I'm sorry but your claim that a fetus is an organ is utterly ridiculous. A fetus isn't a reproductive organ. It is the product of the reproductive organs.

I think a lot of pro-lifers assume that there's some sort of syllogism that says that because a fetus is a member of the same species at a different level of development, everything that possibly applies to a born human being must apply to it. But that's not true at all.

It's perfectly plausible to argue that just like you don't get to vote or enter into contracts until your 18th birthday, you don't have a right to your life until you are born or until you are viable.

The ACTUAL abortion debate is as to what you think of the reasons women have abortions. Since I think gender equality is really really really important, I want to make sure that women never have to be forced to endure pregnancies and have children they don't want to, and since that cannot be fully reliably ensured at the contraceptive stage (which many religious people also oppose anyway), that means legal abortion. To me that's compelling. To religious folks who tend to not think the interests of women being able to act independently of men and have their own sex lives are that important, those same reasons are trivial.

But that's the abortion debate. It has nothing to do with whether the fetus is a member of the species **** sapiens, because the fetus is also not the same as a born baby.

EDIT: One other thing to note. The fetus is an intruder. There is a such a thing as justifiable homicide, and it is perfectly plausible to say that while a fetus would have a right to life were it not within a woman's uterus, just like in many jurisdictions you can shoot a trespasser in your home.

As I said, this is really a debate about women's rights, and pro-lifers hate to talk about their views on women's rights. If you want to know how pro-lifers actually feel about women's rights, read Kristen Luker's classic "Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood". It turns out being pro-life strongly correlates with rejecting feminism. Who knew?

Because its okay to sometimes kill members of the **** sapien species for matters of convience....correct? Cause if the real abortion debate centers around who is worthy of moral consideration then its okay to kill members of the homosapien species for convience as long as they are not worthy of moral consideration.

Correct?

Yep, when you run out of arguments, either change topics or just call the other side ridiculous. Your tactics will never fail you!

The "ridiculous" statement came only after utterly destroying your argument(claim really since you never put forth much an argument) that the fetus is a reproductive organ.

And this is the scientific not political context you were speaking of earlier, correct?

I object to the word "rests". I have no problem with you concluding that my position results in murdering humans for convenience. Rests implies that I share this view.

EDIT: this isn't really a fair characterization anyhow. I don't really mind what you say about me. What bothers me is your obstinate refusal to argue the point of difference whilst presenting your arguments as an attack on "the pro-choice" position.

I think you misunderstand. I was providing a thought experiment for your use, not posing one I thought you'd find difficult.

some supporters of legalized abortion will say it's not as bad to forcibly remove a tattoo.

It is exactly what you asked for....another example of fetuses being counted as human beings.

You can't get much stronger than that can you?

When you say "another" - what is the census estimating? You really claim it's including unborn people?

I don't expect you to share my veiws. I wouldn't even say your veiw results in murdering for convience because murder is the unlawful killing....Your veiw results simply in killing for convience.

If you say "view x rests on belief y" I see it as implying that x is deduced from y or that y is a more fundamental or primitive belief.

I would prefer "prochoice position leads to the killing of humans for convenience".

From an occasional census and a study of fertility rates it possible to always have a good estimate of the current population.

I have already claimed in this thread the census excludes unborn and born people and includes dead people.

Im not sure why you are hung up on census methodology as a means to make moral decisions regarding abortion.

That is a true statement as well.

Utterly destroyed by ... claiming it to be wrong??

By the way, it should be noted that I didn't call the fetus an organ from the start, but that instead was the logical conclusion of my position

fyp

You can continue knowingly mischaracterizing the pro-choice position if you want, but that only hurts your image as an honest poster.

I didnt mention the methodology - you did.

I pointed out that 'human being' (what the various population measures are trying to estimate) is routinely used to refer to those who have been born.

Of course, my example was irrelevant being political and not the scientific context you obviously intended - like that found in a piece of US legislation.

I dont think either is. The difference is that the first one implies I agree with it. The second is just a statement of your opinion.

You agree with this yourself, so I'm not sure why you're asking as if its some sort of point against those who oppose you on this.

It's a byproduct of the intensely rational and emotion-free way in which he forms and defends his views. You wouldn't understand.

haha, the new atheist bunny is quite a bit more feisty than the theist bunny.

like.

Do you feel intellectually comfortable calling a fetus and organ instead of an organism?

What do you think of this bioethicists argument?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4857703

I don't think I am mischaracterizing the pro-choice position. I maintain that the characterization is correct if the unborn are human beings. I think most pro choicers who have given serious thought about the nature of the unborn, would admit that the unborn are human beings but not worthy of moral consideration.

Neither you or bunny have offered a compelling argument that a fetus is not a human being or even if the fetus is a human then the characterization inaccurate.

You've simply said the fetus is not a human being and bunny has simply said it is irrelavent if it is...but even if it is irrelavent that does not necessarily mean the characterization is inaccurate.

You brought up the census. I answered. You brought it up again hence the questioning your fascination with it.

hai stu you missed this...