"It's funny you say that. We had an argument on exactly the point of whether you could support the concept that the sun will rise tomorrow, and you ended by saying that you had no problem with the fact that you accepted it completely without support or argument, as a bare assertion." - Not that I want to get back into that debate again, but I eventually discovered a flaw in your argument that led me to concede that point. I hereby rescind that concession.

Oh, awesome. PM me a description at least. I'd love to know if I'm wrong.

Missed this one:

"Also a secular defense for the position that personhood begins at conception is necessary because religious justifications are not sufficient for legal issues."

Nice try, but it's a political issue, not a legal one. I realize they might seem the same, but political issues can be based on the consensus morality of a community. For example, bans on prostitution, bans on public nudity, on drinking under age, on statutory rape, on polygamy, etc., etc,. are not the result of some kind of reasoning from first principles, or at least, if they are, the reasoning is mirky and undetermined. Basically, people just think they're immoral, dangerous, or uncouth, and ban them.

I also didn't say you couldn't try, but legally speaking theological justifications for legislation should not carry weight in the face of nonreligious arguments (or perhaps I mean areligious arguments). At any rate, I mean arguments in which religion has played a part.

@ semck - That is true, however I find many of those laws questionable. It is far from clear to me that...well any of those things is inherently wrong.
I think some of those issues do have problematic exploitative issues which need to be considered, but I don't think that people just thinking things are immoral or unpleasant just because, is good enough. I mean, that's the same reasoning that makes identifying as LGBT illegal in many parts of the world. I just can't get behind that.

"@ semck - That is true, however I find many of those laws questionable. It is far from clear to me that...well any of those things is inherently wrong."

That only underscores how arbitrary was your initial pronouncement. When you said that such issues "must" be secularly supported, or that they "must" not be imposed on people, you mean that you don't like them to be.

OK, good to know, but not clearly relevant.

OK...so, if I just decided that having red hair was a bad thing, and people with red hair should be killed, and people just started agreeing with me, you'd be OK with that? It's not arbitrary. If you have to defend your moral decisions using logic that other people can relate to, then people can challenge your moral positions. If you just arbitrarily decide things, and that's OK, then, how can you question that decision?

"OK...so, if I just decided that having red hair was a bad thing, and people with red hair should be killed, and people just started agreeing with me, you'd be OK with that?"

No, of course not. I'm not saying that I don't believe in moral absolutes. I'd fight against you on that just like I do on this.

But you're ok with arbitrary moral absolutes based on just a general sense of distaste?

I go to sleep for a few hours and ... well no surprise this is still going on :) Anyway, some talk about morals, I hope it is clear that mine are from first principles.

@'Well, there aren't any month-old infants I consider close friends either, but I certainly believe they're people who deserve to be protected just as much as anybody else.

So I guess I'll have to reject that criterion.'

As i've said, a new born child does not has as much sentience or self-awareness as a adult cow - as such killing it would be acceptable, IF it did not cause any suffering (that said, it can suffer even without being self-aware, but we have relatively painless methods of killing).

However, in this case the new-born is assumed to have no connections to other human beings. As my criteria was suffering, and sentience/self-awareness was merely a useful measure of how much a thing can suffer, I don't think there is much of a problem here.

I would ask, in the case where the newborn has no parents, or connection to any living adult, what would you have of it? Would you protect it with government run program (or even a charity which has tax breaks, and potentially government support?)

I mean, taken in the vacuum of connection to the rest of the world, a new-born will suffer from hunger and eventually die. It would be better in this case to prevent that suffering. Which gives two moral choices killing or forming a connection with some human and feeding the new-born.

Back on the topic of comatose patients. I don't think euthanasia really comes into it. A coma, as i understand it (and i'm not a medical student or anything) is a low brain activity state, NOT brain death.

After Brain death occurs there is no higher brain activity (there may still be autonomic nervous system activity, which can keep the heart beating, and possibly regulate temperature of the body) At this point the 'person' will be considered dead, likely for the purpose of harvesting their organs (again to reduce suffering else-where) but also because the brain is dead and can't come back (ok, it may be possible in the future, with sufficient stem cell research to re-grow parts of the brain which are dead, and to thus bring this body back to life, but it would not be the same person, it would have to re-learn it's skills, and develop a new personality... similar things DO happen for people who suffer partial brain death, and have to re-learn SOME skills etc...)

So, I think there is a difference between brain death and a coma. Though both can stay alive for a long time on life support systems.

As for morals, I do not believe in any absolute sense of morality. However, i don't think anyone here has disagree with my first principles.

They are: Causing me suffering is wrong - i believe other people/animals are like me enough that they can suffer too (empathy), thus causing them to suffer is wrong.

Now, it is entirely possible to derive many different things from this and HOW we go about deriving them may differ, but i don't think anyone here disagrees with this first principle.

Sole criteria? You wax poetic about your concern for human life when women's health doesn't factor as any criteria when it comes to medical decisions affecting her own body. Pregnancies affect women's health, period. Do people give you a list of 1,000 questions to make sure you have medical procedures for the "right reasons"? Why do you think you're entitled to control women's bodies? Where is your medical degree?

There is a case to be made for protecting people from the beliefs of others.

If one person believes that causing suffering is right (and glorifies their God, perhaps) then we generally let them cause suffering to themselves, but not to anyone else.

On this principle, we should not let a mother cause suffering to anyone inside her. But again, a foetus is not anyone. Does not hold the same level of sentience/self-awareness as a cow, and thus can't be made to suffer - or when it has developed enough of a neural network to appreciably suffer, we have methods of destruction which do not cause suffering (perhaps a morphine over-dose, rather pleasurable as my limited medical knowledge understands it).

If you believe in a society where individuals are guaranteed the opportunity to grow, develop and become well-developed, educated human adults, then you might make the case that all zygotes should be given the same opportunity.

However this is not feasible, our world has limited resources, and poverty already causes more suffering than we know how to deal with.

The fact that giving women control over their sexual reproduction actually has net benefits to society (ie less suffering) combined with the fact that foetuses do not have person-hood (and i know you rejected person-hood as a criteria, but my criteria is suffering, NOT person-hood - person-hood is merely useful for comparing the suffering inflicted on cows - we only say it is wrong to kill a person BECAUSE they have sentience, self-awareness, and sapience)

@Putin, i think even in Ireland (where abortion is illegal) we consider the health of the mother, if the health of the mother is at risk (even from suicide) then abortion can be performed (though i doubt it ever has been)

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

I really don't think women's control of their bodies is only permissible because it meets certain conditions. If women do not control their own bodies, they are quickly turned into livestock, they are quickly turned into reproductive slaves. It appears that they have autonomy because it happens to be convenient after we considered the suffering of *everybody else*, not because they should intrinsically have autonomy.

We happen to live in cultures where we think everyone should have autonomy, i admit i could imagine a culture where this was not the case, but it is the default position.

The pro-life position is one which claims an exception. And My position, after making consideration of *everyone else* rejects their exception.

You can't just pretend this is a simple situation where no consideration is needed. Afterall, if it was so simple would we have had such a long debate?

Actually, sorry, the pro-life movement doesn't claim that it is any exception at all, merely that in this case there are two lives to be considered, and this is exceptional. (the only other similar case, at least which i can think of, being conjoined twins...)

@ Mafia ''Anyway I would like to point out one last thing about the link fulhamish posted.''

I should like to wholeheartedly apologise with the link I posted earlier, it was indeed a ''false flag'' operation as Mafia points out. I can only plead that it was early on Sunday morning and we were going out for the day.

There is however this from the BMJ if you care to read it:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d489.full
I found this comment particularly interesting -
''The grand jury’s report called the clinic “a baby charnel house” and “a house of horrors.” It said that failure to inspect the clinic and to act on complaints was due to “a total abdication” by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, which licenses and oversees doctors, and the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, which is supposed to protect the public’s health.

It also criticised doctors at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania who did not report patients brought from Gosnell’s clinic for emergency surgery and the National Abortion Federation, which refused to admit Gosnell’s clinic because it didn’t meet standards but which didn’t report to the authorities “the horrible, dangerous things” the inspector saw.''

On the subject of live births the reson that they are rarer than one might otherwise expect is to be found here -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968808008313718
Second Trimester Medical Abortion with Mifepristone–Misoprostol and Misoprostol Alone: A Review of Methods and Management
Reproductive Health Matters
Volume 16, Issue 31, Supplement, May 2008, Pages 162-172

Kristina Gemzell-Danielssona, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Sujata Lalitkumarb

''Feticide before abortion after 21 weeks of pregnancy
When medical abortion is chosen, in many settings, clinicians are legally required to ensure that the fetus is dead at the time of abortion. According to the RCOG, a legal abortion must not be allowed to result in a live birth, and at terminations after 21 weeks, the method chosen should ensure that the fetus is not alive. This is especially important for late terminations (with or without fetal malformation) if policy requires the provider to resuscitate if the fetus is born alive.

Agents used for feticide are hypertonic saline, 1% lidocaine and potassium chloride or intra-amniotic digoxin (1–1.5 mg). [65] , [66] , [67] and [68] Up through 21 weeks of pregnancy, the contractions induced by PG make feticide unnecessary.''

Isn't it strange that one has to search the scientific literature to find two such clear and open descriptions of the processes involved? On the other hand maybe not, if one considers the obfuscating posts made here as typical examples.
When I have more time I will keep on with the search for any interested parties, for now this article looks promising: ''Comparison of rates of adverse events in adolescent and adult women undergoing medical abortion: Population register based study''

I repeat it is time for a full and frank documentary to be aired on television giving the truth on the mechanics of the abortion process. What exactly are the pro-choice lobby afraid of?

Thought that you all might be interested in this from the scientific literature:
Induction of fetal demise before abortionnext term: SFP Guideline 20101, Release date January 2010 Justin Diedrich, Eleanor Drey Contraception
Volume 81, Issue 6, June 2010, Pages 462-473

''In the literature describing induction termination, there have been multiple case reports of unintended live births [47], [52], [54] and [59].''

Must I keep going or is this point now accepted?

it seems obviously that what they are afraid of is the damage which could be caused if such a documentary was used to promote the view that this means all abortions should be stopped.

If in fact public opinion was swayed. And that reproductive rights for women has generally a positive impact on society.

Of course the example of an anti-choice website already demonstrates the kinds of tactics this movement uses.

The problem here is not that one side or the other is right, it is that the issue has become so polarized that compromise seems much more difficult. That any frank discussion would be used as a weapon against the other side.

I would however welcome a frank discussion and for moderates on both sides to sway the arguement at the expense of the extremists. To come to a common consensus position.

Otherwise a 50.1 - 49.9 percent majority could be used to pass a law which the majority don't support (because the middle position was not given as an option) This would be the worst case result of any democratic process....

Well orathaic I have already proposed a 12 week limit in this debate, only to be met with sarcastic hostility. I guess you are right compromise is near enough impossible in this matter.

"I would however welcome a frank discussion and for moderates on both sides to sway the arguement at the expense of the extremists. To come to a common consensus position." - Yay orathaic! I was wondering when the fallacy of the golden mean would show up! Well done.
"Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that given two positions there exists a compromise between them which must be correct."

@ fulhamish - You quote a bunch of articles which point to abortion clinics which did these things you claim to deplore. Well done, you've provided evidence for the fact that these things do happen. What you somehow manage to miss however, is the fact that pro choice organizations don't want these things happening either. Pro choice organizations are not, you'll find, all for having women give birth to live babies and then killing them. Revealing quotes that fulham has cited himself - "When medical abortion is chosen, in many settings, clinicians are legally required to ensure that the fetus is dead at the time of abortion. According to the RCOG, a legal abortion must not be allowed to result in a live birth, and at terminations after 21 weeks, the method chosen should ensure that the fetus is not alive."

"Agents used for feticide are hypertonic saline, 1% lidocaine and potassium chloride or intra-amniotic digoxin (1–1.5 mg). [65] , [66] , [67] and [68] Up through 21 weeks of pregnancy, the contractions induced by PG make feticide unnecessary.''

That sometimes abortions accidentally result in live births doesn't necessarily mean that all abortions must therefore be outlawed, or indeed abortions past 12 weeks (all the articles you post mention live births happening at a time AT or AFTER 21 weeks, I marvel that you don't concede to allowing abortions up to 20 weeks in light of this. I'd still object to that, but it would be a more easily defensible position. I never did find out, why 12 weeks anyway?). At any rate, once the abortion results in a live birth, I'm not behind the idea of killing the fetus in question. It's out of the woman, the question about choosing what happens to her body is moot. But risk in a medical procedure is not a reason not to perform a medical procedure.

So I suppose I have to restate my position on abortion then? I believe the choice to have an abortion rests solely with the woman in question, however should the abortion procedure go wrong, and result in a live birth, what should happen to the fetus/baby once it is no longer dependent on her body, is no longer entirely up to her to decide.

What does the pro-choice lobby have to fear out of a "frank documentary" about the medical mechanics behind abortion procedures? The fear that it will not once mention the possibility that women have a right to choose what happens to their bodies. The fear that it will, as you have, misrepresent abortions as consisting mainly of live births followed by infanticide. The fear in short that it will consist mainly of pro-life propaganda. I realize this sounds paranoid and far fetched. I mean, it's not as though we have a link which provides evidence of the way in which the pro-life movement is willing to set up false flag operations designed to convince women not to exercise their right to self determination...oh wait, no, we actually do. Well it's not like anyone would actually fall for such a thing, or be misled by it. Right, I mean, you didn't, did you fulhamish?
All sarcasm aside, I have no trouble with the abstract idea of an entirely descriptive and purely educational film depicting how abortions work. That being said, in reality the issue is so contentious that there is not a single person who exists who I would trust to make a film like that. I certainly wouldn't trust you to do it (and not just because you aren't, to my knowledge, a filmmaker).

It's not enough for Fulham to want to control women's vaginas and play doctor from on high, he wants to trample whatever might be left of their privacy so much by putting fucking tv cameras in the room.

I want tv cameras in the room whenever the pro-life thugs go to the doctor, if they even believe in going to the doctor.

Let's see, Putin is anti "pro-life". Does that make him anti-life? I just don't understand why he has to call groups of people names like "pro-life thugs" then throw in an ad hominem attack like "if they even believe in going to the doctor." You profess to being a grad student. I hope to hell your thesis doesn't have arguments like this in it or you will never get your masters or phd or whatever you are working on.

What we need is a documentary demonstrating how anti-choice fanatics have waged a war on women and a disinformation campaign for decades, and how they're destroying whatever limited access women currently have to medical care.

Anyway Fulham, what's your view of this law?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/antiabortion-georgia-lawm_n_827340.html

And once again Draugnar uses the politics of personal destruction while whining about ad hominems. I'm really tired of your hypocrisy, Draugnar.

Usually women-are-chattel types object to the term 'anti-choice', now you're complaining about the use of the term 'pro-life'.

And yeah I've helped escort patients to clinics. Pro-lifers are *thugs*, objectively.

Well, be tired of it. hehehe

Seriously, my first was a joke. I shoudl have put a smiley on it. I don't actually think for a moment you are genocidal and want everyone to abort their babies. Not at all.

I was just pointing out the problems with your well thought out arguments having ad hominem attacks attached to them. You do not serve your arguments well with those attacks tacked on, Putin.