

Again, once that fertilized egg becomes an embryo it’s alive… meaning developing limbs, brain, tisssue, the works. Sentience does not account for how the mother’s body protects, nourishes, and aids the baby’s gestation. If you’re soley using sentience in your argument, then how do you account for conditions like hydrocephalus or brain malformations? Is the baby “sentient?” Does your argument still apply here? Is a human being (even an adult) who can’t interact with its environment because of disease sentient?

We will not agree. I’m not particularly religious and there have been things (like 9/11) that have made me question a higher power but to say that the joining of a man and women creates a “bundle of cells” that you do not consider to be a living human being is pushing the boundaries of both the definitions of “life” and its meaning. Your view seems hopeless and merciless. The creation of life is meaningful… it’s too bad that your life experience and belief systems suggest to you otherwise.

2. If you take my premise that a fertilized egg is not a life, then I could argue that said egg is no more “alive” or has any more “potential” than a sperm or an egg that are separate. Thus, abortion / and birth control are on the same moral plane IN THAT SENSE ONLY. As I stated before, I am aware of, and wary of, potential complications from abortions.

3. No. Refer to #1 and my concern about where “sentience” and “life begins.

You’re “addressed” questions but you either redirect, deflect, or don’t answer. Things you don’t fully answer are:

1. Why is a baby just a “bundle of cells?” Is a baby just a non-person or a thing?

2. How does the pill/using a condom = abortion?

3. How is it you support abortion but don’t support late-term abortion? Aren’t they the same thing?

In any case though, however he comes to his conclusions, it is clear that he believes life begins at conception. His stance on IVF is logically consistent with it. So, to me, he is being intellectually honest about IVF & abortion and we can agree to disagree, hence I left it alone.

You can have the last word, that is fine with me.

As for this:

You never addressed a lot of people’s questions about your views so how was it stimulating?

If I missed anyone’s questions or didn’t address anything pls let me know now.

dakine said:
That about sums it up zeroangel.

How does this invole you? If you have a problem with me, Dakine, please take it up with me, and stop hiding behind another poster. Okay?

Let’s consider the following:

You’ve called me loathsome.

You’ve implied that life and creation are not important to me.

You’ve called me “positively creepy.”

You just about called me Hitler.

I’m characterizing your positions not your character. I’m also speaking to the pro-choice movement in general. Their/your positions are just as inconsistent as you assert mine are. Where’s the beef?

You’ve called me a troll and said that I am “inhuman.”

You’ve made assumptions about me and implied that I feel the way I do because I am detached and never experienced the topic.

Then, when you discovered that is wrong, you suggested that I feel the way I do BECAUSE of my experiences and suggested perhaps my wife and I don’t want kids. (huh?)

You like to press that hot button. You like to stir it up. Am I wrong?

I called you a troll because you exhibit the behaviors of several that inhabit this blog. I feel that anyone who finds abortion acceptable (for whatever the reason) has in some ways lost touch with what gave us life in the first place. When you accept an inhumane practice I guess perhaps, that makes you inhuman? You have also stated that you were glad that your ex-girlfriend had her abortion but support your wife having one if you/she experiences a “birth control failure.” How is any of this life-affirming to you?

When I finally tried to offer a “branch of peace” by saying thank you for the conversation, you flat out rejected said branch and called me a “cold fish.”

…and so on.

You mean this “peace branch?”

Actually, you pretty much do sound like Hitler
There it is! Thank you emjem24 for a stimulating discussion.

I never called you Hitler… you sound like him so please remove that from your argument. You never addressed a lot of people’s questions about your views so how was it stimulating? Stimulating like “peace branches” only mean something if they’re intended in a serious manner. Next…

On the flip side, the worst thing I said to you is perhaps called you ignorant of IVF (in this post, but you admit it anyways).

Since I’m not ignorant of the IVF procedure and its repercussions aren’t you making assumptions as to my knowledge or lack thereof? I’ve had friends go through the procedure. I’ve even admited to being discomfited by the wasteful nature of discarding fertilized eggs. What point are you making? Assumptions abound on both sides of any discussion.