Those Against Abortion yet Pro-Capital Punishment and War

[Ghost of Jaco]

wow, given all the exceptions to your hard and fast rule that have popped up in just the last day or so, perhaps you need to revise your definition...

Haha! Hey, I intended only thoughtful debate, not absolute answers, lol!

Our current "model", if you will, has it's "corner cases" on both sides of the issue as well.

From a biological standpoint, how would you argue against my definitions? (I am really interested)

[Ghost of Jaco]

I'm sure cockroaches feel the same way about their eggs; would you not exterminate your home because you'd be destroying "God's little miracles"?

I reject your premise that cockroaches "feel" emotions.
And please do not interject God into a non-religious discussion of abortion.

[Exterminator]

To commit genocide you first have to depersonalize your intended victims so the general populace will stop finding the murder of such abhorrent. 
See: WWI, The Third Reich, Mein Kampf, the Holocaust, etc.

The German people allowed the Jewish Holocaust to occur because they had been conditioned by Hitler to view the Jews as something less than human.
Perhaps he called them "alive, but not really human beings".

Maybe he convinced the German people that the Jews were merely "non-viable clumps of cells", thereby making it quite easy to dispatch them with, well, dispatch.

Again, exactly the mindset that allows so-called pro-lifers to trivialize life as it relates to virtually every other species on the planet.  It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

[Exterminator]

I reject your premise that cockroaches "feel" emotions.

Reject it all you'd like but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

And please do not interject God into a non-religious discussion of abortion.

There is no such thing as a non-religious discussion of abortion.

[awol]

Haha! Hey, I intended only thoughtful debate, not absolute answers, lol!

Our current "model", if you will, has it's "corner cases" on both sides of the issue as well.

From a biological standpoint, how would you argue against my definitions? (I am really interested)

all you are trying to do is sidestep the whole "is it a living human being or not" debate, and define it as somebody else right from the bat.

how about measles and mumps?  geewhiz, nobody knows what they could become if properly gestated, maybe we should let them be.

[Ghost of Jaco]

I'm sure cockroaches feel the same way about their eggs; would you not exterminate your home because you'd be destroying "God's little miracles"?

I reject your premise that cockroaches "feel" emotions.
And please do not interject God into a non-religious discussion of abortion.

How is a cockroach any lessor form of "life" than a 2 wek old fetus, when it can make choices, exercise "will", choose a path?

Very good. If you want to put non-human creatures on the same plane as humans, then let's plug that into my logical "proof" and see what we get...
Well, by my logic if a woman has the right to kill her baby then we all, besides having the right to kill each other for any reason (or for no reason at all) have the right to bash the crap out of the baby Harp seals for their fur (or for ANY reason). Or hunt any species to extinction, for that matter.
On the other hand, if a person does NOT have a right to life and death over another person, than the baby Harp seals should be safe.

[Exterminator]

Very good. If you want to put non-human creatures on the same plane as humans, then let's plug that into my logical "proof" and see what we get...

Well, by my logic if a woman has the right to kill her baby then we all, besides having the right to kill each other for any reason (or for no reason at all) have the right to bash the crap out of the baby Harp seals for their fur (or for ANY reason).

...or to kill animals and eat them or wear their furs!

[Ghost of Jaco]

Reject it all you'd like but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

Then it's silly to use it as a premise for your argument, don't you think?

There is no such thing as a non-religious discussion of abortion.

Apparently you missed my original post. It is an essay that attempts to examine the abortion issue through a logical thought process focusing on what constitutes "ownership", and the "rights" of people over what they own and what they do not own from a biological and legal standpoint, religion not even being considered. Well, I did note as a summary point that one does not have to be a "religious neocon" to have a point of view against abortion. But that's as close as I came to bringing religion into it.

The essay is boring and tediously long, I admit; yet some of the more canny readers of this thread have found it interesting enough to read it through, and some are even compelled to participate in the lively (and so far FRIENDLY) discourse of it's relative merits.
Overall, it's (so far) been one of the most intelligent and respectful discourses on a very sensitive issue that I have ever seen on this whole board.
And I think the others participating would join me in asking that, should you continue to participate, that you do so only after having read my essay and that you keep your comments within the spirit and tone that we have already established.

[me]

...or to kill animals and eat them or wear their furs!

That is opening yet another can of worms. 

[Ghost of Jaco]

all you are trying to do is sidestep the whole "is it a living human being or not" debate, and define it as somebody else right from the bat.

how about measles and mumps?  geewhiz, nobody knows what they could become if properly gestated, maybe we should let them be.

Not side-stepping anything, good sir. I have narrowly focused the argument, that is true, but only to keep "religion" and other tenuous, subjective, things like "are living human cells really alive" and such out of the debate.

I've tried to answer the question: "If there is no God nor a distinct humanity are there still logical arguments for and against abortion rights, and what are the logical consequences?"
I think I made a cogent argument.
You have raised several points against my argument that may have merit; I am genuinely interested in hearing your supportive arguments for them.

[Exterminator]

Then it's silly to use it as a premise for your argument, don't you think?

No more or less than it is presumptuous of you not to entertain the possibility.

Apparently you missed my original post. It is an essay that attempts to examine the abortion issue through a logical thought process...

No, I didn't miss it but I didn't find it logical either.  You essentially began with a premise and backed into it.

The essay is boring and tediously long, I admit; yet some of the more canny readers of this thread have found it interesting enough to read it through...

Something upon which we can agree!    Actually, your ability to converse in complete sentences makes it significantly less tedious than it would have been otherwise.  <--compliment

...and some are even compelled to participate in the lively (and so far FRIENDLY) discourse of it's relative merits.

As did I when I brought up the removal of a cancer.

Overall, it's (so far) been one of the most intelligent and respectful discourses on a very sensitive issue that I have ever seen on this whole board.

Easy, you're getting dangerously close to throwing your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back again.  

And I think the others participating would join me in asking that, should you continue to participate, that you do so only after having read my essay and that you keep your comments within the spirit and tone that we have already established.

You're not the boss of me.  

[Ghost of Jaco]

Again, exactly the mindset that allows so-called pro-lifers to trivialize life as it relates to virtually every other species on the planet.  It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

What?!? Your reply to my post makes no sense. There is no "mind set"; I merely restated historical and psychological facts.
If you mean that Hitler's use of depersonalization of the Jews is perhaps similar to the pro-death movement's use of depersonalization of the unborn, then maybe we have a point on which we can agree.
But I would rather reserve that discussion for either later or for another thread of it's own.

[Exterminator]

That is opening yet another can of worms. 

Nope...same can...life is either sacred or it isn't.

[Ghost of Jaco]

...or to kill animals and eat them or wear their furs!

Correct. In my argument if a woman has a right to abortion then I have a right to kill, eat, and wear the skin of any creature I choose. Even other humans. (Aren't you the one positing that there is no difference between humans and animals?)

[Exterminator]

Correct. In my argument if a woman has a right to abortion then I have a right to kill, eat, and wear the skin of any creature I choose.

Then in reverse, you can't claim some moral objection to a woman's right to abortion if you kill, eat or wear the skin of any animal.

Even other humans. (Aren't you the one positing that there is no difference between humans and animals?)

Taken to the extreme, yes.  Are you arguing that people meat is significantly different from the meat of any other mammal?  I don't relish the thought of eating rats either so what's your point?