Why are you pro choice or pro life?

I think the more common example is disowning a parent rather than a grandparent. Whether the disowned parent is parasitic or lacks volition, well, that’s a matter of opinion.

The human embryo certainly has a number of parasitic characteristics. Obviously it siphons nutrients from the mother’s bloodstream; it has prolonged direct contact with the mother; but also, apparently “[t]he placenta acts like a parasite to avoid attack by a mother’s immune system”.

Obviously there are major differences, how many parasites are found solely among hosts of their own species? The closest I can think of is the practice of say, ducks laying eggs in other ducks’ nests (intraspecific parasitism). Parasitic castration (diverting energy/resources from reproduction to the parasite) is a major form of parasitic behavior, but actual reproduction is not usually considered a form of parasitic castration.


I’ve been trying to follow this thread - the analogy appears to be an embryo or fetus inhabiting the mother’s womb on the one hand, and a person inhabiting her house on the other.

I think the analogy works against you, The_Other_Waldo_Pepper. There are certain people that it is unacceptable to expel from one’s home, namely, your minor children. By virtue of your being their legal guardian, it is irresponsible and indecent to turn them out of your home without providing some other form of accommodations to meet their needs.


Putting aside, for a moment, the usual boilerplate about how no analogy is perfect and how sometimes the differences are irrelevant but sometimes they’re where all of the heavy lifting happens…

…what strikes me about your point there is that, yes, you and I agree that it’s unacceptable to just turn a newborn out of one’s home; but let me add that, whenever I’ve heard about someone dropping off a newborn at the firehouse or the hospital or whatever, I’ve said, yeah, requiring them to do that little — that strikes me as a reasonable imposition. Now, I’m not saying I’m comfortable asking a woman to inconvenience herself to -more- than the extent of taking a short drive to a nearby facility; but, okay, seems like I’ll agree with -that- position.

I’ll admit that you could plausibly try to read an inconsistency into that line of thought, but I’d argue that there’s a consistent way to put it all together.

I am a member (the only one, as far as I know) of the Church of the Holy Reverse Barometer. Once someone has demonstrated himself to be consistently wrong about matters, my faith in that person to be wrong about other issues that I don’t want to devote time and thought to myself becomes paramount. Pro-lifers are typically Republican, typically theists, typically anti-vaxxers and typically hold any number of positions that i consider to be based squarely on stuff and nonsense, so I trust them to be completely wrong about abortion. To choose one example, whatever Trump espouses most sincerely I assume to be factually and morally incorrect. I may be wrong to trust in his infallibility, but so far I am satisfied that my Church’ positions are overwhelmingly on the money.

The womb-is-like-your-house analogy breaks down because it is much more inconvenient to carry a pregnancy to term and birth an infant than it is to drive to the nearest Baby Moses facility.

You aren’t being inconsistent, except where you (or was it UltraVires?) originally used the analogy as support for your position.


i think that works if we’re talking about some random person who considers themself pro-life. But given a widespread movement whose participants and leaders effectively consider themselves ‘woke’ to the value of human life, it boggles my mind that they haven’t made the connection to the importance of the lives ending en masse all around them.

At least if they’re sincerely pro-life. If that’s not their true motivation, then of course they wouldn’t be connecting the dots.

I disagree with the bolded. You did not err on the side of mercy. You err on the side of the embryo/fetus. You do not have mercy for the woman or the eventual child who may suffer if forced to be born under certain circumstances.

I cannot imagine how you got to this conclusion from what I wrote.

Sorry, from your posts, I was assuming that you are not pro-choice. I am interpreting your rationale as having mercy for a fetus/embryo and outlawing abortion. This does not show mercy for the woman who would be forced to carry the fetus and then deliver a baby.

I thought your response was particularly damaging: (if the unborn is a person,) mercy doesn’t take sides / there is no side of mercy.


I am in fact quite conflicted on abortion, as I am on the death penalty. I suspect most of us can agree on the basics and I suppose we ought to proceed with practical matters such as better birth control and sex education to prevent this pregnancies from ever happening.

But, it seems we have a lot of fun yelling and taking extreme positions.

From the discussion in this thread so far, I doubt that this is true.

On this point, however, I completely concur.

That should certainly be done, and it will certainly reduce unwanted pregnancies.

But it won’t prevent them entirely. Any method of birth control can fail.

And it also won’t prevent mid-pregnancy discovery of health conditions affecting either the mother or the fetus (or, of course, possibly both.)

Almost any method of birth control can fail.


OK. Total removal of the ovaries would work, I suppose. But that’s significant surgery; would cause major long term physical symptoms that most women would regard as negative; and would preclude any later desired pregnancy.

Actually I had thought vasectemies were 100% effective after being certified, but it turns out I am wrong on that.


Mercy having a “side” is his term not mine. He’s saying he’s “erring on the side of mercy”. Mercy for a fetus or embryo. If the state is taking over a woman’s body, then there is clearly no mercy for her.

Also, I think that when people speak colloquially of “birth control failing”, they tend to be thinking of temporary contraception methods rather than outright surgical sterilization.

Certainly, if we’re looking for a realistic approach to the abortion issue, setting the bar at 100% foolproof contraception that can’t be attained except by surgical sterilization (and not always then, as you noted) is not going to fly.

I would have thought total removal of the testicles would also work.

Works for the man, who can’t get pregnant anyway.

Can fail for the woman, if for whatever reason (including force) she has sex with some other man.

(It’s also, of course, not a method any significant number of men are willing to use; or that any significant number of women would want their partners to use, for that matter.)