# Another abortion debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245 "2006-08-03T20:32:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/201 "2006-08-06T18:34:31Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Ergo, anyone who does not have a birth certificate and a Social Security number is a legitimate target to be killed. Correct? [/QUOTE] Come on. He never said that was the only way to prove he was a person. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/202 "2006-08-06T19:52:39Z")
Well, if there are other qualifications, he didn’t mention them. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/203 "2006-08-06T20:27:54Z")
That’s an odd way of admitting your were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/204 "2006-08-06T21:31:09Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Ergo, anyone who does not have a birth certificate and a Social Security number is a legitimate target to be killed. Correct? [/QUOTE] If I sarcastically say “yes”, will you promise to repeatedly refer back to this post as solid evidence that all pro-choicers are bloodthirsty savages? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/205 "2006-08-07T08:05:08Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Ergo, anyone who does not have a birth certificate and a Social Security number is a legitimate target to be killed. Correct? [/QUOTE] Sure. Why not. We _only ever_ regulate the killing of persons, don’t we? Hey, is that your kitty? _BLAM_ What? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/206 "2006-08-07T12:30:39Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I get that, but I believe that human life has **inherent** value. [/QUOTE] Does that include the man’s sperm? It contains human life, if it didn’t there would be no conception. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/207 "2006-08-07T12:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That’s an odd way of admitting your were wrong. [/QUOTE] I’m not wrong. He proposed a way to determine if someone is a person. It is childishly simple to shoot holes in his definition. If you have a problem with that, it should be with the imprecise definition. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > If I sarcastically say “yes”, will you promise to repeatedly refer back to this post as solid evidence that all pro-choicers are bloodthirsty savages? I will as soon as someone refers to pro-lifers as women-haters. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/208 "2006-08-07T12:53:31Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I will as soon as someone refers to pro-lifers as women-haters. [/QUOTE] If they do, does that mean non pro-lifers are woman-_lovers_? Or anti-lifers are men-haters? Or pro-deathers are men-lovers? My point being that is you’re going to take someone’s statement (“X is true”) and try to apply faulty math logic to it (“does that mean all not-X is false?”), you’re wasting your time and betraying your argument as empty. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/209 "2006-08-07T13:22:18Z")
I’m not making an argument - I am refuting one. If his definition of person lacks rigor, it is a legitimate debating point to show that. Then he either amends or amplifies the definiton, or concedes the point. Come on, this is elementary rhetoric. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/210 "2006-08-07T13:36:12Z")
How rigorous a reply do you think “Huh? Prove _you’re_ a person” requires? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/211 "2006-08-07T13:39:25Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I’m not making an argument - I am refuting one. If his definition of person lacks rigor, it is a legitimate debating point to show that. Then he either amends or amplifies the definiton, or concedes the point. Come on, this is elementary rhetoric. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] He hasn’t proposed a _complete definition_, and you know it. Someone asked him to prove \*\*he \*\*was (is) a person, and he chose one way of doing it. (Not the way I would have chosen, for the reasons \*\*AHunter3 \*\*articulated, but _a_ valid way of proving personhood.) You’re either being deliberately obtuse or…something else. (Note: you being deliberately obtuse doesn’t mean other people can’t be something else.) ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/212 "2006-08-07T14:43:43Z")
[QUOTE=monavis] Does that include the man’s sperm? It contains human life, if it didn’t there would be no conception. Monavis [/QUOTE] I never understand this question. Personally, I have never heard of a case where a sperm cell has independently generated into a fully formed person, without fertilizing an egg first. Until this becomes the case, then, no, I do not have a problem with killing sperm. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/213 "2006-08-07T18:36:41Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] He hasn’t proposed a _complete definition_, and you know it. [/quote] Yes, of course I know it - that’s what I was pointing out. It’s not a valid definition. Doesn’t the whole damn abortion controversy hinge on the definition of personhood? > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > How rigorous a reply do you think “Huh? Prove you’re a person” requires? How about one that can’t be refuted in one line? What the hell - do you folks always get this upset when someone shoots holes in an argument? If you have a better argument, let’s hear it. If you don’t, quit complaining when someone gets called on some bullshit. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/214 "2006-08-07T19:25:26Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I’m not wrong. He proposed a way to determine if someone is a person. It is childishly simple to shoot holes in his definition. If you have a problem with that, it should be with the imprecise definition. [/QUOTE] IYou’re wrong. Personhood in US law just means that you have been born. A birth certificate is an official documentation of birth. It’s not his definition, it is the definition currently used in the country where he is a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/215 "2006-08-07T23:00:44Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] How about one that can’t be refuted in one line? [/quote] You didn’t refute it. You took a wildly exaggerated opposing view and held it up as a strawman. It’d be like someone asking “Prove blue exists” and the reply was “Well, I have some blue shoes” and you jumped in with “So nothing other than your shoes is blue?” > [@](#): > > What the hell - do you folks always get this upset when someone shoots holes in an argument? We’re not upset (at least I’m not) and you didn’t shoot any holes. Anyway, this is why I decided a long time ago that issues of “personhood” and other attempts at solving the problem by changing definitions were a waste of time. Start with a woman’s right to self-determination, combine with a child’s right to state protection (provided such protection doesn’t put the mother at risk) and draw the compromise you’re most comfortable with. Personally, I’d go with birth, but I’m okay with, say, a limit at the third trimester or slightly earlier because it’s more important to get 99% of women protected than to fight for 100% and risk losing it all. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/216 "2006-08-08T00:59:03Z")
Oh for heaven’s sake, a counter-example is a perfectly valid refutation. Quit trying to pretend otherwise. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/217 "2006-08-08T01:03:56Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Oh for heaven’s sake, a counter-example is a perfectly valid refutation. Quit trying to pretend otherwise. [/quote] It’s a _useless_ counterexample. If he says Grindols are Feckles, why is it valid to claim this proves all non-Grindols are non-Feckles? Now I’m all syllogismed out. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2006, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/218 "2006-08-08T06:47:33Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Yes, of course I know it - that’s what I was pointing out. It’s not a valid definition. [/QUOTE] He didn’t say it was **a definition of personhood** , he said it was a **method** of _proving he was a person_. Do you _get_ that this means it’s **not the only way** of proving you’re a person? Do you also get that even if something is not a person, this does not automatically give you a licence to do what you want to with it, unlike your facetious statement? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2006, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/219 "2006-08-08T06:52:35Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] He didn’t say it was **a definition of personhood** , he said it was a **method** of _proving he was a person_. [/QUOTE] …and before you snappily come back with “he didn’t actually say that”, let’s agree that by giving it as the answer to your dumb question, that’s exactly what he meant, no more, and no less. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2006, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/220 "2006-08-08T06:56:41Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] …and before you snappily come back with “he didn’t actually say that”, let’s agree that by giving it as the answer to your dumb question, that’s exactly what he meant, no more, and no less. [/QUOTE] To be fair, the original question wasn’t Shodan’s but Stratocastor’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245.md?page=12)