Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

As would any unconceived baby. It is just that the "given a chance" mechanism is different in the two cases. I think that is Dawkins point anyway. I guess the difference is that one is a person who is out of action whilst in the case of the foetus it never even reached the person stage. If true then I think you have a good and interesting point here. Acceptable as in morally acceptable? If we follow your thinking to it's natural conclusion then do we end up with the "every sperm is sacred" mentality?But Dawkins point (which I think I broadly agree with) is that the exact same thing is happening naturally all of the time. Yet we don't give a second thought about those. If we really cared about saving the "lives" of the potentially conscious we wouldn't concentrate on abortion. We would concentrate on a "cure" to save all of those trillions of unconceived babies.

At what point is this dividing line between life having been created and not created? There is no "point". there is no "moment". The entire process is graduated to some degree. There used to be a guy here who advocated that nobody be deemed a full human being until they reached the age of 1.I didn't agree with this but it did help to make the point that any such distinction is almost entirely arbitrary within certain boundaries that we could all (well... most) probably agree upon. It will always come down to what is considered "human" and what isn't. And this will always be necessarily arbitrary to a large degree in biological terms.Cancer cells are alive and contain a persons DNA. But we don't fret about eliminating those. Thus there must be more to an argument than that simplistic biological one.Most legislation in the Western world makes abortion up to X weeks legal (in the UK I believe it is 24 weeks but that anything after 12 weeks is difficult to obtain). These laws are necessarily arbitrary to some degree although science can inform the decision in terms of things like assessing levels of cognitive awareness at different stages of development etc.Ultimately there is no biological "point" at which we can meaingfully declare a fetus to be human. Thus I think we need to get past defining that "point" as any sort of criteria upon which to make such judgements.

A baby of 24 weeks old will need to be put in an incubator in order to stand any chance of survival though won't it?As medical science progresses we may well be able to take a foetus of only a few weeks old and keep that alive external to the mother too. Would you lower the abortion threshold to take such developments into account?I am pro-choice and I even get what you are saying re the whole "independent life" thing. But I still think that the abortion threshold is necessarily arbitrary to some extent and that this is a case of attempting to define some "point" in terms of biology when no such "point" exists.

Well you are being consistent and I agree that it is currently the right practical limit.Where things get more blurry for me is if medical science does progress and a woman doesn't want to have a baby and wants termination after a few weeks of pregnancy what do we do? Do we abort it? Do we remove it and develop it external to the mother? The honest answer for me here is that I don't know. I would be tempted to keep things as they are now on the basis that it works as a pragmatic compromise. Again as a broad indicator that is fine. But law requires definites whilst biology doesn't provide definites. So once again 24 (weeks or whetever) becomes an arbitrary legal thing. Nobody sane would say that a fetus of 23 weeks and 6 days was significantly less aware than a fetus that was 24 weeks and 1 day old. But we need an arbitrary legal limit for the law to be applied. I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia in principle but I think the arguments are slightly different. But that is another topic.

As I understand it this is not the case. As I understand it the moment of conception is fraught with gradualistic realities. Firstly sometimes more than one sperm penetrates the egg and it takes time for the egg to eject those extra chromosones. And even once we are down to a single sperm it can be over a day before the genes of the sperm and egg combine. And then another day for the new genome to control the cell. So the "moment" of conception is more like a 48 hour period. And then approx 70% of those eggs that are fertilised never implant in the uterus and are sponataneously naturally aborted. So when is this "moment" of conception?And if you really want to save "lives" should you not be advocating that we try and save the 70% that get naturally aborted rather than worry about the tiny percentage that get intentionally aborted? If you think they are all human beings from the "moment" of conception? Left to nature most fertilised eggs are naturally aborted. Are you advocating that we should try and save all those lost "human beings"?When exactly does a bunch of mindless cells become a human being? And are you going to apply your definition consistently regardless of whether the abortion is natural or otherwise?Dude - By your criteria human beings are being unknowing flushed down the toilet all the time. 70% of humanity lost. Surely we must take action against this tragic loss? Or is maybe your criteria for a "human being" somewhat impractical?

Distinct from the mother in what sense? And is not "distinct from the mother" the exact same argument made by those who advocate that the abortion threshold should be set on the basis of when the fetus can survive independently of it's mother? Is that not in fact the basis of current abortion laws? Is that not what you are opposing here? You have defined a fertilised egg as a "human being". Do you think it desirable that all conceptuses reach full term? If you really wanted to save "human lives" (as per your definition) we should be desperately researching the tragic loss of "human life" that makes up the majority of conceptuses. The majority never implant in the uterus post fertilisation. A collection of cells incapable of thought or feeling of any sort. Harm to what? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus. They are lost in most cases without anyone ever even knowing they existed. Thus if a conceptus is considered a human being (as you have defined it to be) the majority of humanity is being unknowingly flushed down the loo. I got the 70% figure from a book. But I can look this up if you want?

The figure of 70% I got from a book I happen to be (re)reading at the moment. The relevant quote is on page 225. A cursory search (looking up abortion on wiki) reveals the following: I assume that the difference between the 70% figure and the 61.9% figure is due to the lower one only including those spontaneous natural abortions that occur pre-12 weeks. I have however not researched this extensively.But whatever the case it seems fairly well established that over 50% of all conceptuses effectively end up in the sewage system quite naturally. So by your definition of humanity the majority of "humans" are never born, most are never even known to have existed and over half of us end up unthinkingly flushed down the loo.It kind of puts into perspective the number of "human lives" you are "saving" by any change in abortion laws. No? Shouldn't you be advocating major research into natural abortion and the billions of "human lives" lost rather than complaining about a miniscule percentage of fetuses that are medically aborted? If saving "human life" (as you define it to be) is genuinely your goal here?Of couse that research would overpopulate the planet in no time if successful............Edited by Straggler, : Add link

Hyro
Now that we have established that the majority of fertilised human eggs never result in established pregnancies, much less birth, the rest of your argument comes tumbling down in an avalanche of inconsistency. In fact you seem more interested in exerting your misplaced moral outrage on others than on doing anything about the tragic loss of human life as you have defined it.Natural abortion is the biggest killer and threat to human life known to man. The life of over 50% of all humanity ends in this manner. By your definition of human and life. That means it is a bigger killer than all of the diseases, ailments and other forms of death you can name combined. But do you advocate that we divert research and treatment funding away from cancer, malaria, AIDS, heart disease, parasitic conditions etc. etc. etc. to tackle this number one killer? No. Of course not. Because when it comes down to it you no more consider these naturally aborted conceptuses as equivalent to genuinely lost human lives any more than I do.So why when it comes to medically aborting these exact same collections of cells that you are so utterly uncaring about when the are aborted naturally do you experience such ire and outrage? What compels you to use terms like kill, murder, human, distinct life and child in the context of a tiny handful of medical abortions whilst you simultaneously couldn’t give a rats testicle about the billions of biologically identical humans being unknowingly flushed down the toilet?Either these fertilised eggs are human (as you have defined them to be) and deserving of the same measures we would take to save the life of any other human being. Or we accept that in fact your definition of human in this context is actually rather silly.

Do you think it would be ethically apropriate to leave all those human beings dying of unintended causes (disease, parasites, accidents, heart attacks. whatever) to their fate? I think we should attempt to stop the unnecessary death of human beings. I think human life should be valued and that this is the point of both the medical profession and the laws against killing people. Because I think killing people is wrong. Because I value human life.The point is that I apply this value of human life consistently to that which I consider "human". Regardless of whether or not the death is intended or otherwise. Whilst those like Hyro (and I guess yourself) seem to condemn the intentional "killing" of conceptuses whilst being entirely unconcerned by the billions of biologically identical "human lives" flushed down the bog.It is inconsistent and smacks of having a misguided moral vendetta rather than a genuine concern for human life as you define it to be.

And where you can do something about it? Are you saying that if we redirected all the medical resources currently aimed at cancer for example that we could not save many of those lost conceptuses that never even make it to the implanting in the uterus stage of development? We would need to save only a small percentage in order to outstrip those that we can save from cancer. Untrue. I am happy to contribute my time and money to efforts to progress medical science in order to save people's lives. Likewise I would spend time and money advocating laws that prevent people killing others. I wouldn't however spend my time and money on research into saving otherwise unknowingly aborted fetuses. Because I don't think they are "human" in the way that you apparently do. Then why the fuck are you geting on your high horse about a few medical abortions rather than trying to redirect the entirety of medical resource into saving the billions of lost lives that are the result of by far the largest single factor in "human" death? Nemely the vast majority of natural abortions that go entirely unnoticed. No. I really mean this.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If they think unborn conceptuses are genuine human beings then they should be advocating that medical resources are directed to saving the most human lives. No? "Fully developed people"? Are you saying some humans are more "human" than others? Gosh CS you are on the verge of an epiphany here! It may have escaped your attention that I am not the one advocating that conceptuses are human beings. You claim that they are human beings when objecting to abortion whilst simultaneously being utterly apathetic as to the plight of literally billions of biologically identical entities suffering an identical fate through natural causes.It seems like you are on a moral witch hunt using "human life" as a justification whilst making absolutely no genuine attempt to save the most "human" lives possible. As per your own definition of "human".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well no I didn't actually realise that. Fair enough. Why wouldn't they? Unless they too realise that some "humans" are not as human as they are in fact claiming. The number of unintentional human deaths by natural abortion oustrips the number of medically aborted ones by a colossal factor. If they are primarily out to save lives rather than impose their morality on others and persecute others for their moral choices why do they not embrace that fact and tackle the real cause of "human" death? Then why don't you point these facts out to Hyro and others who advocate that point of view? In what sense is it "human" in any way that the billions of biologically identical identities unknowingly flushed into the sewars every day are also "human"? Why are those "humans" not worthy of anything but apathy whilst a trivially miniscule minority that are medically aborted cause such violent consternation? If billions of toddlers start randomly dying of natural causes do you think anyone would be as blase as they are about billions of conceptuses? "No big deal it's just natural causes. Nobody is intentionally killing them". Would we instead expend all our efforts and resources on the miniscule number of people who set out to intentionally kill toddlers? Or would we put every resource we have into solving the medical problem? Why the massive difference in perspective and emphasis between natural and intentional in the two cases?Because in reality even the pro-lifers don't really give a shit about the fate of a conceptus in the way that they do about real babies and toddlers. They just use that as an excuse to impose their self righteous moral nonsense on others.

When it comes to conceptuses yes. But not when it comes to letting genuine babies die naturally through lack of treatment.Until those who use terms like murder, babies, children and human life with regard to medically aborted conceptuses treat the natural death of billions of biologically identical conceptuses with the same level of concern that the would treat the natural and unintended death of billions of genuine human babies and children I don’t see how they can claim any sort of logical consistency or moral superiority. Explain to me how they can? Yet they would be against both artificial and untreated natural death of babies. Thus demonstrating that they are not interested in saving the lives of "human beings" as they define the term. But are instead intent on imposing their misguided and logically incoherent morality on others.

Well I think they are mad. But at least logically consistent. How many pro-lifers are willing to demonstrate the courage of their convictions in this manner? Not fucking many I would bet!! Right let's go through these one by painful one shall we? Then sick toddlers should be left to die from any natural cause they become afflicted with. Then it is OK to leave sick toddlers to die as long as we are not intentionally killing them. Then why not let nature take it's course with regard to sick toddlers? As long as we are not intentionally killing toddlers all is fine and dandy no? You have done nothing but evade the point.If conceptuses are "human babies" in the eyes of pro-lifers why don't they treat them as they would real human babies in terms of natural causes of death?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. I am accusing them of hypocrisy when they accuse people of "killing babies" and use that to justify their actions whilst simultaeously not giving a shit about something that is biologically identical. Personal irrationality I can cope with. We all do that all of the time. It is when it is used to justify hypocrisy and the imposition of ones irrationalities on others that I get vexed. Well the ones that don't (the vast majority I would say) are hypocrites when they start accusing others of murdering and killing babies. No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.