Pro-Life and Anti-Regulation

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I too am a pro-lifer but I have a far more secularized ideology.

I also operate from the potential position but not the same as most people. For example, a zygote used for stem cell research does not result in a loss of potential. The DNA was recombined (or conceived) in an environment which would make it essentially impossible for natural progression to a full on human being to exist. It was put in a situation purposefully to be used for research and no intent or expectation of a human being developing would be considered. DNA recombined in a uterus; however, would generally naturally progress to a human being and thus is to be discouraged or restricted (cases such as risk to the mother and rape being some exclusions).

For restrictions, I would not want them implemented in an environment that is going to pose more harm to children/fetus'. The infrastructure to help aid mothers (and fathers) in getting pre-natal and neo-natal care, time off from work to care for their children, improving foster care and adoption services and generally making the environment more hospitable to newborns would need to be taken care of first before one could start restricting abortions. A big thing I think is would be necessary would be parental counseling on what programs parents could look for to help them raise their child or if they did not want to care for the newborn, but didn't want to kill it, to make sure that the child would be adopted and not left to some orphanage or foster care. That being said if the political process now was trending towards restricting abortions without providing the near full gamut of parental support, I would oppose that in favor of allowing abortions.

As for environmental regulation, I support environmental regulation within reason. That is if a process is essential or can not be done without a specific chemical or by product, than restricting it completely is a bad idea. However you would need to force companies to convert their processes to ones less harmful to the environment.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No hatred involved in this discussion

Cool. Comparing someone's unborn fetus to a lizard can get a bit... tricky...

Yes, I was probably projecting traits of personality and awareness that my son, from what we know, didn't have at three months - oh well!

It is all well and good to do that when talking about your own decision making. But not when deciding whether someone else should be free to make the same choices you did.

I suspect it's a species survival trait for parents to bond with their children and vice versa at an early age.

Yes and no... If you dont mind, I am going to use you as a case study, along with two hypothetical people. This is from the male perspective.

When people or any animal really, faces a decision about reproduction (this can be a conscious or unconscious one. Cognition increases in complexity but fundamental processes are the same) they face a trade-off between current and future reproduction. This is because your resources through time are limited and if you reproduce now, you have to invest a certain amount in those offspring which detracts from other offspring you could have both directly (via resources being taken up) and through increasing your chance of mortality, disease, etc.

I am going to assume a few things. You are married (and engage in mate-guarding so the risk of false paternity is low), probably established in life. In other words, your resource base through time is known and you are capable of mitigating the risks associated with pregnancy and the costs of reproduction. It makes sense for you to enthusiastically reproduce from an evolutionary perspective and your brain has evolved to be able to tell when you are in such conditions and you will respond appropriately to the news of pregnancy and the development of your offspring. You will project emotions that are not there on the fetus, bond with it even though it has no CNS, act to protect it, etc.

Now, hypothetical person 1 is not married (though has a regular casual sex partner) and does not engage in mate guarding (his chance then of false paternity is high) and while he is doing OK, might not be established yet and thus his resource base is not stable. Risk of mortality is low however. It does not make sense for this person to be especially enthused about reproduction. he can afford to wait until he is in your position, but conversely if he has offspring now it will affect his resource base which right now is unpredictable and he might not raise these offspring successfully or be able to easily do so with another batch in the future as a result. Now, if he can get away with it he might reproduce anyway via cuckholdry (sleeping with an attached woman willing or unwilling and pawning the kid off on some unsuspecting sap) but otherwise reproduction is not on his to do list. Guys like this (and we have all seen them) are repulsed by the idea of having kids, do not want to see the fetus, and might even abandon the mother, preferring instead to invest minimally in the child (deadbeat or paying small amounts of child support0 in favor of deferring actual investment in young until later.

Hypothetical person 2 is poor (by the standards of the society he lives in). Age-specific risk of mortality is high, so despite not being in a position to raise offspring, this individual cannot afford to defer reproduction. What is the solution? Reproduce early, and often. He knocks a girl up as soon as he hits sexual maturity, and does this frequently (the early as an insurance policy against his own risk of mortality, the frequency as an insurance against the mortality rates of his offspring). Chance of false paternity is very high so he neither protects nor provisions his offspring. Might often force mating, or exchange sex for protection or resource defense.

The point here is that the same genotypes produce different behaviors in different environmental contexts. Females behave a little differently but the basic principles are exactly the same.

As far as moral weight goes, well hell, we're the top of the food chain! The rule of claw and fang gives us all the moral weight the natural world requires.

You will be surprised to know how far that doesnt actually go...

[Count Chocula]

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Now, hypothetical person 1 is not married (though has a regular casual sex partner) and does not engage in mate guarding (his chance then of false paternity is high) and while he is doing OK, might not be established yet and thus his resource base is not stable. Risk of mortality is low however.

You knew me at 21? Ahh, good times. Good times.

Your assumptions, btw, on my current situation were bang-on.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Now, hypothetical person 1 is not married (though has a regular casual sex partner) and does not engage in mate guarding (his chance then of false paternity is high) and while he is doing OK, might not be established yet and thus his resource base is not stable. Risk of mortality is low however.

You knew me at 21? Ahh, good times. Good times.

Your assumptions, btw, on my current situation were bang-on.

Behold the predictive power of evolutionary psych.

Of course, I can only go into that with the calm certainty of someone who's potential for inclusive fitness is rapidly approaching zero... My sister better establish herself and reproduce so my genes can be spread in the population. If not I will have to take drastic measures to ensure my Fitness...

[Akhlut]

Having gone to another forum and a blog and tried this argument out for a few days, I have something to report: the argument is nearly universally ignored outright. Those few who have replied fall into one of two camps: the "huh, gee, I haven't thought about it!" camp and the lone guy replying "THAT'S A FALSE DICHOTOMY!" who then refuses to actually give an answer to my question.

In conclusion, apparently most pro-life people haven't thought out their positions all that thoroughly.

[Metatwaddle]

I also operate from the potential position but not the same as most people. For example, a zygote used for stem cell research does not result in a loss of potential. The DNA was recombined (or conceived) in an environment which would make it essentially impossible for natural progression to a full on human being to exist.

Why does "natural progression" matter at all? Every single pro-life argument about "potential human beings" that I've ever seen has invoked selective and arbitrary distinctions when people ask about "potential human beings" that the pro-lifers do not think are worthy of moral consideration. I find them very unconvincing.

It was put in a situation purposefully to be used for research and no intent or expectation of a human being developing would be considered.

It is painfully obvious that a woman who gets pregnant by accident does not intend or expect to create a human being, either.

DNA recombined in a uterus; however, would generally naturally progress to a human being and thus is to be discouraged or restricted (cases such as risk to the mother and rape being some exclusions).

I understand risk to the mother, but why rape? If it is wrong to kill a potential person that will develop into a person without any outside interference, then why does that change when the mother was raped?

For restrictions, I would not want them implemented in an environment that is going to pose more harm to children/fetus'. The infrastructure to help aid mothers (and fathers) in getting pre-natal and neo-natal care, time off from work to care for their children, improving foster care and adoption services and generally making the environment more hospitable to newborns would need to be taken care of first before one could start restricting abortions. A big thing I think is would be necessary would be parental counseling on what programs parents could look for to help them raise their child or if they did not want to care for the newborn, but didn't want to kill it, to make sure that the child would be adopted and not left to some orphanage or foster care. That being said if the political process now was trending towards restricting abortions without providing the near full gamut of parental support, I would oppose that in favor of allowing abortions.

I am in favor of providing such infrastructure, too. But women don't just have abortions because they don't want to care for their children - this is an oversimplification and a misconception of pro-life men. (To be fair, it's not just men. I know a female pro-life Catholic philosopher who had five kids with uncomplicated pregnancies and births. But it's a lot more common among men.) Many women have abortions because pregnancy and childbirth are a tremendously difficult ordeal. That's why making adoption easier is not a sufficient solution.

In conclusion, apparently most pro-life people haven't thought out their positions all that thoroughly.

OMG SRSLY? Next you're going to tell me the earth revolves around the sun.

[Justforfun000]

Of all the moral issues the religious right fight over, abortion is arguably the one that evokes the strongest response in many. I'd say that when all is said and done, people think of the foetus as a developing child. We can certainly look to biology and fiddle with the terms used, but the average Joe will basically believe that they are obfuscating the issue and that no matter how you slice it, it is a developing child.

Indeed, they are actually 100% correct. It is a developing child. The points of this issue that are of actual concern in relation to this procedure are do we subscribe to an unsubstantiated belief in a 'soul' that monstrously changes the debate? If so, then do we have to err on the side of caution and theorize the soul could come into existence at the moment of conception? Then do we also feel (despite God's commands to actually kill pregnant women and even specifically mentioning their foetus), that 'thou shalt not kill' is 100% and any abortion at any stage is immoral and murder?

These are the basics of the arguments pro-life people are dealing with. The problem here is that they are arguing with a great deal of pro-choice people who simply don't share their belief. There is no accompanying frame of reference if you do not accept the idea of a soul. However, even pro-choice people who believe in the soul do not automatically believe as the pro-lifer's do. There is also Biblical scripture that suggests quite convincingly that true life begins when you take your first breath. Arguably that's even biologically sound as an argument. You are not an individual until you are separated from your mother. You are still a parasitic organism with limited personal life support functioning. You truly DO become a person after you are removed from the mother and start breathing.

The more generic arguments about a "potential person", are nothing more then an attempt to be as secular as possible in their arguments so they aren't simply called out on proselytizing their belief system on other people. It'll always come back to the soul if you get into the argument long enough.

[General Zod]

Indeed, they are actually 100% correct. It is a developing child.

Based on . . .what? You're attempting to equivocate a child with a fetus. A child is a developing adult, but nobody would try and claim that a child is an adult. So why is fetus/child special in this regard?

[Count Chocula]

A fetus develops into a child, as a child develops into a demon from hell, then develops into an adult. Simple 1, 2, 3 progression. Each stage imputes future progress. There wasn't any attempt to say that a fetus was a child.

[General Zod]

A fetus develops into a child, as a child develops into a demon from hell, then develops into an adult. Simple 1, 2, 3 progression. Each stage imputes future progress. There wasn't any attempt to say that a fetus was a child.

Calling a fetus a "developing child" implies that yes, it is in fact a child. In fact there was no "into" in JustForFun's post. Or is English not your first language?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Because I am taking a pleasure in ripping apart your idiocy lately

I also operate from the potential position but not the same as most people.

Question:

Would you say that we have the same moral obligation to an egg that we do a full-blown chicken?
It was put in a situation purposefully to be used for research and no intent or expectation of a human being developing would be considered. DNA recombined in a uterus; however, would generally naturally progress to a human being and thus is to be discouraged or restricted (cases such as risk to the mother and rape being some exclusions).

Your argument does not follow from its premises as you have not established that we OUGHT have the same moral obligations toward a potential person that we toward an actual person.

Moreover your argument relies upon the faulty premise that a pregnant mother had the intent of becoming pregnant, which in the case of abortions is almost by definition not true. This is what happens when you bring Intent into discussions. It introduces a confounding variable that need not exist.

For restrictions, I would not want them implemented in an environment that is going to pose more harm to children/fetus'. The infrastructure to help aid mothers (and fathers) in getting pre-natal and neo-natal care, time off from work to care for their children, improving foster care and adoption services and generally making the environment more hospitable to newborns would need to be taken care of first before one could start restricting abortions.

What about harm to the mother, you seem to completely forget about her. What about risk in child birth, the shattering of her dreams, social stigma, loss of relationships etc?

A big thing I think is would be necessary would be parental counseling on what programs parents could look for to help them raise their child or if they did not want to care for the newborn, but didn't want to kill it, to make sure that the child would be adopted and not left to some orphanage or foster care.

Save that you would remove the killing option.

[Justforfun000]

Justforfun000 wrote:
Indeed, they are actually 100% correct. It is a developing child.

General Zod Wrote:
Based on . . .what? You're attempting to equivocate a child with a fetus. A child is a developing adult, but nobody would try and claim that a child is an adult. So why is fetus/child special in this regard?

and

Count Chocula wrote:
A fetus develops into a child, as a child develops into a demon from hell, then develops into an adult. Simple 1, 2, 3 progression. Each stage imputes future progress. There wasn't any attempt to say that a fetus was a child.

General Zod Wrote:
Calling a fetus a "developing child" implies that yes, it is in fact a child. In fact there was no "into" in JustForFun's post. Or is English not your first language?

Let me address this as a whole to be more concise...

To start, with, there is nothing 'special' about a claim that a fetus is a developing child. It's a fact. It is a guaranteed biological certainty that the fetus if born, will become a human child. The consideration that the foetus is not YET a child by our definition as an individual infant on to ----> Adult does not invalidate the basis of it's nature.

And to address your statement quite directly, you just said "A child is a developing adult, but nobody would try and claim that a child is an adult". This isn't even a rebuttal to my point. I never made the argument that a foetus is a child, has a soul, is not truly human until born, or any other claim that states an unborn is an actual person yet. All I did was say that people naturally think of foetuses as a developing child. That's it. Then I threw out points as to why the religious right believes they are actually deserving of the same rights and considerations as an individual entity that has been fully born and a de facto person regardless of any other view regarding sentience.

All I personally agreed with 100% as I said was that a fetus is a developing, i.e. potential, eventual child. Of course no one would claim a child is an adult. But in the same vein, it's perfectly acceptable and correct to say that a child is a developing adult.

I don't understand how you would not see my post as clearly being in line with exactly what you said at the conclusion.

General Zod Wrote:
Calling a fetus a "developing child" implies that yes, it is in fact a child. In fact there was no "into" in JustForFun's post. Or is English not your first language?

Developing is a word that quite clearly implies a state of being that is in transition, and NOT reflective of actuality as of yet. It's perfectly logical to state that a puppy will become an adult dog. Heck, it's perfectly logical to state that a planted acorn is a developing tree. The very word "developing" describes the context of "into". It would be superfluous to have to include it.

[General Zod]

All I personally agreed with 100% as I said was that a fetus is a developing, i.e. potential, eventual child. Of course no one would claim a child is an adult. But in the same vein, it's perfectly acceptable and correct to say that a child is a developing adult.

I don't understand how you would not see my post as clearly being in line with exactly what you said at the conclusion.

Because what you wrote implies something clearly different from what you're trying to rationalize.

Developing is a word that quite clearly implies a state of being that is in transition, and NOT reflective of actuality as of yet. It's perfectly logical to state that a puppy will become an adult dog. Heck, it's perfectly logical to state that a planted acorn is a developing tree. The very word "developing" describes the context of "into". It would be superfluous to have to include it.

It is not, however, logical to say a puppy is a developing dog. The sentence makes no sense as it is written without a lot of mental gymnastics to rationalize it.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Because I am taking a pleasure in ripping apart your idiocy lately

OOkay bub. O and btw I'm going fix your quote tags for you before I reply.

I also operate from the potential position but not the same as most people.

Question:

Would you say that we have the same moral obligation to an egg that we do a full-blown chicken?

No. Chickens are food animals. Humans have no moral obligation to them at all.

It was put in a situation purposefully to be used for research and no intent or expectation of a human being developing would be considered. DNA recombined in a uterus; however, would generally naturally progress to a human being and thus is to be discouraged or restricted (cases such as risk to the mother and rape being some exclusions).

Your argument does not follow from its premises as you have not established that we OUGHT have the same moral obligations toward a potential person that we toward an actual person.

Moreover your argument relies upon the faulty premise that a pregnant mother had the intent of becoming pregnant, which in the case of abortions is almost by definition not true. This is what happens when you bring Intent into discussions. It introduces a confounding variable that need not exist.

I apologize I mentioned intent only as a part of my sentence to solidify the fact that human DNA recombined in a test tube will not progress to a full blown body. It can be ignored.

For restrictions, I would not want them implemented in an environment that is going to pose more harm to children/fetus'. The infrastructure to help aid mothers (and fathers) in getting pre-natal and neo-natal care, time off from work to care for their children, improving foster care and adoption services and generally making the environment more hospitable to newborns would need to be taken care of first before one could start restricting abortions.

What about harm to the mother, you seem to completely forget about her. What about risk in child birth, the shattering of her dreams, social stigma, loss of relationships etc?

I balk at child bearing and birth being as dangerous as most people say since, if it were, wouldn't most women die after having children? But if that is the case then maternal health would also need to be taken care of as well. Shattering of dreams, where does that come into play? Social stigma and relationships? Educate the populace. It most certainly would reveal who are real friends and who are not. But to be quite frank I do not have an answer to the psychological questions.

A big thing I think is would be necessary would be parental counseling on what programs parents could look for to help them raise their child or if they did not want to care for the newborn, but didn't want to kill it, to make sure that the child would be adopted and not left to some orphanage or foster care.

Save that you would remove the killing option.

No initially. To be quite honest I'm more concerned about natal health and think that abortion as a whole would be a foolish thing to try and abolish. An outright ban would do far more harm than good. It'd be more useful just spending money on counseling, improving mother, pre-natal, and neo-natal care so that people don't feel the need to abort.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

Because what you wrote implies something clearly different from what you're trying to rationalize.

Bullshit! I clearly explained what doesn't NEED to be explained after you commented on it, and another poster even jumped on you before I responded. "Developing" means just that! In transition. The fact that the conclusion of the transition is a foregone conclusion means that I cannot imply anything different then what I said in the first place. It was only two words for fuck's sake. "developing child". What DID you think I was implying anyway?

It is not, however, logical to say a puppy is a developing dog. The sentence makes no sense as it is written without a lot of mental gymnastics to rationalize it.

What? Of course it's logical to say that a puppy is a developing dog. It sounds a little odd put that way, but it's still accurate. How would YOU define a fetus and it's potential eventuality? What problem do you have with the word 'developing' in this instance anyway?

[General Zod]

Bullshit! I clearly explained what doesn't NEED to be explained after you commented on it, and another poster even jumped on you before I responded. "Developing" means just that! In transition. The fact that the conclusion of the transition is a foregone conclusion means that I cannot imply anything different then what I said in the first place. It was only two words for fuck's sake. "developing child". What DID you think I was implying anyway?

Adults can develop, but nobody would assume an adult changes into anything else. I already explained what it reads like to me.

What? Of course it's logical to say that a puppy is a developing dog. It sounds a little odd put that way, but it's still accurate. How would YOU define a fetus and it's potential eventuality? What problem do you have with the word 'developing' in this instance anyway?

The fact that it sounds strange is the problem I have with it. "Developing <x>" does not inherently imply that it is changing into anything else, it can mean that it is "developing further along as <x>" as well.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

Adults can develop, but nobody would assume an adult changes into anything else. I already explained what it reads like to me.

Zod..c'mon. I wasn't discussing adults. I wasn't even putting forth a detailed biological treatise on the stages of life that humans go through. I simply confirmed that the ONE basic premise that a human fetus is a child in development is 100% correct. I'm not arguing that the fetus IS a child yet or deserves pro-life protection irrespective of the mother's wishes. My only point was the general perspective that most people hold and the result of such a black and white view combined with religious belief.

I know you well enough to assume we probably agree totally on the ethical approach to this situation anyway. I'm pro-choice. Period. Late-term abortions I'm very uncomfortable with because the stage of development when the fetus is sufficiently developed enough to indicate sentience and the awareness of pain suggests a stage of life that warrants consideration. But that's as far as it goes. I'm not a scientist, I'm certainly not God, and I don't have the right to make such a call absolutely. So I wouldn't presume to categorically judge abortion even in that regard.

The fact that it sounds strange is the problem I have with it. "Developing <x>" does not inherently imply that it is changing into anything else, it can mean that it is "developing further along as <x>" as well.

Developing means change. It HAS to imply that because that is the basic essence of the word. It sounds strange used in that specific example I gave for dogs, and maybe that's because that wasn't the best analogy.. but we use the phrase in respect to children already born..it's not exclusive.
Frankly I don't see the difference between just saying developing and the concept of developing further along. I didn't need to be specific in relation to this argument. It's a perfectly accurate, general statement in regards to human fetuses and their expected existence.

[General Zod]

Zod..c'mon. I wasn't discussing adults. I wasn't even putting forth a detailed biological treatise on the stages of life that humans go through. I simply confirmed that the ONE basic premise that a human fetus is a child in development is 100% correct. I'm not arguing that the fetus IS a child yet or deserves pro-life protection irrespective of the mother's wishes. My only point was the general perspective that most people hold and the result of such a black and white view combined with religious belief.

Indeed, they are actually 100% correct. It is a developing child.

Are a few sperm cells and a fertilized egg a developing child too? Your argument depends on the fundie being correct, and unless you've completely forgotten basic fundie premises as far as abortion, they want to treat a fertilized egg precisely the same as a newborn infant in terms of rights. Which is why distinguishing "developing into" and "developing as" is important.

Developing means change. It HAS to imply that because that is the basic essence of the word. It sounds strange used in that specific example I gave for dogs, and maybe that's because that wasn't the best analogy.. but we use the phrase in respect to children already born..it's not exclusive.
Frankly I don't see the difference between just saying developing and the concept of developing further along. I didn't need to be specific in relation to this argument. It's a perfectly accurate, general statement in regards to human fetuses and their expected existence.

Change into something or change as something, it needs to be specified. Though at this point it's probably just semantics.

[The Romulan Republic]

The key is that they are not pro-life for the reason you think they are. They dont actually give a shit about the fetus per se(at least pro-life men dont). What they care about is regulating sex and sexual behavior.

That's a pretty big generalization. No doubt its true in a lot of cases, but its not fair or true to say that all pro-life men don't care about the fetus but just about regulating sex.

Their are plenty of people who honestly believe that a fetus is a human being, and from that perspective, opposing abortion is an understandable stance for someone to hold.

For the record, I'm undecided as to what point I would consider something to be a human being. Not the moment of conception, that's for damn sure, but some time well before birth, most definitely.

[Count Chocula]

How did this thread go from Pro-Life and Anti-Regulation to parsing the English language? Zod, you, Justforfun000 and I all seem to agree on the basic premise that a pro-life and anti-reg mindset is hypocritical. I will attempt to resolve the "developing" issue by, in most craven fashion, resorting to the dictionary. Please note in advance that the -ing gerund appellation to the intransitive verb definition of "develop" transforms the word into the word we seem to have the most trouble putting into context.

From Merriam-Webster,

Main Entry: de·vel·op

intransitive verb
1 a: to go through a process of natural growth, differentiation, or evolution by successive changes <a blossom develops from a bud> b: to acquire secondary sex characteristics
2: to become gradually manifest
3: to come into being gradually <the situation developing in eastern Europe> ; also : turn out 2a <it developed that no one had paid the bill>

All three definitions apply to the topic at hand, thanks to the marvelous versatility of the word "develop," and "developing" is a perfectly appropriate word to use in the context of this discussion.

[General Zod]

>snip<
All three definitions apply to the topic at hand, thanks to the marvelous versatility of the word "develop," and "developing" is a perfectly appropriate word to use in the context of this discussion.

You seem to not be comprehending what I'm posting at all. It's not what the word means, it's that there was no distinction applied to its use in the original post, and therefore its meaning was not clear, since it could fall under either definitions.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

[quote]Are a few sperm cells and a fertilized egg a developing child too? Your argument depends on the fundie being correct, and unless you've completely forgotten basic fundie premises as far as abortion, they want to treat a fertilized egg precisely the same as a newborn infant in terms of rights. Which is why distinguishing "developing into" and "developing as" is important.[quote]

Oh NOW I see what you're saying. Well yeah, from a legalistic point of view, as well as learning where to draw the fine line, you need much more specific languange. True enough. I would probably be a lot more specific in how I said that if I was in an actual argument with someone about abortion who was anti-choice.

[Lusankya]

I balk at child bearing and birth being as dangerous as most people say since, if it were, wouldn't most women die after having children? But if that is the case then maternal health would also need to be taken care of as well.

Tell me, if pregnancy made your penis implode, would you be quite so blaze about the matter? Because for women, pregnancy leaves a chance of our vagina collapsing and our uterus falling out. I.e. not all dangers are mortal.

In fact, according to the WHO, over 40% of women develop acute opstetric problems during childbirth and pregnancy, and 15% develop life-threatening complications. The actual deaths from these depend on healthcare, but why should anyone involuntarily take on those odds for someone they don't even know?

[Alyrium Denryle]

No. Chickens are food animals. Humans have no moral obligation to them at all.

Red-Herring. But I will bite because it amuses me. Your anthropocentrist position is not consistent with either itself, or the universe. Here is why.

Humans are not special. There is nothing about humans that gives us some kind of special moral dominion over animals that exists as a metaphysical quality of human-ness. Humans do not have souls. We are not special. The universe did not cry when the holocaust happened.

Therefore you can only form a logically consistent ethical system using universal characteristics such as intelligence or relative ability to feel pain. However there is no ability to set a cut-off point for when these things "count".

The only reasonable option is to consider these characters on a sliding scale. IE. You have greater moral obligations to the creature which is capable of the most complex thought, or what have you.

By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....



But you conveniently and in intellectually dishonest fashion, sidestepped the argument. That argument being that the argument from potential, no matter how you phrase it, is in itself a logical fallacy. But of course that takes thought that is too complex for your tiny brain.

I apologize I mentioned intent only as a part of my sentence to solidify the fact that human DNA recombined in a test tube will not progress to a full blown body. It can be ignored.

Except that it is not. You are either trying to dodge past your own argument which makes you dishonest, or you are just incompetent.

Let me dissect this for you

It was put in a situation purposefully to be used for research and no intent or expectation of a human being developing would be considered.

This is the key part. You framed the exception to the Argument From Potential in terms of intent. Namely that stem cell research is conducted because there is no intent or expectation that an actual human will develop from it.

DNA recombined in a uterus; however, would generally naturally progress to a human being and thus is to be discouraged or restricted (cases such as risk to the mother and rape being some exclusions).

The implication here being that because there is intent and expectation that a fetus will develop into a human being, abortion is to be discourage or rejected.

The secondary premise here, contained in that sentence, is faulty for the reasons I laid out.

And of course you still dodge the argument that your entire argument is based upon a non-sequiteur. Even if I grant you that a fetus is a "potential" human being and this entails it... something... You still have not established the connection between that, and the idea that we should have the same moral obligations to it that we do a person.

I balk at child bearing and birth being as dangerous as most people say since, if it were, wouldn't most women die after having children?

Without medical attention, a lot of women do.

Shattering of dreams, where does that come into play? Social stigma and relationships?

Yes numbnuts. Do you not think that the psychological distress of being forced to carry a fetus to term (basically being enslaved for nine months) and having to dramatically re-adjust life ambitions, standard of living, potentially endanger relationships with others, is not a morally relevant thing? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that the ethical obligations you have toward a fetus that does not even have a functioning brain, outweigh the ethical concerns relating to the treatment of a women who is right in front of you? Your devaluation of women speaks volumes about your character let me tell you.

As for educating the populace... Education cannot override evolution. Read my prior posts in this thread as to how that works.

[Akhlut]

The only reasonable option is to consider these characters on a sliding scale. IE. You have greater moral obligations to the creature which is capable of the most complex thought, or what have you.

By any of these metrics, A chicken actually has more moral obligations attached to it than a fetus. A chicken can feel pain. Therefore I should not torture it, or allow it to be tortured. A fetus cannot feel pain... hmmm....

Depends on how old the fetus is, though. After about 3 months, if I'm not mistaken, human fetuses are done forming everything and just concentrate on growth. So, because they have brains and all the architecture associated with the ability to feel pain, would we then not have moral obligations toward them?