You are correct. I overstated my case. But the position Stu claims to have been unaware of is at least half the debate, then. Still too big to have missed.

No...if anything resulted from this discussion I am even more convinced that the pro-choice position lies on a foundation of the false belief that at least in some circumstances its okay to kill one human being for the convenience of another.

Until you make a rational argument that a fetus isn't a human being...I see no need budge on this point.

So even though I tell you that I am (and many others are) pro-choice for reason X, you refuse to believe that this is our position until we argue it with you? Even if you 'win' that argument, it wouldn't change what our current position is.

The more I think about this the more shocking it is. Who are you to tell me my reasons for being pro-choice?

I have proof that you are lying, btw. This position has been presented to you in the past, and you've even responded to it, indicating that you read it.

I wasn't the only one in that thread, either. Here's just one example:

You don't have to claim that the position is a valid one to accept that others hold it. But to deny that we hold a position that we've told you we hold is either indicative of a memory issue or a trolling issue.

The argument is over what is entitled to moral consideration. You like to invent this dispute over what constitutes a human (can a doctor tell the difference between fetus blood and human blood, for instance) and claim victory without bothering to establish that indistinguishable blood is a good candidate for moral consideration (it isn't).

You are right that arguing about whether a fetus is a human is like arguing about whether a rock is a rock - it's irrelevant to the actual point. Is a fetus entitled to the rights we accord people? That's the issue.

You've said you'd kill someone to protect your kids before.

Harsh words, huh?

Well I think that human and human being mean different things. While none of us disagree over a fetus being human, we do disagree over whether it's a human being. Is this the same as what you're saying?

That is, do you believe that becoming a 'being' is what makes one have moral worth, or are you saying that some human beings are still unworthy of moral consideration?

Our views are very similar as I understand things. Stu Pidasso likes to rely on our intuitions that we should care for other human beings and then provide all kinds of absurd 'indistinguishable blood' arguments that a fetus is a human. What matters, of course, is whether a fetus is the kind of thing which can enjoy rights and whether it deserves moral consideration as a separate entity.

Yours and my position rests on a belief that it is ok to kill some for the convenience of others - yet he can buy his kids Xboxes rather than spending the money on mosquito nets for Africans. To put it in his terms:

"Stu Pidasso's way of raising his children rests on the belief that they are more valuable than the hundreds of people he could otherwise prevent dying from malaria. Harsh words but hard to argue with."

It's quite easy to win a debate if you just get to declare that your opponent has no answer. Even easier if you first ascribe a position to them that they dont hold.

With "What kinds of things are entitled to be considered in moral calculations?" like I've explained oh...a dozen times.

Your continued debating over what constitutes human and the issue of whether anything human is a human being is like arguing over whether a rock is a rock - irrespective of the answer, it doesnt change the question of whether we should legalise abortions, nor help resolve which abortions should be legal and which shouldnt.

Let me know when you want to debate the actual issue and in the meantime I'll keep chiming in when you claim "The pro-choice position lies on a foundation of the false belief that at least in some circumstances its okay to kill one human being for the convenience of another." by pointing out that I'm a supporter of legalised abortion who does not believe that it's okay to kill one human being for the convenience of another.

Ok, I think we are on the same page.

But then again, maybe not??

And there's more confusion from me here. I think we should debate what things that are made from human cells are actually human beings. Maybe you're saying this too, but I'm struggling to understand you properly at the moment.

I was pointing out Stu Pidasso's habit of argument by parody and hyperbole. Rather than address the actual question - who should we consider when making moral decisions? He assumes that it's "all humans" and then posts pages and pages of weird thought experiments directed towards showing some kind of inconsistency in the pro-choice position based on this unagreed assumption. Also, of course, he ignores the thousands of kids who have died as a consequence of him spending money on his kids - apparently our concern for 'all humans' only really applies to rich Americans. <-- More parody and hyperbole. Ignoring all his previously posted counterarguments as he is doing in this thread.
I think this is a waste of time. I think we should debate what kinds of things are entitled to rights. If a fetus is entitled to be considered in moral decisions it is irrelevant whether it's a human being or not - we should oppose abortion. If it isnt, we shouldnt. If it should but should have some kind of 'lesser status' then that will have different consequences.

Ah, good. I was hoping that's what I was reading.

Ok, reasonable as expected. Though Stu should not read this as me backing down from my last post to him in any way.

Stu Pidasso is likely to read it as a confession that the unborn humans should all be murdered at will because it is convenient to have an outlet for my pent up bloodlust.

Do you believe the following statement is correct:

A fetus is not an individual organism but rather a collection of some of the mothers constituent cells.

I don't know how you could. If you had the FBI check to see if the DNA of the fetusus cells match of the mothers the FBI would concluded that the cells from the fetus came from an individual other than the mother.

Your argument is that a fetus is technically a human being but it isn't worthy of moral consideration correct?

How is that any different than me saying your position is such that some human beings are not worthy of societal protection and thus it is okay to kill them?

Once you accept that a fetus is a human being, you can't then claim I am mischaracterizing your position on abortion.

No - I've expressed no view on whether a fetus is a human being. I don't think you've provided any definition of what a human being is yet.

Yes.

Because DNA isn't necessary or sufficient for proving individuality. Think about identical twins, or if the mother were carrying a clone of herself, or chimerism, or organ transplants.

Now will you accept that some of us actually hold this position, like we've told you before, and therefore you were wrong earlier in this thread when I called you out?

So when the Nazis were killing the jews the fact that jews were human beings was irrelevant to whether or not the Nazis were behaving morally? Are you arguing that humanity or the quality of being human, is not in and of itself worthy of moral consideration?

You already know how I feel about that line of thinking. Its the line of thinking that has justified countless genocides. Don't like someone then declare them not a human being or not worthy of moral consideration and then its okay for you to kill them.

I'll accept that you actually hold it but not that you can logically justify it.

Why do you consider a fetus living inside its mother a collection constituent cells but not consider a tape worm living inside the same mother to be a collection of constituent cells? Or do you think a tape worm is a seperate and distinct organism and not a collection of constituent cells?

Now you are trolling.

Indeed.

Yes it was irrelevant. They were worthy of moral consideration irrespective of their human status. You're the one on shaky ground if you're going to start making moral decisions based on accidents of biochemistry - what if some DNA marker is found which does segregate us based on race. Whose moral position is going to do the most harm then?
I'm arguing that you've provided no reason to think it does, yet continue to use it as an axiom.
Except that isnt my line of thinking - you're the one who thinks that humanity is relevant to forming moral judgements, not me. If someone declares a group of people inhuman they dont have the right to kill them, even if the characterisation is correct.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, by the way. You continually try to 'deduce' a contradiction from my beliefs by appending "Being human is what entitles one to being considered in moral questions" even though I keep telling you that isnt my view.

You also provide no argument for why humanity, in and of itself, should entitle one to any rights. You just ask "Isn't it obvious?" or "Wouldnt the world be a better place?" or similar.

I have provided a definition several times already.

A being of the species human.

And will you also admit that you knew I, and others, held this position since at least 2 months ago, as per the posts I quoted earlier itt, including when you stated that you didn't think anyone held this view?

Of course you don't think I can logically justify it; else you'd be pro-choice and not pro-life. I never contended that you would agree with my position, only that my position is held despite you claiming otherwise.

I say that a tapeworm is a separate organism. I have some reasons, but the most compelling is that it is a different species. And it exists as a separate organism outside of the mother.

The second definition? No a fetus is not a being as it isnt conscious.