Since you answered the thought experiment question I think you are obligated to answer the followups.

Actually yes, the former is called the "Rhythm method" of birth control and because it doesn't forestall all chances of conception it isn't considered a sin, whereas it is also a very unreliable form of birth control.
I guess it comes down to one can not want to get pregnant but as long as they don't waste (spill) the sperm, then they aren't precluding the possibility. Condoms "spill" the sperm. In all, the Church's position on blocking contraception (condoms) can be changed and it recently has in limited circumstances. I think the younger hierarchy sees the issue and fallacy of not wanting abortion but not allowing contraception either. It may not change in my lifetime, but in my yet unborn grandchild's life I suspect it will.

Here's a discussion about human beings outside of the abortion debate.

"The world population is the total number of living humans on the planet Earth, currently estimated to be 6.93 billion by the United States Census Bureau.[1]"

They counted fetuses, right?

I'm not conceding the point because I don't think I need too. I made this statement which you haven't denied.

And then have gone to work showing that a fetus is a human being.

Why does this (who benefits from the cells) matter? In case you can demonstrate the relevance of this question, my answer is that the fetus does work towards the mother's benefit as reproduction is good, and that is the function of the fetus.

Wait, I'm confused -- are you one of those people that counts age starting from conception? Assuming we are defining 'youngest' the same way, I'd go with 'somewhere between when consciousness forms and birth.'

Perhaps (since you brought up the concept of 'outside of the abortion debate' so it obviously holds great weight in your phenomenally rational and unemotional mind) you'd like to list some other examples where fetuses are counted as human beings?

In the US census if you were born after April 1st 2010 you did not get counted even if you spit up on the census worker doing the counts. Also if you died on April 1st 2010 but before the census worker got around to your house to count you...you still got counted.

So no they don't count fetuses and some infants but they do count dead people.

You presented a very weak argument there Bunny.

Err...I think you are mischaracterising misunderstood again. I didnt present an argument. I still havent expressed a view on whether a fetus is a human being, I'm just pointing out that, by your own 'outside the abortion debate' standard - fetuses are generally not considered human beings.

You seemed to regard this as important, so I'm just helping you form completely rational and consistent views.

EDIT: Also, the method isnt important. It's an estimate of the number of living human beings. Are they estimating the number of (fetuses + people who have been born) or just the number of people who have been born and havent yet died?

All irrelevant because this wasn't the statement I showed to be false. You were mischaracterizing the pro-choice position because I and others are pro-choice because we don't accept that the fetus is a human being. You claimed that we didn't hold this view. You also said you were unaware that we held this view:

Not only did I show that I do in fact hold this view (by claiming that I hold this view), but I also showed where you were previously presented with this view that you said you didn't think anyone was making.

How can you not concede that you were mischaracterizing my view? Are you seriously going to tell me what I believe? And how can you not concede that you knew that people held this view when it is a common part of the abortion debate, and was in fact something you responded to recently? This is absolutely ridiculous.

Sure, yes.

The census isn't an exact count. If it was the census workers would be running pregnancy tests on all female humans to see if they were pregnant. Fetus don't get counted because it isn't practical to count them not because they are not human beings.

By outside the abortion debate it should have been obvious I was talking about a scientific prespective....not a political one(in this country we used to count a black only as 3/5ths a person).

I await your citation for this "fact" with interest.

Anyhow, maybe you missed the edit. What are they estimating? I know it's not an exact count, that's irrelevant.
Well by asking "What kinds of entities are entitled to be considered in moral questions?" it should have been obvious I was looking for a moral discussion, not a political one. Doesnt seem to help me, either. I wonder why?

Earlier you said to the effect that the fetus is a conglomeration of constituent cells. Now you are saying the purpose of the conglomeration of those constituent cells is reproduction. If that is true would that mean a fetus is a reproductive organ?

Can you find any biology or medical text books which describes the fetus as a reproductive organ....I'll make it easier for you....have you ever heard of the fetus being describe as an organ...of any type?

The scientific evidence is quite clear that a fetus is a human being....I think you are really grasping at straws trying to argue that it isn't.

ps....I'm done for tonight.

No worries. Maybe tomorrow we can discuss the question:

"What kinds of entities are entitled to be considered in moral questions?"

Btw, Stu Pidasso. Since you mentioned my aversion to thought experiments, I've been mulling it over (since I dont actually object to them - I'm pretty sure I answer them all without quibbling over technicalities, don't I?) I think any objection is that they are focussed on issues that I (and presumably many other supporters of legalised abortion) find irrelevant. I think you'd do better with something like (for example):

Imagine two women, one who is pregnant in the very early stages and wants to have a baby and the second who has gone to quite some expense and effort to have a tattoo. Is it any worse to force the first to have an abortion (she'll still be able to have kids later) than it is to force the second to have the tattoo removed?

Well, for anyone who believes the fetus to be part of the mother, they would also have to believe the fetus to be an organ by definition. Does one need to explicitly state this in order to believe it?

Plus, I'm not sure I follow the logic all the way around. Are you saying, more or less, that since no science textbook says the fetus is an organ, then the fetus is not an organ, and therefore all I've said so far is wrong. What exactly would a scientist do to determine if the fetus is an organ or an individual organism? I think this would be essential to show if your claim is to have merit.

I doubt it. As I have been getting at, Stu will actively avoid talking about anything where he is wrong, and he just changes the topic instead of facing being wrong. I wouldn't expect him to entertain your 'difficult' questions.

I'm not 100% convinced. It appears to me he's being obtuse, but it may in fact be that he is so utterly convinced he's correct (that being a human being is what entitles one to be considered morally) that he doesnt see the point in talking about a question with such an obvious answer.

Irrespective, I think the main reason to argue with opponents of abortion is not to persuade them they are correct but rather to point out that their preferred framing of the debate is not the only way to approach the issue (and in this case, not the correct way, imo). Every time he tries to 'trap' me into admitting or ruling out that a fetus is a human being I will continue to point out that what matters is whether a fetus is entitled to be treated morally not whether it is 'a human', 'an individual', 'a separate entity' or anything else.

It's hard to avoid falling into a discussion about irrelevancies, however I think it's more fruitful to ignore the rabbit hole of 'what is a human being?' and instead focus on whether we should allow abortion in some instances.

There is some truth in that.

You guys got your panties all bound up when I said:

I've accepted as true the assumption that the earliest stage of a human being is an embryo(really a zygote) and given that assumption being true I think the above statement is correct. Pro-choicers may think something different but the above statement is a consequence of the assumption being true...at least from my frame of referrence.

Now Bunny dismisses it because he doesn't think its relavent and gangsta dismisses it because he thinks a fetus is reproductive organ(sorry gangsta but I really think that position is utterly preposterious)

I agree to that.

A fetus has a heart...how many organs have thier own heart. A fetus has an independent nervous system....how many organs have their own nervous system. A fetus has a distinct DNA....how many organs have a distinct DNA. A fetus has limbs..how many organs have limbs?

Any scientist worth his salt would never claim a fetus is an organ because it isn't anything close to an organ. Only people who try to justify abortion as not the killing of a human would claim a fetus is an organ. You're going to pull a muscle if you keep stretching like that.

In one instance you harm (by your act of force) one human being in the other you harm two human beings.

One criteria I would use is future expectation of personhood.

There is not rabbit hole of "what is a human being". A human being is an individual organism of the species homosapien.

The rabbit hole is which human beings it is okay to kill and for what reasons.

In this country some guy named Scott Peterson is on death row for two counts of murder. He was convicted of first degree murder for the killing of Laci Peterson and second degree murder for killing Laci's unborn child. The census doesn't count fetuses because it isn't practical but the law does consider the unborn as human beings.

The reason abortion is not murder in this county is because murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is considered the lawful killing of a human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act

Children in utero are consider legal victims of crime.

"The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species **** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

The law of the land in the United States is that an embryo is a human being.

I could describe any organ and then ask how many other organs share those characteristics. The answer would always be zero, but that wouldn't prove anything.