I can't think of too many situations where I think it okay to take the life of a human being. Off hand the two that come to mind are self defense and just wars....but I wouldn't classify these actions as matters convience.

They absolutely are a matter of convenience.

Care to explain why you don't feel they are, but abortion is?

Methodology. Census.

I'll keep it simple.

If God wants you to have children, it would be moronic to assume that you'd be able to stop him.

Following the will of God is not interesting to me..

The possibility of abortion allows us to live in a more civilized world..

Example : Girl that I'm mad about can come visit me at home, cause if I decide to rape her, she can still give me the finger. If abortion was illegal, then well... Slowplay until the river.. ALL IN!

Keep in mind that even if you increase the penalty for rape, the mother simply does not benefit from the father doing time in jail, so the abolition of abortion will inevitably result in a drastic change in courtship. We might have to go into arranged marriages again...

There's a REASON for these laws and it's for the benefit of society.

A much more important issue is whether many Catholic rules, rituals, and "sin" are actually biblical. So much idolatry in Catholicism. Read the bible!

Unless I'm getting the definition of 'organ' wrong, I'm fine with it.

I'm not really sure what the argument is. The article doesn't really give reasons for why it's right. A lot seems to rely on DNA, but there is no mention why having a full set of DNA makes one an individual. Gametes don't count since they only have half the DNA -- but why does this matter?

It seems to describe a zygote and fetus, and then say that those are the characteristics that define a new life. Seems a bit circular to me.

Bunny addressed this nicely by objecting to the word 'rests.' No matter if the fetus is a human being or not, pro-choicers do not, as a whole, support abortions due to us supporting the killing of some human beings for the convenience of others. Even if we are wrong about the status of the fetus, the thought process does not pass through the point of thinking that killing for convenience is ok. This is what you somehow keep missing.

Oh. Well that's alright then.

Except by suggesting that there is one.
Bunny hasnt said that. Bunny has said it's irrelevant to settle the question without first deciding what kinds of things are entitled to consideration in moral questions.

FWIW, I think whether a fetus is a human is a relevant question (based on my answer to the first question you seem mysteriously unable to notice). However, we're not going to be able to have a sensible discussion about it without first settling the first.
Saying 'X rests on belief Y' implies that without believing Y you cannot come to believe X is true. That's the mischaracterisation.

Engaging in a just war or defending yourself from harm does not add to ones ease or comfort.

why does anyone have any say in another persons private life? i don't understand!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(anatomy)

If the fetus is an organ what is the main tissue that is unique to it?

"The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development."


Why do pro-choicers, as a whole, support abortion? Isn't it because you guys feel it would make the life of the mother easier/happier?

Which of the following isn't true or does not follow?

1. It is wrong to kill one human being to improve the comfort and happiness of another.
2. A fetus is a human being.
3. Abortion is the action of killing a fetus.
4. Therefore it is wrong to abort a fetus to improve the comfort and happiness of another human being.
5. Pro choicers support abortion rights because it improves the comfort and happiness of others

It seems to me that to be pro-choice you must have issue with either 1. 2. or 5. Which one do you as a pro-choicer have issue with and if it is number 5 can you then give a reason why you support abortion rights?

Oh, so that's a required part of an organ? Like, having a unique main tissue is part of the definition?

In case it happens to be and wiki is just reading wrong, then I would take it back and the fetus isn't an organ, it's just tissue. The name doesn't really matter to me and I don't know why it matters to you. Separate organism or not is the question we're discussing, and anything else is just a distraction.

Repeating the assertion does not explain the assertion.

Yes. Is this supposed to be some sort of concession from me? It's as if you took the part of your claim that you knew we all agreed with to show that I agree with you, while leaving out the part that's actually in question right now. Seems fishy to me.

This pretty obviously depend on the answer to:

"What kinds of entities should be considered in moral decisions?"
We can sort these out once we've answered the important ethical question.
This is bound to be wrong, in the same way that "people oppose abortion because they have a psychological need to control others" is wrong. It may well be true for some, but as it isnt essential to hold the view in order to be opposed to abortion it is incorrect to ascribe it to all.
Yes it does. Leaving aside your telepathic powers for the moment:

"What kinds of entities should be considered when making moral decisions?"

No. There are times I would support abortion even if if would make the mother's life harder and/or more miserable. In fact, I think there are such situations.

I gave you a reply to this question in post 121.

Okay I will change 1. so you can no longer nit pick it.

1. It is always wrong to kill one human being for the comfort and happiness of another human being.

Now you should be able to say whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Does it matter to you that I agree with this? I only support killing in self-defense (I don't know what counts to you under 'just wars' but I only support wars in self-defense as well).

Bunny I would think the vast majority of pro-choicers would give the same answer as gangstaman. What kind of cases would you support abortion even if it made the mothers life harder and/or more miserable? Are those cases such that some other human being benefits from the abortion?

Well, I also support all abortions that make the mother miserable, so long as it's her choice. Those cases don't happen to be my shining light that holds me steady in this position, however.

Tissues are what make up organs and organs are what make up a human beings. A fetus has tissues which make up organs. To call a fetus a tissue is being a bit disingenious. A more accurate description would be to say a fetus is a collection of organs....which is what you also happen to be.

The fact which is very difficult for you to dispute is that a fetus more closely resembles you...i.e. an individual organism than a particular organ or some collection of tissues.

If you want I can link some pictures of aborted fetuses and you can decide for yourself if they look more like individual organisms or simply tissue.

And name doesn't matter much to me....it matters to you. It matters to you because if you can somehow name a fetus as being something other than an individual organism then you can justify your prochoice position.

You use this word "convenience", which undervalues women and proves my point about pro-lifers and women's rights. Someone who actually cared about the needs of women and the reality of unplanned pregnancies would not characterize an abortion as a matter of "convenience".

That said, it is, in fact, OK to kill certain members of the **** sapien species if they are inside a uterus and the owner of that uterus doesn't want them there. Because, as I said, membership in the **** sapien species alone doesn't mean you have a right to life.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, yes, since Roe, which held that fetuses have different rights at different stages of development, came down, pro-lifers have been scrambling to pass as many statutes as they can that say that fetuses have the same rights as born babies. However, Roe (as modified by Casey) is still settled law. Those statutes do not prove anything and do not extend beyond their precise terms.

As I said, I really don't care if the fetus is an organism, because that doesn't establish a right to trespass within a woman's body and live there for nine months. That said, though, if you really love these fetus versus organ type arguments, when, exactly, does the life of an identical twin begin? Is an unsplit zygote one life or two? And if it is one life, is it one of the twins, or an entirely different person who was killed when the zygote split?

I don't really care what the answers to these questions are, of course. I only raise them to point out that if you insist on devaluing the lives of real women who require gender equality and sexual freedom to talk about this issue in pure abstractions, the pro-life position has problems on the abstract level too.

Bunny would you say I am mischaracterizing Lawdudes prochoice beliefs?

1 is wrong with respect to fetuses who have invaded a woman's uterus and threaten to hijack her life for nine months, both because the fetus is not at a stage of development where he or she has interests that are worthy of trumping the interests of the woman, and also because the interests of the woman in gender equality and sexual freedom far exceed the theoretical interest of a fetus in his or her life.

4 is wrong because 1 is wrong.

5 is partially wrong. Pro-choicers support abortion rights, fundamentally, because they support gender equality and sexual freedom for women and because they correctly realize that fetuses aren't very important and don't have the same interests as born babies.