Number 2 and 3 basically male the baby worth less than the mom as well, so therefore you are making the baby less *human* than mom.

Also #1 is a lame excuse because of this thing called adoption. And we all know Obamacare would male certain the mom to be was covered with medical insurance. At least that is what he claims.

4 & 6 most pro-lifers accept. 5 is a bit more controversial and falls in line with baby genetic engineering which is a highly controversial topic in itself.

@Draug no, I don't think that was me.

And yes, human life has value. It's quite valuable. I was asked to present a few reasons why abortion can be acceptable, and the fact that childbearing is really really expensive cannot be dismissed outright. Is the potential for a woman to maximize her own potential utterly meaningless? You might think it's not as important, but I can assure you many people think it is.

'semck... again, since we have conflicting morals, of course I find them "wrong."'

This is what I still don't understand. Forgive me for being dense.

Let's try to analyze a little. First, there are (at least) two senses of "wrong" here -- factually wrong and morally wrong. For clarity, I will adorn each with its corresponding adverbs. (But I'll also just try to use "false" for factually wrong).

Since you don't believe in absolute morality, I take you think that statements of moral truth, unrelatavized, are false (or meaningless). That is, if I just say, "Murder is wrong," that would be false, whereas if I say, "Within my moral system, murder is wrong," that would be true (presumably).

Now, I assume (but correct me if I'm wrong) that

1) within your moral system, it wrong to be hypocritical. By this I mean that the wrongness of an action is never determined -- all else being equal -- by the quality of "being Yellowjacket."

2) within your moral system, it is not wrong to fight for what is right.

3) Within your belief system, what is right is a matter of personal opinion, and no set of opinions is more valid than any other.

Now, if I tried to say, "YJ, old buddy, you're being a hypocrite when you call abortion opponents wrong to fight for banning abortion," you might say (in fact, you just did say), "No, semck, old buddy, because while it's not wrong to fight for what is right, 'right' in that sentence means right IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM, and anti-abortionism is not wrong in my belief system."

Put differently, you might point out that you do NOT subscribe to

2') within your moral system, it is not wrong to fight for what you believe is right.

(The difference is I added "you believe"). But this highlights the whole problem. The difference between 2 and 2' is just whether the belief in question is the actor's belief, or Yellowjacket's belief. In other words, whether 2' is right or not depends only on whether the person is or is not Yellowjacket, which is just the definition of hypocrisy from point 1. Therefore, in your own moral system, you're a hypocrite.

Now tell me where I strayed. ; )

To put the argument in more physicsy terms, a belief that hypocrisy is wrong implies that there is a symmetry in morality with respect to identity, but combining beliefs in subjective morality with a belief that fighting for a morality other than yours is wrong breaks the symmetry, and is thus hypocritical.

@kingcyrus

No, it isn't wrong for all moral compasses I can imagine. It is wrong for all moral compasses I can comprehend. I don't have to imagine a moral compass that allows the holocaust, Hitler and the SS existed, and it was part of their morality.

"@Putin,

I thought that not long ago, you were defending objective morality yourself. Have you changed your mind?"

Are you giving up on the hypocrisy angle with this deflection? I was defending the possibility of an objective morality in the absence of a deity. I've said many times, in my critiques of Christianity in fact, that I oppose moral absolutism. In fact we had a debate, *not so very long ago* about how I didn't think moral absolutism is reconcilable with democracy and how I didn't think we should trust the democratic credentials of anybody who purported to support moral absolutism. How soon we forget.

@YJ,

"Ahh, well you did the old bait and switch there, semck old chum. Fetuses must be, to me, morally "less important than something else." They must be, to justify abortion. What I said is that I don't rely on them being non-human to make my case."

Sorry, the bait and switch was unintentional. But I'm glad I made it, since the result was an illuminating and helpful answer.

Unfortunately, I think you're still left with arbitrary lines to be drawn. You admit (arguendo, anyway) that the fetus is a human. Great. But I presume you're against killing 3-year-olds because their parents can't afford the bills, yes?

Seems like arbitrary line-drawing.

"Are you giving up on the hypocrisy angle with this deflection?"

No, I was merely querying about your own beliefs, since you said you found objectivist (lower-case-o) points of view unhelpful.

"In fact we had a debate, *not so very long ago* about how I didn't think moral absolutism is reconcilable with democracy and how I didn't think we should trust the democratic credentials of anybody who purported to support moral absolutism."

True. I dropped out of that debate, for a couple of reasons. (1) I got over my cold, and could work again, and (2) I realized that I had been fundamentally confused about the word 'moral absolutism,' and had been confusing it with 'moral objectivism' (or moral universalism), and it seemed tiring to even think about untangling what both of us had meant by the term at different points.

It did seem to me at the time that maybe we both meant the same thing, and I now infer from your bringing it up in this context that that is probably right.

Actually, YJ, you were asked to present acceptable reasons that did not declare the fetus to be less than human. Putting a set dollar value or setting the mom's choice above the fetus' right to life very much make the baby less than human, so 1, 2, and 3 are disqualified.

And I believe human life is priceless, so it has a value above infinite costs. That's why, in my mind, killers of a particularly egregious nature cease to be human to me. Part of what makes us human adults is caring for our fellow man. When we cease to care for them, we cease being human, therefore the egregious murderers are less than human.

@semck argh I think we are accidentally equivocating, here.

I expect everybody to push for the hegemony of their own morality, and I do not think them "wrong" to do so. Morality is a self-perpetuating meme; in a way it's hardcoded that we stand up for our beliefs.

I also find aspects of moralities outside my own "wrong" from within my own moral context.

I fail to see how these two points need be mutually exclusive. It's like freedom of speech almost: I may not like what you have to say, but it's very important that you be allowed to say it. Moralities are like ideas - they must be allowed to compete in the Darwinian sense. Though your pro-life stance is clearly wrong to me, your standing for it is right, and even necessary, for us to make progress. Well, actually, in this case, the progress is on my side, but that's neither here nor there :)

"But I presume you're against killing 3-year-olds because their parents can't afford the bills, yes?

Seems like arbitrary line-drawing."

Human-as-process vs human-as-end-product is an 'arbitrary distinction'? Location of within vs outside another human body makes no difference?

In foreign policy terms, that's like saying a protectorate or colony is functionally the same as an independent sovereign country. Of course that's silly, sovereign countries have the right to determine policies related to life or death (war). Protectorates, condominiums, trust territories, and colonies do not.

@Putin Definitely a good, clearly defined argument I can try to answer topic-by-topic.
Well I stand corrected. Though, I am not arguing for the support of every single pro-life movement ever. I obviously disagree with the whole miscarriage thing, because it happens naturally.
Again, I am not advocating for every single movement ever. But you are right that pro-lifers want more than just to illegalize abortion and euthanasia.
I believe that most people, including myself, believe that ending an innocent human life for no reason is wrong. You can argue that subjectively, or you can try to justify it with reasons, but there. Now you have heard a reason! As to “non-viable” fetuses, I happen to know of a couple walking around today, and know one personally. Also, if you accept that it is a person and they are alive, then you get into the “murdering a man in a coma” argument. Namely, can you shoot a man in a coma? My proposal would be to carry it out to birth, and try your hardest to save it.
So is the woman allowed to murder a fully grown child who is causing her stress? When is the line crossed in what she can and cannot do?
Maternal mortality rate for the USA in 2006: 13.3/100,000= 0.000133% chance. As opposed to say, Well, I know it is possible, but, as I said, not very likely. At all.

@semck/draug: I have no intention of hashing out every single line of reasoning in these six points I made with either of you. In that way lies madness. I was merely responding to your (semck) assertion that the nonhumanity of the fetus is the sole crux upon which the pro-choice stance rests. It is not.

OK, YJ, thanks. So to clarify, then, you do not consider it wrong for pro-life lawmakers and activists to fight for anti-abortion laws. Given that, I agree you are clear of hypocrisy on this case. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for the extended confusion. If I say I've been working a lot with very nasty point-set topology in high dimensions, maybe you'll forgive me.

"Well, actually, in this case, the progress is on my side, but that's neither here nor there :)"

I wouldn't actually say so at all, over the past decade or two. State legislatures and the Supreme Court have moved almost uniformly in the direction of increased restriction of abortion. Over that time period, opposition to abortion in polls has also increased about 7 .

But perhaps it's good that we both feel happy with the trajectory. : )

It is good to know that polls are now taken on the D scale...

Well, semck, for us to address that statement we must first define "progress..."

*runs from room tearing hear from head*

@YJ,

"@semck/draug: I have no intention of hashing out every single line of reasoning in these six points I made with either of you. In that way lies madness. I was merely responding to your (semck) assertion that the nonhumanity of the fetus is the sole crux upon which the pro-choice stance rests. It is not."

But you failed! My point was not that it was the sole crux. It was that without it, the arguments will necessarily be arbitrary. You haven't demonstrated otherwise.

@Putin,

"Human-as-process vs human-as-end-product is an 'arbitrary distinction'? Location of within vs outside another human body makes no difference?"

It's tough to keep up on these threads, for sure, but context is everything, and that remark came in the context of YJ already waiving distinctions based on humanity.

As to the other, I certainly think it makes no difference, but it would be an interesting conversation to have if he were interested.

@YJ,

Haha. You've been generous with definitions on the abortion discussion, so I'll let you define it here.

@semck really, you can read that whole list of items and say, "well that stuff is just arbitrary?" I mean I can accept that you may not think the sum of those parts is important enough to trump the right to life, but surely you can't dismiss them outright! There is nothing "arbitrary" about protecting the quality of a well established life.



re progress: not interested :)

'Progress' is apparently terrorizing clinics into shutting their doors and forcing women to cross state lines or travel huge distances to get basic services. The Rio Grande region, an impoverished region in Semck's home state, now has zero abortion clinics. 19 clinics have been shut down in the past year. Abortion is effectively illegal in states across the country, Roe is effectively overturned in all but name. We're seeing the disastrous effects of these policies already, to the thunderous applause of the pro-life lobby.

I was this close to shutting down and going to bed. Quit sucking me in, you bastard! I have to be up early tomorrow.

@YJ,

" I mean I can accept that you may not think the sum of those parts is important enough to trump the right to life, but surely you can't dismiss them outright! There is nothing "arbitrary" about protecting the quality of a well established life."

Of course not. That's obviously a value. What's arbitrary is why that does add up to making a killing OK in one case, and not in another. LOTS of murders of adults and children are done in order to protect the quality of life of the killer. But that doesn't justify the killing. It's the *difference* that I'm saying is arbitrary in your standards.

"Maternal mortality rate for the USA in 2006: 13.3/100,000= 0.000133% chance. As opposed to say, Well, I know it is possible, but, as I said, not very likely. At all."

68,000 near deaths in two years. 1.7 million long-term health effects. Those numbers are trivial? What's more important is bring fetuses born without brains to term?

Yikes.

And do you honestly think maternal mortality and health will improve or deteriorate under your laws banning all abortions - even for nonviable pregnancies?

"Progress' is apparently terrorizing clinics into shutting their doors and forcing women to cross state lines or travel huge distances to get basic services. The Rio Grande region, an impoverished region in Semck's home state, now has zero abortion clinics. 19 clinics have been shut down in the past year."

I'm not sure how it qualifies as "terrorizing" -- Texas changed the laws so that those particular clinics were not up to standards and had to close.

But yes, that's absolutely progress.

So what are the disastrous effects of the pro-life movement again?

Uh, nope. They aren't trivial. And I am all for developing technology that helps that process as much as possible! But honestly, how many women think "Crap! I have a 0.000133% chance of dying from childbirth! Better get rid of this thing quick!"

@semck

"What's arbitrary is why that does add up to making a killing OK in one case, and not in another."

The same as the soldier, the victim, the executioner, etc. We have moral preferences on what is most important, and yes, that moral preferences in general are arbitrary I've already acknowledged.

This does not mean that the reasons why it is sometimes OK to kill are arbitrary within a given moral framework.

"This does not mean that the reasons why it is sometimes OK to kill are arbitrary within a given moral framework. "

But that's exactly what I'm arguing they are in your case. The line is arbitrary *within your moral framework.*

I'm not talking about the arbitrary or subjective nature of your moral framework itself.

I had to hit refresh one last time.... grrr...

I don't understand your case. The moral framework defines the hierarchy. In my moral framework, protecting the quality of a well established life and a woman's right to choose is more desirable than the right to life.

Once one acknowledges that one is working from within that framework the answer to the abortion question is self-evident. Again, if you say that that is arbitrary, then why is it not arbitrary for the soldier to be justified in killing on the battlefield? In both cases, we consider it preferable to "not kill." However, in both cases, circumstances have arisen whereby we may consider it acceptable to kill.

You keep ignoring the numbers that aren't convenient for you. 1 in 7 pregnancies result in long-term adverse health effects. 34,000 women per year suffer from near misses (near deaths).

"Texas changed the laws so that those particular clinics were not up to standards and had to close.
"

AKA they made "standards" so ridiculous and unobtainable, knowing they would force dozens of clinics to shut down. For example the Texas requirement forces all abortion providers to be staffed by doctors who have admitting privileges at hospitals (which are only granted to doctors who work at hospitals), knowing full well abortion doctors don't work at hospitals because the law already prohibits abortions being performed in hospitals, so the clinics are forced to shut down.

Up to standards my foot. This is legal repression of abortion clinics, this isn't about standards and the pro-life movement knows this.

"I'm not sure how it qualifies as "terrorizing" "

Pro-life terrorists have attacked clinics across the country with arson, bombings, gun attacks and vandalism with increased frequency over the past decade. Clinic doctors and staff have been murdered and there have been many attempted murders. Clinics are routinely subjected to bomb threats and chemical weapons attack threats, when they're not subject to actual bombings. Clinics such as the one in Kansas have been forced to close because of this violence.

Clinics across the country have to use extraordinary protection in order to avoid violence to themselves, like bulletproof glass, armed guards, cameras, metal detectors, bulletproof vests, etc. Staff have often had to have federal marshalls escort them to work.

Here's a look at what it's like to the sole abortion clinic in Mississippi, and the terror they face on a daily basis.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/when-theres-no-choice-but-to-make-a-stand-mississippis-last-abortion-clinic-relies-on-women-who-volunteer-to-defend-it-from-daily-attack-8738702.html