I'd say you are.

Again, a simple hint. ANYONE who characterizes my pro-choice beliefs without using the words "gender equality" is mischaracterizing them, because that is the fundamental basis of them.

Ah, yes. Now i remember going down this road before with you regarding you saving your drowning child over another. I think i'll bow out of this one because I know where this ends (with you switching definitions in an attempt to support your position).

However if 1 were true then it would be very difficult for you to justify abortion irregardless of the truthfulness of 5. That is exactly why my statement isn't a mischaracterization and the claims from Bunny and Gangsta man that it is are flawed. Being prochoice depends on either 1 or 2 being true. I've already stated that my characterization requires 2 being true.

Yes. You see how this works?

I'm rearranging your post to increase the clarity of my response. Hope no one minds/notices.

The name hasn't mattered to me yet -- you're the one that brought it up. I'm fine with calling a fetus a 'not-organism.' I don't care how you classify it past that, it's really irrelevant to me. You can insist that I should care more, but that doesn't take away from my position or advance yours -- if anything, it just shows you again not understanding the other side of this debate.

Yes, please appeal to my emotions! They are the weak side of me, and I'm sure you can turn me pro-life with pictures.

Btw, is this a bear? It surely looks more like a bear than an insect/worm, but apparently I've got the closeness of relationships wrong.



EDIT: btw, you wouldn't even need to link me to pictures. I've held in my own gloved hands a miscarried fetus. That has not changed my life.

Uh-huh. You also think abortion is always wrong, so we've seen where 'what Stu Pidasso would think' gets us.
One where she chooses to have a harder life and/or to be more miserable.

There's probably a benefit to every choice (the doctor earns a fee - is that now my motivation?)

The reason gender equality is something that is desired is because it presumably adds to the happiness and comfort of women. It is a convience.

Is this an indication you want to discuss it then?

I didnt take "one criteria I would use..." as an answer. I presumed you were trying to allude to some presumed contradiction in my presumed beliefs.

Presumably you dont think this is the sole criteria?

I disagree. Perhaps the killed human being wants to die but my reason for acting is for the other's benefit. Perhaps human beings arent all worthy of moral consideration. Etcetera...

We'll be able to address this once we've resolved:

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

What number am I thinking of?

I said presumably because I don't believe that gender equality is necessarily a benefit to women. For instance I think men should be preferred over women in choosing individuals to be drafted into military service. In a world with true gender equality there should be no preference between sexes.

Wow, that's really your reason for supporting gender equality? It's an oddly sexist sounding answer. Nothing about how equality is good in and of itself/discrimination is bad, but just that it makes them feel better???

Even if you mean good by this, it just sounds off.

This would make for a very interesting derail.

Because it's not necessarily a benefit it therefore follows that it adds to their happiness and comfort and is a convenience?

Irrespective of your motivation in presuming to determine lawdude's reasons for desiring gender equality - the fact remains that continuing to attribute motivation to someone without actually asking the person is silly. Furthermore generalising from one individual's answer (or from your presumption of what their answer would be) is ludicrous - people have all kinds of reasons for things.

It would be wrong for someone to say that you oppose abortion because you have been indoctrinated by catholicism and have never really thought through the issue yourself. It doesnt matter whether that attribution applies to someone or even to a majority - it doesnt apply to you and you're the person we're talking to so we shouldnt act like it does and then 'derive contradictions' from a position you dont hold. It's just silly.

If you agreed with the statement then you would not be able to hold a prochoice position.

Depending on how I defined human being. The way you do or the way many people do when they speak of human being will each yield a different answer.

EDIT: We'll be able to address this once we've resolved:

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

Did you not see my agree with that statement, or did you not see declare that I hold the prochoice position? Once again, if you plan on telling me what I believe, then you are being quite ridiculous as I know my own beliefs better than you know my beliefs.

Are you expecting that by asking this repeatedly, it will eventually get addressed? I've lost hope already.

This is why I have been dismissing your question as irrelavent.

Consider the following:

1. All human beings are worthy of moral consideration.
2. All fetuses are human beings.
3. Therefore all fetuses are worthy of moral consideration.

Now if you disagree with 1 then my characterization is correct as I have already stated my characterization assumes 2 is true(which is why I have been arguing with Gangsta about the nature of the unborn).

You are pro-choice because you think a fetus is not a human being...which is ridiculous(imo).

That looks like an individual organism to me.

People who seek gender equality presumes it add comfort and happiness...hence my use of the word. The actual effect is irrelavent....only their motivation in desiring it.

And are your mystical powers of knowingwhatgenderequalityfanspresume as accurate as your powers of knowingwhatmotivatesprochoiceadvocates?

You think it's irrelevant to discuss what kinds of entities are worthy of moral consideration when trying to determine whether all human beings are worthy of moral consideration?

Well I'm not sure on the alternative. I can go down whatever path stu pidasso wants to, but I suspect he'll end up producing some apparently immoral position based not on what I think but based on forcing me to implicitly accept his premises.

Given that seems unhelpful it appears to me that continually pointing out where his implicit assumption lies may be illuminating to those looking to evaluate his position. After all, given he's so interested in nailing down the conclusions of ones beliefs it may strike them as odd that he's unwilling to answer such a fundamental moral question.

Responding to his various outlandish (and demonstrably false) claims about "the" prochoice position by pointing out the actual point of difference at least keeps their attention focussed on the issue (rather than the diagnostic and forensic skills of our scientists, or the definition of "organ").