I find it fascinating how we are so well-adapted to survive in our world and yet are able to break out of that adaptation to understand things outside our world. For instance, our brains quickly group objects together and processes them. Wichh now awlols us to raed wdors wrhee the lrtetes hvae been jebmlud up, but, presumably, had the more useful effect of allowing us to easily recognize danger. However, we are still able to break through those adaptations to do math or music, which requires attention to every individual symbol.

And, it's different for everyone.

For instance, I find 2 object dropping at the same time more "wrong" than the wave-particle duality, because of the type of work I do.

@Draug, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to suggest you were disingenuous, nor that one "can't have this argument on a solid logical foundation and still be Christian." I'm surprised you found anything insulting in my post. I assure you I meant no form of personal attack at all.

My claim was much broader than that: I meant that NOBODY can have this discussion without reference to their core beliefs -- my remarks weren't limited to Christians. Facts by themselves -- and this is sound secular philosophy, not any form of Christian fideism (which I reject) -- can not establish moral conclusions. One needs a moral framework in which to interpret those facts. Because I, as a Christian, have a completely different moral framework from a typical atheist, we're never going to agree about how to interpret the facts morally. My point was just that unbelievers are referring to their arbitrary authority -- their own proclomations, such as what morality attaches to (be it consciousness, life, whatever) every bit as much as I'm referring to mine (the Bible). (Not that I'll admit the Bible is truly arbitrary, from their point of view). Theirs just doesn't have a name, so it's not as obvious and needs pointing out.

I agree with your second paragraph, and I think I said something much like that.

But in any case, no, I wasn't in the least singling out Christians, or saying they have to be less rational. I was just saying that it's a logical impossibility for anybody to have this argument without ultimately coming back to their core beliefs about the foundations of morality.

@semck

I'm not sure I disagree, but I think a bigger problem is (un)intentionally misinterpreting sources to back up your point. We've seen a theist and atheist example of this, anti-respectively, with fulamish who didn't understand the graphs he was citing and fulamish who quoted a verse from the bible out of context (for the sake of argument, we'll presume the the bible is a legitimate source).

Of course, our core values affect our decisions, but if your core values stem from contradictory information, that is a serious problem.

\@ abge.

1) On the contrary it is you who didn't understand the graphs and the point about negative correlation. You didn't even acknowledge the rise in abortion from legalisation until now. You mentioned a rate of abortion without appearing to understanding it was a rate compared with live birth. All of this actually matters little to me.
But this point does as it is a lie-

2) Furnish the biblical quote I supposedly made by return post, or apologise

@ful

1) We were never talking about the rise in abortion from legalization until present day. We were comparing abortion rates to child abuse and since the graph you supplied for child abuse only went as far back as 1998, any time before that is irrelevant. Additionally, I never once referenced the abortion *ration* that was a comparison between abortions and live births. That was you. I referenced the abortion percentage, as a percentage of all pregnancies and the abortion rate, which was per 1000 women.

2) I never claimed you referenced the bible. Thanks for playing, though.

*ration-->ratio

@semck, thanks for the fine post.
I do tend to view morality - moral intuition, as you called it, as not tapping some universal morality but rather a function of what evolution has found, through trial and error, to work... and continues to fine tune. Clearly there are creatures that exist on a completely different set of moral values - the black widow or praying mantis that kills the male after sex, the shark which is not above cannibalism (indeed neither are humans, given the appropriate survival imperative), ticks that only survive as parasites, etc. And within humankind, there are strong tendencies for behavior and strategies that are common (and that I promote) - social cooperation and valuing the community, for example... but these are also anything but universal. Many religious people would say that is due to the presence of evil... I use the word "evil" as shorthand from time to time but I doubt it's existence as a separate force... I see it more as an ignorant short-sighted sociopathic approach where a more cooperative love-based approach simply works better and is more fulfilling (for most). Anyway... I do completely agree with your analysis otherwise - as far as the difficulties (and why) in talking about morality or reason with others of a radically different perspective or basis for their beliefs. In a rough (everyday functional) sense, I believe morality to be more or less universal in humans thanks to our social history/imprinting... i.e. it clearly transcends details such as religious/philosophical beliefs - and *is* as you note, on a more basic level. You would differ as to what that basic level is (see above) - but we agree there is one. (And despite my view that there is no absolute universal morality - I find the one that most people reference [being kind, etc.] to be pretty useful and emotionally rewarding... so I embrace it). I don't believe that such moral intuition extends necessarily to the level of it's wrong to abort an embryo in all situations period... and I read you as basically agreeing.

So on to heuristic arguments, since that is what we're left with. I believe, in its most bare sense, that a woman has a right to her body that is absolute... despite the fact that the fetus becomes increasingly complex over time and the transition from potential person to realized person is gradational and thus not clear like an on-off switch. Upon birth, the mother's body is no longer part of the equation - so I don't have much sympathy for infanticide (though in cases of severe deformity and disfunction concepts of euthanasia may come into play). To me, as far as rights of the mother over her body, this line - birth - is a clear one. Just to be clear, I don't support destructive elective abortion in the 3rd trimester when there is no health/safety imperative arguing for it. (i.e. when possible, deliver and try to save a viable fetus - assuming it does not put the mother at risk). The medical focus should always the health of the woman... and the fetus is secondary, though still important. Health of the mother trumps fetus. Obviously if the mother decides to risk her life in a birth attempt that is for some medical reason particularly dangerous for her, than that is her right (and could be seen as brave or foolish, depending on what kind of risk we're talking about).

Being that I find no elemental difference in value between a human life and say a dolphin's life - other than a recognized bias for my own species (born of survival instinct and not having any objective value - i.e. other species would have a similar but opposing view on their relative worth). My valuing of a human life is most intense in regards to myself and within my own family - naturally. I believe that an individual is best suited, for this reason, to judge what they should do in regards to themselves, their family, their extended family/friends, their subculture, their society... in expanding circles of less subjective importance based on less personal investment. So - decisions such as destructive abortion in cases where it is an embryo and is not viable (or as described above in cases of health threat) should be completely left to the mother and whoever she wants to consult with. I cannot think of anyone better qualified for such a decision: emotionally, practically (knowing her specific situation), and morally (since that is debatable).

If it was me in that situation... well, if it was me being consulted, my valuation would be based on: 1) health (physical, emotional, mental) of mother, and 2) health of embryo/fetus. In the event of abortion, I have no problem with an abortion in the first 2 trimesters from a standpoint of the value of the embryo. Embryos are generally pretty easy to come by, should one want one and don't have fertility problems (i.e. no threat to the survival of the family or the society or species), and at that point are less aware than a field mouse - and though I may be squeamish about killing a field mouse - I'm going to do it if there is a reason to that I find compelling. Further - from a standpoint of adoption... there is no shortage of kids needing to be adopted. So it's not like we would be filling some poor couple's need that has no other alternative. Indeed - by aborting, we are, in essence, helping increase the chance that a child currently in need of adoption will be adopted. (by us not increasing the already abundant supply). That last, in itself, is a compelling reason to *not* take a pregnancy to term with the intent of giving up for adoption.

I kind of wandered a bit - but I hope what I wrote was somewhat on target for what you were looking for.

1) more later

as it is more important

2) You wrote this - ''fulamish who quoted a verse from the bible out of context''.

@abge - You said in your second to last post that ful quoted the Bible. You probably meant someone else.

Oh, it appears I did. That was a typo; I was referring to Mujus, as should have been very clear from reading my previous post to him.

''Oh, it appears I did. That was a typo; I was referring to Mujus, as should have been very clear from reading my previous post to him.''

Thank you for acknowledging that you misquoted me. It was indeed a ''lie'', although I do realise that you made an ''honest'' mistake and no apology is therefore necessary. So that is alright then.

That's OK. I'm not asking you to apologize for lying about your analysis of those graphs, either.

Well that as I said is a matter I dispute. Your misquotation of me, however, stands as bright as day for all to see.

@dexter - " should be completely left to the mother and whoever she wants to consult with. I cannot think of anyone better qualified for such a decision: emotionally, practically (knowing her specific situation), and morally (since that is debatable). "

Arguably, the mother is the *least* rational one to make this decision on an emotional basis later in the pregnancy for the simple reason that her hormones cause emotional and irrational decision that override the rational and more objective decision regarding her future. For some, this means keeping a baby instead of adopting it out even though she knows she can't provide for it at 15 or 16. for other's it means aborting the baby at say 26 weeks instead of going to term just because her husband left and she is an emotional wreck, or conversely, keeping the baby *because* she thinks it is all she has despite the doctor's telling her she may not make it through childbirth. I'm not leaning one way or the other here, just pointing out that the pregnant woman's emotions and resulting decisions become less rational the farther along she gets in her pregnancy. this isn't a judgement either, just a rational statement of a known scientific fact. You can see it in post-partum depression. This imbalance doesn't start the moment the baby is born, but is a building imbalance through out the pregnancy, worse for some women than others, that takes time to rebalance itself.

"On the contrary it is you who didn't understand the graphs and the point about negative correlation."

Let me explain to you who you *can't* find a negative correlation (incidentally, this is exactly what you did)

Don't:

-Compare the two sets using different values for the independent variable. You used 1998 for one set of a data and 1973 for another set of data. I can understand going a couple years back to account for the fact that "childhood" is a vague term. But a baby born in 1973 is *not* a child in 1998, no matter how you cut it.

-Claim that abortions have increased without taking into account the increase in overall population.

-Claim that child abuse has increased when 1) you reference a graph of *deaths* from child abuse and 2) again, it does not take into account the increase in overall population.

@Draugnar, well said. Despite the lessened rationality (or perhaps more correctly, the increased emotionality possibly tipping the balance in a decision where rationality alone might make a different choice), I don't see an easy way around it. The woman's rights still prevail, in my opinion ...unless, of course, she is clinically insane. Which actually leads me to previous comments I've made somewhere about misogyny... i.e. I think for someone who views women as lower, more emotional beings to begin with, may not trust women at all to make such a decision - they essentially view the woman as insane for the purposes of that decision due to hormones. I recognize that emotions will influence decisions... but then, isn't that always the case? ...with any decision? I can't see taking the decision away from the woman as some kind of standard operating procedure... I think, as with other times when someone is being accused of being irrational, that the burden of proof of temporary insanity rests with the accuser. ...and until such time as someone is determined to be incompetent, they should still be making the decision. Not because we necessarily are convinced that they are competent... but because we cannot prove that they are not. i.e. innocent until proven guilty.

Because of the contribution of unusual amounts of hormones, it is probably best for the woman to make the decision as soon as possible during the pregnancy and stick with it (accept and embrace it and don't look back). Such decisiveness is indeed a good approach to many decisions. (such as when to stab in a game, for example) :-)

abge I've noticed you dropping a lot of good commentary lately, and not just in this thread. +1's all around: keep it up and you will join Spyman in the short list of people who I consider "deep thinkers." I know, I know, you're honored.

@dexter - on that I agree completely. The earlier the decision is made, the more in line with the woman's regular view it will be. I'm not saying we take the right away, but that we respect the fact that she may answer differently if the hormones weren't impairing her normal emotional and cognitive functions and driving her emotional reactions to extremes. You'll note, I didn't pass judgement on the decision either way and made it clear the hormones could push the decision to either direction. It's a fight or flight reaction, fight is keep the baby and flight is get rid of it and it is an impossible situation a woman is put in when it is a surprise pregnancy and she hasn't thought about what she would want in advance.

Perhaps it would be something to develop a sort of living will for pregnant mothers, not involving their life, but letting them lay out while unaffected by raging hormones what they would do in the various scenarios (rape, risk of death to her, father be there for her and baby, father is unknown or absentee, etc.) so *she* has a reference when the hormones start affecting her on which to base the decision. But I still believe that there is a point where it is too late for her to decide to abort. What we set that time at is a topic of major discussion. Is it borth as some would have it (I find that a repulsive thought) or is it viability outside the womb (a little better but that then leads to the concept that artificial lifesupport for the elderly, even a pacemaker, turns them into the walking dead and they have no rights ala Terry Schiavo and who gets to make those decision for the unresponsive) or even earlier when certain other aspects we perceive as making the child/child-to-be "alive" come into play?

@Draugnar, agreed on most points.
Would you say third term is too late to induce labor/C-Section? (in regards to my idea that in 3rd term, 1) the woman has right to body, 2) the fetus should be saved if possible) Alternatively, can you say that the woman has lost that right to her body for that last three months?
I am, clearly, in favor of the first... even though it is brutal on the fetus. I don't imagine, by the way, that there would be very many women that would choose to have a premie... which is basically my model for 3rd term abortion of the pregnancy. Once passing into that milestone of the 3rd trimester, I imagine that given the choice, virtually every woman would keep... barring, of course, actual health issues - some of which only come to light in those last months.

...of course, virtually every woman already keeps their baby once they pass into the 3rd trimester.

No, but I think in the third trimester, she has lost the right to end the childs life out of convenience. If she wishes to dispose of the child at that point, induced labor or C-section and putting the child into a premature infant ward and care is perfectly acceptable. It give the child the chance to live. However, if she does so for non-life threatening reasons, she should have to give up the right to be the child's parent afterwards. After all, she didn't want to carry the child to full term, so she clearly doesn't want it. I know the logic isn't sound, but is an emotional reaction to her selfish decision, but her decision was an emotional one and that should be a consequence of it.

But to clarify, that's only if it was a completely voluntary thrid term premie birth. If for health reasons or the baby just decides it's time to come out or in cases where the baby isn't actually significantly premature (induced labor a week early or even because the baby is late) then that rule wouldn't apply. But if 8 weeks early and she just says "I'm sick of this" and tells the doctor/hospital to get it out, she should loose the right to be the active mother.

We've reached full agreement.

What do you other guys think of our proposal?

Aside: It is fortunate - for such a plan - that viability and brain development line up so nicely at/near the beginning of the 3rd trimester... i.e. it would be a shame if the fetus was like fully aware and awake at, say, 4 months yet not viable outside the womb. Of course it makes sense biologically... i.e. you kind of need the brain to operate the body.

I would still prefer to see abortion taken off the table at the beginning of the 2nd trimester, then if she wants to be rid of the child, she must wait until the earliest point of viability. It wouldn't deny her the right to end the pregnancy, merely delay it until the child at least had a chance to live on it's own and restrict how she went about doing it.

Maybe something gets written in the law that requires a waiting period to the decision if the woman is in the fourth to sixth month that says she must consider her decision and can return in the seventh month to have the child removed.

I'm insulted on behalf of women that you feel she'd be at such a loss of control that she needs to have a living will in place to make this decision.

@YJ

d'awwwwwww <3

@abgemacht, on behalf of Draugnar, I'll clarify that he did say "so *she* has a reference"... i.e. kind of a note to self... I can easily imagine others taking to the extreme of it being binding (like she has completely lost her mind) - but Draugnar did not appear to be going there. Now I could see someone seeing this as silly or unnecessary - but I agree with the more general point of thinking of these things ahead of time (which could easily enough be triggered in any decent sex education course... and again discussed, as well it should be, in a relationship)... i.e. I picture most people doing this already if they've been exposed to the questions and not sheltered too severely (which can happen in some conservative religious environments).

Oh, if I misunderstood, I apologize. When he used the term "living will" it sounded to me like it would be a much more formal document.

Answers for pro-choice/anti-lifers :)
1) Because it's a human life, with inherent dignity. If you think it should be the women's choice, why only the first 6 or 9 months? Why not say your aloud to kill children under 3 years? I don't see any difference between a born and unborn child.
2) Pain has nothing to do with it.
2) I'm a pacifist.
3) I don't want to protect life, I want to protect human life because I believe there is a difference between humans and animals, we live for more than animals which simply use instinct to make decisions.
4) I don't know if chimps and dolphins have actual intelligence, the ability to *think* and make rational decisions, but I wouldn't say language makes a difference.
5) I don't recognise any nations right to tourture or kill people. The only time I consider the death penalty exceptable is when safe detention isn't possible (some weird trapped on an island scenario.)
6) I wouldn't.