Say Anything Blog

The only bad thing about eugenics programs are if they occur through governmental intervention--say, if the government required all people with an IQ below a certain figure to abort their unborn children (or sterilized all men below a certain IQ--it’s the same idea. As long as it’s not the government requiring controlling reproduction, it doesn’t matter why people are limiting their own reproduction. If you want to call every poor black person who goes to an abortion clinic a eugenicist, that’s fine. Just don’t expect others to share your prejudices.

The only bad thing about eugenics programs are if they occur through governmental intervention...

That is the only way eugenics are bad?

Your morals are repugnant Dave.

So when exactly are eugenics good?

 Geez, Dave…

Eugenics is the epitome of repulsive! Just the thought is so offensive it makes me sick.

In order for us to believe that killing any unborn child will make society better we have to be able to predict the future.  We have to be able to say that the child’s life absolutely, 100% would not be worth living.

Since none of us can predict the future, the "we’re making the world a better place" argument just isn’t believable. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,...There is a waiting list for Down Syndrome babies with families wanting to adopt. It’s my opinion babies with mental or physical problems are given to very special people. Handicaps often shine a different light on lives. Compassion towards others is often a consequence of what handicapped individuals do. It doesn’t automatically mean that being handicapped is a disadvantage…

Zsa Zsa, people like Dave think Downs Syndrome children shouldn’t be born because their life wouldn’t be worth living.

Amazing how they can reach those conclusions, isn’t it? 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,...Suggesting that would imply superiority and an arrogant domineering self image of ones self. Who is perfect? I don’t believe I know of anyone? That is discrimination in a deranged intensity!

30% of abortions are to blacks who make up approximately 11% of the population.  These are our future NBA players, NFL players, and Olympians (not winter, ask Bryant Gumbel).  The point I am trying to illustrate is not that blacks are better athletes or that the biggest value of blacks is in athletics.  Neither of these are compelling points or particullarly true.  Simply that each subculture or subgroup of our society has differences that are both positive and negative.  Higher rates of colon cancer--negative, higher rates of athletic ability--positive, etc.  Diversity, if indeed it really matters, means that simple socioeconomic status should not be the only indicator in whether a child lives or not.

The fact is that if poverty is truly able to be overcome through our wonderful government programs, what happens when these mothers who aborted their children have a change of circumstances for the better and they are able to lead productive lives?  They have effectively limited their offspring and decreased the overall diversity of our entire species.  Traits like sickle-cell anemia may turn out to be the cure for Asian Bird Flu in the future.

The Green folks jump up and down when a species becomes "endangered" for the very same reasons.  That diversity of life on this planet is important.  That some spotted owl is valuable.  So some f*ing grey wolf or some spotted owl or some random bird’s entire species is valuable, but the children of our inner cities that are truly endangered have no value.

Am I right about this Dave?  How come I would get fined and jailed if I kill an endangered Grey Wolf, but if I simply abort an inner city baby, I am doing nature a favor by weeding out the weakest link?  I say chickens are the weakest link and PETA is nuts to think they are anything more than tasty morsels.  I mean they practically volunteered to end up in my stomach.  As long as government does not force the chickens into my stomach, we are fine.  Right Dave?

 I think we should ban pulling out. It is killing the potential of life.

Justin,...Why is that? Do humans have to become endanered before abortion is recognized as killing?

GraemeA… Your spin on it is typical and ineffective. IF you really believe that, your intellect is more challenged than you appeared originally?...Perhaps a sex education class might help you understand the reproductive system?

 You guys are the ones equating a fetus to a person, so don’t lecure me on intellect.

GraemeA...What is your definition of a fetus?

GraemeA...I encourage pulling out! When an embryo attaches to the cervical wall it becomes a fetus. Once that happens the fetus is no longer just tissue. It has developed tiny organs and the nervous system is visible. It has a ways to go before being fully developed BUT it nevertheless is a human. The DNA is also intact from the time of conception. DNA determines the indentity. Which will identify it as a person or human...Considering those facts, should provide you with why I find abortion radical, extreme and a selfish act. Using abortion as birth control is so inconsiderate and new technology reveals what was once speculative ideology. Just curious? Why in our day and age with all the technology provided would anyone feel abortion is a contraceptive? It isn’t. Abortion ends a life. Contraception prevents. Just once it would be nice if someone would just come out and tell me that I am not correct or give me their reasoning!

GraemeA said, I think we should ban pulling out. It is killing the potential of life.

It is very telling that you equate abortion with "pulling out".

likwidshoe...Interesting when the anti lifers are given an opportunity to explain after having the facts out in front of them?? Their CHOICE is to ignore the facts and hide out… Or at least it seems that way to me?

C-Mom inquired: 

So when exactly are eugenics good?

When a male with Huntington’s disease gets sterilized.

Justin B wrote:

The fact is that if poverty is truly able to be overcome through our wonderful government programs, what happens when these mothers who aborted their children have a change of circumstances for the better and they are able to lead productive lives?

They will have, in retrospect, denied a child the prospects of a pleasurable life. In much the same way, incidentally, that you are, by not having unprotected sex with a fertile woman right now.

Let’s assume you’re married. How many children do you plan to have? If you figure one child every nine months, for 20 years, that would give us.... what, 25 kids? Why don’t you and your wife have that many children? You’re denying them the prospects of a pleasurable life.

How come I would get fined and jailed if I kill an endangered Grey Wolf, but if I simply abort an inner city baby, I am doing nature a favor by weeding out the weakest link?

A: Because our government grants certain animals certain rights. I don’t, and I disagree with the practice, but that’s neither here nor there.

B: You are not necessarily "doing nature a favor" when if you abort an inner-city baby. In many cases you will be acting immorally. However, since that action (like the killing of the endangered Grey Wolf) does not involve a usurpation of rights, the government should stay out of it.

As long as government does not force the chickens into my stomach, we are fine.

Again: I think eating chickens should be legal. I believe eating chickens is immoral. The only function of government should be the protection of rights; chickens don’t have rights, government shouldn’t protect them. That does not make it right to do so, however.

"The problem with using the foetus’s potential for developing into a person as an anti-abortion argument is that this suggests that the person it will become is what is really valued. But it is hard to see how this ‘potential’ argument can come to anything more than saying that abortion is wrong because a person who would have existed in the future will not exist if an abortion is performed. I would not be here if my mother, when pregnant with me, had opted for abortion. But equally I would not be here if my parents had used an effective contraceptive. Therefore it is hard to see how the ‘potential’ argument can succeed against abortion without also succeeding against contraception. And even those who are against both normally want to say that abortion is morally worse than contraception.

It may be argued that the foetus is a potential person who has already got started, and that this makes abortion worse than contraception. The problem with this reply is that, if we are interested in not losing the person who will emerge at the end of the process, it is not clear what reason there can be for thinking that terminating the process is worse at one stage or another. If it is cake you are interested in, it is equally a pity if the ingredients were thrown away before being mixed or afterwards. As soon as the stage of development is allowed to make a difference, the argument has moved from potentiality to actuality: from the properties of the person the foetus may become to the properties the foetus now has. And this takes us to the debate over whether the foetus is already a person.”

(Jonathan Glover, “Causing Death and Saving Lives” p.122)

Discuss…

The bottom line is that downgrading a fetus to a portion of tissue within a woman’s body makes it a meaningless thing to dispose of with ease.

 The horrible thing about abortion is that a woman is willing to kill her child because she could not be responsible enough for her own actions to either abstain or prevent conception in the first place. An unfertilized egg is indeed part of a woman’s body(thus, I believe that contraception is acceptable), but once that cell splits and begins to develop it is another person; a child with whom the woman is charged with taking care of.Usually by the time a woman realizes she is pregnant, the fetus has its own circulatory system, its own neural tube, ect. It is very much its own person, just dependant upon its mother, as all babies are. Infantacide is wrong no matter where it takes place, be that inside or outside of a woman’s body.

Before we even get started on the case for rape, molestation, harm to the mother, ect., statistics state that about 2% of all abortions performed in this country are due to rape or a medical emergency. Most abortions performed for the ‘health’ of the woman are justified in that very gray area of ‘mental health.’ 

With the advances of medicine we are able to push back the gestational age of viability to the point when late term abortions are done. What qualifies the fetus as a human being at that point? If the woman wants the baby it is life, and if she does not, it isn’t?

We must always take responsibility for our actions. We must always protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Some things must remain immutable. 

C-Mom,
As far as I am aware, nobody is downgrading a foetus to a mere portion of tissue. The argument, specifically, is that a foetus is not a person. That does not bring with it an assumption that the foetus is nothing more than a clump of cells - rather it is a recognition that a foetus lacks many of the characteristics that would render it a person. 

Thus your claim that

‘once that cell [a fertilised egg] splits and begins to develop it is another person’

is, while correct in the loose sense of the word ‘person’, certainly incorrect in the relevant moral sense of the word - namely, the composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality, or a self. For instance, I think it is hard to argue that a hamster is a person, despite the fact that it shares all the faculties of a human foetus.

Mark, no, it does not.  A human being scientifically, has 23 pairs for 46 total chromosomes.  Hamsters have 22 pairs for 44 total.  I am glad that you recognize that conception and the creation of a unique, new being begin with this union.

I’m not aware that one measured personhood in terms of the number of chromosomes.

Faculty -
Noun - 1) inherent mental or physical power. 2) an aptitude or talent.

Your response that a hamster has fewer chromosomes is totally irrelevant.

<i>I’m not aware that one measured personhood in terms of the number of chromosomes.</i>

Yeah, didn’t you know Down’s Syndrome sufferes aren’t people?

"despite the fact that it shares all the faculties of a human foetus." --sounds like someone is equating a hamster with a human.

To the moral, spiritual value, The Word speaks to that… "I foreknew you".   To the lawyers trying to parce what a ? person ? is is or what is is is what they do.  They have been doing that since BC.

So when does human life begin, Mark?  Is it when the sperm and the egg combine?  Perhaps it is when the baby crowns and emerges from the mother.  If it is not one of these two, where exactly does it begin in between?

We have two concrete moments when life could begin that are relatively well defined and straight-forward.  If you reject the second idea and believe that life probably begins well before the baby emerges from the mother’s birth canal, then how can jabbing a fork into the brain of this child, vaccuming out the skull and then delivering the dead remaining flesh be considered anything other than murder.  That is partial birth abortion in a nutshell and these children are viable and would survive if brought into the world via c-section. 

So over 80% of the folks in this country (meaning almost half of the pro-Choice folks) believe that partial birth abortion is murder or should be banned.  Are you in favor of partial birth abortion?  Let me make this argument--if you really wanted an abortion, why the F* did it take you 6 months to decide?  You could have decided from day conception+1.  So because you were unprepared for the events, your baby gets his/her brains sucked out. 

So how far back in the gestation is terminating the pregnancy repugnant?  That is what this is all about.  If my wife was 10 cm dialated and I just crammed a needle into the baby and killed it because I had a change of heart, either that is OK or not.  This is a question about defining the beginning of life for these children.  If you are OK with first trimester abortions but not second/third, say it and obviously support the bans on partial birth.  If you think third term abortions are a Woman’s right to choose, say that too. 

I happen to think that abortion is simply a "mulligan" for a woman failing to use birth control or other contraception such as condoms or norplant or depoprovera.  That is how they use it.  And when you take away the mulligan, these women will be a hell of a lot more careful.  It is not like anyone doesn’t know where babies come from.  The high risk sexual behaviors that lead to unwanted pregnancies are the same ones that lead to STD’s such as AIDS, Herpes, Syphilis, etc.  And notice that the same population groups that have extremely high rates of STD’s.  So how are we doing these groups a favor by creating a system where they can throw away their babies and get free treatment for STD’s on our medicaid dollars as opposed to promoting abstinance and condom use?

Andrew -
Precisely. Having fewer chromosomes does not prevent someone from being a person. Your example is superior to mine - I hope Chief grasps my point in light of it.

Chief -
“Sounds like someone is equating a hamster with a human.”

Well, tar me and feather me for stating that a hamster has the equivalent reasoning power of a foetus.

‘A cheetah can run faster than a human.’

Ooh… Sounds like someone is equating a cheetah to a human.

So what? These are factual comparisons, and I fail to see why I am prohibited from making them.

I merely stated that a hamster and a foetus are very similar in terms of their faculties. To which you responded ‘a hamster has fewer chromosomes’ - which is like saying, ‘but a hamster has fur!’

Please address my points directly.

Justin -
I don’t think the morally relevant characteristic in the abortion issue should be ‘life’ - for life is merely a vehicle for what is valuable.

The morally relevant characteristic is personhood - feel free to argue amongst yourselves when this begins, for I have no clear thoughts myself.

By the 6th. week you can hear the heart beat. By the 9th. week it officially becomes a fetus. By week nine it has formed eyelids. the ears are forming. The spine and heart are well in tact and the fingers are little nubs sprouting out… GE ultrasounds show the developing fetus in 4D. If you want look it up? The miracle of how life is formed is interesting. The stages of growth might help people understand the difference between preventing a life and a life forming inside the body...If more people would take a glimps at the ultrasounds they might be persuaded to take precautions…

Mark,

If you have no clear thoughts on when personhood begins, how come you choose to participate in this discussion?  You don’t really care about the difference between partial birth and the morning after pill.  You have not taken the time to settle the moral questions that are presented by partial birth abortion and the vaccuming out of a viable "vehicle’s" skull?

Life is merely a vehicle for what is valuable?  What is valuable--consciousness?  Self Awareness?  Which one of these bullshit Eastern Religious concepts do you buy into?  Karma?  What if that baby was the reincarnate of some historically relevant person?  Or a butterfly?

Then a chicken or a cow is merely a vehicle to feed our appetites.  No, life has value.  All life.  Hell, even plant life.  And simply to define a body as a vehicle or vessel for some self conscious experience is naive.  If it is a vehicle for a self conscious being, abortion still denies consciousness to a created and growing being.  Regardless or how you define it, you fail to even take the time or make a moral decision on when abortion starts becoming murder.  To lack this definition, I do not see how we can take you seriously.  At least if you said 10cm dialated and crowning, I could respect that you have given some thought to the moral issues abortion raises, but to attack the beliefs of others who state conception, and not define a point when it is wrong for yourself is just antagonistic and lazy.

Hell, with Dave, we know he says infanticide and euthanasia is cool in his book.  I don’t agree, but he defines it and makes a case for what he believes.  Are you a Euthanasia guy that says as long as it is good for society or for the individual or for the genetic population?

GE Ultrasound fetal images 4D… will give you a look at what happens. From there it is up to the individual response of how they decide to take the information. Some people "Choose" to have a careless attitude and continue the self centered mantra that it is the "Right" of a woman to end a pregnancy. Hopefully, some people will take a glimps and see that the developing human being deserves some consideration??? At least the knowledge and technology is out there for people to take advantage of. It is the responsibility of the woman who doesn’t want a child to take measures to avoid pregnancy! Responsibility is a foriegn concept today to young men and women. When abortion was not available people were forced to take responsibility. Today abortion removes that responsibility.

Mark wrote: 

The morally relevant characteristic is personhood - feel free to argue amongst yourselves when this begins, for I have no clear thoughts myself.

Mark, that’s a cop-out. If you don’t have any "clear thoughts" on the issue of personhood, you can’t have any opinions on abortion, euthenasia, or infanticide, because that issue--personhood--is the fulcrum upon which those entire debates are balanced.

Good article, btw. Peter Singer uses the exact same argument. In terms of ending potential life, the abortionist is no worse than the abstinent.

Dave...I don’t believe you really believe that.

The whole fact is that when presented with the list of options on what constitutes life and when life begins as well as the consequences of terminating said life we are presented with a limited set of alternatives:

1. Life begins at conception
2. Life begins at birth
3. Life begins somewhere in between

Pick a point on the scale, but surely it begins somewhere.  Then another set of questions:

1. It is OK to terminate a pregnancy before life as defined in the first section begins
2. It is OK to terminate a pregnancy anytime prior to birth regardless of when life technically begins as long as the mother chooses
3. It is OK for society or the government or any person other than the mother to terminate the pregnancy if it is good for society

I have yet to hear a compelling argument that life begins when the baby takes its first breath.  I have experienced otherwise when a baby kicks for the first time in the womb.  In light of the fact that this occurs in the first/early second trimester, I have to say that life and the baby being a living being occurs prior to the 16th week.  But when.  That is the real question.  So blather on with your Eastern religious nonsense of a body being a vehicle for consciousness.  Please define when the precise moment between conception and birth a baby is actually a "life" or alive or a being or human.  I cannot pinpoint anywhere on the continuim this even occurs save at conception when the sperm and egg join.  Scientifically, this is an actual EVENT as opposed to some self defined timeframe that can neither be measured nor quantified--when that being is conscious and self aware. 

But even if life begins at conception, you can still support abortion as long as you are willing to recognize that the creature being destroyed is alive and living and human.  You can say it is different from murder for reasons x, y, and z.  You can talk about societal good or the good of the mother or whatever else.  Fair arguments.  You can even say that when life begins is unimportant to a Woman’s right to choose.  But I say we need a stake in the ground that says at point X, destroying a human life is wrong, whether at gunpoint in a robbery or in an abortion clinic.

It is the precise point that the Right to Choose folks do not want to engage in the discussion of when killing a viable being is wrong that is the problem.  There is no right and wrong.  Just a right to choose.  Therefore infanticide and euthanasia are one in the same with abortion.  Dave advocates for this position which is intellectually honest, however a vast majority of people disagree with Dave that infanticide, euthanasia and abortion should all be allowed.  The Pro-Choice crowd wants to distance themselves from Dave as his point is that abortion and Terri Schiavo and Dutch infanticide are all equivalent and should all be talked about in the same conversation and context and all be sanctioned by government.  I agree with Dave that these are all the same thing, however, we disagree on whether any or all of these should be allowed at all.

Please define when the precise moment between conception and birth a baby is actually a "life" or alive or a being or human. 

Who says it has to be between conception and birth? Those opposed to contraception will say it starts before conception, and those in favor of infanticide will say it starts after birth.

Dave...Those people are wrong. It is impossible for life to begin without the sperm fertilizing the egg. When that happens the fertilized egg becomes an embryo. The embryo is the beginning of a life form. Fertilization gives life. Many couples have trouble with infertility. Fertility research has made us aware of technology and established ethical standards.

Zsa Zsa,  Well put.  That is about what I taught during Growth and Development in Health Education classes. Justin,  You laid out some pretty simple decisions.  Don’t hold your breath for a logical reply!  It is past time for a logical and caring discussion about these million murders annually.

But I say we need a stake in the ground that says at point X, destroying a human life is wrong

What would you propose?

The Pro-Choice crowd wants to distance themselves from Dave as his point is that abortion and Terri Schiavo and Dutch infanticide are all equivalent and should all be talked about in the same conversation and context and all be sanctioned by government.

No, that’s not my point. I support euthenasia only when it’s voluntary, and abortion and infanticide only with the consent of the parents. 

They should not all be talked about in the same conversation. The act of infanticide is moral in only the most unusual circumstances; voluntary euthenasia is always moral; and abortion is only occasionally moral. Each action--even each particular case--warrants an entirely new conversation, in light of the highly individualized nature of the action.

Again, of course, the fact that infanticide or abortion can be immoral does not mean that they should be illegal.

No Dave, you seem to be arguing here that they are moral in certian cases, while many others would contend that if they are moral in any case, they are moral in all cases.  Infanticide, if for the well being of a Down’s Syndrome Child, is moral for a child who simply has a parent who is lazy or incompetent.  That is the argument for Abortion. 

Incest, Rape, health of the mother, most laws take this into account.  And while there are some that argue that these should not be exceptions, I do not think that victims of crimes such as rape or incest should be required to care for or raise the offspring of these involuntary acts.  So Abortion under these circumstances should in all probability be allowed, but police notification and criminal complaints should be filed, etc. to ensure that the appropriate authorities are allowed to investigate the crime.  I may be in the minority on this on in that I think that documented health issues such as imminent death of the mother are compelling reasons.  But not "convenience of the mother" which is what 99% of abortion cases are about.

 And while there are some that argue that these should not be exceptions, I do not think that victims of crimes such as rape or incest should be required to care for or raise the offspring of these involuntary acts.

Are fetuses conceived by rape less human than those conceived through "regular" intercourse? If you’re going to argue that embryo=human, then you’d better be prepared to explain your reasoning here. If it’s okay for a mother to abort a fetus if it was conceived by rape, is it okay for her to commit infanticide against that baby once it’s born? If you say no, then you’re admitting that there ARE crucial differences between fetuses and babies. This appears to contradict what you wrote earlier:

But I say we need a stake in the ground that says at point X, destroying a human life is wrong, whether at gunpoint in a robbery or in an abortion clinic.

If that "stake" is so malleable that it can be altered just by the conditions of conception, it’s worthless--it’s hard to see why it’s better than "personhood" or "consciousness" in that respect.

Jusin and Dave -
I think I could have chosen my words better. In saying ‘I have no clear thoughts’, I should have said, ‘the start of personhood is very difficult to define precisely.’ I had to rush off, and I didn’t think my words through as carefully as I should have. I do have clear thoughts on what defines personhood - just not when it begins. Perhaps that is a cop-out - but I think I am entitled to disagree with what I think is a flawed argument, even if I do not have a fully-fleshed-out one of my own. A scientist is entitled to point out that a certain theory does not satisfactorily explain a certain phenomenon, without having to present his own.

“You don’t really care about the difference between partial birth and the morning after pill.”

You’ve leapt to a conclusion based on very little evidence of my views, and unsurprisingly, it’s wrong.

“Life is merely a vehicle for what is valuable?  What is valuable--consciousness?  Self Awareness?”

Both of those attributes, and others.

“Which one of these bullshit Eastern Religious concepts do you buy into?”

None, as far as I am aware.

“Then a chicken or a cow is merely a vehicle to feed our appetites. No, life has value. All life. Hell, even plant life.”

That’s an interesting line of argument, but one which raises, in turn, an interesting question. Is the life of a plant of equal worth to that of a human? And if not, why not?

It is impossible to argue that a human life is worth more than that of a plant if one is arguing that life is what is intrinsically valuable. The ‘extra’ value of a human life, in comparison to that of plant, comes from something else, not life itself.

Clearly, the difference lies with the characteristics that humans have, that plants don’t - namely, consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, et cetera. It is these characteristics that explain why we feel nothing (or very little) in the death of a plant, and a great deal in the death of a human. Logically, it is these things that we should value. Suggesting that life, and life only, is what is valuable, leads to the absurd conclusion that there is no moral difference between stepping on a beetle and shooting a human.

Dave -
It is interesting that you should spot the similarity - Glover taught Singer at Oxford. Although I should add that Glover’s moral philosophy is different in many important respects to Singer’s.

It is impossible to argue that a human life is worth more than that of a plant if one is arguing that life is what is intrinsically valuable. The ‘extra’ value of a human life, in comparison to that of plant, comes from something else, not life itself.

Clearly, the difference lies with the characteristics that humans have, that plants don’t - namely, consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, et cetera.

Nice catch.

Wish I’d been able to post yesterday…

Damn these time zones…

Clearly, the difference lies with the characteristics that humans have, that plants don’t - namely, consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, et cetera.

I think that’s right, though I’d add that unborn children have the potential for these things, while plants do not.  Which makes all the difference in the world.

As far as I’m concerned, the only time an abortion should be considered is when it comes down to a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the child.  Children conceived through rape/incest have every bit the right to live as children conceived through consentual, non-incestuous sex.  That their life might be hard, that they might suffer genetic defects thanks to circumstances of their conception, is meaningless.

I know someone who was born of an incestuous coupling.  The fact brings no joy to his life, but he has certainly gone on to lead a fulfilling life as a meaningful contributor to society. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob -
The ‘potential’ argument suggests that the use of the morning after pill is as immoral as abortion.

If you feel that this is the case, then fine, you are consistent. If you do not, then something else must be doing the work in your argument - potential is something of a red herring.

If you feel that this is the case, then fine, you are consistent. If you do not, then something else must be doing the work in your argument - potential is something of a red herring.

I don’t consider an embryo to have potential until it is implanted.  Until that happens its just a fertilized egg that could just as easily be washed from the womb as implanted.

I don’t have a problem with the morning after pill.  I consider it a form of contraception not all that different thant condoms.  Condoms decrease the chance that sperm will fertilize the egg.  Morning after pills decrease the chance that a fertilized egg will implant. 

Once that implantation happens, however, its a whole new ballgame. 

So really, not a red herring at all.  Though it is a tricky thing.  Here’s the way I see it:  A fertilized egg might, if left alone, implant in the mother’s womb and become a baby.  It might also fail to implant and be washed from the womb.  An egg that has implanted, though, will (if left alone) grow into a child.

That’s the difference.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

An egg that has implanted, though, will (if left alone) grow into a child.

Unless it’s miscarried, which means that the implanted egg (once again) only has the potential to grow into a child. Your date (implantation) is just as arbitrary as Roe‘s "second trimester." What meaningful characteristics does the implanted egg possess that the not-yet implanted egg lacks? We’re still dealing with things that have only the potential to acquire consciousness--neither the implanted egg nor the sperm possess it. If it’s wrong to destroy the implanted egg (through abortion) why is it okay to ‘destroy’ the sperm through contraceptives? They both have the potential to create life.

Unless it’s miscarried, which means that the implanted egg (once again) only has the potential to grow into a child.

Dave, I’ll live all day today...unless a car crashes through the front of my office and kills me.  The idea that some tragedy may befall the unborn child before it is born is not, to my mind, a valid argument in favor of purposefully ending that child’s life.

There is nothing arbitrary about implantation.

What meaningful characteristics does the implanted egg possess that the not-yet implanted egg lacks?

The fact that it is attached and growing into a child in the mother’s womb. 

If it’s wrong to destroy the implanted egg (through abortion) why is it okay to ‘destroy’ the sperm through contraceptives? They both have the potential to create life.

Because sperm will never become a child if left alone.  It must be combined with an egg which must then be implanted in the mother’s womb.  Then it can become a child.  Before that it is nothing.

Though explaining this to someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with smothering one-year-olds is sort of pointless.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Because sperm will never become a child if left alone. 

So what? "Sperm will never become a child if left alone." A baby will never become an adult if left alone. What’s your point? That we can abandon things that die without adult intervention?

Sperm will never become a child "if left alone," but it undoubtedly has the potential to do so, a potential that is denied through the use of contraceptives.

"Dave, I’ll live all day today...unless a car crashes through the front of my office and kills me.  The idea that some tragedy may befall the unborn child before it is born is not, to my mind, a valid argument in favor of purposefully ending that child’s life.”

Agreed… I think… However -

“Because sperm will never become a child if left alone.”

The same argument surely applies to a fertilized egg, using ‘left alone’ in its strictest sense.

The same argument surely applies to a fertilized egg, using ‘left alone’ in its strictest sense.

Not a fertilized egg that has been implanted.  That egg will grow into a child barring tragedy and if left alone. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So what? "Sperm will never become a child if left alone." A baby will never become an adult if left alone. What’s your point?

Sperm will not try to develop into a child.  A fertilized egg will, just as a born child will.  Of course, if you deny the implanted egg or the born child sustenance they will both die...but that is neither here nor there in terms of this argument.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Of course, if you deny the implanted egg or the born child sustenance they will both die

Yes, and if you deny the sperm an egg it will die as well. They all require some level of supervision for the end result: a rational human being. If you refuse to supervise this process (by wearing a contraceptive, having an abortion, or not feeding your newborn), you will kill a potential child. But you choose to condemn only the latter two, not the first.

Rob makes a very valid point about the difference between implantation and conception.  I think perhaps the rhetoric about the "morning after pill" that prevents implantation and RU-486 which is a chemical abortion of an implanted fetus up to 9 weeks old is getting combined.

I will concede to Rob that if his position is that implantation is his marker as opposed to fertilization, then the morning after pill is acceptable.  I would actually be somewhat swayed that if I were ever presented with the series of choices that led to me getting pregnant (probably an anal probe by aliens), I would at least have the sense to take the morning after pill if the potential child was unwanted.

I don’t want to seem draconian about forcing every sperm and egg to be brought to fruition, but the abortion argument is about far more than just simply the point that life begins.  It is about terminating the life after the point of conception/implantation/viability/first trimester/second trimester/etc.  It is also about the fact that unwanted pregnancies are almost completely preventable.  These are not accidents, unless you define driving home drunk and striking a child on a bike an accident as opposed to a completely preventable occurance with negative consequences.

The original point of the article was that abortion is being carried out by and upon primarily certain ethnic groups.  It reminds me of a business ethics case for Powermaster, a malt liquor marketed to inner city blacks.  When a liquor company markets malt beverages primarily to blacks, blacks are viewed as weak and particullarly vulnerable and this action is considered un-Ethical.  When Planned Parenthood offers their product to blacks primarily and locates most of their clinics in the inner city, they are providing the Right To Choose.  I just wonder what gives Planned Parenthood a free pass to market their product to inner city blacks, yet a commonly discussed business ethics case is when the maker of Mickey’s created a beverage called PowerMaster and did the same thing.

Dave continues, If you refuse to supervise this process (by wearing a contraceptive, having an abortion, or not feeding your newborn), you will kill a potential child. But you choose to condemn only the latter two, not the first.

Because contraception only prevents a potential human being, abortion and neglect by not feeding a newborn kills a human being.

I can’t believe that this obvious point has to be explained to you. Are you really this dense or do you just get off on these kinds of arguments?

Lik: So you believe that embryo=human being. Gotcha.

If you refuse to supervise this process (by wearing a contraceptive, having an abortion, or not feeding your newborn), you will kill a potential child.

You’re talking about two different things: Creation and maintenance.  If I buy a bunch of lumber but don’t put any of it together to build a home I haven’t "destroyed" a home.  However, if I use the lumber to build a home and then refuse to do any maintenance to the home it will fall down.  But the fact that it will fall down doesn’t change the fact that it existed in the first place.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Lik: So for how long have you been a vegetarian? Or am I forgetting the characteristic human embryos possess that pigs do not--a characteristic so important that it allows the killing of one but not the other?

Dave says, Lik: So you believe that embryo=human being. Gotcha.

Your disgusting tirades never stop. In any regard, I don’t believe that an embryo equals a human being. But there is something fundamental human about it, at least more so than just sperm. I also don’t believe that abortion is synonymous in degree and scale with wanking off, which you apparently do.

Dave continues his indefensible position, Lik: So for how long have you been a vegetarian?

You should ask yourself why such mental gymnastics are necessary to support abortion. To answer: I will never be a vegetarian unless required to do so by some weird medical condition.

Or am I forgetting the characteristic human embryos possess that pigs do not--a characteristic so important that it allows the killing of one but not the other?

The important characteristic that human embryos possess over pigs and other animals - the fact that it is a human embryo.

I guess you have to belong to the species to understand why we regard our own species more important and more worthy of life over other animals.

 I don’t believe that an embryo equals a human being.

Yet you wrote (http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/02/25/abortions_are_modern_eugenics_at_work/#c60060):

abortion (...) kills a human being.

If an embryo isn’t a human being, how can abortion kill a human being?

The important characteristic that human embryos possess over pigs and other animals - the fact that it is a human embryo.

That’s not a characteristic; that’s a definition. "The important characteristic that squares possess over triangles and other polygons--the fact that it is a square." I haven’t said anything, and neither did you.

Dave continues his bloviating, If an embryo isn’t a human being, how can abortion kill a human being?

Fine. It is well on its way to becoming a human being. You can’t say the same with your masterbation examples (desperate argument by the way).

Dave says, That’s not a characteristic; that’s a definition.

As I said - you’d have to be a member of the species to understand why we regard the suvival of our own to be important.

Rob wrote (early on, and I haven’t read all the subsequent comments)

In order for us to believe that killing any unborn child will make society better we have to be able to predict the future.  We have to be able to say that the child’s life absolutely, 100% would not be worth living.

I was reminded of the circulated email, so I looked it up. 

If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven. 

Seems it isn’t exactly a verified rumor, but the theme is valid, as is Rob’s comment. 

By the time a woman usually discovers she is pregnant, the embryo is no longer an embryo. By week 8/9 it is officially considered a fetus.

Likwid wrote: Fine. It is well on its way to becoming a human being.

So now: Embryo does not=human being. An embryo is only a potential human being. That wasn’t so hard to admit, was it?

As I said - you’d have to be a member of the species to understand why we regard the suvival of our own to be important.

You again are unable to answer the question, and rely on speciesist and emotional appeals. What important characteristic does a human embryo possess that a pig lacks?

An embryo is only a potential human being. That wasn’t so hard to admit, was it?

It’s human. Can you admit that?

You again are unable to answer the question, and rely on speciesist and emotional appeals.

I am a "speciesist". Color me guilty.

What important characteristic does a human embryo possess that a pig lacks?

It’s human. That is the important characteristic. End of story.

Now you may continue your defense of the indefensible and obfuscation of the subject. I wouldn’t expect anything less from an infanticide supporting college liberal.

Oh, and Dave - address Rob’s excellent point if you want to continue this further. I am done with you on this subject. You don’t know how to stay on topic and it is tiring. I only play with silly trolls for so long.

So Davey, were you going to respond to this?  Or should I just assume that you’ve run out of things to change the subject to…

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.”

Or Hitler?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist being facetious…

And at the risk of running to the defence of Dave, ‘human’ is a definition, not a characteristic, and therefore does not carry any weight in moral argument. For instance -

‘Why should I not kill Dave?’

If I am faced with this question, it is not adequate to respond ‘because he is human.’ This is the direct equivalent of saying ‘because he has feet’.

The correct response should involve the characteristics of Dave that give his life moral value, not just a definition of what he is.

The above argument does not, of course, rule out the possibility that foetuses have characteristics that render their being alive morally valuable.

Or Hitler?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist being facetious…

This actually plays right into what I’m saying.  We don’t know, can’t know, how any given child’s life is going to turn out...so trying to say that we’re improving society by aborting all these children is pointless.

And at the risk of running to the defence of Dave, ‘human’ is a definition, not a characteristic, and therefore does not carry any weight in moral argument.

If we’re talking about the differences between killing animals and killing humans it makes one hell of a lot of difference to me.  But then, I’m not like you guys.  I don’t see equivalence between the two.  Humans are humans, animals are just animals. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And animals taste pretty good when marinated and grilled!

The decision to commit murder has little to do with the moral value of Dave’s life, Mark.  It has to do with the morality that you possess internally.  Regardless of the value of Dave’s life based on characteristics he possesses, that decision is based SOLELY on the traits that you possess.  You decision that something of value should not be killed, not the fact that he is of value.  So it is based on how much value you assign to Dave.

And that is the issue with Abortion.  The decision to support abortion is not based on whether the fetus is alive or not.  It is based on how you reconcile whether you believe a fertilized egg has value or a fetus has value and the fact that we are allowing them to be killed to the tune of over a million per year.

You can attack the value of the fetus as simply a ball of cells.  If it has no value, then no problem.  Or you can assign greater values to other things like the life of the mother or society or "The Value of Having a Right To Choose".  Those are the two arguments here.  One is that the clump of cells has no value at all and the other is that other things have a greater value than the fetus.

But these have absolutely nothing to do with some scientific definition of what a human is.  They have to do with what you personally value.  I have read you and Dave trying to define life and throwing all kinds of bullshit philosophical arguments out there about what a life is and what a human is, etc., but in the end, this is a question of the value of this smallest form of a human prior to its development into a fully formed and functioning being.

But I think that your argument in support that it is ethical to expunge these potential beings is only part of the things that I take issue with.  I am not some uber-Christian, but rather a realist who says abortion is taking a huge toll on our society and is inherently evil based on the consequences it is creating in addition to my own personal conviction that I believe it is immoral. 

When the practice results in the death of almost 1/3 of the black fetuses conceived in this country and blacks disproportionately make up 30% of all abortions, and when this practice is almost 100% engaged in by clinics in inner cities and occurs almost solely upon poor women, there is a societal problem.  If abortion somehow allowed these mothers to overcome poverty or go to college or figure out life’s mysteries, then we surely would see the results in our society.  But we don’t.  What we see is the same repeat offenders who continue to have abortion after abortion as an alternative to birth control.  We have a society where the poor have a completely different set of values and many in the inner city where these abortions are occuring have absolutely no respect for ANY HUMAN LIFE. 

Please show me a positive societal effect of abortion.  I don’t mean crap like there are fewer poor people or that our population is not growing as rapidly which helps prevent global warming or some other bullshit.  We are seeing the decline of our society and especially our inner cities.  And it is hurting one or two particullar ethnic groups far worse than others.  But for the African American group that has endured and overcome slavery, Whitey is the one out there promoting abortion and "choice" and building clinics in the inner cities.  Rob’s point is that abortion is Eugenics because it is applied selectively and marketted selectively to only the poor, which Blacks are disproportionately.

Rob -
“trying to say that we’re improving society by aborting all these children is pointless.”

I wasn’t making that argument - merely pointing out that presenting ‘Beethoven’ as a possible loss does not rule out ‘Hitler’ as a potential gain.

“If we’re talking about the differences between killing animals and killing humans it makes one hell of a lot of difference to me.”

Granted - but I would argue that that moral difference (I don’t dispute it exists) comes from the characteristics most humans have that most other animals lack, not from the simple fact of their being human.

‘Dave has a particular arrangement of chromosomes’ is not a moral argument against killing him.

Justin -
I have to go, but I will respond to your post tomorrow.

It’s interesting to me that the two most common arguments for having an abortion are that having a child would either be "inconvenient" or "financially negative".  So, we are selecting against people who are irresponsible and/or financially challenged.  Sounds like eugenics to me. 

(I would point out, briefly, that I do not subscribe to all the opinions Justin seems to attribute to me.)

Mark,

I am not attributing all of them to you, but probably more a combination of your posts and some of the comments Dave has made.  That was not addressed specifically to you, except for the top part where you talked about the reasons for the value of Dave’s life.

Please show me a positive societal effect of abortion. 

"Please show me a positive societal effect of masturbation." Oh, there are no positive societal effects of masturbation? Why, I guess we should ban it!

That’s not why we pass laws. We pass laws to preserve rights. Screw the "positive societal effects;" communism was based on that same principle. If you want to show why we should pass laws prohibiting abortion, demonstrate how an embryo or a fetus has rights.

We don’t pass laws to preserve rights.  If the right was already present, we wouldn’t need another law to "preserve" it.  We pass laws to (for lack of a better way to say it) create rights.

Enter the Judges....  But I digress.

Show me your right to kill a baby.

"Please show me a positive societal effect of masturbation." Oh, there are no positive societal effects of masturbation? Why, I guess we should ban it!

That’s not why we pass laws. We pass laws to preserve rights. Screw the "positive societal effects;"communism was based on that same principle.

You are redirecting the argument and ignoring the point. Justin B was merely refuting the claim that there are any kind of positive societal effects of abortion.

If you want to show why we should pass laws prohibiting abortion, demonstrate how an embryo or a fetus has rights.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. How about you demonstrate why we should pass laws allowing the taking of an innocent human being.

At the expense of wading in these murky waters (abortion), I’d like to offer a consideration that seems to be lacking from the debate:

Suppose y’all get your way and suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned, and suppose abortion is made illegal in half these United States.  Suppose, for a second, that this happens.

Do you have the stomach for it?  Do you people have the stomach to prosecute a doctor for murder when he aborts a fetus known to have Tay Sachs disease?  Do you have the stomach to outfit and fund a special detectives unit to find and prosecute abortionists?  Do you have the stomach to jail doctors in a country where medical practitioners must be in short supply (given the expense of