Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 2

Possible Format

For the individual views, would point/counteropint be effective? I.G. Pro life beliefs, followed by their pro-choice counter, and the same under pro-choice? It would allow both sides to present all their beliefs, and keeping it NPOV by showing both POVs on every issue, but would it be too awkward? Daemon8666 14:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that is a very viable option. I think the current layout of the Debate section will work better, as there is no need to repeat. With point-counterpoint, there is repetition, which will almost double the size of the article, which is already far too long. KillerChihuahua 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

variant views and ethics

I don't really want to touch the text of a hot potato like this, so I'll just leave it on the talk page ...

If you're going to mention that pro-life people believe abortion is murder, then you have to mention the flipside. Logical extension of the "abortion is murder" line of reasoning is that "miscarriage is manslaughter".

Bad analogy. If you're driving a car on the freeway at the proper speed, and someone jumps in front of you, you couldn't have done anything to prevent it, and you weren't doing anything illegal. That's not manslaughter. --Doctorcherokee 22:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it really that bad? If you knew ahead of time that a miscarriage was a non-trival probable outcome of becomming pregnant, then can't it be argued that trying to have a child is an exhibition of depraved indifference to human life or reckless endangerment of human life? In the case a miscarriage does happen, then won't it be manslaughter? --Rikurzhen 06:53, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Some would claim that driving an automobile shows depraved indifference/reckless endangerment to human life. There is, though, a distinction between passively knowing there will be a non-trivial chance that someone may step in front of your speeding vehicle versus negligently doing something to impair your judgment or actively seeking out that person to run down. --Doctorcherokee 07:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very true. I think that reason this appears to be a true analogy is that ~2/3 of all pregnancies end of miscarriage -- most early -- which is probably a higher precentage of death than drunk drivers, etc. Although it seems that this kind of counter argument is only cogent against the claim that killing an embryo or early fetus is murder. --Rikurzhen 17:58, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Good points. In my opinion, embryos and early, non-viable fetuses present more of a grey area where the best argument for life is genetic uniqueness and a "life-in-progress" argument. Later on, it seems to me that humanity/personhood is undeniable; however, then it becomes more of a question of sovereignty...who trumps who? --Doctorcherokee 00:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait a second. The fact that procreating sometimes leads to miscarriage no more means that it's manslaughter than the fact that getting pregnant always leads to death, since we all eventually die. If the temporal distance to death matters, note that in many places a significant proportion of infants die. --User:Pruss

Additionally, I feel that this page presents somewhat of a false dichotomy. It focuses too much on the issue of whether a fetus is or isn't a person. Not everyone subscribes to the view that this is the key issue. Some people believe a fetus isn't a person, yet has certain rights anyway. Much like how a dog isn't a person, yet beating your dog is unacceptable. ShaneKing 03:01, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. Other pro-choicers believe that a fetus is a person with rights, but that a mother's right to control her own body must balance (and can't be invalidated by) the fetus' rights. - Eisnel 05:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think those are honest assessments of a lot of what pro-choicers believe. Life, or some would say "potential life," in utero is implicitly less valuable than the mother's. --Doctorcherokee 22:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The flip side of that coin is the sentiment that a non-viable embryo is a parasitic organism that grows and flourish's only at the expense of the mother. to this extent, an unwanted embryo is analagous to an unwanted tumor; both have human DNA, and both grow in the human by natural means. perhaps this discussion is too polarized for the main page, but it might be nice to mention that there are alternatives in the "is it human" conflict. --Whiteknight 17:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats a dodge of the real issue, which is "is the life of the infant implicitly less valuable than the mother's conveniance. Only the smallest fraction of abortions have anything to do w health, and the vast majority have to do w conveniance. Sam [Spade] 02:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• [1]

• [2]

That's a rather POV way of characterizing it. A pregnancy lasts for 9 months. It requires major lifestyle changes and has major physical consequences. It would be unfair to call that mere "convenience." --Rikurzhen 03:23, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Why? I think conveniance is a rather mild summary of the motivations for a person who decides they would prefer to murder their child than be bothered to make "lifestyle changes" or suffer thru the "physical consequences" of allowing them to live. Frankly I can't think of a less biased way to phrase it. Sam [Spade] 13:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You must be kidding. I think the bias is pretty clear, even if it traces all the way back to first principles. We talk about convenience in terms of fast food and cell phones. One could also talk about convenience in terms of not having a fetus growing inside of one's body, but that's a totally different meaning of the word. For example, by the end of a pregnancy, a women's blood supply has increased 50% to keep up with the demands placed on her body by the growing fetus. The physical/biological demands of pregnancy are huge. She cannot take certain drugs, drink alcohol, etc. There are always medical implications of pregnancy, even if they are not extreme. That's a totally different scope of the word convenience than the difference between microwave and oven-baked dinner. Convenience is a POV way to describe that. --Rikurzhen 19:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

And that's just the pregnancy. Birth is where the real fun is. Prior to modern surgery, there was a significant death rate during birth. I think we can all see why women might want to avoid birthing, and I wouldn't call that convenience. --Rikurzhen 19:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

My wife and I have two kids, and she's an OB nurse. I think we know whats involved in the process. Thats a big part of why we vote pro-life. Of course I agree w most americans, that abortion can be considered in cases of extreme health risk and infant deformity, but abortions of convenience should at minimum involve sterilization, and a placement of the woman in question on a similar status to sex offenders, so that they cannot adopt or be allowed near children. Sam [Spade] 22:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Certinaly you must agree that you have a particular POV on this subject, and that the description that most abortions are matters of mere "convenience" is not NPOV. --Rikurzhen 23:08, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

As a side note. It seems impractical to make a legal distinction between medical and "convenience" motivations for abortion because all a woman needs to do is to claim that the pregnancy will drive her to commit suicide in order provide a medical justification for resolving her "convenience" concerns. --Rikurzhen 00:25, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that everyone has a POV on every subject (even if that POV is ignorance, indifference, or the striving for neutrality), I of course do not agree that the pointing out that most abortions are based on the mothers convenience is POV. It certainly isn't how I would phrase the circumstance in an informal setting, but rather is the least biased way of presenting the facts that I can come up with.

Your comment about "mental health" is a technique in actual usage, a fallacious attempt to circumvent the partial birth abortion ban utilized by pro-abortion attorneys. It would be relevant to discuss in the article, but only in a neutral manner, not as some sort of commonly accepted answer.

The summary on that particular is that if a woman is certifiably insane, she of course should not be allowed to have a child, if it is aborted or no. If a woman not previously diagnosed with mental illness wants to kill her child, and her advocate suggests she may commit suicide if not allowed her way, that is unlikely to be a legitimate mental health issue, and is more likely an attempt at fraudulent misrepresentation and / or blackmail, both of which should be punished to the full extent of the law. Sam [Spade] 13:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily seem to me to be impractical to make a legal distinction on something that is such a passionate issue for so many. Those who are pro-choice by definition don't want ANY legal distinctions, however. If it's not the taking of a life, it seems to me that it makes no sense to regulate it. If it is the taking of a life, it should certainly be very strictly regulated at every governmental level.

The "biological/physical demands of a woman's body" argument could be extrapolated to include the "biological/physical demands of raising children (or a baby)." Some would argue that "post-birth abortions" should be allowed for infants. --Doctorcherokee 06:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A very insightful point, and one which also might have use in the article. In historical times (prior to modern abortions) German women were known to hurl their newborns into the river, as a sort of post-partum abortion. This practice undoubtedly occured in other cultures, and thruout time. This is clearly not legal or moral by modern standards, but in my eyes (and the eyes of many) is quite similar to modern abortion. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, intellectual honesty dictates that there is no substantive difference between a 3rd trimester abortion and an aforementioned "post-birth abortion." To me, a late-term fetus' personhood is undeniable. As I posted somewhere else, though, I believe that late-term abortions deal less with personhood and more with sovereignty. With late-term abortions, pro-choicers believe to varying degrees that the mother's sovereignty trumps any rights or implied rights that the fetus has. Pro-lifers believe that a fetus' personhood demands equal status with the mother and has complete sovereignty and a "right to life." That's the crux of it, in my opinion.

And, with pre-viability abortions, it's a lot more subjective. Other than nascent DNA, it's hard to prove objectively and scientifically (and secularly!) that an early-term fetus has personhood. --Doctorcherokee 21:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be to our benefit to explore, in this artical or in a dedicated artical, exactly what it means "to be a human." granted, there isn't one single accepted answer to this question, but the debate itself could be covered. It's a common pro-choice conception that a fetus does not become a human until it can function independantly from the mother. of course by those standards, children under 5 years old are basically "not human." --Whiteknight 18:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much of the discussion hinges on the definition of when a foetus or embryo becomes a person. This seems to me of limited value, as the debate becomes a sterile argument of definition, rather than a chance to understand each others' point of view. It may be more helpful to think of the foetus as "developing human life", which acquires greater moral rights as it develops. Thus a foetus one hour before birth might have almost the same rights as it will after birth, whereas a newly fertilised ovum might have almost no rights. I think this approach leaves room for its full complexity to be addressed, and avoids simplifying the issue by speaking only of three stages of foetal development. The debate can then focus on what rights should be granted at what stage of life, rather than quibbling over the definition of a person. In my opinion, a nine-month foetus has developed to a point where it is 99% a person, and aborting it is tantamount to murder. In contrast, a newly fertilised ovum has very limited rights. I morally dislike the idea of aborting even a newly fertilised ovum, but would not make it illegal. The more an embryo develops, the more morally I oppose it, and the more I would be inclined to oppose state funding and to make it illegal.

The main article is missing the issue of state funding. Someone may take the view that a particular abortion is of sufficiently questionable morality that it should not be funded by the state, but that it should not be illegal. Someone may also argue that, even if certain abortions are in their view acceptable and legal, it would be wrong to morally implicate all taxpayers by using tax funding.

Hello. I odnt want to fiddling around with the text of a controversial page like this one,but i just want to make a point, and maybe someone else can work out how to get in there. In the section under modern views, thomsons position is discussed, and the violinist example is given. after it is given it says "Also against this argument the objection is frequently made that in about 99 percent of all cases (rape and incest account for about 1 percent) it was, after all, the mother who made a choice which caused an embryo to become attached to her, and therefore the analogy is imperfect" But then no mention is made of thomsons counter to this argument, which runs something like: say i have a house, and i open the windows, and a burgler climbs in do i not have a right to try and get rid of him, even though i opened the window knowing it was possible that someone would climb in. she develops the point further thus; imagine baby are made by spores that float around in the air and grow in carpets. i open the windows to my house, on which i have put the best anti-spore mesh and sprayed with anti-spore spray, but somehow a spore gets in and lands on my carpet. do i not still have a right to get rid of the spore. I feel that thomsons argument has been reduced to a few lines, with the predominant wait given to responses, when her argument is much fuller than is being presented.

This whole abortion thing is getting out of hand. a docter was killed in the easter states for helping with abortions. it is easy to see both sides of this problem. and its good that people are so strong about things like this seeing you topics helps me to understand more on how people feel about abortion. i belive that abortion is a bad choice though. it may not be proven that the chiled has reached a state of mentality. but the thing your not looking at is its not the chileds falt. now think about this your saying that its ok to kill an unwanted chiled. if you dont belive me tell me whats the diffrenc betwen a unwanted pre mature baby and the son or daghter you have going to school right now the son or daghter that you love. are you telling me that if you start not likeing them anymore that your going to have them killed and tossed into some medical garbage facility or that you are going to have that chiled poked and proded for cells after its dead. what is it easy to kill a unborn baby becuase it cant ask you, mom why do you want me to go, what did i do wrong to have to die. if that chiled was born could you bear to look at it knowing your planing on having it terminated tommarow. could you look into that childs eyes and tell them that you dont want them so they are going to have to be terminated. and i know some of you are thinking, well itss good i dont have to deal with that because it will never live to here thoughs words from my mouth. but what about this ten forteen or more years from now how are you going to explaing this to your son or daguter that you decided to have, you know that thell end up finding out. are you going to be able to tell him or her that you killed there brother or sister becuas you dident want them or you wernt ready for them, and befor you go putting down what i have to say and saying so what blah blah blah think no matter what you perents tell you. think of how many tomes they thought of having an abortion with you. no matter what they say you have to remember that you also have thoughts that no one else now's of and you would lie to hell and back about. how close wre you to being what we dabate about and what would have happend if you never go to enjoy a life even if you have had a bad one at least you had one

Important questions raised

Doctorcherokee raises crucial questions. The first is: what is the right of the mother? Traditional, patriarchical morals imbue the father with dominion over his family (as the state had dominion over the father). The father could beat or kill anyone within his home, and it was a private matter. This sort of ethics is what is extended into the abortion debate, with women claiming dominion over their body, and demanding the right to abuse (smoke, drink or take drugs, live unhealthilly) or murder (outright abortion) their hierarchical inferior within. That is the first question, where the line is drawn on mother’s rights vs. Childs rights

The second question is: What is a child? Where does someone become alive, or worthy of life? This is a philosophical and theological matter, with different people drawing the line at different points along the continuum. For me (my POV) their is no continuum, everything is alive. The sperm, the egg, the kitchen sink. Frankly it comes down to the difference between killing and murder. When is causing the death of another wrong?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Though pro-life, I have to point out an error in your reasoning. Sperm is not technically even a complete cell, so it cannot be considered human. The easiest definition for human life I have found is "anything that will develop into an independant human if not interfered with." -Tjstrf

This definition leaves out the fact that a first-term (and most second-term) fetus's will not become functioning humans without the constant support and nourishment from the mother. a fetus left by itself on a sidewalk will not become a functioning human under any circumstances. --Whiteknight 18:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It also leaves out the fact that for many years after birth, a fetus will not be a functioning human without constant nourishment and support from its mother and father. My definition of a human life is (edited as of post time): Any organism with human DNA that will develop into a human being if not destroyed, or currently is a human being. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 07:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks PileOnades for posting this. I was beginning to doubt common sense after reading the "science fiction below, by 216... Str1977 13:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It all boils down to individual human rights, versus the rights of other people to poke their noses into other people's business. One should have the right to control their own body above all else. Whose business is it what I do with my own body? My own. Regardless of what may or not be growing inside of my own body, its still my body, and I have the right to keep or have removed anything from my own body that I choose, regardless of who else likes it, or dislikes it, or of how gross, disgusting or foul they may consider it. --Thoric 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except a fetus isn't part of your body. And no, the fact that it is growing in your body does not give you the right to commit murder. Perhaps this stems in part from the fact that you are the one who put it there.

Claiming something is murder does not necessarily make it true. Is swatting a fly murder? And have you ever heard of "resorption"? While moderately common among kangaroos in the dry season, occasionally a human women discovers that her pregnancy has ended not because of miscarriage (and do you call THAT manslaughter, even though many miscarriages happen because the genes of the fetus were so defective it couldn't keep living?), but because her body literally reversed the process of feeding the fetus, and sucked the life out of it (along with the actual substance of the fetus). Where do you place this phenomenon on the scale of justice? And who are you to judge the workings of Nature, anyway? And why is the concept of Free Will being ignored here? You may be aware that because humans have the ABILITY to make choices, they also claim the RIGHT to make choices. Now move the subject away from humans for a moment, and think about the possible existence of other intelligent/sentient beings. If one of them landed in a flying saucer and sought an abortion, your simple definition of "murder is the killing of human life" does not apply! Obviously you must expand your definition of murder to include species other than human! But you must still EXCLUDE species such as the housefly, right? Well, what IS the distinguishing characteristic that would rate the killing of one species as murder but not the killing of another species? I say that murder is more than simple killing because it ALSO unfairly terminates someone's right to make choices. We have plenty of evidence that the behavior of insects and many other animals is purely stimulus-response, programmed like robots they are -- and killable with no taint of murder they also are. Only beings with significant mental abilities have the power to make choices outside the program, and therefore also have the distinction of being murderable, not merely killable. Your dilemma now is the simple fact that NO early-stage fetus has the mental ability to make non-robotic choices, and therefore no such fetus can claim any right to make choices -- and therefore killing it can never qualify as murder. And to argure that just because there is future potential for choosing, that future must be respected, well, what about your own future potential to be run over by a bus? There is absolutely no right, anywhere in the Universe, that a potential must be fulfilled! Next topic: What are the chances that CLAIMS regarding morals and abortion are indeed nothing more than mere claims? Have you noticed where most cultures get their definitions of "moral"? Men, right? Now, Nature is merciless, and most organisms are equipped with a drive to reproduce. What strategies might men follow, to ensure that their genes get passed on? How about denying women control of their bodies? Just CLAIM that the brainless fetus has more rights than an adult human woman, and call it "moral" that someone with powers of choice must be subservient to a biological robot. Then all any man has to do is connive to get some woman pregnant (Did you know that men get turned on by what they see, but women get turned on by what they hear, and therefore men lie to women?), and with the proclaimed Morality in place, he is given an excellent chance of passing his genes on! Therefore I challenge you, what IS the OBJECTIVE basis by which abortion can be called immoral and murderous? Give us a reason not rooted in the selfish desires of men unworthy to breed. (And if anyone wants to post this to the main Arguments page, feel free!) V

You just opened an entirely different debate here. Several of them, in fact. All the following comments are made assuming we are speaking of societal morality, not absolute morality, since absolute morality requires omniscience to determine. None of us claim to have that ability, I hope?

The very fact that morality is not absolute, and varies from society to society, means that we should not use morality as a basis for universal rules of behavior. Instead we can use "ethics", which derives from a different foundation than the arbitrary pronouncements of religious leaders. With ethics, we can select one simple Principle, the notion that people need to get along with each other if they wish to survive the long long run, and derive from that and that only, a set of universally applicable rules of behavior. Non-human people could fit into such a system as easily as human people; obviously if they don't get along with each other, interstellar war and extermination becomes a reasonably likely outcome, instead of "survive the long long run". Of course this means we need a suitable definition of "person" (since "people" is a plural form of "person"). What are the characteristics that allow persons to be distinguished from ordinary animals? Well, whatever list you come up with, that works for every sort of imaginable person, from humans to aliens to ghosts to artificial intelligences, you will find that unborn humans do not exhibit any of those characteristics; they are animals and not people, therefore. Consequently the notion that people need to get along with each other EXCLUDES interactions between unborn humans and their hosts. Simple logic. V

Claiming something is murder does not necessarily make it true. Is swatting a fly murder? And have you ever heard of "resorption"? While moderately common among kangaroos in the dry season, occasionally a human women discovers that her pregnancy has ended not because of miscarriage (and do you call THAT manslaughter, even though many miscarriages happen because the genes of the fetus were so defective it couldn't keep living?), but because her body literally reversed the process of feeding the fetus, and sucked the life out of it (along with the actual substance of the fetus). Where do you place this phenomenon on the scale of justice?

I place it in the same category as discovering you started a fire while sleep-walking. It is only possible to be found at fault for actions that were conciously chosen, or occasionally for what is termed criminal negligence.

Yet you have not indicated that it is a crime to start a fire. And in fact starting a fire is only considered to be a bad thing if it happens to burn more stuff than is considered to be acceptable. It might be humorous to think about how much people wanted to put out those oil-well fires in Kuwait, just so the oil could be shipped away elsewhere and THEN burned! The point here is, something must first be declared to be a crime, before anyone doing it can be called a criminal. What is the basis for thinking there is some sort of criminal aspect to the perfectly natural process of "resorption"? WELL??? V

And who are you to judge the workings of Nature, anyway?

As you can see above, I did not.

You IMPLIED that there was a problem, by comparing resorption to some other unconcious activity that might occasionally be called criminal. So either withdraw the comparison, or confess that you DO judge the working of Nature, without being qualified. V

And why is the concept of Free Will being ignored here? You may be aware that because humans have the ABILITY to make choices, they also claim the RIGHT to make choices.

This is true so long as the human is not interacting with any other humans, and make up a society of 1. By inhabiting a society, you agree to exist by its societal morality.

Invalid Data, because a society might instead choose universally applicable ethics instead of arbitrary morals as a basis. You could even crusade to change a society's hypocritical morals, although you would likely be killed for it, like Jesus and Ghandi and others. At this time I prefer anonymity as a way to point out that every single anti-abortion argument is fundamentally based on either inadequate data and/or invalid data and/or faulty reasoning and/or selfishness and/or prejudice and/or hypocrisy. Every single anti-abortion argument is flawed in one or more of those ways. V

Now move the subject away from humans for a moment, and think about the possible existence of other intelligent/sentient beings. If one of them landed in a flying saucer and sought an abortion, your simple definition of "murder is the killing of human life" does not apply!

An interesting subject indeed. The obvious conclusion is that no existing human laws or systems of morality apply to aliens, and similarly no alien systems of morality would apply to humans. If ongoing interaction between the two races was to continue, a joint morality would have to be developed.

Invalid Data, because ethics already handles the situation. They need to get along with each other to survive the long long run. All rules for interacting can stem from that one thing. V

Obviously you must expand your definition of murder to include species other than human!

No, actually, I don't. Just as I wouldn't attempt to apply western standards of individualism to a collectivist culture, I would not attempt to apply western standards of morality to a nonhuman.

What you personally would or wouldn't attempt, based on "morals", is irrelevant when neither are morals part of the definition of "murder" that was previously presented (the killing of a mind that can make choices), nor are morals needed for the concept of "murder" to cross cultural boundaries. For example, if an alien species happens to be of the so-far-fictitious "hive-mind" type, then murder can only be done by killing an entire hive, not by killing an individual "cell"/entity of that hive. V

But you must still EXCLUDE species such as the housefly, right? Well, what IS the distinguishing characteristic that would rate the killing of one species as murder but not the killing of another species? I say that murder is more than simple killing because it ALSO unfairly terminates someone's right to make choices. We have plenty of evidence that the behavior of insects and many other animals is purely stimulus-response, programmed like robots they are -- and killable with no taint of murder they also are.

Since we are a human society, we say that our rights apply to all humans, regardless of age, race, sex, or intelligence. Children, the elderly, women, asians, and the severely mentally retarded or disabled still have rights, saying they did not apply to fetuses makes as much sense as saying tadpoles are not a type of frog.

Invalid Data. YOU say that the rights of persons should apply to all humans, even when they are measurably non-persons, because you are either inadequately informed and/or are misinformed and/or are using bad logic and/or are prejudiced and/or are hypocritical. Others in that same society, who are not suffering from any of those problems, say no such thing. To show you one aspect of your error, consider "regeneration". Medical science has long been seeking the biological mechanisms that enable a starfish or lizard or other animal to grow lost body parts, so that humans can have that ability too. Here are some recent results: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1754008,00.html When that is perfected for humans, it will be possible for a human that lost a finger to regrow it -- AND it will be possible for that lost finger to regrow an attached body! All that "activated" finger will need is a womb-like environment to supply it with nutrients and to remove wastes while it grows, exactly like a fetus. What this means is that a lost finger has exactly as much potential to become a person as a fetus. At the moment both are nothing more than organized masses of living human tissue. Neither is a person, and neither needs any rights of persons. Can you seriously think that there will be laws passed that demand that for every person who loses a finger and chooses to re-grow it, the lost finger must be granted the right to grow an attached body? Well, then, to favor the human fetus over the equally living human finger is nothing more than prejudice. V

More to the point, what makes a crime a crime? Killing can be defined scientificly, but crime often cannot. The consequences of an accidental death versus a murder are identical, and both violate an inalienable right for the victim. (As laid down by Locke, these were Life, Liberty, and Property.) But accidental deaths are not treated as crimes. Societal morality says that all members of the society have certain rights, and their purposeful violation by another member of society, for the benefit of the violater, is what constitutes crime.

The Invalid Data here is the notion that there is such a thing as a "right to life". <a>This is a convenient fiction only</a>. Where was "right to life" when the Titanic ran into that iceberg? Nature recognizes no such thing! That's why it is a fictional thing only. We find it convenient, of course, for pragmatic reasons that are easily explained in an ethical framework: Killing people obviously is not a way to get along with them. Nor is it a way for a society to survive the long long run; it could lead to only one killer being left, who then eventually dies of old age. End of culture. So, killing people generally needs to be off-limits and declared to be a crime. I disagree that proclaiming a "right to life" is the best way to go about it, simply because it is a LIE; Nature pays no attention to such proclamations. V

Only beings with significant mental abilities have the power to make choices outside the program, and therefore also have the distinction of being murderable, not merely killable. Your dilemma now is the simple fact that NO early-stage fetus has the mental ability to make non-robotic choices, and therefore no such fetus can claim any right to make choices -- and therefore killing it can never qualify as murder.

In which case, see above. Those with severe mental retardation seem to not be significantly more intelligent than certain animals, intelligence is not the determining factor to whether you are human, your species is. Your point of view here is clearly not held by society as applies to other matters, why would it here? This is also not a dilemma, for me at least, since I define human by a different method than the ability to make choices.

Now you are mixing apples and oranges, and arguing backward, as well. Bad Logic. "The ability to make choices" is a trait of PERSONS. This will be true of any nonhuman that we recognize as a person, no matter the form or aspect of that non-human. And the original text was more about persons than it was about mere self-puffed-up humans. Indeed, it was about the generic case of persons being applied to the specific case of humans, and not your topsy-turvy way of, in effect, granting a human finger its own right-to-life JUST because it is human (prejudice!), and for no other reason. V

And to argure that just because there is future potential for choosing, that future must be respected, well, what about your own future potential to be run over by a bus? There is absolutely no right, anywhere in the Universe, that a potential must be fulfilled!

You are using a conflicting definition of "right" here. The right to liberty does not mean it is impossible to lose your liberty, it means no one else has the right to purposefully deprive you of that liberty. Similarly, the right to your potential is the right to have no other person purposefully deprive you of that potential. Also, my "right to be run over by a bus in the future" can be derived from the rights to liberty and property, so I do have that right.

I am conflicting nothing. A potential is a potential, not an actuality. A potential never has been, and never will be, simultaneously, an actuality. Nature recognizes exactly one "right", a "right to try", which is a far different thing than a "right to succeed". The evidence I have is that pro-lifers can't tell the difference between a "right to try" and a "right to succeed", so I will explain it in detail. A human ovum has the right to try to merge with a human sperm. It has no right to succeed, especially if no sperm comes along before it disintegrates. A fertilized ovum, a zygote, has the right to try to divide multiple times. It has no right to succeed, especially if it has genetic flaws that prevent cell-division. A multicellular human organism, formerly a zygote but now a blastocyst, has the right to try to break out of the "shell" of the ovum. It has no right to succeed, especially if the shell is too thick. A blastocyst that escapes the shell has the right to try to stay in one piece; it has no right to succeed; that's how identical twins/triplets/etc happen. http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm An escaped blastocyst has the right to try to continue to stay unique; it has no right to succeed, as we know it may encounter another blastocyst, even one that is fraternal and of the opposite sex, and merge with it. http://health.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=0&cpi=111185&gid=0&channel=DHC The blastocyst, consisting of unspecialized stem cells, has the right to try start creating specialized cells, for implanting in a womb; it has no right to succeed, as it is known that a significant percentage of blastocysts fail to implant. Pro-lifers have the right to try to prevent women from obtaining birth control, such as a condom that prevents sperm from meeting egg, or an IUD or a morning-after pill that prevents a blastocyst from implanting. But they have no right to succeed at it, as proved by the existence of many birth-control techniques. Even the woman who obtains and uses birth control is merely exercising the right to try to avoid pregnancy; she has no right to succeed at it, as proved by the pregnancies that occur in spite of such efforts. An implanted blastocyst has the right to try to tap that womb for resources; it has no right to succeed, as it may be resorbed for its own resources instead. An implanted/tapping blastocyst has the right to continue to specialize, and become an embryo; it has no right to succeed, as the next menstural cycle may not have been prevented. An embryo has the right to try to grow into a fetus; it has no right to succeed, as genetic flaws can lead to miscarriage at ANY time. And a fetus has the right to try to grow until born; it has no right to succeed, as genetic flaws can lead to miscarriage at ANY time, including so late as to be indistinguishable from "still birth". Pro-lifers have the right to try to prohibit abortion; they have no right to succeed at it, as proved by all the abortions that happen even in draconian anti-abortion cultures. And pregnant women exercising the right to try to obtain an abortion also have no right to succeed at it, as proved by some of them living in those draconian cultures, and getting caught trying. Pro-lifers have the right to try to enslave pregnant women as part of a draconian anti-abortion policy; they have no right to succeed at it. And you do indeed have the right to try to be run over by a bus, but you have no right to succeed at it, as the bus driver may swerve at the last moment. Do you understand NOW that to insist that a potential must be fulfilled is to claim that there is such a thing as a right to succeed? And there is no such thing!!! V

Next topic: What are the chances that CLAIMS regarding morals and abortion are indeed nothing more than mere claims?

Roughly equal to the chances of every other indeterminable event: Unknown, unknownable, and as such, the probability is not applicable to our discussion.

Invalid Data. Your interruption of the presented information does not change that information one whit. It is a known fact that all "morals" are actually arbitrary claims. That's why they contradict Facts of Nature (as in "right to life"), and that's why they differ in different cultures! And that's why they should all be replaced by a rational system of ethics. V

Have you noticed where most cultures get their definitions of "moral"? Men, right?

Yes, let's bring up this completely tangential issue! Because we all know that by invoking the "victimized minority" concept, you can win becase of fear on the part of others of looking politically incorrect.

Invalid Data; the origin of anti-abortion "morals" is hardly a tangential issue. Indeed, the ultimate basis of any argument is a valid subject in a Debate. V

For a counterpoint, is the inalienable right to property usable to justify violation of the inalienable right to life? We do not permit slavery because it is a violation of the right to liberty, even though its existance was an enforcement of the right to property. Should we permit violation of the right to life as an enforcement of the right to liberty? No. Inalienable rights cannot be used as moral grounds to violate one another, especially for self benefit.

Invalid data; there is no such thing as a right to life. Likewise there is no such thing in Nature as a right to property or a right to liberty. And there is still no right to succeed, either. All are fictions. Some may be convenient, but as I indicated earlier, there needs to be a better way to describe why we want or need those conveniences, than to tell lies. Therefore, from the ethical notion that people need to get along with each other, if follows that absolute slavery is unacceptable; it is one person always having their way with another person, an obvious inequity with respect to individual desires. Well, we know that people have unequal desires, anyway (and all sorts of other characteristics are unequal, also), even if slavery didn't exist, so what is the ethical rationale for assigning equality to all persons? How about this: "All persons have selfish desires". This statement does not care about the type or magnitude of those desires; it simply states a fact, that all persons are equal in that they all have selfish desires. There are NO exceptions. EATING is the act of selfishly feeding yourself, with food that you might instead give away to someone else, until you die. No person does that in normal situations. And an artificial-intelligence/person will selfishly desire an electricity supply, see? ((Even hypothetical persons, such as God, can be logically proved to exhibit selfishness, from the simple claim that God created human-persons. God did not ask those persons, before creating them, whether or not they wanted to be created! And it doesn't matter that such an Asking is impossible even for God; the point is that God did it anyway, according to the claims. Selfishly, that is.)) SO. All persons are equal in an Ethics-based culture due to the simple fact that all persons have selfish desires. Well, if they are going to need to get along with each other, they and their selfish desires are going to interact and possibly conflict. What is the solution? Compromise! When selfish desires clash, compromise is the way to limit both until they no longer clash. It is POSSIBLE that slavery of a limited type can be allowed; remember "indenturing" of centuries past? That was a compromise that often worked! (Nowadays we have credit-card debts and working-like-a-slave to pay the bills, so one might wonder whether or not slavery has REALLY/effectively been abolished...) Every session of every democracy-type legislature is describable as a bunch of conflicting selfish desires needing to be compromised. Too bad the legislators seldom if ever come to the bargaining table stating that that is what they are there to do. They could save time and maybe get their work done faster, if they were honest about it. By the way, there is nothing inherently wrong with selfishness per se, simply because everyone is equal in having some selfishness. What IS wrong is excess/uncompromised selfishness. Just about every thing that can be called "immoral" can also be described as unbalanced selfishness in action. Even abortion --except for the fact that abortion is an act between a person and a nonperson. There is no need to compromise with nonpersons; they are unable to do that, anyway. Indeed, while both persons and animals are equal in exhibiting selfishness, one of the crucial characteristics that distinguishes persons from animals is that persons CAN compromise. The human fetus does no such thing; it is an animal that selfishly takes and takes and takes, until it is born. Which is why the host is allowed to choose abortion, and be equally uncompromising. When was the last time you tried to compromise with a mosquito that wanted to suck your blood? V

Now, Nature is merciless, and most organisms are equipped with a drive to reproduce. What strategies might men follow, to ensure that their genes get passed on? How about denying women control of their bodies? Just CLAIM that the brainless fetus has more rights than an adult human woman, and call it "moral" that someone with powers of choice must be subservient to a biological robot. Then all any man has to do is connive to get some woman pregnant (Did you know that men get turned on by what they see, but women get turned on by what they hear, and therefore men lie to women?), and with the proclaimed Morality in place, he is given an excellent chance of passing his genes on!

If the right to life is not an inalienable right, then control over one's body is not a right either since they are both based in the same concept of morality. Rights only exist in the context of cooperative society, the "nature is merciless" argument justifies oppression of women, racism, the nazi holocaust, and any other atrocity you can possibly concieve of, as a natural state of affairs. Nature may be merciless, but the purpose of society is to make humans not be merciless.

That is Inadequate Data leading to Bad Logic. I wasn't using morals as the basis of my statements; the mere fact that you can reach such conclusions helps expose the worthlessness of arbitrary morals! Furthermore, I was using "Nature is merciless" to EXPLAIN, not "justify". The anthropological/socialogical evidence is that human males and females were pretty much social equals until food animals were domesticated. That was when it was discovered that births HAD to be preceded by sex. And that was when men started locking up women, each to be a breeder for HIS children, and not those of some other man. Certainly abortion couldn't be allowed, either! Next, you are being ridiculous in claiming that lack of right-to-life means loss-of-control over one's body, because pro-lifers USE right-to-life to claim that pregnant women can't be allowed to control what their bodies are used for! So, regardless of whether or not right-to-life exists, you are claiming that pregnant women can't have control over their own bodies. Bad Logic based on Inadequate Data, as I already said. The correct data involves the Ethical position that since all persons are equal, all persons can have equal LEGAL magnitude of control over their bodies. Just because the Actual Magnitude, per Nature, is Zero (due to no right to life); that does not mean that we cannot create a legal fiction! Nor does it need to be entirely fictional. For example, consider this as a legal preamble: "Although we recognize that Nature has the final say about what happens to someone's body, we persons can still Decide how WE will treat our and other's bodies." And if we choose complete personal control, and don't-touch-without-permission, FINE. That would be a valid Compromise, for persons interacting with each other in a Society based on the notion that people need to get along with each other, in order to survive the long long run. V

The bottom line is this: societal morality is not based in absolutes. However, if you wish to have a logically consistent system of morality that respects the rights of life, liberty, and property, for all people, not just those who can defend their own rights through physical power, abortion will be logically considered immoral under it. If you wish to claim murder is not immoral, that is an entirely different issue and would not apply to American society.

Invalid Data regarding nonexistent rights, and Bad Logic, as shown above. Might does not make right, even in an Ethics-based society. Murder is obviously unethical. And killing a demonstrable nonperson is not murder. V

Therefore I challenge you, what IS the OBJECTIVE basis by which abortion can be called immoral and murderous? Give us a reason not rooted in the selfish desires of men unworthy to breed. (And if anyone wants to post this to the main Arguments page, feel free!)

The basis of logic, equality, and inalienable rights, the three key components of our society, our freedom, and our country.

You are still actually presenting Invalid Data and Bad Logic. Especially, since "inalienable rights" don't even actually exist outside of human fiction, they cannot possibly be Objective. We don't need arbitrary morals to have a decent society, when we can have Ethics that can work anywhere. And we don't need prejudice, either. V

In closing, I would like to say that I recognize that my opinion is my own opinion, and that I hold a strong POV on this subject. This is why I refrain from editing this article, to avoid accusations of violating nuetrality. I wish that others with strong POV would recognize the same. --Tjstrf 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You might notice that I have not edited your own post, either, the better to show how your POV is based on Inadequate Data and/or Invalid Data and/or Bad Logic and/or Selfishness and/or Prejudice and/or Hypocrisy. You have NO valid argument. And neither does any other pro-lifer. [[V]] 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Essay ?

Isn't this more an essay than an encyclopedia entry ?

• Yes, it is. And it becomes almost unreadable in parts. Most of this falls under WP is NOT a SOAPBOX rather than a summation of arguments.--DNicholls 07:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Concur this is an essay. IMHO all of "Modern arguments" is personal research with a few exceptions. I suggest moving the relevent bits into the Debate, Official positions, or History sections as is appropriate, and removing that highly redundant and verbose essay. This article is about 3 times the recommended size, and that section is unecessary bloat. It also ignores layout guidelines - if we have Modern arguments, then we should have Historical arguments, of which there are either none or practically none. All of the Debate section is either Modern arguments, or non-timespan-specific arguments. Please respond here if you think there is a valid reason to keep this. KillerChihuahua 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Consciousness

Recently this text was edited (the last sentence was added): "Prior to the point of the appearance of consciousness, therefore, arbitrary termination of the construction project is not the killing of a person, and hence by this argument may be morally permissible. But since this reasoning, like the Warren discussion above, would equally apply to newborn infants as well as embryos and fetuses, it can only logically be used as a justification for abortion if one also believes in the legalization of infanticide."

The person who added that sentence seems to have ignored the specification, "the appearance of consciousness" as key to determining when a fetus should be declared no-longer-abortion-permissible. While it is true that infants do not exibit the same degree of consciousness as adults or even several-years-old children, it is also true that they do exhibit conscious awarness of their surroundings, and they possess some consciousness even while during the last month or two of pregnancy (brain scans clearly show awake/sleep cycle). Thus I think that last sentence should be removed. -V

Some strange sections

Regarding this paragraph:

There is another aspect of the rape issue which must be given some attention. In terms of the biological activities of multitudes of organisms, to pass their genes on, it can be noted that Nature only cares about what works. In many species one dominant male secures all the local breeding rights until forcibly deposed. More (for example), in a pride of lions, a newly dominant male will kill all the old sire's cubs, which encourages the females to enter estrus (they no longer need devote biological resources to cub-caring). For them it works; Nature does not care. A significant chunk of Evolutionary Theory can be phrased as, "We see life-forms the ancestors of which had successful survival and reproductive strategies." And nearly all those strategies are at least partially programmed-into the genetics of those life-forms. "Predispositions", they are called. One of the more relevant strategies is that of the bird known as the cuckoo. The female typically lays her egg in the nest of a different species of bird. The egg then hatches before the eggs of the other bird, and the hatchling pushes the other eggs out of the nest, and thereby becomes the sole beneficiary of the chick-raising efforts of the other birds. Well, regarding rape among human beings, if it leads to pregnancy and birth and child-raising by another, then as far as Nature is concerned, it is as successful a reproductive strategy as that of the cuckoo. The prevalance of rapes throughout troubled times in human history strongly implies that humans do have a genetic predispostion for it. Note that the psychological "power trip" which is attributed to rapists is just an associated phenomenon. Nature doesn't care. If the genetic predisposition includes the psychology and leads to the rape which in turn leads to successful gene-passing, then that's perfectly OK with Nature. But modern cultures that forbid rape now have a dilemma regarding how to deal with this this part of the genetic essence of humanity. The fetus of a rape-caused pregnancy may be innocent of any wrongdoing, but nevertheless it is a known link in the chain of passing on any possible genetic predisposition leading to rapes in a future generation. If human society truly wants to eliminate rapes in the long long run, then rape can never be allowed to succeed as a reproductive strategy, and there should be no question whatsoever about the morality of aborting all rape-caused pregnancies, and breaking that chain forever.

This seems to be a rather dubious argument for genetic screening of criminals. Besides the point that (I believe) the extent of genetic contribution to becoming a criminal is currently speculative, no-one would currently use this as a serious argument for abortion. I recommend that this paragraph be placed elsewhere or mentioned in passing.

One could consider that a rapist's contribution is recessive, and that in some future generation recessives will combine to produce another rapist. The argument is saying that a long term and rather ruthless strategy is the only way to remove unidentified recessives from the population, and that is true at this time. In the future those recessives, once identified, could be disabled completely using genetic engineering techniques. Without such techniques and with only identification, well, abortion is already being used to eliminate various genetic-disease recessives that have found their mates, when detected in amniocentesis tests. V

I don't disagree that the author has made a point (although I think it's likely that the propensity to being a rapist is multifactorial with both genetic and environmental factors in contrast to those disease which are currently screened for which are strongly genetic). However in order to favour the elimination of future rapists by abortion you first have to decide whether abortion in itself is ethical at any time. Genetic screening is neither an argument for or against abortion, it is a separate issue with its own ethical aspects, thats why I recommend it should be moved to its own page user:sodium

You have that at least partly backward, because you are saying that the elimination of rape is not a good enough reason to declare some abortions to be ethical. That is, to DECIDE "whether abortion in itself is ethical at any time", reasons pro and con need to be considered. You are not allowed to "fix" the outcome by arbitrarily throwing out "pro" reasons -- OR "con" reasons. V

I am not saying "the elimination of rape is not a good enough reason to declare some abortions to be ethical" at all. I am saying "Genetic screening [and further the proposed elimination of rape] is neither an argument for or against abortion". My justification was that you first have to decide whether abortion is ever permissible, in order to decide whether we can use it for this purpose. If we decide abortion is not permissible in any circumstances then it is also obviously not permissible for genetic screening, but just because it may be permissible sometimes it doesn't follow that genetic screening should be allowed. Furthermore as it is unlikely we will ever use genetic screening to prevent rapists from being born in the foreseeable future this isn't a very important point as it will not influence the current debate. user:sodium

And just how do you expect to decide "whether abortion is ever permissible", without looking at reasons for doing so? Obviously if there were no reasons for abortion, none would ever be requested! So, it looks like your strategy for reaching the Decision is to start by ignoring as many reasons for it as you can get away with. Well, if that is indeed your strategy, you won't be getting away with it. V

OK dude I think you might be trolling. I can't make my position any clearer. user:sodium

Elsewhere it has been indicated that one way to go about a debate is to show that the foundation of the opposition's argument is faulty. Another way is to show that the argument itself is faulty. And a third way, having nothing actually to do with the actual debate, is to attack the opposing debaters, so that the judges might be swayed to give less credence to their argument. But this is a desperation tactic that tends to backfire when recognized. You were asked the question, "...how do you expect to decide 'whether abortion is ever permissible', without looking at reasons for doing so?". The speculation that followed, regarding strategy, could be countered with a detailed answer to the question. That you chose attack and not answer only reinforces the speculation....

Here is a conundrum for you: Start by thinking about how many political conservatives in the United states oppose abortion on the grounds that human life is valuable -- and consider this question: How many of those people also oppose a Minimum Wage and/or keep-pace-with-inflation increases in a Minimum Wage? (The Minimum Wage is the amount needed to keep human life alive and able to contribute to Civilization, right?) Can you explain why opposing a Minimum Wage is consistent with claiming value for human life? Remember the cliche "Actions speak louder than words"? If their actions do not value human life, then their claims regarding abortion should be ignored, right? Finally, if there is deliberate inconsistency here, can you think of a reason for it? I can certainly think of one! (But I'll save it for a later posting, as I await your answers to the preceding questions.) V

This is a flawed argument. Even if your observation were true, it would only prove them to be either hypocrites or inconsistent in their views. It doesn't disprove the statement "human life is valuable" at all. Also, they would give arguments for why they don't support this and that doubt the efficency of the proposed instrument. IMHO that's a fair discussion. (Note I don't agree with "their" view on minimum wage) And why restrict this to conservatives? How many liberal, one might as well ask, who opposed the war in Iraq or support raising the minimum wage, do condone killing off millions of unborn children without blinking. 16:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement "human life is valuable" needs to be proved before anyone has to try to show that the proof is faulty. By itself it is just a statement, a mere claim. Where is the objective evidence for it? Certainly SUBJECTIVELY, each of us usually regards our lives valuable enough to keep living, but all other lifeforms act pretty much the same way. Continuing-to-live is a built-in part of life, so "value" is not necessarily part of it. To the best of my knowledge, values are defined by associations, not by inherent properties. Heh, gold is called valuable partly because of its corrosion-resistance -- a lack of association with other chemicals, see? Next, your question about liberals is easily answered, in that liberals who would allow abortion do not consider te fetus to be a person. It is a mindless animal body. Sure, it is a human animal body, but because it is mindless, it has no rights. See the New Argument section below, for another rationale for such thinking. And I reiterate that when actions (associations!) are hypocritical or inconsistent with the claim of human life being valuable, then any truth to the claim is lessened. V

In the age of slavery and slave auctions, was it really "human life" that was considered valuable, or was it the quantity of forcibly dedicated future labor that the bidders were pricing? In the age of capitalism, is the dumping of workers in one nation, and the hiring of others in another nation at a lesser wage, an indication that human life is inherently valuable, or do such associations actually indicate that human labor is as subject to the Law of Supply and Demand as any other thing? When a doctor hands you a bill that puts you in debt for decades, is the doctor actually valuing your life or your ability to pay? When civil war in a place like Rwanda mostly involves people killing their neighbors for land to grow food for their own kids, do we see human life in general being declared valuable, or do we see the predictions of Thomas Malthus coming true, in which humans are merely another variety of selfish animals, about which Nature cares nothing and which might be swatted at any moment by a giant meteor? And when, in a large region of the world like China, which has been heavily populated for thousands of years, it was considered correct for a peasant talking with a social superior to refer to self as "this worthless person", just where is there any value for human life in that? The evidence is overwhelming that it is not what you are that is considered valuable by most other humans; it is what you can do for them. Associations specify value! So, why do preachers denounce abortion? Because their congregations will grow and they can receive more tithes, obviously. Why do business leaders denounce abortion? Because it increases the size of the both labor pool and the number of consumers wanting goods and, in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, can make prices go up relative to wages. It can be proved that whenever population rises faster than the supply of resources, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, relatively speaking -- the mismatch in growth is the fundamental reason why that happens. (The middle class came into existence precisely because the supply of resources was increased faster than the population grew -- but the middle class is declining today because the mismatch has gone the other way.) Therefore it behooves those who hire labor and sell goods to insist that as many future laborers/consumers be born as possible (while they also make their usual attempts to monopolize and choke the supply of resources), just so they can be among the rich-getting-richer. There is absolutely no support for the claim-of-inherent-value-of-human-life in those actions! So far as I can see, the only reason for such a claim comes from the Biblical Golden Rule and its equivalents. That is, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" logically follows from: "If I start arbitrarily killing my neigbors, I have given up any right to think that they shouldn't arbitrarily kill me instead, and I value my own life too much to go that route." Nevertheless, a fetus is incapable of doing any such reasoning. Most of its existence is thoroughly of the biologically robotic variety. Its existence cannot possibly have any meaning to itself until it grows enough brainpower for some minimal level of consciousness. As a living thing it is the equal of any other living thing, not just "human life". As a "human being", though, it utterly fails the "value itself" test, because that requires brainpower, to recognize the association between mind and body. Which puts it completely outside the logic that usually keeps humans from arbitrarily killing their neighbors. And which therefore makes abortion morally permissible. However, remember that it is still a living organism equal enough to others that by the middle of a pregnancy it has grown enough of a nervous system to experience pain, and so if a fetus is to be killed later instead of sooner, "best it were done quickly". V

Question V: For starters, What does an adult, child, or fetus have to do to pass the ‘self value’ test? Is it a word that they speak, or a symbol that they make with their hands, or do they draw it on paper with a pen? What determines if something has self value? We already know that the capacity to value one’s self doesn’t translate to actually valuing one’s self. Depression rates, suicidal tendencies, and self mutilation such as cutting show that many humans do not value themselves even if they have the capacity to do so. Self value is subjective, not objective. So why is the ‘self value’ test of any importance to determining the morality or permissibility of abortion? And what is the difference between self value, and biological robotics of self preservation? The only objective self value would be of the biological robotic type yes?

You have missed the point. Before one can value oneself EITHER highly or lowly, one must first understand the concept of "value". That is the real test, to be able to understand that concept. And so I was simply making a generic statement about the average person, who does not use lack-of-perceived-self-value as an excuse to murder others. Indeed, it is the suicidal-terrorist type who should most concern us in this digression, since that person values self enough to want to kill as many others as possible, while also killing self. The terrorist is subjectively valuing others less than self, see? I agree that all valuations are subjective. And I disagree that biological self-preservation qualifies as a valuation. What it is, is simply a DESCRIPTION. Existing mindless life persists because the mindless ones that didn't are extinct. Persistence-at-living is a programmed-in part of biorobotic life, that's all, and the program came into existence by the trial/error process of random genetic mixings. The deaths of the faulty programs left the field open for programs that lasted a little longer or bred a little more...a little more again...a little more still...for hundreds of millions of years. Next, the minds of persons are able to understand the concept of "value". This is the test, as mentioned. And this directly relates to the notion that all valuations are subjective; if it takes a mind to understand/specify a valuation, then obviously all valuations must be subjective to minds. SO, the relevance to abortion is the fact that a human fetus lacks the brainpower needed to understand the concept of value. This is just one more way in which it fails to qualify as more than a mere animal; it's existence both does not and can not have any meaning --either high-value or low-value -- to itself. Meanwhile, outsiders can and do value that fetus differently/subjectively. Whose valuation should prevail? The host's, of course (see below in section about a father's "rights"). V

Furthermore, I have removed the following (but not the section in brackets):

[When personhood is discounted, then it may be appropriate to consider the difference between "human life" and "other life". On what grounds, besides selfishness, when personhood is disregarded, can it be stated that one human life is inherently more important than the lives of all the plants and animals that will perish to feed, clothe, and shelter that one human life? To the extent that the answer is "none", when personhood is disregarded, then that is the extent to which humans are not more important than other living things, and thus abortion is as morally permissible as the swatting of a mosquito.] ... Nature doesn't care in the slightest; the next giant meteor that arrives won't dodge the Earth just because human life is present, any more than the dinosaur-killer dodged the Earth.

As an extension of the preceding, and something of a reductio ad absurdum argument, first consider the fact that the total planetary biomass is relatively constant; therefore in today's world, after untold millions of years of recycling, the biological substances that constitute any life-form can only have gotten there after other organisms have perished. Killing and eating are the direct mechanisms by which a carnivore life-form acquires more substance, but herbivores have been known to overgraze on relatively resilient plants, and even only among plants, their competition for sunlight is such that their growth works to shade neighboring plants to death, causing return-to-the-soil of nutrients for the winning plants. Next, it is indisputable that the omnivorous human species also exists at the expense of other life-forms. Well, since the total biomass is relatively constant, it logically follows that the simple process of increasing human numbers must be accompanied by diminished numbers of other life-forms. The Question that those who oppose abortion must face is this: "To what extent is it OK for human numbers to increase at the expense of other organisms?" In accordance with the prior paragraph, if it is declared that humans are so much more important than other life-forms that it is always OK, then there should be a way to prove it. The next section of this overall discussion is the proper place for such a proof, while here an attempt will be made to show that such a proof is impossible, by examining the long-term consequences. The first part of this disproof involves noting that humans in cities tend to like pets and zoos and public parks and getting-out-to-the-countryside and safaris. There must be some value in interacting non-lethally with other life forms, or humans wouldn't choose to do it. Next, consider the Law of Supply and Demand, which generally states that the value of something tends to go up as its availability goes down (and vice-versa). Obviously the more that human numbers increase, the less available that other life-forms will be for interaction with humans, and therefore the value of those other life-forms will go up. And, historically, it seems true that when humans themselves were very abundant, the value of human life has tended downward. As evidence of that last statement, consider the phrase, almost a clichè: "There's plenty more where YOU came from!" -- which clearly places a low value on at least one human, and can only be true if other humans are indeed abundant. Finally, in any scenario that starts out with a high value for human life, and a low value for the lives of other organisms, it follows that as human numbers increase and other organisms become rare, their relative values will change in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, until a point is reached where it can no longer be proven that humans are more important than other organisms. At that point every new pregnancy should be compared in value to that of the remaining other life-forms. If the others have become valuable enough, then at that point abortion MUST become socially and perhaps even morally permissible. To some extent such a comparison should be obvious. Plants produce oxygen, and if humans eat all the plants, then how are they going to keep breathing? But modern advances in technology gives humans the opportunity to place an extremely low value on plants, and to replace their oxygen-generating functionality with, for example, nuclear-powered electrolysis machinery, thereby allowing human numbers to keep growing until as much plant-biomass as physically possible becomes human flesh. (A significant percentage of total biomass must always exist in the form of wastes-being-converted-to-food, lest everyone starve.) With technology and a large-enough difference in the relative values of humans and plants, the consumption of all the greenery in the world could be allowed, leaving not even an occupied flower-pot. Yet from an individual's perspective, such an outcome seems highly unlikely. For example, if your shade-tree must be cut down because your growing neigborhood needs the biomass (suitably processed for edibility), you will remember that humans are more important and comply, right? When they tear down your house for the biomass of its wood and furnishings, including cloth, and move you into a concrete apartment block where everyone is nude, because human pregnancies are so important that they must be nourished, you will not object, right? --Well, to the extent that many individual humans might indeed oppose such actions, that again is an extent to which abortions might become socially acceptable, if not actually "morally permissible". And this overall argument has yet to seriously consider the conversion into human flesh of the world's animal biomass (generally higher-valued than plants).... It happens that developments in nanotechnology will in the not-too-distant-future reach a point where it can be used to sieve microorganisms out of the environment. The total biomass of bacteria and viruses is the greatest single repository on the planet, meaning that humans will gain an opportunity to increase their numbers as never before, at the expense of very-low-value microorganisms. One nifty side-effect is the end of many diseases, because all disease-causing critters, like the malaria parasite, will have their biomass converted into nutritious food! However, some care in sieving the worlds' microbes perhaps should be taken. Many have in the past been uniquely valuable. Nitrogen fixing bacteria, for example, have been downright essential, because as organic matter in Nature breaks down, nitrogen tends to completely escape into the atmosphere -- and for untold billions of years, except for small amounts affected by lightning, only nitrogen-fixing bacteria could add that biologically necessary nitrogen back into the world's biomass. Still, for decades humans have had the Haber Process, which makes those bacteria less valuable than before. Also, even though some bacteria qualify as endosymbionts, living inside human bodies and essential to human life, it can be expected that nanotechnology will allow humans to declare those bacteria to be obsolete and of little value, too. In the long run, then, it is probable that technological advancement will indeed allow the complete conversion of microbial biomass into human flesh. But why stop there? There are plenty of microscopic multicellular organisms that can't be much more valuable than viruses and single-celled organisms. They also constitute another huge repository of biomass, the conversion of which would allow another big growth in human numbers. However, at this point it might be realized that these blocks of biomass consitute the base of the food chain for all ordinary animals. If humans consume the entirety of that base, including plants, then what shall those animals eat? Do we now conclude that those animals -- including everyone's pets -- aren't worthy of surviving, after all, next to the demand that pregancies all come to term? Or do we see another chink in the fundamental basis of the anti-abortion argument, which is the claimed relative importance of humans? Nevertheless, we can suppose that perhaps one day the last loose animal and plant will have been dumped into the biomass processing vats for human consumption. THEN what? This is the point where there isn't any more biomass in the world, that hasn't already become either human flesh, or wastes-being-recycled-to-food, to support human flesh. Any new pregnancies at this point can be nourished only at the expense of already-existing human flesh -- but to some extent even that may be acceptable! Many humans in the world are overweight, after all, and can afford to seriously diet, giving up body mass that can be processed as nourishment for yet-more humans. Why not? The individual human is supposed to learn how to share, right? So, shedding weight to share the benefits of existing in a world of perhaps a trillion human beings, with even more humans, and no other life-forms at all, is surely a good thing! Aren't we that important? Finally, though, every human in the world will eventually become as skinny as healthfully possible, after which only premature human death will be able to supply biomass to nourish yet-more pregnancies. THIS, even in today's world, is considered to be generally unacceptable, that a fetus might survive at the deliberate expense of another human life. At this point, therefore, there is absolutely no getting away from declaring abortion to be morally permissible. It is as inevitable as the logical consequences of postponing that declaration as long as possible. So, why postpone it at all? Plants and animals and even microorganisms ARE valuable in their own right, yet even today hundreds of species every year are being made extinct, just because humans are claimed to be more valuable. On very little objective evidence, too.

What nature does or doesn't care about is not relevant to the discussion. There is some point to be made regarding whether is a fetus is more valuable than an animal (and so if it is not morally acceptable to kill a fetus, then maybe we shouldn't be killing animals). However the argument which follows this concerns the effect of overcrowding on the earth's resources and other organisms, and isn't relevant to a discussion of abortion. User:sodium

Strange sections indeed. At the very least they are written in extremely non-NPOV language, but they are actually far worse. Any further edits by this anon should be checked and he might even need to be blocked, so as to log in properly, that we might communicate with them. -St|eve 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If particular arguments favor particular points of view, and if Wikipedia is supposed to describe all arguments without going into gory detail, then where should the detailed arguments be placed, so that the neutral description/article can reference them? A brand-new argument might suddenly appear at any time, never published anywhere else. Such is the nature of the open access to Wikipedia. V

Irrelevant of whether it is NPOV, the main point in this instance is that this argument is simply not relevant to the discussion of the topic of the page, and so should be moved. user:sodium

You are mistaken about the irrelevance, because a debate consists of more than just poking holes in the opposition's logic. It can also involve identifying errors in the foundation upon which a chain of logic is based. For example, once upon a time it was considered acceptable to build a camp latrine any old place. Untold thousands or even millions of peopled died over the millenia, due to consequently-contaminated water supplies. Yes, that attitude toward latrines was a result of ignorance of Nature, and not a deliberate ignoring of Nature, but can you really think that if Nature's workings are deliberately ignored, fewer deaths would occur? Then what about the observations of Nature made by Thomas Malthus? We humans have definite evidence that those observations apply to us as well as to ordinary animals (see history of Easter Island, where after using up their resources they experienced a 99% population drop), yet the claim that humans are somehow superior to or outside of Nature's workings, and immune to a Malthusian Catastrophe, continues to be made, along with the using-up of the world's resources. Petroleum will be the first wake-up call, any year now; see Hubbert peak. So, when a woman wishes to have an abortion, how is it a more ethical thing to force her child to be born and help prove the relevance of Nature, as observed by Malthus? V

I would have thought that its irrelevancy would be immediately obvious. One of the author's central points is the question "To what extent is it OK for human numbers to increase at the expense of other organisms?". Abortion is unnecessary (and not the preferred method) to achieve this, therefore it is not specific to this page. user:sodium

And I would have thought Malthus has been disproved by now. Str1977 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Malthus has not hardly been disproved. He placed no specific date for the point when human population can no longer be sustained by the world's resources. His Catastrophe is inevitable as long as (1) resources are finite and (2) population grows. Next, I agree that abortion is not the preferred method to achieve human population control. Yet you also seem to be ignoring the basic Natural fact about humans, which is that we have animal bodies with built-in animal traits. Forcibly suppressing sexual activity has never worked in the past and is not likely to work in the future, so that particular method of population control cannot be relied upon. And all other pregnancy-prevention techniques are less than 100% effective. Which means that there will always be unwanted pregnancies, and so there will always be seekers of abortion. Because abortion works as birth control, when other methods fail. Do you think that those who seek abortion always think it is unnecessary? Haven't you read about the cases where anti-abortionists found themselves in similar situations, and changed their minds? Would YOU continue to think it unnecessary if you were in their shoes? And it's pretty easy to get into their shoes mentally; just think about how you personally would feel about paying their bills...that might even be a good compromise! Require every anti-abortionist to sign up to receive the medical and daycare and housing and food and clothing and education and toy bills of all the babies they insisted had to be born, instead of aborted. More than a million extra births in the United States alone in the first year alone, and a million more in every year after that. ARE you willing to put your money where your mouth is, increasing by the same amount every year (not counting extra increases because of inflation)? Which brings us to the ecological niche factor, another aspect of Nature. There will be people who have kids simply because (A) they can pass their genes on and (B) others are paying the bills! (Kind of like Welfare, eh?) Implement that compromise, and I guarantee that your annual increase in payments-as-alternative-to-abortion will go up much faster than you initially expect. I venture to predict that people being the way they are, in this scenario there will be many who stop opposing abortion, and admit that it can indeed be an ethical adjunct to regular methods of birth control -- as the method that guarantees the birth rate is controlled, when other methods failed. V

A New Argument

The original New Argument has been posted, and no longer needs space here. V

However, ANOTHER New Argument has already been added to the main article, partly as a consequence of one-thing-leading-to-another. Below, the next paragraph has mostly existed in the main article for some time. A deduced conclusion from its logic was just added, and I chose to append something of a refutation. Which led to expansion in the form of a New Argument paragraph: V

When personhood is discounted, then it may be appropriate to consider the difference between "human life" and "other life". On what grounds, besides self interest, can it be stated that one human life is inherently more important than the lives of all the plants and animals that will perish to feed, clothe, and shelter that one human life? To the extent that the answer is "none", when personhood is disregarded, then that is the extent to which humans are not more important than other living things, and thus abortion is as morally permissible as the swatting of a mosquito. Note that this argument appears to hinge on personhood being established for humanity as a whole, else it successfully argues in favor of ecologically-motivated genocide. However, the preceding paragraphs that point out the special nature of the human mind might solve this dilemma. There specifically cannot be human minds without human life (although more generally and speculatively, human-level minds may exist outside of human life, especially if future technology allows "uploading" into electronic hardware). So, if human minds are declared important enough that the human lives supporting those minds should continue to exist at the expense of other life-forms, this would stop the allowed-genocide conclusion -- but it would not automatically mean that just because human life exists (as a fetus, or as a decapitated body), it must be allowed to grow an associated human mind!

As a variant on the preceding, consider the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI"). If it succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence as a result of technological hardware/software progress. Note that there is a distinct equivalence between pieces of such a technology, compared to the whole AI, and the body of a fetus, compared to an independent human being. That is, the manufacturing of pieces of an AI is essential for the AI to exist, just as the reproduction of cells in a fetus is essential for an independent human being to exist. Now remember that future manufacturing will be more and more automated. This leads us to an interesting absurdity, in that if opponents of abortion require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, then logically they should also require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible! The two notions really are that equivalent, and so to declare the mandatory production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare the anti-abortion stand to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist.

---

Let's see the comments on that! Because when I indicated (below) that I've thought about the holes in the anti-abortion argument for years, I wasn't kidding! V

===================

The original New Argument was edited to reflect discussion that followed its original posting.

There is an argument that purports to show why it is not sensible to define "murder" as the killing of human life...(snipped)

Original discussion of murder-definition argument began with:

There is a problem with your "new argument":

"If you cut yourself shaving, thousands of nuclei-equipped white blood cells will bleed forth, and those, given ultimate regeneration technology, are every one of them exactly as much "human life" as is a newly fertilized ovum."

No they're not. You might one day use some technique to turn them into totipotent cells (>human being), but until you are doing that their are just "nuclei-equipped white blood cells" and no human beings. If you turn them into human being by some manipulation, they should be treated as such.

We are not talking about "human life" but about "human beings". (If you cut off your arm it will not develop into a baby, but an embryo will.)

Note, that murder is the deliberate killing of an (innocent) human being, not the "killing of human life".

You can cut off your finger and burn it. This is mutilation but not murder or even killing.

An embryo is a distinct (genetically) human being, hence killing him/her is the same as killing someone after his/her birth.

Also note, that a human being is as well his body as his mind.

Also note the difference between killing and keeping alive/stopping to keep alive. Sever a body from the head and both will die.

There is actually no problem at all in drawing the line.

Str1977 17:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course you think there is a problem, heh. Still, to the best of my knowledge, most abortion foes focus on "human life" and not "human being". The new argument is designed to expose the flaw in that foundation, and your own quick re-focusing, onto "human being", just proves that the new argument works. Which means my next step is simply to ask how you define "human being" such that it is different from mere "human life". Be specific, please! Remember that we NEVER in ordinary conversation talk about such creatures as "cat beings" or "dog beings" -- which means that to be a "human being" involves rather more than to just be a human life. Also remember the problem with the word "potential". A fetus has the potential to grow into an adult human, if given a suitable environment (such as an artificial womb). And so does a lost arm also have that exact same potential, if suitably saved and prepared and coddled. Which means your counter-argment is less potent than you think, because the issue is a matter of degree, not kind. V

If you insist in drawing distinctions, you may consider your finger human life since it is human and alive, but it is not a human being (individual, if you will).

A human being/individual is ... well ... look at yourself, you have one. And anything that by no further "manipulation", save for nutrition, develops into someone like you or me is a human being. Technically speaking it's about "totipotency" (and that's the issue behind embryonic stem cell research).

No, an embryo has the potential an arm has not. The cell of an arm cannot grow into someone like you or me. Maybe there will be some technique to make these arm cells totipotent and then they can. But this involves this manipulation. A manipulation that would parallel "conception"

Why do we talk about "human life" - because the dispute is about the taking of the "life" from that being. Taking the life from a dog is a taking a "canine life", from a human is talking a "human life". Or if you want the parallel to dog or cat - I give you human (as a noun) or man (in the inclusive meaning).

And could you please, please sign your post using for tildes. Str1977 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A cut-off finger IS "individual" as soon as it becomes separated from a hand. Its cells are human and alive and will continue to survive so long as they can obtain nourishment (and waste removal). Those cells may even increase their numbers somewhat, without any manipulation, albeit in disorganized fashion -- especially if enough nutrients are available. It might be an interesting experiment to see the long-long-term results of keeping alive a finger; maybe it will eventually spontaneously start to grow an attached hand and body, eh? Because they are so complicated, life-forms do unexpected things quite often, don't they? But instead, this is a case where it is acceptable for human life to be allowed to perish, never being allowed such an opportunity. Tsk, tsk! Next, it seems you wish to define a human being as anything that has the totipotency to grow into an adult human being. This definition obviously excludes adult human beings (not to mention dodges the definition by circularizing it)! Try again, therefore! And, no, that is NOT a quibble; your definition really does have to be a single thing that can do all of the following: (1) Include adult human beings as murderable; (2) exclude human fingers as being merely killable, not murderable, and (3) include a human fetus as being murderable. Furthermore, your definition must be easily extendable so that it can also do these things: (4) include qualified space-alien lifeforms as murderable (if any actually exist and qualify); (5) exclude known-unqualified creatures like houseflies as not-murderable; and (6) include the unhatched/unborn offspring of those same qualified aliens as murderable, if the adults of that species think it necessary! Remember that alien Beings might have reproductive biologies of the R-strategy variety, and not the K-strategy variety that humans use. (Oysters are R-strategists, releasing a hundred million young into the ocean at once, caring not at all that only two of them may survive to become adult reproducing oysters. All that matters for R-strategy to work is that enough survive to keep the species going. Do you think for one nanosecond that abortion would be called murder if every human birthing, for the last hundred thousand years of anatomically modern humans in the fossil record, consisted of a litter of ninety viable grubs? If you do think so for more than a nanosecond, then you should also think carefully about the phrase "population exploding for a hundred thousand years".) So, what is the essence of being a Being, and not merely being alive? Next item: Your comparison of cell-manipulation-to-get-totipotency with conception is not quite valid. Conception brings pieces together, neither of which by itself has all the mechanisms for growth. A differentiated cell, however, HAS all those mechanisms in its complete genetics package; the ones for totipotency are merely inactive. Certainly without any manipulation it can divide and make more cells of its own kind -- which actually is exactly what a fertilized ovum can do! (I note that the ovum is by far the largest of human cells; it is stuffed with food so that after fertilization it can divide several times before arriving-at and getting-more-from a womb. If an ordinary differentiated cell was equally stuffed, it might divide just as many times before needing an external supply.) So, as far as potentials are concerned, the fetus is simply actively growing to fulfil it (including the possibility of quick death-by-genetic-defects), while a saved finger isn't (and it passed the defective-genes test long before). Also...do you remember the OTHER thing about Potential, which is that there is NO requirement in Nature that a potential must be fulfilled? Even in human cultures all potentials are technically optional, including committing suicide, and including birth (if you insist that someone else do the latter, on the grounds of "potential", why can't that someone else insist you do the former, on those same grounds?). Next item: The whole point of the New Argument is that because taking "human life" is currently considered perfectly OK for something like a lone human finger, and may continue to be OK even after ultimate regeneration technology is achieved, then a distinction must be made to explain why it is not OK to take the life of a fetus, which cannot survive by itself any more than can that lone finger. Since "potential" doesn't work, so far you aren't doing very well. V

Dear 216, there would be so much to reply to your post but it would be too much and futile anyway. Let's consider what you wrote "science fiction". A tilde is that: ~ - if you put four together you get your signature. It's useful, even if you are an anon by marking the end of your post. Str1977 13:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have selected a suitably science-fictional handle. In olden times (not yet over, actually), each human culture often thought it was so much better than neighboring cultures that killing humans outside one's own culture was simply that, killing, and seldom murder. The Incas possibly thought that way about the Spaniards, to their cost. Certainly the Spaniards thought that about the Incas! Science fiction is most valuable when it looks far ahead, considers consequences of choices, and offers a chance to learn to make better choices. In the fictional TV series "V", the aliens were quite powerful enough to do to humanity what the Spaniards did to the Incas. That the series had a fundamental technical flaw, which is that for aliens from another star-system, water and other compounds (carbon-based) needed for life-support are far cheaper and easier to obtain in the Oort Cloud than from deep inside both the Sun's and the Earth's gravity wells, is par for Hollywood. The social-interaction lesson remains, that humans had better not be so stupid as to think they are the pinnacle life-form in the Universe, and killing any of the others can never be murder. "There are [indeed!] more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy..." Consider the whales, for example. I'm sure you know that there are arguments regarding whether or not killing them should be called murder. Those arguments are based on two simple facts: The brain of a whale can be several times more massive than a human brain; and Nature is thrifty: biomass that isn't actually used, in any species, atrophies. The paleontological record clearly shows that whales are descended from land animals, and that their hind limbs were used seldom enough over millions of years that they atrophied into oblivion. But since their brains didn't atrophy, and instead grew as whales evolved, what are they using them for? They certainly don't need as much brainpower as they have just to do sonar; a brain the size of a bat's can do sonar just fine, while managing expert flying at the same time, thank you. We humans have no idea what the answer is, to that question. Will we someday discover that we have been murdering whale-beings for centuries? To be determined, in a non-science-fictional future. Now let's consider a different non-human for a bit, clinically thinking about a mystery labelled God. To call God fictitious would offend many people, but to call God fact would offend many others. I am not looking for a religion-oriented debate here; there is another place in Wikipedia for that. Here I only want to ask a simple question, "If you could imagine God to be killable, and somebody went and did it, then would that killing be murder?" The hypothetical killing of a non-biological non-human is being discussed here! --(in accordance with widely claimed traits for God, but yes, ignoring the immortality claim, because that one is equivalent to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine, see?). If your definition of murder is the simple "killing of human life" (which the New Argument shows cannot be valid), or even the more complicated "killing of a human being", then killing God could not possibly qualify as murder. If you disagree with that logical conclusion, and think that killing God would still qualify as murder, then you must come up with a definition of "murder" that meets the criteria I described in my prior post. Especially if you happen to think God to be more factual than fictitious -- or if you think that killing whales is murder. (Because once you start thinking about any sort of murderable entity besides human, then why should that be called the definitive end of the possible list?) Finally, here is why I am pressing you on that issue: I expect you will fail. I am confident that any definition of "murder" that can apply to human beings and certain non-human beings, but not to other non-human creatures like the housefly, is never going to be able to also apply to offspring so undeveloped that they have no significant brainpower-equivalent. You are welcome to try to prove my confidence misplaced. Good luck! Until then, abortion can be called both not-murder and morally-permissible! V

I don't want to provoke you, but I think you are close to exhibiting flight-of-ideas. My talk page. Sodium 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that's funny. If I choose to be provoked by what you just wrote, it will be entirely due to the fact that you still have chosen not the answering of previously asked questions nor the debating of previously-made points, but instead you hint your way to the desperate attack-the-opponent tactic once again. As another person on your side of the debate has indicated, your efforts will be futile, and here is why: Have you ever encountered this quote before? "You can't do just one thing." The interconnectedness of things, throughout the Universe, guarantees the truth of that quote, of course. But that same interconnectedness means that a topic like abortion cannot help but be linked to a number of other things. I've been thinking about those connections for twenty years, and finally am in a position to dump the results upon unsuspecting anti-abortionists as they deserve. They deserve it, see, because they didn't follow the connections themselves, and reach the inevitable conclusion that their argument is nothing but a house of cards build upon soggy sand in an earthquake zone. Their dilemma can be traced to the simple fact that they have been told from childhood that certain things are true, and so are trying to prop up arbitrarily made statements that are millenia old, and which turn out to actually be mostly false when investigated thoroughly, by following the connections! V

===================

And now to obliterate the next chunk of "foundation" upon which anti-abortionists base their argument:

One of the foundations upon which opponents of abortion build their argument is the claim that human life has inherent value that should be respected. But is that a true statement? How is "value" determined, anyway? Answer: value is actually never an inherent quality of anything; the value of something is always defined in terms of associations with other things. Here are some items of supporting evidence:

First, the Law of Supply and Demand studies the association between a single item and a group of items of the same type. How large is the group? Given constant demand, then the larger the group (the supply), the less-valuable the individual item is declared to be, and vice-versa. And does the Law of Supply and Demand apply to humans? In a restricted way, YES. Human labor is very much subject to this Law. It is quite well documented that when labor for a particular task is plentiful, humans who demand high wages for doing that task tend to find themselves unemployed. And certainly when only a few humans can do a particular task, they are often both well-paid and also given the task of training more humans to do it...thereby eventually and obviously diminishing the value of their labor! --Which in turn leads to a conundrum, because human life must be sustained in order for it to continue to yield labor. The claim that human life is inherently valuable should thereby and obviously be bolstered by actions everywhere ensuring that a minimum wage exists for labor, such that that wage is always at least enough to sustain human life. However, the fact is, a great many people who have time-and-again acted to oppose a minimum wage also happen to claim to oppose abortion on value-of-life grounds. Well, if "actions speak louder than words", then the actions of those people falsify the claim.

Second, throughout history numerous attempts were made to "fix" the price of gold, to make it a monetary standard. This never worked over the long term, and today not only does the price of gold "float" in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, so do the relative (associative) values of practically all the world's currencies. Similarly, human life has time and again been assigned associative values, especially in times of extreme struggle. "Women and children first!" is a motto embraced by all cultures that have survived the long haul, simply because children are the future of a culture, and women can both teach and make more children -- consider the possible culture-recovering/growth speed of two groups of survivors, one group consisting of ten men and one woman, while the other group consists of ten women and one man. So, if the lives of adult human males are assigned a low relative value in times of struggle, when it is traditional for them to sacrifice themselves to ensure women and children survive (for an extreme example of this, study the history of Paraguay, its wars, population level, and changing male/female ratio), then by no means can it be claimed that human life has some inherent fixed value.

Interestingly, it might be noted that if children can be considered more valuable than adult males, then a fetus also might be considered more valuable than an abortion doctor. However, such a conclusion fails to take into account the specified/associative magnitude-and-type-of-struggle. Abortion might indeed be utterly prohibitable when cultural survival is at stake -- or abortion might actually be declared an essential part of an overall effort to prevent an overpopulation-caused Malthusian Catastrophe. The history of Easter Island proves that humans are indeed as subject to the observations of Thomas Malthus as any other animal; it is just that with Island Earth being so much bigger, the crux takes longer to reach. Also, there are two other reasons why a fetus can be assigned a low value. One involves associating them with the quantity of biological resources that have been "invested" in them -- the older they are, the more resources have been invested (including patience of the mothers), and this investment only increases after birth and throughout childhood -- while when young-enough for a morning after pill to be effective, the quantity of invested resources is trivial. The other reason notes that aborted or miscarried fetuses are generally easy to replace (not necessarily by the same women, admittedly), and the current Malthus-challenging global population explosion, in spite of the number of abortions performed annually worldwide, is proof enough of that statement.

Third, almost every life-form has a built-in survival instinct. This is a simple consequence of the obvious fact that failures at survival tended not to pass their genes (and associated behavior patterns) on to the next generation. Humans are in the unique position of being able to make choices different from those dictated by instinct. Thus while perception of the survival instinct is common among humans, and frequently that perception leads to survival-promoting choices, often enough the perception is ignored in favor of other desires. Skydiving for fun is an example of that. Nevertheless, skydivers do take precautions to promote their survival, and often enough those precautions are adequate. The point here is that whenever a human chooses to act in a way that promotes survival of the body, even if only by taking precautions prior to skydiving, that human is acknowledging an association between that body and the mind making the choice. The existence of the mind depends on the continuing life of the body, so obviously it behooves the mind to value the life highly enough to take the precautions!

That entirely subjective perception and valuation is typically extrapolated, thanks to another unique trait of humans. The ability of one human to mentally place self into a situation being experienced by another human is something no animal can do. And therefore most humans expect other humans to value their own lives in a similar way. Nevertheless, that valuation remains entirely subjective and is not at all objective, as is evidenced by many troubles in History, which have been caused by humans who valued their own lives, but not the lives of others. Isn't it logical to deduce that if human life was objectively valuable, there would have been fewer historic cases in which that value was ignored (fewer murders and more ransoms)? Instead, the millenia-old slavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners.

The ability to put self in another's place can, like any other ability, be misused. To mentally put oneself in the physical situation of a horse is not to naturally interpret that situation in the same way as a horse, after all -- so abusing the ability in this instance would involve incorrectly claiming to fully understand the horse's mentality. And, by extension, the magnitude of misuse only increases as the mentaltiy of the other creature diminishes. When the creature has practically no mentality at all, such as a several-month's-old fetus, it would be pure folly to claim it has any understanding and valuation of its own existence. And it happens that not even the staunchest defenders of a fetus make such a claim. Instead they make the equally erroneous claim that human life has inherent/objective value. Even though the evidence is entirely against them.

I intend to post the preceding to the main article. And as before, it may be edited first, based on feedback. Let 'er rip! V

I just wanted to put my two cents on the whole thing. I'm writing a paper in school on Father's rights to protect their children. Any school text you read will say that life begins at conception- in all animals, including humans. A report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

So that should settle the whole "when does life begin" arguement.

I completely agree that the fertilization process (note species not specified) can yield a distinct and new human life, just as it can yield a distinct and new fish life, or dog life, or snail life.... Why don't you tell us why the new human life, a mindless single-celled organism, MUST be valued more highly than the others? Prejudice is not allowed, of course. And there is no requirement in Nature that potentials be fulfilled. V

Another thing to analize is the 14th Amendment itself. Has anyone done this yet? Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is the basis for Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion in general:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It specifies "persons born". No fetus qualifies. Simple. Also, see a little further below, where the Census is mentioned (one of the Sections of Amendment 14 is to modify the Constitution's description of census-taking). V

Specifically in the wording "immunities" protecting a women's right to govern the matters of her own body concerning pregnancy. But after examining various other words that come up later in Section one, especially after reading SJC S-158, 1981, we see words like "shall not deprive any person of life (the child), liberty (the child, and the father), without due process of law (fathers have cases thrown out when trying to stop their uinborn child's mother from aborting their unborn children), nor deny to any person...equal protection of rights (there is inequality because only the mother has rights, the father and the child do not).

First, the word "child" is inapplicable to any unborn human. However much you may wish otherwise, the correct term for an unborn human, during most of a pregnancy, is "fetus". Next, the ovum outweighs the sperm by 100,000 times. And every single atom that is added, after womb-implantation occurs and major growth begins, comes from the mother. So suppose you were a woman who invested $100,000 in a boat, and some man invested $1. Also, you-the-woman made all other payments for maintenance and improvements in the boat, while the man directly contributed nothing. If that man claims a half-ownership of the boat, do you think the claim will stand up in court? Then why should a man's claim of half-ownership in a fetus be recognized? V

And that's that- Legal Abortion is bogus. In a country that strives for egalitarianism sees how much further we fall short after studying the above. -Chris Lawrence, 25 FRCC Colorado

Your conclusion is bogus, since it is based on invalid data and bad logic. For more details about why the 14th Amendment doesn't grant rights to fetuses, see below. V

The Roe vs. Wade decision referenced the 14th Amendment as being able to invalidate the decision IF the word "person" was defined to include unborn humans. It is interesting that throughout the Constitution, the word "person" is used often, but the word "human" is not used at all. (No wonder those beings in that TV show, "Alien Nation", found the US accommodating!)

Anyway, the 14th Amendment, Section 1, gives rights to "all persons born", and says nothing about the unborn. But Section 2 is what I want you to think about here. This Section specifies counting persons, so that the States' Representation in the House can be figured (it modifies earlier wording of the Constitution). You may be aware that the purpose of the once-per-decade Census is to do that counting. UNBORN HUMANS HAVE NEVER BEEN COUNTED. If they were considered "persons", then they should have been getting counted since 1790. And do note, please, that the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution, were mostly alive to specify what qualified as a "person", for that first Census of 1790.

Thus the precedent, per ACTUAL IMPLEMENATION of the Constitution, long long before Roe vs. Wade, is that THE UNBORN DON'T COUNT; they have NEVER been considered to be persons worth counting. (A rather high rate of natural miscarriages may be one reason why; it would be like counting chickens before they hatched.) And even though the 14th Amendment altered certain aspects of Census-taking, those who wrote that Amendment, about 140 years ago, never used it as an excuse to count fetuses as persons. The legal precedent set by the Founding Fathers stands, therefore.

And that's OK! Per scientific measurements, unborn humans are not mentally more capable than ordinary animals. Even just-born humans are not mentally more capable than an adult cat or small dog. If we want "persons" to be generic enough for "Alien Nation", but restrictive enough to always exclude the demonstrably animal, like cats and dogs, then NO WAY can unborn humans EVER qualify as persons. V

The proposed entry is very long. Perhaps you could suggest a much briefer entry? The article is overlength as it is. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggest move

To Abortion debate. I like this title very much, but simpler is often better. What do people think. Also, beginning a Template:Abortion to consolodate related articles in a box. Might be nice if we took care of a template:Pregnancy first though. -St|eve 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this suggested move. Rolling up the moral and legal debates into one is not always helpful, especialy when one considers that a legal code is uniform within a state, unlike morals. Markb 10:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree w the move. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Major edit

I made a major edit, overhauling about 1/2 of the article. I noticed a near complete absence of discussion of violence, abortion clinic bombings, assasination of abortionists, and so forth. That, and some of the more extreme protest tactics should be elaborated on, likely producing a new section. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Original Research Tag

I have tagged this article with OR, because of the final two sections, "Against moral permissibility, regardless of personhood" (mostly latter half), and "Personhood", which are heavily original research (not to mention super-kooky). Sdedeo 16:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/statistics.asp

I changed the title of the above URL (in External Links) to "Abortion experience questionnaire of a self-selected sample".

The original description of the link - "Survey of which women have abortions, and why" - was misleading at best: the survey sample is a "self-selected sample of the those who had a 'bad experience'". Would have removed the link outright, considering how little relevant information the report contains, but I am new and this debate is scary. Also, it is apparently used to back up claims in the "Polarisation" section, but I don't see how it relates. Shoryuken 01:45, 01 September 2005 (UTC)

216 Original "research" essay

I removed the most obvious original research. It had grown to almost 3,000 words (the rest being 7,500 words). Str1977 19:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

History

The following quote appears at the head of the History section: "Many societies historically considered abortion a crime against nature." Can anyone provide any object evidence for this claim? Further down in the History section is the claim that the United States and India are among the countries where women are forced to have abortions against their will. Can anyone offer any evidence for this claim? Rick Norwood 21:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward to defend or support the statements mentioned above, I am removing them. Rick Norwood 14:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

drawing on the bible

The most recent edit makes two claims that I would like to see evidence for. The first is that more Christians opposed abortions than did those of other religions of the time. (The word "pagan" is prejudicial.) Second, that in opposing abortion Christians drew on the Bible. Rick Norwood 17:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward to defend or support these statements, I am removing them. Rick Norwood 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Kudos, well done. KillerChihuahua 16:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

sounds like religion to me

"Pro-life advocates generally argue against sexual education on the grounds that they send "mixed signals" to teens, especially girls. They also note that there is a correlation between widespread sex education in schools and an increase in teen sexual activity, resulting in rising rate of teen pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases. Instead they advocate a strong family and community advocacy of abstinence until marriage."

Hmmm...What exactly does ANY of this have to do with abortion? All of these things mentioned seem like religious issues and do not pertain to abortion unless one wants to make the point that the only people who are disqusted by abortions are realigious which I highly doubt. What evidence is there that most (weasled into the article as "generaly") pro-lifers advance any of the above opinions, all of which are conspcuously religious? What about the argument that just as easy to put a baby up for adoption as to abort it?207.157.121.50 06:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

"Pro-choice advocates regularly argue in favor of sex education in high school, contraceptive use, and greater involvement by parents in the lives of their teens as the three best ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore the need for abortions. They note that teens who have participated in "abstinence-only" sex education are less likely to use forms of contraception should they have sex, and therefore are more likely to become pregnant and develop STI's."

Again absolutely irrelevent to the topic. And since when was a teen with an unintended pregnency in "need" of an abortion?207.157.121.50 06:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Let's not be obtuse here: Contraception and sex ed are deeply related to the abortion issue for the simple reason that no women has ever gotten an abortion without first getting pregnant. You can argue with the word "need", but it's a simple fact that abortions are motivated by unwanted pregnancies, so anything that prevents these also prevents abortions. Social policies that affect pregnancy are therefore relevant to the abortion debate. Alienus 17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Very Strange Phrases

In reading this article, I have come across what seem like some very strange phrases, such as:

• The abortion debate is part of a large banana: Who do we protect?
• the arguments on abortion usually seek to french toast the change

I have never heard of "french toasting" change, nor have I heard the word "banana" used to mean "question" or "debate". I would just change these, but I am puzzled as to why someone else has not already done this. Is the Wikipedia inserting random nonsense these days in order to catch people who use it without giving attribution?

DrDeke 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I also feel that the line "The pro-life side of the debate is driven by the strong attachment most people feel toward babies, without which the human race would have died out long ago." is a fairly obvious statement to all and is not needed in what is meant to be a serious article.

The "banana", etc., is vandalism, and should be reverted as soon as it is detected. On the other hand, the emotional attachment people feel toward babies, while obvious, is also fundamental to the debate -- without that attachment there would be no debate. Rick Norwood 22:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, love of babies is something that is used by these people to sell their stance, but I'd question whether it is what fundamentally drives it. After all, this stance is politically linked with opposition to welfare and other programs that ensure that babies are fed and cared for. I would suggest that the underlying drive is related more closely to an opposition to feminism. Alienus 17:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Alienus edit

Alienus makes some good points, but I think he attempts too much. In particular, his point about identical twins seems spurious.

Also, I note a claim in the article that sex education increases teen sex. I have seen no evidence for this. Claims should be supported by evidence. Rick Norwood 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback. On the twin issue, let me explain what I was trying to say. Those who wish to trace personhood to conception like to invoke the fact that a fertilized embryo has unique DNA from the moment of conception, and that this DNA is different from that of either parent alone, hence it's not merely a part of the woman's body and subject to her whims. I feel that this argument has a number of flaws, so I brought up identical twins to highlight one of them and crossing over to highlight another.

The relevance is that, if uniqueness of DNA is what makes the embryo a separate person, worthy of life, then one of each pair of identical twins is redundant and may be eliminated. In some cultures, this is exactly what was historically done, with one of newborns summarily infanticized. Other cultures kill both, just in case, since only one has a soul. Hopefully, this explains what I was getting at. Any ideas on how I could make the text clearer?

Was the crossing over point lost too?

As for the claim that sex ed increases sex, from all the research I've done, this is entirely false. In the original text, this fallacy was repeated without comment. My edit was to tone down the claim to emphasize that it really is what certain anti-abortion groups say, even though it's just not true. Does this need further changes?

You said that, in general, I overreach. That may well be the case, so are there any other areas where you can offer specific comment?

All of the above is open to response by anyone, not just Rick. Alienus 16:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understood your point about the twins -- I just think it is splitting hairs, and doesn't belong in the article.

It is hard to know what to do when reporting a claim, like that about sex education, that is contrary to fact but is in fact a claim that is made. I hope you, or someone, can find a way to deal with this problem.

By and large, I liked your edits. My comment about "attempting too much" would have been better phrased, "don't attempt too much at one time". Edit a little, wait for a reaction, then edit a little more. Rick Norwood 16:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

These are fair criticism. My method for determining scope was basically to read through and fix bad stuff. In other words, I didn't try to rewrite, just change a word or add a sentence. Still, you're right that I could have planned out my changes and implemented them piecemeal, to give you and others more of a chance to respond at each point.

Anyhow, I've made another round of changes to fix the twin problem, and I'll see if I can add a parenthetical remark on the issue of sex ed causing pregnancies. Feel free to criticize or fix.

"extra-marital sex friendly sex education"

A recent edit describes sex education as either "abstanance only" or "extra-marital sex friendly". This seems very POV to me. What do others think? Rick Norwood 23:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is included in a passage presenting one side's argument. Hence A oppose this because they consider it to be X is all right, in my book, though it shouldn't be repeated over and over again. Str1977 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your latest edit improves on mine. Thanks. Rick Norwood 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I was too cautious in editing it down. Alienus 00:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Religion

No mention of anything but Christian? Islam at least is easy to find sources for. This entry is biased - I will try to find time to come back and fix, but if someone else can please do. KillerChihuahua 01:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly important. I do not have the knowledge necessary, but I hope that someone here does. Rick Norwood 15:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam:

• Islam & Abortion
• Abortion from an Islamic Perspective from Fatwah bank at IslamOnline
• Islam & Abortion from CrescentLife

Buddhism:

• Buddhism and Abortion from About
• What is an attitude of a Buddhist towards abortion? from the Questions and Answers at BuddhaNet

Several:

• Summary of Sacred Choices from The Religious Consultion. Covers Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Protestant Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American Religions, and "The Chinese Religions, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism" all lumped together.
• Religion and Abortion Has LOTS of urls for lots of info.

Now you have resources. I hope this helps. KillerChihuahua 16:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PSA

as it seems a some people on this page are arguing the issue, rather than making relevent suggestions for improving the article, I provide the following links as a public service announcement. Please take your debate thoughts to these sites, and keep your article improvement thoughts here:

• Forum on eHealth
• Forum Maple Leaf
• SpeakOut forum

I hope this helps!

Official positions?

How exactly are we getting official prolife/prochoice positions? Is there an international comitee regulating pro-life/prochoice registration, kinda like a political party that I am not aware of? Smart assery aside, a possible suggestion. Split the article, either literally or just by organization into abortion debate arguments, and abortion debate advocacy.--Tznkai 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sex Education

There should be no mention of sex education on this page - it has nothing to do with abortion, or the abortion debate. Tiki2099 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1) There already was mention of sex ed in both the pro-choice and pro-life summaries, so you can't just remove one and leave the other.

2) Sex education and birth control are hugely relevant to the abortion debate, and there is a clear correlation between views on abortion with those on sex ed and birth control. This is not my own opinion alone, but the consensus of the editors.

3) What I'm really annoyed with is your blatant disregard for NPOV. Terms like "unborn baby" and "mother" are too loaded to be used neutrally. Alienus 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

you are right - they should be removed from both. Correlation of people who have the views has nothing to do with the issue itself. It is particularly distorting here, since by claiming that science happens to be on the side of one view, it impacts negatively on the other without actually discussing real debate. Also, terms like "unborn baby" are prefectly appropriate terms to use in a section actually explaining a particular POV. What this section should do is clearly articulate why those terms are part of the pro-life vocabulary. Simply using the pro-choice vocabulary tilts it too far in the other direction. Tiki2099 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

just to clarify my earlier comment, I propose to A) remove the tangental stuff about sex education and B) in each pro-life/pro-choice section, talk about the vocabulary each positions uses, and why they use it. Explaining the vocabulary actually goes most of the way in explaining the position, and I think it is the most neutral approach to a sensitive subject. There is probably some redundancy that can be eliminated elsewhere as well. Tiki2099 19:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, were it removed from one, it ought to be removed from the other. I disagree with your contention that sex ed and contraception are tangential. However, I do support any NPOV clarification of terminology. Alienus 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I regard them as tangential because this is a page discussing abortion itself, not ways to reduce abortions in general. That is to say, a desire or methodology to reduce the total number of abortions is an outcome of this discussion, not a data point while having it. I also don't necessarily agree that being pro-life makes one anti sex-ed. That may be true for certain conservate Christian circles, but there are plenty of non-Christians who are pro-life, discussed elsewhere in the article. The whole "best way to reduce the number of abortions" debate should be handled somewhere else. Tiki2099 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

People who are pro-abortion are not by default in favor of sex education. People who are anti-abortion are not by default in favor of abstinence only programs. The article states the correlation as fact. As such, it is factually incorrect and should be removed. Rubikcube 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This is obviously an unstable article, and thus does not meet the criteria. --Tothebarricades 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"whom do we protect?"

sounds pretty pov in a cheesy lifetime channel kind of way. come on, we can do better than that paragraph.

I agree that the paragraph is completely worthless Rubikcube 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New section?

It is worth mentioning the issue of parental/spousal/biological father notification/consent - regardless of a person's view on the right of the mother, many feel the father should have a say in the issue as well. On the Abortion page, I have added the following:

"Debate also focuses on whether the pregnant woman should have to notify and have the consent of others in distinct cases: a minor her parents; a legally married or common-law wife her husband; or a pregnant woman the biological father. In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondants were in favour of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favour.[3]"

I was finding it difficult to incorporate this into existing sections here - perhaps there are suggestions? DonaNobisPacem 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added this to the "Rights" section. DonaNobisPacem 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent news

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10853178/

U.S. conservatives step up overseas activities

Joseph d’Agostino of the Population Research Institute, a Virginia-based anti-abortion group. “But with the Bush administration, pro-lifers feel there’s a real opportunity to stop the U.S. government from promoting abortion and sex education and population control in the Third World.”

There is a lot more - I will leave it to the more active editors of this article to determine if there is a place for this here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

South Dakota ban?

I'm a bit confused how a state court could rule against federal law? --Tothebarricades 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposed state constitutional ammendment would ban all abortions in South Dakota, but keep in mind if passed it would obviously spark a series of lawsuits attacking it's constitutionality on the federal level, so the ultimate goal would be to have the Supreme Court review Roe V. Wade and possibly overturn the original ruling....thus the South Dakota law is simply a springboard to the ultimate goal of eradicating all abortions.

As it currently sits, the citizens of South Dakota collected enough signatures to force a ballot measure for the proposed ammendment, which means the voters will decide the fate of the proposition - and if it is voted down nothing will become of it. If it is passed, then the lawsuits will most likely follow suit. At the end of the day it really isn't about saving lives but rather about making a name for a few select politicians. Based upon local surveys it is very clear the legislature is not following the will of the people and thus there is a high probability the proposition will be defeated....stay tuned until Nov 06 for the results. 151.151.21.104 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)CostnerM

Movement Choice

I feel that the use of the title Pro-Life contests neutrality because the antonym of Pro-Death is inaccurate. I feel this is just a method used to villify opposing views through suggestion. It would be better suited to stop using the movements self proclaimed Pro-Life title because it goes deeper than that. Anti-Choice might be a better title as that is the basis of the movement, taking away the choice of abortion and the choice of a mother. It would be more objective to place both movements on equal footing by keeping the argument Pro/Anti Choice. Fear The Ether 17:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be an even worse violation of POV than the current usage. If you wanted something more accurate, you would use pro- and anti- abortion, as each side would probably view that as a positive description of their own movement. --tjstrf 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that suggestion violates the wikipedia naming convention of respecting self-identity. Second of all, most pro-choicers don't like abortions and aren't "pro-abortion" (and I think there is a reason that pro-lifers object to being considered anti-abortion, but I can't remember it). Third of all, both pro-life and pro-choice movements deal with other issues besides abortion, such as stem-cell research and euthanasia on the life side, and contraception and womens health issues on the choice side. Like I said above, self-identity is the most neutral way to go. It is not our place as wikipedians to try to correct the 'wrong' or POV titles of these movements.--Andrew c 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant within the context of this particular article, where we are dealing specifically with abortion supporters and abortion detractors, not the larger issue. However, self-identification is probably the best way to go simply because they are best known by those names regardless. I was just replying because I noticed no one had ever addressed this after I restored an IP editors deletion of it here anyway, so don't mind me. --tjstrf 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alterman?

I'm confused why Eric Alterman's opinion book has a section in this article? It seems to relate remotely to the topic, further Alterman's explanation of pro-choice bias is dubious at best- how could those who support the status quo (legal abortion), be "reformist"? In my thinking this section should go, any thoughts?

This section should be deleted unless someone can explain how the issue of media bias has entered the abortion debate. Even then I cannot see that media bias would deserve its own section. Either way it should not remain as a separate section. --Algernon1980 11:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section Media Bias should be removed entirely. It should be moved to its own page (a book review), or to Media Bias.—Red Baron 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Abortions Ban

How can a US State ban all abortions if it clearly violates the right to privacy? I am currently studying AP Government in High School, and I thought that the states could not infringe on the right to privacy that is implied by the Bill of Rights. I thought that this would violate the privileges and immunities of Section 1 of the 14th amendment. Could anyone please clarify this?--BorisFromStockdale 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I am asking abot the South Dacota ban.--BorisFromStockdale 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement on whether a right to privacy really exists per se or to what extent it exists. If abortion was protected simply by a "Right to Privacy", then so would, for example, drug use. Conservatives believe in a "strict constructionist" model where only clearly stated rights are protected, U.S. liberals believe in a "living constitution" that the courts can reinterpret as the jurist deems appropriate...JE

When the Bill of Rights was first being debated, some people were worried that later on, someone might think that only the rights listed in the bill were protected. That is why Amendment 9, which explicitly says that listing some rights does not mean you do not have others, was included. Thus a "strict constructionist" who says only clearly stated rights are protected is like a "fundamentalist Christian" who does not take every sentence in the New Testament seriously, i.e. these people are using their favorite parts of a text to give authority to their positions. DanielCristofani 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but what about the Supreme Court case ruling in the Roe v. Wade decision. Wouldn't South Dacota's ban contradict that decision? --BorisFromStockdale 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, South Dakota's law is in contravention of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It seems that South Dakota simply wants to provide an opportunity for a lawsuit that would ask the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions, which would simply make the issue one for the states to decide individually. Oh, and actually there is general consensus that the right to privacy exists, ask Robert Bork. Would you agree that states can ban contraception, which was at issue in Griswold v. Connecticut? One can support the right to privacy and also think that abortion should be a state issue, I support such reasoning myself and it is a view strongly advocated by others, including The New Republic. - Jersyko·talk 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Historically, yes, states could ban contraception, this is the point of the 9th and 10th ammendments, namely states retained powers not enumerated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, Griswold V. Connecticut was the precursor to Roe. V. Wade and was based on the flimsy theory of "economic substantive due process", originally and ironically, embraced by conservative business interests in the Slaughterhouse cases and later in Lochner V. New York, Oliver Wendell Holmes dissent in Lochner would be the underpinning of the constructionist/federalist point of view on the matter. Again, modern liberals will disagree but there is not a consensus on this matter. JE

Body after death v. fetus before birth

Alienus changed an example to: we don't limit terminally ill people with only nine months left to live to the rights of a corpse. IMO the edit is a great improvement in terms of explanatory power. His point (see edit summary) about original research also seems well taken to me, in the sense that the article is underreferenced (although the article's history leads me to believe this will not be too difficult to remedy). But I am wondering about the new example. I find it hard to believe that anyone has ever made this point in the abortion debate in the real world, given how crude and loaded the language is and how off-putting its message (juxtaposing a corpse against a fetus) must sound to the people it seeks to convince. Alienus or anyone else, please provide one or more citations per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE to show that your edit is not original research (i.e. an example created by you and/or part of an argument created by the editors responsible for its earlier incarnations) and that it provides notable information. AvB ÷ talk 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In trying to source this myself I soon came across the author of this juxtaposition - Leonard Peikoff. So I've answered my question re sources. I still have objections to the example; e.g. the juxtaposition (POV that fetus & corpse should have the same personhood/rights status) is deemed quite invalid by many (including quite a few pro-choicers); it's loaded language from an extreme POV which states that personhood and human rights are only acquired upon birth; at the very least it should be ascribed to its source; it was certainly not part of an attempt to explain, it was meant to condemn, arguing from an impopular viewpoint. Other editors may want to consider the example I provided. It does not rely on loaded language, and also occurs elsewhere in the article (see the version changed by Alienus). If we're using euphemisms throughout the article, this extreme example from the pro-choice fringe is not what we need posited as a generally supported pro-choice argument. AvB ÷ talk 15:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. It's not that this section of the article is under-referenced, but that much of it seems to be written without any attempt to consult sources. It's the sort of original research that is an error of comission, not omission.

I think I did not miss your point. That's why I limited my agreement to the part with which I agreed, and explained where my opinion differs from yours. The same observation, different explanation. Policy should save the day here over time. Citations are needed.

In short, I don't want to support the text I added, I want to remove it and most of the text around it. The entire "Overview" of "Modern Arguments" section has grown from a brief summary to an OR essay that cannot be repaired.

Interesting. I'll look into it and see if an opinion emerges.

As it happens, I got the phrasing about unkilled corpses from a Latin American abortion advocate whose name I'm fairly sure of, but just because I can cite it doesn't mean I should. If I did, it would be the only cited item in the entire section! I suggest we rewrite the overview so that it lives up to its name. Alienus 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say I was amazed to find that the point had actually been made. Should teach me some humility I reckon.

(The next section was written after an edit conflict)

Purely out of curiosity, could you show me where Peikoff said this, because I certainly didn't hear it from him; it wasn't even in English. Granted, as is typical for libertarians and obligatory for Objectivists, Peikoff is pro-choice, and I suppose that my source might have been inspired by or even paraphrasing Peikoff, so having some idea of when he said this might help establish priority.

Coming up

On a side note, I think the whole point is that "unborn child" is exactly as loaded a term as "unkilled corpse". Both try to describe a thing in terms of a future state so as to bias us to ignore the present state. In short, both are examples of framing an issue in a way that is misleading. The only difference is that "unklled corpse" is intentionally bad, conjured up to highlight the bias in "unborn child". Alienus 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that both terms are quite loaded. And I also think there is a valid argument in there somewhere. I just found the example unnecessarily graphic.

I appreciate your openmindedness. AvB ÷ talk 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Peikoff citation: http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion.htm. I Googled abortion adult rights corpse and picked the first non-Wikipedia link which was http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2404 Abortion Rights are Pro-Life by Leonard Peikoff (January 23, 2003). Googled up some in-depth info (such as confirmation that the quote is often ascribed to Peikoff and older source text) using "undead corpse" abortion. AvB ÷ talk 19:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Peikoff's not very good with language, is he? Unborn means not yet born, but undead doesn't mean not yet dead. Rather, it refers to zombies and such; the dead which nonetheless walk the earth, presumably looking for brains to eat. Moreover, being born and being killed are fully parallel, but there's no such thing as "deading" someone. To make dead is to kill. Whereas an unborn baby would clearly become a regular baby once it's born, it's an unkilled corpse that just needs a little killing to become a regular corpse. And speaking of needing some killing, let's see how much of a consensus there is behind killing the "Overview" of "Modern Arguments" then bringing it back to the semblance of life as an undead replacement of itself. Alienus 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The analogy corpse/foetus is more then corect,it's an other isue if it don't hears charming.Modern medicine had set a series of criteria to determine if some one is brain dead.So,since the foetus is clasified as brain dead,prior to a certain date,he has the same rights as a corps.This is plain logic, you can say that it sounds ugly but you can't disgurd it just for esthetics.If you are a pro-life and want to consistent with your self you should also consider that "brain dead peopol" are alive,and so transplantation should be regarded as mutilation or murder.--Ruber chiken 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Overview of Modern Arguments section

Alienus wrote: The entire "Overview" of "Modern Arguments" section has grown from a brief summary to an OR essay that cannot be repaired. I'm not so sure that I accept Alienus' OR verdict but the section has certainly become too unwieldy for an encyclopedia article. I am leaning towards agreeing that it needs to be pruned back to a brief summary or deleted altogether. I'd like to gauge the opinion of other editors on this. AvB ÷ talk 22:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The "Overview" section is in no sense an overview, it lacks focus and structure, and it tends towards OR. At the least it should be pruned drastically, but I would not object to it being deleted entirely. I think it should be replaced by 2-3 paragraphs summarising arguments commonly encountered in the popular (as opposed to academic philosophical) debate over abortion. This would then fit in well with the following section that does focus on the philosophical debate. --Algernon1980 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now replaced this section with a much briefer version.--Algernon1980 09:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This needs serious cleanup. Not the least of which is a clear definition of the subject of the article. My understanding is that this is an article about the ways in which abortion has been debated. As such clear points of contention, dimensions of argumentation, etc. seem notable but we need to be careful in almost every part of the article not to cross the line to original research. We don't want users who stumble across this article to think that this is a debate between wikipedians over abortion. Rather this is an article about the abortion debate. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To save the life of the woman

Isn't it worth noting that there are no medical conditions in which abortion is a medically recognized treatment? Also, it is important to note the difference between performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman and an abortion; the two are not the same. Don't give an Ameriflag 06:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that your statement is accurate. There are a wide number of life-threatening conditions whose treatment that cannot be performed upon a pregnant woman without endangering the fetus. For example, if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with aggressive cancer, she needs immediate chemotherapy to have any chance of survival, but these medicines would likely kill the fetus. Therefore, before such a treatment, an abortion is indicated on medical grounds. There are also other examples where an abortion is needed as part of treatment to stop uterine bleeding after, say, a car accident. In short, I suggest that you research thing further before making any changes to this effect. Alienus 18:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul of "Philosophical Arguments" Section

I agree with others that the whole article needs a major overhaul. However, my own expertise (such as it is) is with the philosophical debate, and I propose progressively to overhaul each section in the "Philosophical Arguments" section, beginning with the section on Thomson, in an attempt to bring greater structure, clarity and neutrality. (Wish me luck!) Does anyone object to this? --Algernon1980 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I have overhauled the Thomson section. Others to follow in coming weeks/months.--Algernon1980 13:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of support, I have reverted those edits. Overall, I approve of what you're trying to do, but please be more specific here on talk and go in smaller bites - this is a contentious issue and edit wars are common. In specific, please spell the word "fetus" not "foetus" - foetus is a late addtion and is generally not recognized by anyone but the British press (the British medical community spells it fetus also.) thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: That section is way too long - any suggestions you make here regarding trimming it down and making the writing more professional in tenor would be strongly supported by me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My first comment about your additions is that there is no need for you to code HTML. The only code you need is wikicode. Paragraphs and breaks are automatically coded. You can use the * to code unordered lists. etc. I think this is good information, and could be used in it's own article, but it seems way to bulky for this article. Perhaps create A Defense of Abortion and put your text there. Then have a main section link in this article pointing there, and summarize the position and the rebuttles here?--Andrew c 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is my case for change in a little more detail, although I do not know what to do if it is again met with silence. I hope somebody will agree. Anyway, the current section on Thomson contains four paragraphs. Paragraph (1) states: "Her most famous case is that of the violinist", as if Thomson had lots of other (less famous) cases where one is "suddenly attached to another, adult human being". She doesn't. The paragraph also fails to bring out the crucial point in Thomson's argument, which is that the right to life does not entail the right to life support or the right to use another's body.

Paragraph (2) contains a nonsensical opening sentence -- I don't know what the objection is supposed to be here and it is certainly not found in the literature. Similarly for the claim that the violinist could unplug the woman -- what is the objection supposed to be, and where is it found in the philosophical literature? Is it being suggested the woman could NOT permissibly unplug the violinist? Also, the claim that the analogy is "imperfect" because the pregnant woman voluntarily had sex is POV and has been strongly challenged by writers such as Boonin (A Defense of Abortion, 2003).

In paragraph (3), the claim that the analogy works only for rape is again POV. The rest of the paragraph is unprofessional in tenor and fails to make reference to any philosophical literature.

The objection in paragraph (4) makes no reference to any philosophical literature and is extremely unclear. Is it to be suggested, for example, that we must ALWAYS provide a person in need (a fetus, a starving child, a beggar) with whatever "ordinary care" we can give them? Both sides of the debate would find this implausible; and yet, if this is not the claim being appealed to, then how is the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care supposed to support the claim that one has a duty to support the foetus but not the violinist?

My conclusion is simply that the whole section needs to be rewritten, making far greater reference to philosophical literature, being far less POV and making the whole thing more professional in tone. In addition, reference should be made to the fact that Thomson's argument has been defended against various criticisms. All of this is what my edits were designed to achieve. However, I am inclined to agree with Andrew that a summary version with a link to a new "A Defense of Abortion" page would be appropriate. What do others think?--Algernon1980 14:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a POV split, which is against policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. That is like saying having an article on Pascal's Wager is simply a POV fork of Existence of God. If a topic is big enough to warrent its own article, I see no reason why it shouldn't exist, if it is presented in a NPOV manner (such as the criticisms section for Pascal's Wager, or the rebuttles to Thomson).--Andrew c 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A child article is not the same as a POV split. A "defense" faces an "opposition" in this debate. To have child articles covering one side or the other of this debate is ipso facto a POV split. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this a bit? I'm not yet convinced you're right here (i.e., that Pascal's Wager is a child article rather than a POV split, whereas an article for A Defense of Abortion would be a POV split rather than a child article). After all, the "Existence of God" debate has two sides as well, but that doesn't make Pascal's Wager a POV split. Also, the article would not merely cover one side of the debate, but both sides, since it would describe the argument AND objections to it. I think a separate article for A Defense of Abortion would be just like Pascal's Wager or the Chinese Room (both of which list a famous philosophical argument together with criticisms). Keep in mind that a Defense of Abortion is (said to be) the most widely reprinted article in all of modern philosophy and contains one of the most famous thought experiments of all time. That seems to give added support to the view that it deserves its own article.--Algernon1980 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To Algernon1980: Please edit one para at a time then, starting with one? if there are objections or phrasing issues we can hash them out here. As I said, overall I support your effort. Please try to trim the length if at all possible. Use only wikicode - let me know if you have any problems with style or formatting. Start w/para 1? Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't have a chance for a few days, but I will indeed go one paragraph at a time for the Abortion Debate article.--Algernon1980 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and created A Defense of Abortion. I converted the table to be more readable, removed the HTML, added wikicode, etc. I think some POV issues need to be cleared up, and I would appreciate any help in making this new article even better. I am going to work on converting the citations to <ref> tags. --Andrew c 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh! You meant an article about the paper only, not the concept? My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the concept, which would have been a POV fork. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! --Andrew c 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Confusion solved. Andrew, thanks for your excellent work in creating the article and making it Wiki-compliant!--Algernon1980 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Second the kudos, and again apologies for my misunderstanding - gratz for allowing me to be obtuse without becoming aggravated. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all -- and I appreciate your kindly demeanour!--Algernon1980 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the first paragraph on Thomson to bring out the key point in her article (which is that the right to life does not entail the right to use another person's body). The paragraph is slightly longer than the previous version, but I think this will balance out because the current fourth paragraph can be deleted entirely (IMO).--Algernon1980 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The para starting "A response to the Marquis argument is..."? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the second and third paragraphs on Thomson (dealing with objections to her argument) with a single referenced paragraph. I also added a final paragraph regarding responses to objections. The next task will be to delete entirely what is now the third paragraph (ordinary vs extraordinary care), since it is unreferenced OR -- I have never seen that objection anywhere in the literature on Thomson. I would support anyone who wishes to go ahead and delete that paragraph immediately; otherwise I will do it myself in a day or so.--Algernon1980 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Modern Arguments" Overhaul Complete

I have finished the major changes I wanted to make to the "Modern Arguments" section. Hopefully the quality has been improved somewhat, but if people have concerns then by all means raise them here. The length of this part of the article is about 3,300 words, which I think is reasonable considering it's about half (7,000 words in total wouldn't be against policy, would it?). I'm now wondering if anything can be done to improve the first half of the article, which is currently unreferenced and rather piecemeal. I myself would be less confident about making changes there, though I'd like to help where possible.--Algernon1980 11:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also getting involved in working on this page; I have a few issues with the section you worked on (thanks for doing so much work, by the way) but I'm working my way down from the top first. I'm not sure if the parts I take issue with are your writing or not, but I'll definitely post details here when I get to them. In the mean time, please let me know if you (and anyone else too, of course) have any issues with my changes. Thanks, romarin[talk to her ] 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fetal Pain

I think there really needs to be a section on the argument over fetal pain. Does anyone know enough about that to contribute? MamaGeek Joy 11:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if a NPOV view is taken, and counter arguments presented: For example, a pro-life person could point out that Leprosy is a disease that often leaves adults with the inability to feel pain, and they still have right to live. CobraA1 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding minor edit warring

The senete joint resolution is 1983. The Planned Parenthood v. Casey case is 1992. Why not include both? The fact of the matter is that a number of states restrict post-viability abortions. It is false to say that "a woman [may] obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy". (Unless that includes interstate travel). Just read Abortion in the United States. It mentions the Human Life Amendment but goes on to say "there have been subsequent court decisions, and numerous state laws, addressing the underlying right to obtain, or affecting access to, abortion." I'd just be worried about overlapping content from this article and that one. I think including the quote (already included in the other page) is going too far. Perhaps we can size it down some?--Andrew c 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I included it because viability is really not a consideration for the legality of abortion in the U.S. The only regulations the states can place on it are matters of parental consent or notification for minors, waiting periods, etc. There is no legal restriction due to viability at all. MamaGeek Joy 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you need to refresh the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. From the article:

"the plurality overturned the strict trimester formula used in Roe to weigh the woman's interest in obtaining an abortion against the State's interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely."

And then maybe review the state laws of say Kansas, Ohio, Alabama, Tennessee, etc just to name a few. Viability was covered legally by the supreme court, and it is mentioned in state law. Saying "is really not a consideration" is false.--Andrew c 20:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Andrew, and I think that the additions here are misleading. Besides, the citation is from 1983. A lot has changed in the mean time, and these sentences do not reflect those changes, but rather make it sound as though this is how things still stand. That simply is not the case. romarin[talk to her ] 00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So where do we stand? Does anyone want to try to edit the paragraph in question to reflect some of the issues brought up here?--Andrew c 04:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the debate in the United States

what this have to do here?wikipedia is not just usa.It should be moved.--Ruber chiken 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

natural selection

All the debate is turning in circules.In general the isues it's about arbitrary distinctions of thing that trensform gradually.we pass from white to black thrue all the scales of gray,and then we attemped to set a clear dinstinction for when white became black.But if you see the isue from a extremly technical side the problems desapear.In nature,natural selection makes it's best to increas the efficiancy of it's organism(acording to technical limitations).So for humans ther's instincts that ame to optimise the reproduction ,in a optimum balace of quantity-quality-self preservation(of the parents).So in the human population,peopol by peopol some instincts are more present than other's(to abort or not to abort),but on average they balance them selves to fit natural selection requirement's.That seem's a very hacked solution but nature does that all the time.So what i am saying is that the debate is rendered unsolvable in purpess because natural selection is interested primarly on the average result.So i'm saying that we schould take a decision acording to purely technical isues since aure emotions(insticts) were tempered with(biased) to accomodate other needs.--Ruber chiken 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph a bit misleading

"Political sides have largely been separated into absolute extremes — either seeking to make all abortion illegal, or to [b]permanently remove laws restricting all forms of abortion[/b]. However, most citizens have more moderate or nuanced views than those espoused by pundits and politicians."

Emphasis mine. I realize this could be interpreted several ways, but the first interpretation that comes to mind is that the pro-choice movement wants to eliminate [b]all[/b] abortion laws, including the ones forbidding, say, end-of-third-trimester abortions. I've showed this excerpt to a few friends of mine, and all but one (out of 7 that happened to be around at the time. Strategy game night) initially understood it to mean that. As the paragraph doesn't seem to say much which isn't stated by the previous one, I suggest it be removed. 82.166.53.176 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, so I removed it. Al 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some sneaking POV

I'm sure that most wikizens are liberal and pro-choice, but that doesn't excuse letting the article lean in that direction. Clearly, people are trying not to do that, but there are a few places where this still needs to be addressed:

"The majority of both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe that the values underlying the pro-life position are derived from religious beliefs. Many pro-choice advocates, however, believe that any resulting morals, ethics, and laws built upon religious values are predicated upon an inherent religious bias, in contrast to values derived from scientific fact and unbiased logical reasoning which they believe lead inevitably to morals, ethics, and laws consistent with their own position."

This paragraph glosses over the fact that some atheists are pro-life, and also makes the entire pro-life camp look anti-science.

Since this is a controversial issue, I didn't want to just make the edit, but how about this?

"The majority of both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe that the values underlying the pro-life position are derived from religious beliefs. However, there do exist pro-life atheists, who contend that abortion is a moral and political issue rather than a religious one---but these are relatively rare. Many pro-choice advocates do argue, however, that since anti-abortion ethics are largely built upon religious values, they have no place in a secular society."

Here's another place that seems a little left-leaning as well:

"One aspect of the issue involves defining at what point an embryo or fetus qualifies as a person, and gains the legal and/or moral right to life. Even if that could be agreed upon, that right would still need to be weighed against the rights of the woman."

While strictly true, something about this last sentence seems to suggest that proving that a fetus is a person would be grossly insufficient to challenging abortion, but it wouldn't. It's a major factor---if not the major factor---in the debate.

Here's my suggestion:

"One aspect of the issue involves defining at what point an embryo or fetus qualifies as a person, and gains the legal and/or moral right to life. Since it is generally considered wrong to end the life of a person intentionally, proving that a fetus qualifies as a person would pose a strong argument against abortion. However, it would still be necessary to weigh this argument against the rights of the woman, and many pro-choice advocates (e.g., Thomson) maintain that personhood is not enough to make abortion immoral."

Just my two cents; trying to preserve NPOV on an issue where that's especially hard. -Patrick N.R. Julius 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the timing section

This section on the whole is good, but it's really short, and it doesn't cite sources who hold these particular views or present any (even brief) arguments regarding each. -Patrick N.R. Julius 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Babies

Why do we want any more? 87.242.143.17 00:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"emotions" section

reading this over, i agree that it not only has neutrality and sourcing problems, but think it may not belong in article at all. that both sides have strong feelings is common sense, but how it has been presented in this section is speculative, biased OR. (with the pro-life "feelings" set up as a straw man for a separation of church and state argument, not opposing "feelings.") ...and what does it really add in terms of "light" to the debate to say that it is sometimes an emotional one? without neutrality and sources, section should stay out. "underlying values," section also. if adequate sources can be located to explicate values/emotions, that combined subject probably only needs a sentence and can be worked into the pro-con pro-life/pro-choice arguments sections. Cindery 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Both sides of the abortion debate argue in terms of science, morals, logic, religion, and law. But they would hardly be drawn into the debate at all were it not for the very strong emotions involved.

The pro-life side of the debate is driven by the strong attachment most people feel toward the life of an infant or fetus. It is also driven by attitudes about sexuality, feminism and the rights of teenagers.

The pro-choice side of the debate is driven primarily by the strong feeling most people have that they have a right to make decisions about their own bodies and their own lives, represented in this debate by women who desire to make the ultimate decision regarding the termination or full gestation of their pregnancy.

Concerns with poverty, privacy, and the lifelong commitment that comes with bearing children are also topics which relate to pro-life and pro-choice ideas, and are used in defense against what some perceive as invasive regulation by government and religion.

I think that the vast majority of pro-lifers take nothing but an emotional stance on abortion. They see a fetus or a zygote as a fully vested member of society. I don't think anyone that uses logic could see a cluster of cells without a nervous system or a gender as human. But that's why I didn't write in the article; I'm too biased. - Kritish

Actually, it could be argued the other way very reasonably: Genetically, a fetus or zygote has a gender, even if the organs aren't developed yet. Full sexual maturity doesn't occur until the human is around a dozen years old. Same with the nervous system: It starts developing in the womb, and continues to develop outside of it. CobraA1 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

="Underlying value systems" section

The majority of both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe that the values underlying the pro-life position are derived from religious beliefs. Many pro-choice advocates, however, believe that any resulting morals, ethics, and laws built upon religious values are predicated upon an inherent religious bias, in contrast to values derived from scientific fact and unbiased logical reasoning which they believe lead inevitably to morals, ethics, and laws consistent with their own position. Consequently, many pro-choice advocates believe that government regulation of abortion stands as a violation of religious freedom and the principle of separation of church and state which are central tenets of many free societies.

Biased picture

someone deleted this:

Unborn childs grave in Bytom, Poland. "Dedicated in memory of unborn childs – victims of abortion." The poem says: "You will not hear my voice and my heart beat. The heart, that wanted to love you. Why didn't you want me mommy, why didn't you want me papa?"

image as "biased".

I like Reductio ad absurdum so I will aks you: Is this: [[Image:Dstsatan.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Der Stürmer: "Satan". The caption reads: "The Jews are our misfortune."]]

picture also "biased"? No, it is not – there is a fact shown on this picture. Just like on "unborn childs grave" - you can be antiantisemitic but you can denied that there was such cover of german newspaper, and most of all you can't tell that this image is "biased" (bacause in few days some nazis will tell that Jews terryfying pictures from Oświęcim are also "biased" (because they show only one point of view). But actually this pictures shows facts – fact that Der Stürmer put extremly antisemitic article on cover, and fact that there is an unborn childs grave in Bytom - nobody tells if this facts are good or bad - but they exists, and "biased" is to trying to make them not exist by deleting them. Szczur Zosia 06:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts. Images still have to conform to the NPOV policy, and verifiability. I could not find anything about this site on the internet. I serached for "Unborn childs grave" and "dzieciom nienarodzonym". I know the internet isn't everything, but this raises both notability and verifiability questions. On top of that, because of the supposed lack of significance of this image, are we giving the position held by the makers of the grave undue weight? --Andrew c 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your nazi picture was in the way of our discussion so I commented it out. --Chris Pickett 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Basic biology

What in the world does because they allege that a fetus is a part of a woman's body mean. Is the fetus secretly not part of a woman's body? Is the giant lump that grows inside of a woman's body simply an illusion, and the fetus floats around in some autonomous zone outside of the woman's body? I'm not trying to be smart, but I don't see how this simply statement is an 'allegation'. What am I missing? Is the phrase "part of" controversial? Could it be changed to something else, because adding that 'alleged' part seems very odd, and possibly overly critical/skeptical simply because the statement is associated with the pro-choice position (comparatively, when pro-lifers point out that fetuses have the genetic make up of a homo sapien, should we word this as a simply allegation? of course not. Biased positions can mention basic biology without the need for qualification, no?)--Andrew c 06:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the pro-life argument is that a fetus, while it develops inside of the woman's body, is genetically distinct from her, and thus should not be considered "a part of her body." Perhaps we could edit the sentence to establish that the pro-choice argument is not, generally, "a fetus is a part of a woman's body," but, "Women have the right to control their bodies. Fetuses develop inside of a woman's body, and, thus, women have the right to terminate a pregnancy." -Severa (!!!) 06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I understand. I guess I was right about the 'part of' being the disputed phrasing. There is something implied that a woman 'owns' everything inside of her body, while this idea is disputed. I think an alternate wording could work, but I'd like to see imput from Ross, or anyone else.--Andrew c 06:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Real encyclopedia vs. Wikipedia

A real encyclopedia (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) has absolutely no problem describing Thomson's thought experiment as "striking and effective". Why is this so problematic here on Wikipedia? -- Cat Whisperer 12:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be described as such with appropriate citations, but in the article about the essay. This article is about the abortion debate, not about a particular, admittedly influential essay that just so happens to discuss the abortion debate. The fact that the article devotes text to the essay at all indicates its importance to the debate. Why further bolster the prominence of the essay in this article? And like I said in an edit summary, why not use "oft criticized" instead of "striking and effective" to describe the essay here? The choice of one set of potentially objectionable descriptors over another is where the NPOV problem appears. I added "well-known" to its description because I thought it would satisfy everyone and not be objectionable, though frankly that's not even necessary, since it wouldn't be included here if it weren't well-known. But, again, it all comes down to the appropriate place to describe the essay, which is in the essay's Wikipedia article. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't know it was well-known before I came here, and in fact that was one of the reasons I removed "celebrated" and "famous" in the first place. Michael Jackson is well-known, George Bush is well-known, but I've never celebrated A Defense of Abortion, and reading about something that is "well-known" without having known about it before makes me as a reader feel like part of the out-crowd. Now, if you want to have "well-known within the field of modern philosophy" that's fine, but there's already a quote about that in the intro of the article, and it's too wordy for this page. And finally, I'd disagree that well-known is a neutral adjective: it's leaning towards renowned and notable (would you say it was a good or bad thing to be well-known?). If anything, why not put "controversial", since that implies well-known and also implies many pro/con arguments all in one word. Or is controversial too negative for you? Do you see why it's a POV issue? Adjectives, even if justified by some quote somewhere (btw, 128 citations in Google Scholar is not a whole bunch; I know of papers with 10,000 citations, and they aren't even in Wikipedia), still don't really contribute anything; it's better to aim for dry scholarly brevity and relevant non-obvious facts (it's obviously well-known, since it has a highly-edited article and section in this main debate page; it's also obviously written in English; it's also obviously written by a female author; etc. etc.). It might not be as entertaining for some people to read, but you're far less likely to annoy others who are trying to get to the meat of the article. --Chris Pickett 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't think "well-known" is even necessary, and was proffering it merely as a compromise. In any event, agree with the sentiment that it's best to simply not have any characterizations of the essay in this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was mostly replying to Cat Whisperer and not to you. --Chris Pickett 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously in the minority here, so I will leave it to you all to remove any and all adjectives that you find offensive. -- Cat Whisperer 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Try assuming good faith every once in awhile. Really, it helps. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I fully believe that your given explanation of why you are so dead set on removing what I consider to be highly useful and informative adjectives is your true motivation. In other words, I am assuming good faith on your part, and I do not believe that you have some "hidden agenda", or whatever else might constitute bad faith. I just disagree with you, and I honestly believe that your edits in this vein are making the article less informative and less useful to potential readers. How does this go against WP:AGF? -- Cat Whisperer 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But "I will leave it to you all to remove any and all adjectives that you find offensive" is a little more than mere disagreement on the facts, no? (i.e., it assumes that we are editing because we find something "offensive", though I don't, for what it's worth) I'm happy to drop it there, though, if you are. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's drop this then. -- Cat Whisperer 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)