# Dems Need to Accept Moderates on Abortion= capture the House **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819 "2012-05-13T23:52:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/101 "2012-05-16T04:29:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > On what basis do some people define a fertilized egg as a human? On the same basis that you define it as not-a-human. That’s the whole point. Yet again, _there is no humanometer_. Science cannot measure humanity. Until you grok that fact, you’re simply claiming that your subjective definition should be elevated to the level of objective fact. Ironically enough, you are complaining that I am accepting someone’s opinion as valid… because I’m not accepting that only your opinion is valid. You’ve certainly now crossed into autoparody when you claim that saying that fetus = human is the same as loaf of bread = human. As for the idea that nobody has a right to impose their beliefs upon other people with equally valid beliefs, several millenia of human society put paid to that claim. Try to broadcast something that some folks consider ‘obscene’ but you think is just good clean fun, see how the FCC reacts. We deal with this issue all the time without extensive cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/102 "2012-05-16T04:42:34Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > On the same basis that you define it as not-a-human. That’s the whole point. Yet again, _there is no humanometer_. Science cannot measure humanity. Until you grok that fact, you’re simply claiming that your subjective definition should be elevated to the level of objective fact. Ironically enough, you are complaining that I am accepting someone’s opinion as valid… because I’m not accepting that only your opinion is valid. > > You’ve certainly now crossed into autoparody when you claim that saying that fetus = human is the same as loaf of bread = human. As for the idea that nobody has a right to impose their beliefs upon other people with equally valid beliefs, several millenia of human society put paid to that claim. Try to broadcast something that some folks consider ‘obscene’ but you think is just good clean fun, see how the FCC reacts. We deal with this issue all the time without extensive cognitive dissonance. No, because your argument is the pro-life side needs _no_ criteria beyond their beliefs for what is a human. A human is whatever they feel is a human and valid in your view. I have laid out criteria that can be used which you have studiously ignored arguing there is no humanometer. You have provided no rationale for why a fertilized egg = human beyond someone feels it is so. Baby popping out of a woman we can all agree = human yet no rationale for why an undifferentiated cell is essentially the same thing. Given that you cannot even tell me why if they feel a loaf of bread is a human why we shouldn’t accept it. Of course it is absurd but then so is the view a fertilized egg = a human. All you are going on is beliefs and no explanation why their beliefs should override a woman’s right to control her own body who does not believe as they do. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/103 "2012-05-16T04:54:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No, because your argument is the pro-life side needs _no_ criteria beyond their beliefs for what is a human. Wrong. And if you are unable to conceptualize the concept of a spectrum with a fertilized egg on one end and a dying old man on the other, and instead revert to analogies about loaves of bread, then you are obviously not putting yourself into the anti-abortion mindset. That you refuse to understand why a fertilized egg is not fungible with a loaf of bread, or why someone can say that there exists a continuum from fertilization to death, indicates that you are not looking to understand your opponents’ position. While that’s certainly allowable, it’s a rather shoddy method towards achieving any sort of dialog beyond the “Is too!” “Is not!” variety. Especially once you start talking about loaves of bread. In point of fact, you seem to be aggressively resisting even a basic level of understanding your opposition. Talking in terms of why “beliefs should override a woman’s right to control her own body” is fine when you’re among your camp, but gibberish if you’re trying to engage in anything even remotely resembling dialog. Yet again: to anti-abortion activists, it’s not a matter of controlling a woman’s body, but preventing murder. You trivialize the positions of your opponents to your detriment. Additionally, you have laid out no actual criteria which can be used to objectively define humanity. I already explained this to you, and yet you are still aggressively confusing your subjective interpretation of data and subjective schema with objective facts. There is no humanometer, science cannot measure humanity, and your gloss is not one jot more valid than one which places humanity’s start as fertilization. Digging your feet in and declaring that your subjective valuations are the only rational ones may work fine if you’re talking to fellow travelers. Of course, we can resume the “Baby murderer!” “Woman oppressor!” discussion whenever it’s convenient. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/104 "2012-05-16T04:58:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > . . . You’ve certainly now crossed into autoparody when you claim that saying that fetus = human is the same as loaf of bread = human. As for the idea that nobody has a right to impose their beliefs upon other people with equally valid beliefs, several millenia of human society put paid to that claim. Try to broadcast something that some folks consider ‘obscene’ but you think is just good clean fun, see how the FCC reacts. We deal with this issue all the time without extensive cognitive dissonance. Might one suggest that there is an element of hyperbole (if not autoparody) in comparing the censorship of the airwaves and compelling someone to continue an unwanted pregnancy? The day the FCC comes to me and makes me run a copy of Debbie Does Dallas through my abdomen… Um… Okay, bad example, but still… ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/105 "2012-05-16T05:04:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Might one suggest that there is an element of hyperbole (if not autoparody) in comparing the censorship of the airwaves and compelling someone to continue an unwanted pregnancy? One might suggest all sorts of things. One would be wrong if they suggested that, as an example of a group of people imposing their views through law, it was hyperbolic to mention obscenity laws. It is a perfect example of how the subjective valuation of some is enshrined into law. It’s far from being the only such example, but if you prefer, think of laws against physician assisted suicide too. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/106 "2012-05-16T05:04:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > A human is whatever they feel is a human and valid in your view. Actually, your definition of human seems tailored to permit abortion and uses an argumentum ad populum as well: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Baby popping out of mom = human (pretty sure we can all agree on that). > [@Marley23](#): > > I’ve never seen any evidence that conservatives are scared the Democrats are going to move to the left on abortion I don’t think the Democrats could move to the left on abortion. They could become more authoritarian, but I don’t think that’s on the left-right spectrum. Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes and Ayn Rand all supported the concept of eugenics. Moving beyond the concept that abortions should be legal (perhaps the Simone de Beauvoir stance?) would be supporting the notion that they should be mandated. There’s little to no chance of Democrats arguing for that. In fact, I’m surprised that there’s no paleolibertarians that’d argue as such - they’re too enamoured with the Christian right to allow their Social Darwinism to show, perhaps. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > There’s no contradiction, for instance, if someone says it should be illegal to set the homeless on fire but that we also shouldn’t be funding homeless shelters and we should let them fend for themselves. One could argue that we shouldn’t accept their claims to be “pro-homeless” though. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Ireland’s historical mistreatment of women is well known. Care to provide specifics? > [@LavenderBlue](#): > > You, OTOH, are proposing to overrule my personal morals and religion. Which is only a problem if an undue burden is placed on you by Congress to prevent you from carrying out some religious ritual. As it happens, legislation is essentially (where good) the moral consensus of the majority. I don’t think there’s any better moral underpinning for law than something resembling Utilitarianism. I think Peter Singer’s arguments in favour of abortion (for instance) do not really stand up to scrutiny. Anticipating arguments in favour of alternative systems of governance, basing laws explicitly on evolutionary stable strategies is no more objective than Utilitarianism (naturalistic fallacy). There are evolutionary stable societies that are worse for each constituent member and are stable (in other words, cannot be usurped) until the point of collapse. Anticipating arguments in favour of the sanctity of an individual’s body: in a thought experiment, if a woman sequesters a blade in her vagina and injures a man through intercourse, she’d probably still be punished. There was an injured party despite the damage occurring within the woman’s body. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/107 "2012-05-16T05:05:49Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > One could argue that we shouldn’t accept their claims to be “pro-homeless” though. Agreed. I tend to use anti-abortion instead of pro-life, myself. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/108 "2012-05-16T05:09:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Define a what a human is. > > Now stand someone next to a microscope with a fertilized egg and have them point out the similarities between a human and that egg. > > All I can think of is the both have human DNA. But then so does a blood cell or skin cell and we do not cry murder when we lose one of those. Well _I_ agree. Ever try making that argument IRL though? To a non-fundi crowd? IME, most (not all) tend to treat that approach with some hesitance. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Ireland’s historical mistreatment of women is well known. Ok, [decent point](http://www.irishecho.com.au/2011/06/07/un-tells-ireland-to-set-up-inquiry-into-magdalene-laundries-abuse/10380). But the generosity of their welfare state is also well known, c. 1980s. (I’m a little uncertain about after that point, though I’d bet it wasn’t anywhere near as miserly as the US.) Furthermore, in terms of the gender gap, [Ireland is the fifth best in the world](http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap). (Iceland is #1, the US and Canada are #17 and #18). Which is unsurprising given their _generally_ leftish policies. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/109 "2012-05-16T05:17:46Z")
Oh, there is one Utilitarian argument I can think of in favour of keeping abortion legal, namely that there are fewer abortions in countries where it is [legal](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/rate-of-abortion-is-highest-in-countries-where-practice-is-banned-6292070.html). That’s a post hoc line of argument and one obvious confounding variable is the prevalence of contraception in society (along with the development of the welfare system in the country, which’d contribute to low infant mortality rates among other things integral to raising a healthy child). For some, it’d be a dilemma analogous to permitting assassinations in order to reduce them though. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/110 "2012-05-16T05:35:11Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wrong. And if you are unable to conceptualize the concept of a spectrum with a fertilized egg on one end and a dying old man on the other, and instead revert to analogies about loaves of bread, then you are obviously not putting yourself into the anti-abortion mindset. That you refuse to understand why a fertilized egg is not fungible with a loaf of bread, or why someone can say that there exists a continuum from fertilization to death, indicates that you are not looking to understand your opponents’ position. While that’s certainly allowable, it’s a rather shoddy method towards achieving any sort of dialog beyond the “Is too!” “Is not!” variety. Especially once you start talking about loaves of bread. I understand the difference between bread and human. I asked you to tell me how a belief that a fertilized egg = human is different than a belief that a loaf of bread = human. You make no allowance that there are factual differences worth noting here. Belief is enough. You have no humanometer to determine the bread is not a human. If all it takes is a belief for someone to override a another person’s control over their own body and what happens to it then there is no limit really. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/111 "2012-05-16T05:42:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I asked you to tell me how a belief that a fertilized egg = human is different than a belief that a loaf of bread = human. Your question has been answered multiple times: a fertilized egg can fit in on the continuum of human life from fertilization to death. A loaf of bread cannot. I doubt that you truly don’t understand that we can’t define humanity or personal scientifically while we can still give a biological species concept… while still excluding toast. That you persist in using that analogy and casting the debate in terms of controlling other people’s bodies indicates, shall we say, less than perfect empathy with your opponents. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/112 "2012-05-16T05:55:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except for the fact that they show a complete disdain for the welfare of the fetus and for the baby they force to be born. And they don’t care if the fetus is dead; they still want to force the woman to give birth to it. And again, they work to harm women in general, not just by opposing abortion. It’s interesting that you snipped the part of my post where I linked the beliefs of actual pro-lifers. In contradiction with which you assert that, since pro-lifers tend to be conservative and anti-welfare, they don’t care about the welfare of the children they insist should be born. As a liberal and stongly pro-choice advocate, I agree there’s a disconnect here. But, it doesn’t follow that pro-lifers don’t care about children. Rather, they think it’s a responsibility of the parents, And it certainly doesn’t follow that thinking it’s a responsibility of the parents means the sole (or main) purpose of opposing abortion is to oppress women. As the links you snipped demonstrate, their motivation is plain, _viz_, to protect what they consider unborn children. I take a stand on this for two reaons. First, it’s only fair to take the opposition on their own ground. Second, it’s good tactics. Asserting anti-abortion is about oppressing women may feel good, but if the proponents of that point of view doesn’t see it, you’ve wasted a bullet. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/113 "2012-05-16T07:34:18Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Your question has been answered multiple times: a fertilized egg can fit in on the continuum of human life from fertilization to death. A loaf of bread cannot. I doubt that you truly don’t understand that we can’t define humanity or personal scientifically while we can still give a biological species concept… while still excluding toast. That you persist in using that analogy and casting the debate in terms of controlling other people’s bodies indicates, shall we say, less than perfect empathy with your opponents. So you admit that without a humanometer we can come up with criteria that defines a human that does not require mere belief. Progress. Now, we can extend this concept to discern a difference between an egg and a fully formed human that also does not require belief. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/114 "2012-05-16T08:21:18Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > It’s interesting that you snipped the part of my post where I linked the beliefs of actual pro-lifers. As I’ve already made clear, I consider them to be liars so I don’t care what they _say_. I care what they _do_. > [@PBear42](#): > > In contradiction with which you assert that, since pro-lifers tend to be conservative and anti-welfare, they don’t care about the welfare of the children they insist should be born. As a liberal and stongly pro-choice advocate, I agree there’s a disconnect here. But, it doesn’t follow that pro-lifers don’t care about children. Rather, they think it’s a responsibility of the parents, Garbage. They force those children on women who don’t want them, and they work to make the women _and_ the children less healthy, or even kill them. Everything they do screams “malice”. > [@PBear42](#): > > I take a stand on this for two reaons. First, it’s only fair to take the opposition on their own ground. Second, it’s good tactics. Asserting anti-abortion is about oppressing women may feel good, but if the proponents of that point of view doesn’t see it, you’ve wasted a bullet. Bending over backwards to pretend the right is well meaning has led the left and middle of America to disaster after disaster. “Good tactics” is realizing that these people are fanatics & bigots, that they are the enemy not just the loyal opposition, and to stop trying to play by the rules of chess when your opponent is waging war. We are not going to persuade them, and they are not going to compromise. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/115 "2012-05-16T08:26:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So you admit that without a humanometer we can come up with criteria that defines a human that does not require mere belief. So are you distorting what I actually said, or did you not understand it? I ask this because you sailed right past me pointing out that your “unanswered question” had been answered, repeatedly, and then you misinterpreted a fairly clear statement of mine in a manner that is not only absurd, but tailored to fit your poorly argued claims that your subjective interpretations are “science”. Just in case you weren’t reading for comprehension and just skimmed what I actually wrote, I’ll emphasize: **we can’t define humanity or personal scientifically** while _we can still give a biological species concept_. Are you, perhaps, unaware of the biological species concept and therefore misinterpreted what I actually wrote? Do you not understand that organisms which fit as ‘human’ under the BSC would include humans too young to reproduce, as well? Do you not understand that this still does not change the fact that there will exist a continuum from fertilization to death? Are you, perhaps, unaware that even classification systems like the BSC are limited and there exists real controversy over their descriptive capabilities, especially in asexual species and separated population groups? I’m rather curious to see you actually try to explain how the BSC proves that your subjective interpretation of the human developmental cycle is somehow objective or that the BSC somehow allows us to define humanity in a manner that just happens to match up with your subjective beliefs. The fact remains, even if you steadfastly refuse to admit it, that there is no objective scientific metric to claim that a fertilized egg is ‘non-human’ but a viable fetus is ‘human’. We can, with great accuracy and precision, describe the characteristics of all the phases of human development, but the point at which you impart personhood/humanity to them is an aesthetic decision. There is no humanometer, even if you would really like there to be. “Personhood” _is not a scientific concept_. Wrong. Bad. Nope. You can not measure to see if you have 6.5 grams of humanity in you, or only 3.7. Until you are able to understand this concept, nothing else will make sense to you and you’ll continue to compare the stages of human development to toast and to claim that your subjective, aesthetic interpretations of objective phenomena are ‘science’. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/116 "2012-05-16T11:33:57Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wrong, and your comparison is disingenuous. Whether Obama was or was not born in America is a factual matter. Whether a fetus is or is not human is a matter of interpretation. Otherwise find me a humanometer and we can settle the debate. Barring that, drop the bombast. You’re also not served by declaring that your opposition is " not basing their axioms on any kind of reason whatsoever." > Unless, of course, your goal is an inchoate shouting match. In which case, game on, I guess. > > On the flipside, your definition of human is obviously post hoc and self-serving, arrived at via fiat. Someone who has decided that a fertilized egg counts as a human has just as much support as your ‘Nuhn uhnnn!’ You can, as mentioned above, shout at each other about it, I suppose. How many rounds of “Is too!” “Is not!” “Woman-oppresser!” “Baby-killer!” would you care to engage in? > There is no scientific definition of what constitutes humanity. There cannot be, as humanity is not an objective metric measurable like joules or grams. > > Nor is the fact that all laws are the imposition of belief a ‘dodge’. It means that pointing out that a law is an imposition of belief is a non-started, a rabbit trail, semantic noise with the value of the null set. If the folks you’re preaching to aren’t in your choir, all you’ve actually said is ‘Stop trying to impose your view that murder is wrong, I can murder babies if I wanna!’ Not, perhaps, the most effective tactic unless we’re dedicated to the “Is too!” “Is not!” school of, ahem, discussion. If I understand your argument right, then ,you are saying that war and selfdefense can also be called murder! Many unborn and already innocent peole are killed in a war. A woman can have the right to self defense as well as any other, No one can say they know her state of mind or the cost to her family or self! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/117 "2012-05-16T11:55:53Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So are you distorting what I actually said, or did you not understand it? > I ask this because you sailed right past me pointing out that your “unanswered question” had been answered, repeatedly, and then you misinterpreted a fairly clear statement of mine in a manner that is not only absurd, but tailored to fit your poorly argued claims that your subjective interpretations are “science”. > > Just in case you weren’t reading for comprehension and just skimmed what I actually wrote, I’ll emphasize: **we can’t define humanity or personal scientifically** while _we can still give a biological species concept_. > Are you, perhaps, unaware of the biological species concept and therefore misinterpreted what I actually wrote? Do you not understand that organisms which fit as ‘human’ under the BSC would include humans too young to reproduce, as well? Do you not understand that this still does not change the fact that there will exist a continuum from fertilization to death? Are you, perhaps, unaware that even classification systems like the BSC are limited and there exists real controversy over their descriptive capabilities, especially in asexual species and separated population groups? I’m rather curious to see you actually try to explain how the BSC proves that your subjective interpretation of the human developmental cycle is somehow objective or that the BSC somehow allows us to define humanity in a manner that just happens to match up with your subjective beliefs. > > The fact remains, even if you steadfastly refuse to admit it, that there is no objective scientific metric to claim that a fertilized egg is ‘non-human’ but a viable fetus is ‘human’. We can, with great accuracy and precision, describe the characteristics of all the phases of human development, but the point at which you impart personhood/humanity to them is an aesthetic decision. There is no humanometer, even if you would really like there to be. “Personhood” _is not a scientific concept_. Wrong. Bad. Nope. You can not measure to see if you have 6.5 grams of humanity in you, or only 3.7. Until you are able to understand this concept, nothing else will make sense to you and you’ll continue to compare the stages of human development to toast and to claim that your subjective, aesthetic interpretations of objective phenomena are ‘science’. Are you saying one can look at a fertilized egg and say ,“Oh what a cute little baby”. Or a pollenated apple blossom and say,"Oh what a delicious looking Apple? Is a fertile egg a Chicken, or will it become one if it is incubated? Is a sperm a human,or half human? If you are using something to mean it has human life, then yes it does,but how can you call it a human being? If the sperm doesn’t have life there will be no conception,isn’t that true? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/118 "2012-05-16T14:57:46Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > The problem with your proposed legislation is that it _is_ my body. If you’re going to demand the right to make laws around it you’d better have a better rationale than your Christianity or your personal morals. Which is fundamentally the difference between those of us who are pro-choice and those people who call themselves pro-life. I’m not telling you what to do. If you don’t want an abortion then don’t have one. You, OTOH, are proposing to overrule my personal morals and religion. > > I dismiss pro-lifers because they deserve to be dismissed. Their argument amounts to nothing more than their desire to impose their religion on other people’s body parts. This is a horribly unconvincing argument to anyone other than folks who already believe exactly as you believe. Reasonable people can come to the conclusion that abortion is bad without being driven by religious beliefs. But sometimes all I hear is “keep your God out of my uterus” Its really no better than pretending that people want abortions to be available so that they can have Roman style orgies without consequences. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > 1. I support the legal right for women to have readily available, safe, inexpensive abortions. For the record, I am very pro-choice through the first trimester and fairly pro-choice through the second trimester and fairly anti-abortion in the third trimester. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Further, the claim that anti-abortion activists are imposing their beliefs on others is true… in as much as every single law is belief imposed upon society at large. And the claim that ‘science’ has or hasn’t confirmed where humanity starts is an absurdity. Science deals in facts, data, not aesthetic interpretations. Is a blastula a living entity? Undoubtedly, and science can tell us the specifics down to the microgram. Is a fetus a _human?_ Science must stand mute as there is no humanometer. Metrics like brainwaves and viability are well and good, but the importance we attach to them is our interpretation, and not “science”. We would do well to remember that. This is my point. We do in fact legislate morality. We do in fact impose our beliefs on others. Our moral beliefs. There are people out there that think that having sex with consenting 14 year old boys is OK but the vast majority of society imposes its belief that says that they may not. There are people out there that think that its OK to purchase or sell sexual services, we have imposed our belief and told them that they may not. There are people that believe that polygamy is good and natural. Yet we will stand in their way. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Unless, of course, your goal is an inchoate shouting match. In which case, game on, I guess. When both sides are so convinced they are right that neither side will listen to the other, soemtimes volume is all you have left tio determine the winner. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wrong. And if you are unable to conceptualize the concept of a spectrum with a fertilized egg on one end and a dying old man on the other, and instead revert to analogies about loaves of bread, then you are obviously not putting yourself into the anti-abortion mindset. To illustrated the concept of life as a sepctrum. You have a gun to your family’s head and you must either kill a newborn baby or destroy a refrigerator with fertilized eggs. How many eggs would have to be in that refrigerator for me to choose to kill the newborn child? You have a gun to your family’s head and you must either kill a newborn baby or inject an abrtifacient into women who are 1 month pregnant. How many women would I have to force you to inject before you would choose to kill the child? Rinse and repeat at the end of every month of pregnancy. Now replace the unborn children with a terminally ill person who just reached their 100th birthday that you must euthanize. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Agreed. I tend to use anti-abortion instead of pro-life, myself. So do I, this is a more accurate description. > [@monavis](#): > > If I understand your argument right, then ,you are saying that war and selfdefense can also be called murder! Many unborn and already innocent peole are killed in a war. A woman can have the right to self defense as well as any other, No one can say they know her state of mind or the cost to her family or self! And what sort of costs justify murder? I do agree that there was an astounding amount of support for invading Iraq and causing the death of millions of innocent civilians by the same people who were condemning first trimester abortions, stem cell research and marching for Terry Schiavo due to the sanctity of life. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/119 "2012-05-16T15:15:29Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Are you saying one can look at a fertilized egg and say ,“Oh what a cute little baby”. I did not say that. What I have said that is it is not at all logically inconsistent to believe that there exists a continuum of humanity on which ‘old person dying of old age’ is at one end and ‘fertilized ovum’ is on the other. It’s no different from believing that the larval stage of an insect is still an exemplar of that species during a certain life phase, and that doesn’t at all imply that you’d look at a caterpillar and remark upon what a beautiful buttefly it is. Just like you wouldn’t look at a baby and refer to what a handsome older gentleman he was. I will note that the “it’s not a [del]human[/del] chicken because you wouldn’t accept an egg if you ordered chicken” is an absolutely awful argument. I also wouldn’t accept a baby chick if I ordered a chicken breast. That doesn’t mean that a chick isn’t, in fact, possessed of ‘chickenhood’. I also wouldn’t accept a toddler if I asked HR for a person to sub for my classes. That doesn’t mean that toddlers aren’t possessed of personhood. ---
**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:** [May 16, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/120 "2012-05-16T15:43:00Z")
Regardless, I gather we can agree that the Democrats making abortion an issue for 2012 won’t help them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819.md?page=7)