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

I was going to make a general reply, but these two points are (in my opinion) rather fundamental.I'm pro-choice - but I am decidedly NOT "pro abortion". I wish there were NO unnecessary abortions. i wish there were NO abortions. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world, so since time immemorial there have been abortions - both spontaneous and induced, and having them not available only ever really hurts the woman and their existing families.As has been said earlier in this thread, MOST "pregnancies" end up with spontaneous abortions that the "mother" never even notices.Having sex, if you want to be picky about it, kills about, what, 150+ million sperm? And that's even IF a pregnancy results (whether it aborts or not).But let's carry on a bit - a woman gets pregnant. If she's lucky, it's not due to rape or incest or dumb-fuck ignorance. she's got this bundle of cells inside her, growing.Before we even take a single peek at whether she wants it or not, you have to answer the question of "name the person in this equation."If you're a smart-arse and say there's two, then tell me, what is your thought on slavery?If YOU would deny the right of SOME OTHER PERSON to choose what they do with their body, then you're not pro- or anti- abortion, you're pro-slavery first and foremost.Like it or not, but demanding that a woman is subject not only to something within her own body, but to somebody else's whim and somebody else's penis turns a woman into the lowest form of slave - nothing less and certainly nothing more than cattle, nothing more than breeding stock and as much as I hate abortions, I hate that more.Like it or not, the only logical thing to do since we're living in a non-perfect world where abortions happen one way or another, and where contraception isn't perfect (ESPECIALLY not "abstinence"), is to state that at some point, a fetus is NOT a person under the law, and not only that but even if it is dangerously close, that the life of the mother (should she choose to exercise her right to life) trumps that of the fetus.The truth is, most of the fuss about abortions is to do with very late-term abortions that are a minor, minor part (something like less than 2%) and are ONLY done when not doing it is worse for the the mother or fetus than an abortion (what's worse than death? How about hideous pain and torture and THEN death).What gets right up my nose is the lies told by "pro-life" people who don't care about the life of a woman - they say that abstinence works (it never has, it never will). They say the condom doesn't work (it does, and is one of the most effective forms of not only contraceptive but prophylactic). They say the pill kills "babies" when the pill actually does three things:

• prevents ovulation - NO EGG


• prevents fertilization - NO FETUS


• and if all else fails, very rarely, prevents the fertilized egg bonding with the cell wall - at a stage far below consciousness and the standard result of most unprevented and successful pregnencies

They talk as if only insane women (surely to stupid to be real people and to have thought things through) would want an abortion, when the reality is a bit different:Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone SolutionsSo yeah, i get worked up - it's not difficult when the catholic church (for example) have recently come to light for systematically covering up rape and paedophilia within their own ranks and see rape, paedophilia and incest as a non-crime, but the abortion to save the life of the girl raped by her father is a crime for which (on second thoughts) they wouldn't only have condemned the doctors and the mother but the child too.It's not only the catholic church - there are horrific tales of a woman who went to the police because she was RAPED, and they subsequently chucked her and her boyfriend in gaol, but forgave the rapist (well, his punishment was little more than a slap on the wrist). It's not difficult when a female soldier who got pregnant in the army (yes, she was stupid) was forced to give herself an abortion and almost died because she wasn't allowed one, and was summarily discharged for something that's not illegal.It's not difficult to get worked up at all.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

I'm sure you meant mere hyperbole when comparing abortion to nuclear holocaust, so I'll not talk too much about off-topic things like choosing the lesser of two evils.I wish you hadn't ignored the rest of the statement though - you go straight into "responsibility" and bypass the whole "most women don't have the right to choose not to have sex" thing, along with the "most women don't get to use contraception" thing.I might have "utopian" values (thanks! Glad to see you'd like the world I describe) but at least I don't have my head in the clouds.Plenty of women get raped, plenty of women are forced to have sex for one reason or another. Plenty of women do not have access to either prophylactics or contraceptives.There is no talk of "responsibility" in those cases.Ignoring those, you're getting to the thing I *was* talking about - there are seemingly enough women out there who have been lied to about the condom, lied to about human nature (abstinence, once again, doesn't work) and lied to about the pill, and for some reason they think abortion is a valid form of birth control.I would hope, sincerely, that you agree with me that it should not be. I don't think it should be that difficult in western society to bring down abortions considerably - and that's IF the abortions that are happening now are due to mainly ignorance. You haven't heard? That every sperm is sacred? I thought we were talking about the creation of life here?It's not my belief, but some religious people think masturbation is evil because it kills sperm, but those same people don't seem to understand that even in sex, 149,999,999 of 150,000,000 "die" - the key here is a little perspective.I'm glad you don't think anything that stupid, right? The interesting thing about pregnancy is that if you want to be melodramatic enough, you could use the same arguments for either side. Lets take your slavery notion.[/qs]You missed the important word - person. You ignored my reasoning. A woman - a thinking, feeling, reasoning, articulate woman, MUST be considered above an unthinking, unfeeling, unreasoning and, yes, inarticulate fetus up until such time as the fetus is viable outside the womb - you are aware that is, essentially, the text of the roe vs wade decision?Before the point that the fetus can survive as an independant entity, it is not a person and it has no rights - and certainly should never have rights that trump that of a person who most assuredly does. I think you meant that it's not slavery to "force her to deal with the baby" ?Well it is, that's the 13th amendment.

quote:

---

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

​

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

quoted from wikipedia. They have no natural right to life because the fetus is not a person - at the point it is, it DOES.I am saying that before the fetus can live by itself, it is not a person and therefore has no rights, because otherwise the inalienable rights that the woman has are violated. So what about rape and incest?so what about the rights of the woman - a person under the law? Does a woman have no rights the second a penis enters her body? I totally agree - the ruling in the american courts was something like "until doctors, biologists, philosophers and theists can come up with a unified, central statement proving when life begins, it is not the purdue of the courts to mandate one".So, their ruling instead talked about personhood (I'm quite sure parts of this are horribly wrong, please feel free to correct me) - and their definition was such that until a fetus can survive independantly, it is not to be considered a person.That means first trimester abortions without question, second trimester abortions in the case of harm to the mother or fetus, and third "late term" trimester abortions only in life-threatening situations for the mother or fetus. The late-term abortions are a really small percentage, and the first two trimesters are before there is any sort of nervous system.I happen to think that's pretty sensible, but I wish (sincerely) that more would be done to bring down the number of abortions rather than to make abortions illegal (which doesn't bring the numbers down, it just makes it a crime and harms those who need one).Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

In the US, the stated reasons give this 1% - like all statistics you should take it with a grain of salt. I think it likely that a woman, when offered a way out that would cause less trouble for herself or her family would take it rather than say her boyfriend pressured her...of course, hard to prove, no?The stated reasons still give at least 7% for health, rape or incest reasons - and by the sound of it you wouldn't deny those women an abortion (at least I hope not) and I think you'd want the same as me and want the other 93% to come down.The thing that worries me is things like this: In my book, if few have the resolve to abstain then it is a failed method because nobody can do it reliably. This is one of the reasons that contraception is listed not only in terms of the ideal result but in terms of the general working result.This is one reason why religious communities often have a far higher rate of abortions; abject ignorance and misinformation and "not being responsible about sex". NO!After a certain period of time, the fetus CAN survive by itself - survival does not mean fending for itself. Either you're being deliberately retarded or you're really that dumb. If it's the latter, then allow me to explain:survival in this context means the fetus can breathe by itself, grow by itself, eat by itself, crap by itself, move, see, hear and make sounds all by itself. This limit is usually put at about 24 weeks - before then, if a fetus is removed from the womb, no matter what you try to do, it will die. Yes a baby is helpless, but that's not the same thing as being unable to survive. No, I'm comparing forcing a woman to servitude to somebody else's whim with slavery. Sadly, yes - her body, her rules.The second it becomes possible for a man to be pregnant, and/or to swap uteri, this "issue" will go away. The government? Seriously though, we're talking about legal personhood, and that can only be granted by the government the same way it can be taken away if you end up in guantanamo. you're 12 weeks too late with that definition of personhood (24 weeks!)- unless you're a biblical literalist who sees life as beginning with the first breath (after actual birth). If you're a roman, you get to say what happens to your kids until they're adults.We happen to live in a society where personhood has been pushed back to 24 weeks of gestation thanks to the scientific method.My finger has human DNA through and through, yet I can cut if off if I want. So do both of my arms, both hands, my legs...If I thought my legs were becoming a "burden", should I be allowed to cut them off? They are, to all intents and purposes, human? I think adoption is a fine idea, and for people who can't have kids naturally it's going to be the only way they can "have kids" - and in no way am I suggesting that adoption should be made illegal or replaced with infanticide. The thing is, I'm not a woman and even if I were, I do not believe I could say what somebody else should do. All I can say is that somebody else should have choice.All I can say is that people who weren't using condoms or the pill (or other forms of contraception), or weren't using them properly should be primarily educated about the consequences and offered the alternatives a long, long time before they should have to choose. This is, indeed, part of the reasoning behind Roe vs Wade - a citizen's right to privacy. Before it was legalized, women DIED from abortions in far larger numbers, and many more were injured. Now it's safe (unless some pro-lifer decides to shoot you). There have always been "methods" available (the trusty rusty coathanger for one), and in my mind the "alternative" to safe, legal abortion is far worse.As I said, I'm really rather pro-life, and more should be done to lower the number of abortions - but rationing and guilt-tripping is NOT the way to do it.

Personally? Yes, I would. I would do so because it is so arbitrary a limit - but right now, it's the only practical one.At some point you hit my other personal limit which is "ability to think and feel" which would say that, ability for the fetus to grow or not, below this biological limit and sort of complex conscious thought is impossible - so you can "do what you like" (within ethical reason).Same reason I think people in PVS shouldn't be kept alive against their pre-defined wishes nor against the wishes of those in a position to make such decisions.

I agree!Whatever we do, unless we have a practical test that can be administered with results that can be quantified, we will be setting arbitrary limits.There's no practical difference between somebody who is 15 years and 364 days old and somebody who is 16 years old exactly, yet sex with that person would not be legal in most countries in the world.There's no practical difference between somebody who is 17 years and 365 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes old, yet they can't legally drink alcohol until 60 seconds later...I think the upshot of my reasoning is that I would keep 24 weeks as an upper limit for most cases. At some point in the future, we may grow up as a species and make pregnancy impossible unless actually wanted, and there WILL be no unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.

I'm surprised you don't know - the reason such a crime is on the books is because of a sneaky lobbyist group of interested people who would like to see abortion made illegal!Tired of going against Roe vs Wade directly, they have tried to sneak in the back.First they make it a crime against the fetus for somebody who attacks a woman and harms the fetus.Then they change tack - why, they say, if it's a crime to harm a fetus, are we allowing abortion?many people, whilst agreeing with the sentiment, disagree very vehemently with those sort of laws because of who wants them on the books and what the final result is - nothing about justice and everything to do with denying women rights.

given that it's such a topic for a very vocal minority and something that, like you say, most people don't on the surface disagree with, would you really be surprised?did you look at who was behind it?

This strikes me more as "you said so" than "god said so" (the "you" here is collective, not CS or anyone else in particular) - we keep hearing how god is omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent, yet it seems he is unable to stop a condom from not tearing, a doctor from performing an abortion or, indeed, nature itself aborting (something like) 4 out of every 5 fetuses.The righteous (or innocent) but unbaptized go to pergatory - if something like 100 billion humans have ever lived, wouldn't that put purgatory as holding something like 500 billion souls?who the hell creates THAT kind of universe? four legs good, two legs baaad - and all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?I really, really don't like that sentence and can't find much to redeem it if it is meant as a judgement call rather than a statement of "how the world works".