Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 5

It was a long edit, but it was not a bad edit
And I do not agree with any of the reasons given for reversion. So I will just take it one section at a time. I left out the part that I believe Utopial referred to as 'US-centric', because, to tell the truth, I really do not care whether it is in or out; it is just what was taken out, long ago, by the editor who inserted what I do care about: an unnecessary addition to the definitions of pro-life and pro-choice. There are many other reasons, but 'unnecessary' is the least likely to be controversial and least affected by opinion. What is said about the two 'sides' after my edit, is quite sufficient. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand your big edit from the other day, and wanted to ask about it. It added ~7kb of text (the article hasn't been that size since May 2007, when it was actually about twice as long as the current revision). Were you restoring text from over 2 years ago that Rjakew had removed? Your edit summary was weak at explaining what you did, because it only mentioned the lead, but the majority of the edits were in other areas. Additionally, you accused an editor who a) is still in good standing and b) who hasn't edited in over a year (and before that, 2 years) of being a SPA. It seems very odd that you are trying to revert something from possibly over two years ago, while attacking an inactive editor who was in good standing. I am familiar with the editor because I assisted with their creation of A Defense of Abortion, which I thought was well researched and neutral and a clearly beneficial, good faith first effort of starting an article. So, based on your edit summary, and what your actual edit was, I'm confused for all those reasons above. -Andrew c [talk] 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look a little harder. I have not left anything out. Anarchangel (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Permissible
The word is overused in the article. It is attributed to many philosophers and no lawyers or students of constitutional law, I believe. I doubt very much that the people it is attributed to would have used it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the edit of 4 Sept
The Justices of Roe v. Wade tied themselves to the mast with the statement I quoted in the article. 'We thought really hard about this, we are not going back on it'. The statement is not an addendum to Scalia's rebuttal; it is a bold statement of certainty. Contrast this with Mitt Romney's mealy-mouthed footnote; he does not even say that he espouses Federalism, but that the "federalist approach would be..." (if someone, whoever they might be, thought that, might or might not be me, ask me another time). At least communists say they are. Anyways, Romney stays in, he may be the only person saying that states' rights trumps the Supreme Court, but he represents the far reaches of one side of the debate. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please post your edits here before making them in the article. Thank you.
 * Your addition to the framing terminology section is unsourced OR. Also, stating that a 'child' has personhood is itself begging the question. You've also failed to differentiate between life and personhood, which are not the same thing - life is not in question. Your addition should be removed. If necessary, properly sourced explanations can be added.
 * This article is meant to represent a world view, and is currently tagged as not representing this. There is no necessity for a specific US legislation section - less than 5% of the world's population resides in the US. It should be removed as it is covered in other articles on this US legislation. Also, unless a source itself says 'radical' this particular term shouldn't be used - if necessary you can use non-weasel terms such as 'less common view'.Utopial (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is logic, it cannot be OR. The legislation section was there already. I expected comments about "radical", from people ignorant of the subject. Look it up. It is used correctly. Anarchangel (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unsourced. On that alone it must go. Irrelevantly, you have failed to address my points about the flaws in your 'logic'. Forget about that though - just find sources.
 * The inclusion of the US-centric legislation is disputed already. Expanding it further goes against that dispute. I will be removing the entire US judicial section, which will enable the non-worldwide article tag to be removed. If anyone opposes this, please comment here. If necessary, a worldwide judicial section can be added.Utopial (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind on the judicial section. It isn't worldwide and certainly needs to be made worldwide, but I think that removing relevant information from the article doesn't help with anything. I only hope that soon someone can correct it to be a worldwide section. Utopial (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

argument
I felt like this article articulated the philosophical and moral undertones of the issue. But what about some of the underlying issues completely forgotten about that form an important part of the debate. What impact would the illegalization of abortion have in the West? Certainly some of these children would be growing up with drug addicted/unfit parents. Most of this article deals with when a "human" is a "being" or however you want to put. How bout we touch on the socioeconomic impact of these laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin1 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Spain becomes more liberal in abortion debate
Both houses in Spain allow a more liberal abortion law. 92.252.96.56 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankfurter Rundschau:Spain becomes liberal

abortion
some argue that we need NPOV rather than POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.84.226 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some argue that WP:WEASEL should be read more often... -Andrew c [talk] 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and redirects?
Hi. "Anti-choice" redirects here, but "Pro-death" does not (it redirects to Pro-Choice. I'm not sure if this is worth discussing, but the destination for "Pro-death" seems to have been debated and changed many times back and forth. Could a high-level user asses the situation? Thanks. 173.76.156.251 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think Wikipedia should be using either term in an encyclopaedic sense. While they are the self proclaimed names of the major positions in this debate, and so must be included, the base terms of pro-life and pro-choice are bad enough. They are deliberately emotive terms chosen for their political power rather than objectivity, in that they make the logical name for the opposite view sound very bad. When they are used, the particular set of opposite terms, as discussed above, are just a nasty part of the discussion. Not helpful in defining the positions in this debate. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical aspects?
I'm wondering why there is minimal discussion of the issue of women's health in this article. Is that not considered relevant?--TyrS (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could also include a section that talks about mitigating reasons for allowing abortion. Rape and/or incest are often mentioned as well, and many people support abortion under these circumstances but not others. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I added the section "Factors in legalization" - anyone feel free to add anything or edit where necessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The new section on legalization
I am highly skeptical. - Schrandit (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewording pro-life and pro-choice argument sections

 * Hi, all. I saw this on my watchlist and decided to take a look.  As an old-timey Wikipedian who was deeply involved in this page in the past (and a strong real-world pro-lifer), I must concur with Andrew c, Dawn, and the current consensus.  "Fetus" and "embryo" are the most accurate, concrete medical terms.  They are, in and of themselves, absolutely neutral, and describe their subjects quite accurately.  Indeed, in a perfect world (where the rights of the unborn are universally recognized), such precise concrete nouns would be infinitely preferable to vague hand-wavy adjective-nouns like "the unborn."  It's the difference between saying, "Tall people are over 6'2" in height," and saying, "The tall are over 6'2" in height."  Both are technically correct, but the former is clearly grammatically preferable.  As such, the terms "fetus" and "embryo" are entirely NPOV and should not be arbitrarily replaced.  Now, Utopia, it is absolutely true that those terms have been used--frequently--by the pro-choice side to dehumanize the entire class of pre-natal humans... but that does not have any bearing on the use of the terms in themselves.  If our culture decided one day that "brunette" was a codeword for "not human," that would be a terrible thing... but it would not make the word "brunette" inaccurate or even POV.  The same goes for the fetus/embryo terminology.


 * Having said this, I suggest that, in parts of the article where the opinion of a pro-lifer is being articulated, use his or her terms to articulate the position. Thus, "Some pro-life supporters argue that if there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life..." would use the pro-life-preferred, equally accurate terminology: thus, "Some pro-life supporters argue that if there is uncertainty as to whether the unborn human has a right to life..."  Similarly, in sections articulating pro-choice arguments, the precisely accurate fetus/embryo terminology would be used, with "embryo" being reserved for humans who are specifically at 0-8 weeks' gestation, and "fetus" being used to refer to all other gestation periods and unborn humans generally.  (There may arguably be some cases where "parasite" would be appropriate, but I think that would be for another discussion.)  In neutral sections of the article which do not refer to a particular ideology's construction of the issue (in other words, the bulk of the article), the fetus/embryo terminology should be used, for all the reasons I and others have already argued.  This seems to me a sensible extension of the principle already embodied by WP:Self-Identifying Terms.


 * What's everyone think? And am I missing any context here based on my very speedy read of the debate so far? --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you missed anything. And how you put it would be a good idea for particular sides, leaving the unsided pieces as is. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll endorse BCSWowbagger's proposal as a reasonable and respectful (to both sides) compromise. It would be wrong to use blatantly POV terms such as "innocent baby" or "product of conception" for either side, but using standard medical terminology overall and some variation on "the unborn" in specifically pro-life contexts sounds good to me. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: reconsidering this statement in light of Andrew c's argument below. --Icarus (Hi!) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot endorse this compromise, as it leaves neutrality behind, and takes a sympathetic point of view. We shouldn't change the basic language we use to describe positions based on who holds the position. If we were to implement the change in the sentence you quote, how would we deal with the following found in the next paragraph (for example, arguments for the claim that the fetus lacks a right to life). The paragraphs in question use some parallel sentence structure to compare and contrast positions. I think inserting sympathetic POV language would disrupt that parallel contrast. Furthermore, since pro-life groups are not self-identifying as the unborn, I don't believe adapting their language is within the spirit of a conflicting naming convention guideline, nor alternating between terms (and for obvious reasons, the letter of those guidelines do not apply here). -Andrew c [talk] 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points. I do have reservations about using "unborn" terminology – an adjective without a noun invites the mind to "fill in" the missing noun to complete the phrase, most likely as "unborn baby" or "unborn child" which are POV, so I see "the unborn" as quasi-POV. On the other hand, Utopial has pointed out that it has been used in some neutral scientific articles (though there is no grounds to consider it a "scientific" term on the same level as "fetus" and "embryo") so it is not completely and inherently POV. I would be willing to accept it as "neutral enough" for the sake of compromise, but you make a good point about the parallel construction problem it would create. If we accept that the medical terms are neutral, then there is insufficient justification for ruining the parallel sentence structures. --Icarus (Hi!) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "unborn human"--or even the much less common "prenatal human"--are in any way POV or even sympathetic. "Unborn child" and "unborn baby" both would be POV, as they dodge past the accepted definitions of "child" and "baby" and simultaneously assume the conclusion that the fetus is as much a person as a newborn is.  But "unborn human" is (1) a precise, concrete term resting on a noun, (2) is used in the medical literature (though not terribly often) and (3) is a medically accurate, unambiguous way to refer to any unborn human at any stage of gestation (though "fetus" is also medically accurate, it is not unambiguous, due to its having both a scientific, specific definition and a much more broad general definition).  By the standards consensus has set, there's nothing remotely wrong with the term "unborn human" in itself (nor with its less precise, less tasteful cousin, "the unborn").  Now, it does so happens that pro-lifers use "unborn human" much more often in their literature than pro-choicers do, but this should come as no surprise: pro-lifers are trying to use medically accurate terms that emphasize the humanity of the unborn, while pro-choicers are trying to accomplish the same medical accuracy while deemphasizing the humanity of the unborn with terms like "fetus" and "embryo," which don't mention "human."  The fact that partisans use these terms to accomplish specific propgandistic ends, however, has already been noted earlier in this discussion and dismissed as irrelevant.  So, though I see where you came from, Andrew, I don't agree with your conclusion that the compromise "leaves neutrality behind."


 * The parallel sentence structures you note are concededly a much thornier problem, and on that ground alone I think we should leave the current "fetus/embryo" terminology in place in most places. But I think, if we choose to use those terms exclusively, we do more violence to the article, by using paraphrases of pro-life authors which use terms to which the authors themselves would strenuously object.  To one who's read the works of, say, Francis Beckwith (as I have), the clause, "...if it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus) has a right to life..." and then seeing the citation by Beckwith is, at the very least, jarring.  A good paraphrase summarizes a work without introducing fundamentally contentious alterations in the work or its immediate context.  In Beckwith's mind, using "fetus" instead of some variation on "unborn human" would be akin to using "ethnic cleansing" in place of "genocide."  Now, I trust many or most of you will sharply disagree with that perspective, and perhaps will even find it offensive.  Nonetheless, in paraphrasing his views, it seems clear to me that we ought to do justice to his actual views on the matter, so long as we can do so while remaining NPOV.  And we can.  It will take a wee bit of work to unwind the handful of parallel sentences we have here, but it'd be well worth it in terms of strengthening the article's NPOV against what could be seen, despite our collective good faith, as hostile paraphrasing.  I'd be glad to take a go at a draft tomorrow at work and submit it for your collective inspection.  --BCSWowbagger (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an alternative approach (albeit polarising), and we could remove/limit any of those general comments not on either the pro-choice or life sides.


 * My original idealistic aim was to remove any terms seen as framing/unneutral from the debate section of the article - including 'pro-choice/life' and replace them with 'view abortion as im/permissible from xxx date'. I know we should ignore legislation as it is biased to the position it takes - Brazil's pro-life legislation uses the word criança/child - but I think that I originally got 'the unborn' from the US's Roe case's final ruling: "the word 'person', as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn". That said, I think 'prenatal human' is linguistically a more consistent term with human and 'female human' or even woman, although 'the unborn' does leave to the imagination whether we are talking about a baby or parasite or merely a human, whatever tickles your fancy. 'The unborn' was the type of compromise that still allows you to be biased, which I thought would leave everyone feeling sufficiently pleased that they can at least extend the phrasing in their mind the way they want. Utopial (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to whether or not the phrases "unborn-human/fetus" or more simply "human fetus" could be acceptable. I see the proposal to use only the word "fetus" when a pro-choice point in the debate is presented, and nobody here appears to be arguing about that; the argument is about what description to use when presenting a pro-life point in the debate.  Regardless of how much they might think the word "fetus" is politically incorrect for their arguments, it remains true that an unborn human is a fetus.  So, will explicitly indicating its humanity be acceptable to them?  The thing I personally like about using the phrase "human fetus" occasionally is that it breaks up the monotony of always using only the word "fetus"; text simply reads better when certain words are not overused. V (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andrew c that the compromise introduces POV, though it occurs to me that it might not be inappropriate to throw in a couple of direct quotes from prominent pro-life advocates to show that they don't use "fetus".   We'd just have to be careful of giving the quotes undue weight in the article - it shouldn't be full of long direct quotes, and should overall aim to present a neutral summary of the positions, rather than veering towards using too many quotes.  Dawn Bard (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Direct quotes would work for me. This is almost along the lines of what I said on May 19th, way at the top of this talk page, when I was talking about qualification of language. -Andrew c [talk] 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could go for that. It would also save me the rather sizable work of finishing this article draft revision.  :P --BCSWowbagger (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Direct quote of just the nouns that describe the parties, or direct quotes of entire arguments? Rarely will the arguments be in a suitable condensed format. Less importantly, how do we choose which source to quote? What if they use nouns such as parasite blob or innocent baby - what are the limits? Utopial (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be easy enough to always precede (or follow) such quotations with a reminder that the quote contains buzzwords for political effect. Or...is there no RS anywhere about the logical conundrum regarding "parasitism" and "innocent"???  Isn't is totally obvious that if a fetus extracts nutrients from a pregant woman parasitically, then it is totally guilty of parasitism, and therefore cannot possibly truthfully be called "innocent"??? V (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that those of us who do not consider the fetus to be a human being do not regard it as a moral agent. Therefore, any talk of it being guilty or innocent would be, in our view, spurious. Current scientific definitions of the term "parasite" require that the organism be of a species distinct from its host. However, common usage is somewhat broader. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition has 2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism 3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return. Both of these definitions apply to the fetus. I use the term because its biological meaning is neutral.
 * Some have objected to the use of the terms "fetus" and "embryo", on grounds that they refer to specific stages of the embryonic development. The term conceptus covers all products of conception, even the non-viable ones, from conception to birth. However, it is not as widely known as "fetus" and "embryo". Ermadog (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The common usage of "parasite" does indeed include humans upon humans; I just did some Googling for phrases similar to "parasite on society" and got more than 100,000 hits (e.g., criminals are considered to be parasites on society). I can agree that various legal conundrums can be involved in talking about "guilt" and "fetus".  However, they are not so difficult to straighten out if approached rationally.  For example, if a neighbor's dog poops on your lawn, is the dog innocent or guilty of pooping on your lawn?  Guilt can be associated with an action regardless of mental abilities --sometimes, after all, various humans are given lesser sentences for crimes committed due to being mentally incompetent.  A dog can be considered stupid enough to not understand property rights, when pooping on your lawn.  That's also why we call a dog a "dumb animal".  Well, if a human fetus is guilty of acting parasitically without understanding its actions, then, logically, it is also just a dumb animal, and not a person --and need not be granted any more rights than other dumb animals! V (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In law, a person must be shown to have a mens rea, a guilty mind (criminal intent), before he can be considered guilty in the legal sense. It's doubtfull a dog is capable of forming a guilty mind. A fetus certainly cannot, as it does not have a cerebral cortex at all prior to week 28. The term "parasite" originally referred to a class of priests who attended at certain religious feasts, and quickly evolved a general meaning of "a person who lives on others". See Online Etymology Dictionary If a fetus is a person as the "pro life" advocates claim, it is definitely a parasite in the 2nd of the older meanings.Ermadog (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that particular aspect of law "gets through" to all the juries out there. When I mentioned lesser sentences above, I was not implying that the verdict was "not guilty".  For example, one can be guilty of killing a person several ways, of which homicide and manslaughter certainly involve different mental intents and are also associated with different sentences --but GUILT of committing the accused action, killing a person, does not need to be so strictly associated with mental intent as you indicated.  With respect to abortion, so long as a human fetus cannot qualify as a person (and the pro-fetal-rights crowd has yet to offer any valid objective rationale why it should so qualify), it is impossible to call abortion "killing a person" (or any equivalent terminology).  Meanwhile, a growing human fetus still survives by parasitically sucking nutrients from, and dumping wastes into, its host, exactly like any ordinary non-human parasite.  It is totally far-from-innocent with respect to performing such activities.  And so it would be stupidly irrational/illogical to allow pro-lifers to claim, unchallenged, that a fetus is innocent.  Therefore, to more explicitly repeat some of the preceding, if a fetus qualifies as a person, then it is guilty of being a parasite, and if unwanted can be terminated (like a fully-person-class fictional "vampire" is automatically potentially subject to immediate termination-for-biological-parasitism in just about every book on the subject) --or if a human fetus can qualify as "innocent" in the sense of not being mentally developed enough to qualify as a person, then it can still be terminated if unwanted because it is then just a parasitic animal/non-person! V (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Google search does not give any indication as to whether the term "parasite" is used metaphorically or literally when applied to phrases such as "parasites on society". When I want to verify what the meaning of a word is, I use an online multi-dictionary search engine such as alphaDictionary, which is capable of searching 1,060 English dictionaries. I have done so with several terms dear to the hearts of the fetus fetishists. "Parasite" is one of those words. The scientific definition is very specific, and requires that a parasite be of a species separate from the host, which disqualifies it for use in this discussion. In the vernacular, however, the word retains something of its original sense as a synonym for toady, but also a looser biological sense. There is no consensus in the vernacular as to whether the parasite must be of the same species. The opinion is split 50/50, with many defining parasite as anything "living in biological dependency in a state of parasitism", with no requirement that it be the same species. Of course, this "biological dependency" applies to the case at hand. I have this argument with fetus fetishists all the time on Youtube. They make up all sorts of spurious requirements, such as "a parasite cannot survive its host" or "a parasite cannot be produced by its host", none of which are included in either the scientific or the vernacular definitions. So, to answer the question you originally posed (Isn't it obvious...): no, the parasitic nature of the fetus is not obvious to many people.
 * I have not done a consensus search for "guilt". Oxford assigns your non-emotive sense (as being responsible, with or without feelings of remorse) to the legal sphere. If you wish to do a consensus search, I would be happy to see the results. In any case, the question is irrelevant, as the fetus is not a person. Mens rea is a necessary element of a crime, in particular murder in English law. The intent in manslaughter may not be intent of murder, but must involve the knowledge that one is about to engage in something involving reckless endangerment or something similar. Ermadog (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could do the Google search for "parasite on society" yourself and see the list of results. I think some of them may be metaphorical, but I suspect quite a few are literalist claims.  The top result starts out with "Famous quote by Nietzsche, Friedrich - The invalid is a parasite on society." --I'm reasonably sure the comaparison of "invalid" to "parasite" is being made because very few invalids contribute anything of value to society; they simply suck resources that others must provide, and produce wastes that others must dispose of.  I suppose this could go under the umbrella of "If it acts like a duck, why shouldn't we call it a duck?"  It is the modus operandi of survival, employed by a fetus, which is absolutely parasitic, and it is because of those actions that many are willing to label it a parasite.  While certainly it does not have all the characteristics of a parasite according to the scientific definition, it certainly possesses the most obvious/abhorrent characteristics of a parasite, and not even the most vehement pro-lifer can dispute the scientific facts that it sucks resources from, and disposes wastes into, its host, and can (but doesn't always) do so to an unhealthy extent, and thereby its existence would be non-beneficial.  Not to mention that most of the few "benefits" associated with pregnancy can be traced to hormones --addictive drugs!!-- dumped into the blood by the fetus, specifically to influence the mental state of the host ...what is the appropriate sentence for the crime of injecting someone involutarily with addictive euphoric drugs?  So that is another way in which a fetus is guilty (again in terms of actions committed, regardless of intent) of something that no ordinary person is allowed to do!  Regarding manslaughter, I'm aware that when a drunk driver was involved in a death, such a charge may be leveled.  I'm also aware that the first brain function that alcohol affects is the "judgement" ability.  A key way it can affect a person is by reducing mental access to the total quantity of relevant facts, associated with some action like driving.  So while the drunk may know when not drunk that driving while drunk can recklessly endanger someone, it is apparently a fact that is not-thought-about when a drunk decides to get behind the wheel.  Perhaps if the fact was thought-about, the drunk would avoid driving.  How many times in your life have you simply not-happened-to-think-about some fact that later proved relevant to some action you did, and which would have led to a different action if you had happened to think of it?  I know it happens to me on occasion, and I'm a teetotaler!  Alcohol simply makes such not-thinkings more common.  Meanwhile, of course, the Law doesn't care about such details, especially when sometimes this phrase is used: "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  Well, certainly a fetus is ignorant of that laws! V (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not need to do a Google search on the term parasite, for reasons I've already explained. The search would reveal frequency of use, not actual meaning. Your "suspecting" that most are literalist is insufficient evidence. Hunches don't count in rational debate. Instead, I use a consensus of dictionary meanings. I seem to recall your attempting to present yourself as more rational than I. I suggest you learn to deal with actual facts. The guilt in drunk driving accrues to the fact that you know *before* you take that first drink that you may become impaired. The law does care about such details. Mental impairment is taken into consideration when the accused as a medically recognized impairment such as Alzheimer's, or when he is a minor.Ermadog (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that trip down semantics correctness lane was entertaining, but let's move on, shall we? Established wiki precedence advises using terms by which the advocates of a position identify themselves. It also suggests that commonly understood terms be used. Occasionally, these two guidelines conflict. Currently, the pro choice advocates seem to be calling themselves "reproductive rights advocates", which is not known widely in the public sphere. If this trend continues, we would need to edit all abortion articles that use the pro choice term. I suggest we keep the term "pro choice", but note that the new usage is gaining momentum. Currently, the term "pro choice" is what most people would be looking for. Somewhere in all this, someone suggested creating a wiki page where all this terminology discussion can be redirected every time some new editor wants to impose his "new, improved" terminology on a debate that is, in point of fact, not in his hands. Gallup polls since 1975 consistently show that the largest group in this debate is the middle of the road cohort, people who would allow legal access to abortion in some circumstances but not others. Although many of them wold allow very liberal laws, and could be characterized as sympathetic to pro choice, they are still allowing the body politic the deciding role in choosing when abortion should be allowed; so, they are not, in fact, pro choice. On the other hand, the fact that they allow it all means they don't consider the fetus a person. If it were a person, killing it would be murder in all circumstances except self defence (if the pregnancy itself threatens the prospective mother's health.Ermadog (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please also add to the pro-choice section as a scientific study that there is no brain activity until at least the 27th week and that there is also no movement of the fetus until the 6th month. This is, believe it or not, according to Seth Macfarlane's Family Guy episode, Partial Terms of Endearment. Macfarlane has declared that he is liberal, therefore, leading to believe that he is for pro-abortion rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.159.4 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

inappropriate inclusion in "Wikiproject Death"
Does this article (on the abortion DEBATE, remember) really belong in Wikiproject Death? It looks like an anti-abortionist trying to score a point rather than a reasonable inclusion.--TyrS (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. If this belongs in WP Death then it equally belongs in WP Medicine.--TyrS (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It belongs in neither. Although abortion might belong in both. Also, I laughed, people sure do love to fight over symbolism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is no reason for this page to be in Wikiproject Death. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos
Why are all the photos on this page of pro-life demonstrators? A little POV over here, are we? DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like there are two pro-choice and two pro-life pictures. Appears intentionally unbiased in my opinion. GRAWRG9 (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did miscount here. The ratio is 3:1 pro-life-to-pro-choice.  I can deal with that, I guess. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new page
I have found myself repeatedly adding the same material to several different pages in the abortion project, usually under the history subsections of these pages. At the suggestion of RexxS. I have decided to start a new wikipage, History of Abortion Law (tentative title). This would allow a reduction of the currently unwieldy size of some of the already existing pages, as we can then reduce the history subsections to a smaller summarization, with a link to the new page. The rough draft is residing here: User:Ermadog/Abortion history.

As this is only a rough draft, I do not want any direct editing of this page at this time. Instead, please add contributions to the discussion page. Please look over the following material. most of which will be incorporated into the new page, before suggesting additional material:


 * Abortion debate - some "rights talk" is relevant to the "history of abortion law debate"
 * Beginning of human personhood also Overview and Fetal Personhood in Law
 * Born alive rule
 * History of abortion also, some points in the social history section.
 * Abortion Law

Any discussion of the direction of this project should be made on my talk page, under the category "Your addition to Abortion"

Anyone finding better quality references or citations is welcome to post them to the discussion page. I'll find a way to incorporate them, even if I have to relegate them to a Notes section. In particular, I am looking for material on abortion law and relevant philosophy from the ancient East, as well as from the Persian Vedas. Corrections to my brief discussion of Hinduism and Buddhism are welcome. Particularly, where exactly in the Vedas can the doctrine of reincarnation be found? I have heard it is of fairly late vintage.

Anyone finding history subsections in any other abortion page not listed here, please post links to my discussion page.

I expect to have a good first draft available in a few days. Until then, I keep a current copy of the current page on my hard drive. Any editing at all at this stage will be treated as vandalism. I will delete the whole page and replace it with my copy. Once I publish it to Wikipedia, of course, the standard rules of editing apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermadog (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is now complete and has been published to Wikipedia. This allows for some welcome pruning in the larger abortion pages. Generally, I plan to excise everything up to the 19th century, as this is where the history of the modern abortion laws begins in the West, summarize the pre-history as briefly as possible, and add a see also tag pointing to History of Abortion Law Debate.


 * The current page is lacking in information about the evolution of abortion law from its earliest formulation in the non-Occidental historical texts. Many of these texts are widely available from reliable sources on the internet; so, I was able to present that material fairly and in an encyclopedic fashion. But researching the evolution of abortion laws in non-Occidental historical jurisprudence is beyond my capabilities. I wouldn't know where to start.--Ermadog (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Adjustments to "Exceptions" section
I axed the unnecessary subheadings in the Exceptions section, and removed the line about "overpopulation" entirely, as it really didn't belong anyway. Other than that, the content remains mostly the same, with a couple minor edits to account for the lack of subheadings. Honestly, I don't really think this section needs to be here at all, but didn't want to slash and burn without discussion. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Choice/Anti-Abortion in the lead
Any particular reason why we ought use a preferential term for one side and a non-preferential term for the other side in the lead? - Schrandit (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the overly-long discussions above and you'll see why. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it first, I found it to offer no particular guidance and that's why I opened a new section. - Schrandit (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Schrandt - I don't actually understand your question. Can you be a little more explicit please? Which (non-) preferential term? Which sides? HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is on my watchlist, I don't edit it much, but i have to agree with Schrandit, it is only correct to use the self-describing term. I've also read the section above and see nothing particularly strong mentioning it.
 * (EC) I think Schrandt is taking exception to the use of the term "pro-choice" for one side of the debate, and "anti-abortion" for the other. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct. The current copy reads; "The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the pro-choice  (abortion rights) movement, and the pro-life  (anti-abortion) movement."
 * In fairness, we really ought either say "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" and "pro-choice". - Schrandit (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue against using pro-choice and pro-life. I think everyone is pro-choice and pro-life, the argue itself IS about who has the choice and what has the right to life.Joriq (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps anti-legal abortion or something like that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure pro-life, its self-identifying and its not like they favor illegal-abortions. - Schrandit (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro-life is not a good name for Wikipedia to use. It's misleading and unclear. It does not include the issue in the name and is really a self chosen marketing term used to make it sound all very positive. Outside the abortion sphere many anti-abortionists are anything but pro-life. They may support war. They may support capital punishment. A similar argument could probably be made about pro-choice, but not quite so strong. Giving people a choice is a less absolute position. This discussion highlights the difficulty of using simple and simplistic labels for people with diverse views on a complex issue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit, you were involved in the discussion here. You are well aware that there are objections to the term "pro-abortion". So this diff baffles me. Why insert the controversial phrase again? If you thought the parenthetical comments were problematic, you could have removed them completely, or tried a different phrasing which hasn't been objected to in the past. The fact that this is a different article is no excuse to re-introduce objectionable, disputed content. You participated in a very similar discussion at Talk:Abortion, and it was clear there that the use of the phrase "pro-abortion" was problematic to a number of editors. So why then wait a few months, and try the same nonsense on a different article? I'm hoping this was simply an honest mistake (brain-freeze or what have you), and not a sneaky way of ignoring consensus, and POV pushing... -Andrew c [talk] 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, you too participated in the same discussion. I think you are using personal-style arguments against the movement, instead of considering Wikipedia guidelines and disambiguation. While opponents may come up with arguments that the tern "pro-life" isn't accurate, on Wikipedia, I don't think an argument could be made that the term is misleading and unclear. I'd argue that the general public knows what the pro-life movement is, and we can all agree it is the term of self-identity. We have no reason to disambiguate the name, and any more efforts to change the name seem proscriptive of reactionary, which is not what an encyclopedia should do. We should follow sources (and in this case, many of our sources are the organizations and individuals that identify with each side of these movements). -Andrew c [talk] 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * May I add that the term 'pro-choice' is no more descriptive than 'pro-life'? Additionally, there are those in pro-life movement that support abortion under limited circumstances: e.g., rape and/or incest and/or danger of harm to mother, so the term 'anti-abortion' isn't necessarily descriptive. and even if it is, it's not for us to decide. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for HiLo but I don't think either of us recalled that discussion. I don't think the descriptors in the lead are necessary to inform the reader and are more trouble than they're worth. Would anyone mind if I just removed both of them? - Schrandit (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would, because I think they're at the very crux of the debate, and the terms need to be defined. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with removing the parenthetical comments, as I believe that is what we ended up doing at abortion, as long as we make sure the 'pro-'terms are wikilinked, so in the rare case someone has no idea what on earth we are talking about, they can click through to the main article on each view. If we are to keep the parenthetical comments, what specifically do you not like about the current situation Schrandit? You talked above about preferential terminology, but I think you need to work harder to establish that premise. I think your edit introduced clearly a non-preferential term "pro-abortion" (and I really am skeptical that you are completely unaware of that, but I'm willing to move past that :P) Magog, why do you feel we need the parenthetical comments anyway, and can anyone propose a new set of qualifying terms that are more agreeable to all sides?-Andrew c [talk] 00:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was less worried about the parentheses being removed than the whole sentence. But really I think the inclusion is helpful; after all, we do want this to be as useful as a print encyclopedia. And the English language is very versatile, I think we can add something that will explain the terms without introducing a bias. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So sorry about any confusion, I was only talking about the parentheses when I suggested removed. To Andrew - I think it is unfair to give one side a preferential term while hoisting a (possibly more accurate) unpreferential term on the other.  I think it is fair to describe pro-lifers as "anti-abortion" as long as in fairness pro-choicers are going to be described as "pro-abortion" for the same grammatical reasons. - Schrandit (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I still find problematic is the attempt in the lead to present the debate as a simply binary, pro- or anti- one. There are an infinite number of views across the spectrum on this issue. SImple labels just don't cut it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, someone puts their finger on the real problem. In fact it isn't even an analog bipolar issue, there are multiple dimensions. Dimensions that enter the debate include not just access to abortion but regulation, funding, quality of care, patient education, privacy, criteria for access (on demand, in case of medical necessity, in case of rape, only after education, ...), physician's obligations to provide, access to contraception, access to information about contraception, gestational stage at the time of abortion, and many others. Positions in each of these dimensions are continuously variable. The reduction of all this complexity to "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" is absurd. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree, in principal, I think we should a) make sure we do mention the opposing sides pro-choice vs. pro-life in addition to a spectrum of intermediate views and b) make sure we have a source to back up the existence of the multifaceted dimensions. The current rephrasing, I find marginally problematic because I don't think "when desired" is necessary, and I don't think "trump" is a word that is favorable to the pro-life view. The tone seems a bit dismissive or overly critical, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to frame it in terms of fetal vs. mother's rights... again, I think removing the parenthetical comments is probably best, and we should work on adding a reference to various positions between the two sides, along with a citations. -Andrew c [talk] 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding references documenting various positions: Ipsos MORI has conducted 2 polls of British opinion on abortion, one in May 2008 and one in 1997. Both polls clearly showed that the percentage of those in favour of legal access to abortion was higher than the percentage of those who actually favoured abortion in various circumstances. This clearly shows that it is possible to be pro-choice/pro-legalization without being pro abortion. Ermadog (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we've all said the parenthetical statements are problematic, unless there is objection I figure I'll remove them. I think thing will be clear enough will blue-links to the two sides. - Schrandit (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC):
 * I never said the parenthetical statements were problematic. In fact, it's the change you have made to imply that are a simple and simplistic two sides to this debate that's problematic. Simple labels are a bad thing when the issue is complex. Not happy at all with that change, and your claim in the previous post, including the word all, is just nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a bit binary as is: we can explain the two are both extremes: the "pro-life" side (which favors a reduction in how much abortion is legal) and the "pro-choice" side (which favors an increase in how much abortion is legal). That was just a general idea quote. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An slight aside here, but maybe we need an article on "WP debate over terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'" so that everyone who dredges up this same argument that takes place across EVERY abortion-related entry can just have one, centralized place to go and bicker. The parenthetical, alternate terms rarely work, and - almost without exception - "pro-choice" and "pro-life" end up as the default choices because they're what most people (esp. in the US) recognize from pop-rhetoric.  I'm voting for the common terms, with no parenthetical alternates, despite the fact that they are obviously problematic (pro-life is a meaningless weasel word, pro-choice is actually "pro-legalization", and so on...  I think we all get it). DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro-choice does not mean pro-legalization. Here in Canada, abortion has not been legalized, it has been de-criminalized (removed from the Criminal Code). It is, of course, subject to the same regulations regarding other medical practices, such as licensing, etc. When we were deciding what to call ourselves back in the 60s, we decided that "pro-choice" describes our position on the question of "murder" raised by the anti-abortion forces. Murder is a legal term and is applied only to the wrongfull deaths of human beings. There is no objective definition of the term "human being". You will not find one in a science text; you will not find one in a legal dictionary. Common law has held that the fetus is not a person until it has been expelled from the womb and drawn its first breath. The law confers rights on persons. The term "human being" is found to be a philosophical concept. Its definition is therefore a matter of conscience, freedom of which is foundational to democracy. We therefore felt that the definition of the being in a pregnant woman's womb is a matter of her choice. We do not argue for or against abortion, nor the character of the being in the womb. As I was never a prominent spokesperson in the pro choice movement, my word is not appropriate for inclusion in a wiki article; and I no longer have any of the primary documentation on the subject. I have done a very cursory search of pro-choice websites, and find that they do not present position papers. What they do is argue against current and common objections raised by the "pro-life" side. If anyone is going to make statements about what "the pro-choice" side is, they will have to document it. Good luck with that. If we are "pro" anything, we are pro-choice. Ermadog (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - and pardon my US-centrism - it was a minor example, and not critical to my point that common usage and self identification ought to be the final judge. Regardless, thanks for the novel reading of "pro-choice", and for teaching me a bit about Canadian abortion law (or lack thereof); I guess Canada is not the progressive wonderland I though it might be. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a section on Canadian law, which I hope should clarify some things. While Canada is certainly progressive on this matter, i would be happier if the Courts would actually rule on the matter of fetal personhood. While the science is still not settled on this, the preponderance of evidence shows that the fetus is definitely not a sentient being prior to week 28, when thalamic afferents enter the cerebral cortex, and is likely chemically sedated till birth. This gives scientific backing to the old born alive rule. Let me know what yo think of my changes. My main concern at this point is to add relevant material, ensuring proper sourcing, and avoiding egregious spelling and grammatic errors. Elegance of language is my last concern.Ermadog (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In view of the fact that much of the debate is more about whether or not there should be a "right" to have an abortion, rather than about abortion itself, why not use the descriptions "pro abortion rights" and "anti abortion rights"? V (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's too wordy, will be criticized as POV (the anti-abortion side does not consider it a debate over "rights"), and so on... Best to stick with the most recognized, self-identifying terms; it keeps people from being confused and the two POVs tend to balance each other out with enough edit warring.  usually, in the abortion issues, we're not going for NPOV so much as Mutually Assured Destruction. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be too wordy, but the debate most certainly is about "rights". They don't call themselves "right-to-lifers" for no reason!  However, this makes me realize that the two labels could instead be "pro abortion rights" and "pro fetal rights".... 208.103.154.178 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of us call it "reproductive rights." From the website of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada: "Its primary mandate is to undertake political and educational work on reproductive rights and health issues." We view abortion as merely one option among many in forming reproductive strategies. Here is a statement from the Centre for Reproductive Rights, a global advocacy group: "Our Issues reflect what a woman needs to direct her own life and make healthy decisions: Legal, safe, and affordable Contraception and Abortion. Good obstetric and prenatal care for a Safe & Healthy Pregnancy. Information about reproductive health that is free from Censorship. Funding for Reproductive Healthcare so that she can lead as healthy a life as possible even if she can't afford services. And because some women are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and abuse, we pay special attention to the rights of Young People and women with HIV/AIDS." Ermadog (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify - from the "pro-choice" standpoint, this is most certainly a rights issue - involving the legal rights of living citizens to pursue an elective medical procedure. The "fetal rights" and "right-to-life" stuff is a rhetorical device with little meaning in reality; a fetus isn't a citizen, and has no agency in society, thus any discussion of "rights" is moot from the get go.  As V stated, there is no such thing as a right to reproduce - however, there may or may not be a right to terminate a pregnancy, because the action is wholly dependent on the free agency of the citizens involved (doctor, patient, etc).  So, while "pro abortion rights" and "anti abortion rights" make sense, it's wordy and will be criticized as POV because "pro fetal rights" is simply nonsensical on its face.  We're reduced to giving one side the "pro" and the other the "anti"; I personally feel this is sound.  Of course, my own POV has little weight around here, so I'm suggesting we compromise by using the most-recognized terms, even if they are logically flawed in the extreme.  DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand some of the logic of what you described, but I also note a bit of irrationality, also. In Nature there is no such thing as a right to reproduce!  Most young organisms of many species (that have big batches of young) die before reaching reproductive age; they get eaten.  Even for organisms that do reach reproductive age, there is no such thing as a right to reproduce; about 1/7 of all human couples are Naturally infertile.  So, the phrase "reproductive rights" is oxymoronic in the sense that it is assuming something that does not Naturally actually exist for everyone.  And so I think I would still prefer the phrase "pro abortion rights" as it specifically focuses on the issue at hand, and is actually about a right to NOT reproduce! :) V (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If this were an appropriate venue for discussion of the pros and cons of the various arguments raised in the abortion debate, I would take you to task with your irrational suggestion that we have natural rights of any kind. But this is not such a venue. This is a venue in which to discuss how the abortion debate should be presented in Wikipedia. There seems to be consensus to the effect that the arguments used by advocates on either side should be presented as they themselves present it. That requires that we use their wording. So, here's a novel idea: why not find out what the advocates of lessening legal restrictions on abortion actually say - like, you know, in their own words? We consider abortion to be one of a number of options available when women and couples are deciding on reproductive strategies. You can find statements to that effect on the two websites I've referenced. Reproductive strategies are not just a matter of IF to reproduce, but of WHEN and HOW. Look it up in Wikipedia's abortion page under "by personal and social factors". Open up the bar chart. You'll see that abortion is often used as a means of spacing and timing of wanted children.Ermadog (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I could make an excellent case that Nature grants every living thing a "right to try". Of course that is not equal to a "right to succeed", but pro-lifers don't seem to understand that.  And of course it could also be pointed out that the pro-abortion-rights group also has no right to succeed, even if what they want to succeed at is failure-to-reproduce-NOW.  On another hand, we have lots of historical data showing that while "might may not make right", it certainly can decide which "trys" succeed and which trys fail.  And so back-alley abortions absolutely will continue to happen even if all the laws are against it.  Which basically shows how stupid it is to bother to try to ban abortion in the first place. V (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that you could prove to me that "Nature" "grants" anything. That term only has meaning in a metaphoric sense, as euphemism for "the process of evolution by means of natural selection, these organisms have developed these characteristics". You have a tall chore ahead of yourself if you wish to convince me of the existence of natural rights of any kind. Which you are not going to do, as this is not the appropriate venue. However, we as a species have created a number of rights which we have enshrined in law. In some countries, the concept of "abortion rights" has been tested and found to fall within the purview of various rights already enshrined in law, such as the right to security of person explicitly stated in the Canadian Constitution, and the right to privacy, which Roe v Wade found in the due process clause in the US Constitution. These rights exist as a matter of democratic process, regardless of whether the majority of citizens understand this or not. Ermadog (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, there are always different ways to interpret things. Does Nature grant water a right to flow downhill?  We know that water does it basically because the physical laws of nature allows it to happen (and can be difficult to prevent from happening).  The main difference between that description and a "right" is that a "right" is something that humans think should be allowed.  I fully recognize that quite a few "human rights" (and especially the "right to life") are actually arbitrary things designed to let people get along with each other better.  More technically, though, water flowing downhill represents an increase in the Entropy of the world --and likewise the effect of living things also is to increase the Entropy of the world.  Living things are simply pathways for energy, like river channels, allowing Entropy outside the channels, to increase. One main difference between living things and river channels is that living things can tap-for-their-own-benefit some of the energy they cause to flow downhill (some of the Entropy they increase); the other main difference is that living things compete with each other.  Nature does not grant any pathway a superior status over any other pathway, for Entropy to increase.  But most certainly the laws of nature allows them all to exist at least temporarily!  Much as if every single one of them has a right to try to do their own thing.  A matter of interpretation, as I said. V (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The laws of nature do not allow anything. The laws of nature are abstract concepts having existence only in the minds of sentient beings, based on many, repeated, and verified observations of natural occurrences. Laws of nature are simply statements of the way things are. You can find this concept explicated in any competent rebuttal to the Transcendental Argument for God, commonly known as TAG. Matt Dillahunty, of Atheist Experience fame, explains this in jargon free language on Youtube. For a more formal discussion, look for videos by Theoretical Bullshit or SysphusRedeemed, also on Youtube. The materialist philosophies usually proceed from one or two propositions. The first, existence is its own justification, really only makes sense when compared with certain religious arguments for which it is a rejoinder. Religion typically questions our right to exist if we are not "right with God", usually positing some form of the doctrine of original sin. The second proposition is the basis of dialectic logic: all things are in a state of flux, most recently proposed by Diderot, but with a pedigree all the way back to Heraclitus. (New Age woowoo queens love to get all mysterious about impermanence, which they ascribe to the Mysterious East; but, it has a along pedigree in the West). Nothing is permanent. Even the Rocky Mountains will eventually succumb to the effects of erosion. The concept of rights arise when the life processes of one or more organism come into conflict with another. Currently, we only apply this concept to beings with an operant will, which limits the discussion to human beings and such theoretical beings as gods and corporations. Currently, the options for the fetus are: it has no rights because it is not a person; or, it has a right to exist until I decide to kill it, much as the slug in my garden eating the products of my labour has a right to exist until I decide to kill it. Ermadog (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The things we call "laws of nature" are, as you indicated, descriptions of things we observe about the behavior of various natural phenomena. Our descriptions may not be 100% accurate in all cases, but we have acquired enough experience in making observations and tweaking the descriptions to be rather confident that our descriptions are generally far more accurate than inaccurate.  Now, how are those laws interpreted?  One rather famous interpretation (by Richard Feynmann) is, "Anything not forbidden is mandatory."  Isn't that another way of saying, at the very least, that anything not forbidden is allowed (only more so; it is inevitable!)?  Regarding the basics of various religious or materialist notions, try this philosophical argument:  "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  To answer that question, suppose there indeed was only nothing --what would there be to prevent something from starting to exist?  Nothing!  Therefore the nonexistence of something would be a paradox, and therefore something indeed exists.  Note that the something is not defined; it could be physical matter; it could be God; it could be something else entirely.  The neat thing, though, is that for anyone familar with Quantum mechanics, the energy-time version of the Uncertainty principle, and virtual particles in the vacuum, one can realize that evanescent existence of virtual particles is exactly in alignment with the philosophy; pieces of something and regions of nothing always simultaneously exist, everywhere and all the time!  There could be wide-ranging consequences yet to be analyzed; one intriguing possibility concerns this sentence in Genesis 1:2: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Our 3-dimensional realm is only a surface from a 4th-dimension perspective.)  Bringing up Religion into the abortion debate also can lead to far-ranging consequences.  For example, some pro-lifers claim that a human fetus qualifies as a person because it has a soul (never mind that the pro-lifers can't prove they themselves have souls)--and killing any entity with a soul would be murder. V (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your lengthy digression into quantum woo has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is: what are rights and do natural rights exist. You have yet to demonstrate to me that "Nature" has a will or is capable of forming intent, such that it might be capable of granting, allowing or permitting anything. To answer your most recent question, no, "Anything not forbidden is mandatory" does not equate to "anything not forbidden is allowed". You don't really believe that "mandatory" and "allowed" are the same thing, do you? The latter is a concept that has long pedigree in law. It can be found in the Jewish Torah, the French Napoleonic Code, the 9th Amendment of the American Constitution, and probably a bunch of other places, too. You are allowed to own a car, but it is not mandatory. Ermadog (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And your misinterpretation of what I wrote (and what Feynmann meant) is your problem, not mine. Not to mention that I did specify a difference between "allowed" and "mandatory", which you ignored.  Feynmann's expertise was in the field of subatomic-particle physics.  The quote, while generalizable to some extent, was mostly about how any speculated-about particle that is not forbidden-to-exist must therefore actually be able to exist, and should be expected to inevitably exist somewhere, sometime.  One such particle still being sought by physicists is the magnetic monopole.  The most important aspect of this interpretation is that just one example suffices to fulfill its meaning.  Physicists only need snag just one magnetic monopole to know for sure that such particles can exist.  The generalization I had in mind was along the lines of saying that something that can inevitably exist has a "natural right" to exist --and anything it is theoretically able to accomplish while it exists, it is-allowed/has-a-natural-right-to-try to accomplish.  Inanimate as it is, a bathroom faucet has a right to try to leak water --which it will generally do if it contains a sufficiently worn seal, or if the valve isn't closed all the way, and some water pressure is present.  However, this most certainly does not mean any specific thing also as a right to succeed at accomplishing anything, including continuing-to-exist.  Which makes silly your attempt to expand this interpretation even further, to imply that everyone must own a car. V (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A bathroom faucet does not "try" to leak. A bathroom faucet has no volition, and is not able to "try" anything. A bathroom faucet leaks as a result of degradation of its internal parts such as the washer, which occurs as a result of the effects of running water on metal over time. A bathroom faucet has no choice in the matter. Your attempt to drag quantum woo into this discussion is entirely spurious. You have made no attempt whatsoever to explain why you imagine the findings of quantum physics might indicate that the universe, nature, the cosmos or whatever actually has volition or is capable of forming intent. Without that, you are unable to demonstrate that "Nature" can grant rights. Try again, sweetcheeks. Also, answer my question: do you really think that "mandatory" means the same as "allowed"? Your equation of these two words is the same mistake made by Alvin Plantinga in his Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. You can find a refutation of that on the FatGermanBastard's channel on Youtube. Remember: you are the one who claimed to be able to "make an excellent case" that natural rights exist. I'm still waiting for you to do that. You have acknowledged that rights are abstract concepts that exist in the minds of sentient beings. Then you diverted the discussion to quantum physics. You're going to try to show that sub atomic particle somehow get together and end up producing abstract concepts called "rights"? Where are yo going with all this? You're not going anywhere. You're just engaging in the same wild speculation that we've heard from the New Age woowoo queesn since the 1960s. Try again.Ermadog (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I've just re-read your response. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you made an actual distinction between "allowed" and "mandatory", when all you did was substitute "not forbidden-to-exist" for "allowed" and "be expected to inevitably exist" for "mandatory" and reassert the same equation. And your suggestion that "it is not mandatory to own a car" equates to an implication that everyone must own a car is ludicrous. Is English not your first language?Ermadog (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue to ignore what someone writes, pretending something else was written, you can always declare that the writer is not making a case (for any point). For example, exactly where did I state that "mandatory" means the same as "allowed"--and don't quote out of context!  What I actually wrote was words to the effect that "mandatory" includes/is-a-superset of "allowed".  Would you care to provide a fully rational example in which some act was mandated to be done, and also not allowed (by those issuing the mandate) to be done???  Next, where did I say that "volition" had to have anything to do with "try"?  Are you not aware that sometimes an egg (almost any species) is too tough for the organism inside it (e.g. a human blastocyst) to get out?  We know that the organism follows its biological programming (it is purely a stimulus-&-response machine) and makes an effort to crack the shell of its egg.  It may fail.  Volition, free will, is most certainly not involved.  But the word "try" is completely applicable, in describing that effort!  And while a faucet doesn't have volition, either, the laws of nature/physics include descriptions of a variety of interacting forces inside that faucet.  Those forces are exactly as dumb as as blastocyst, and at least one of them can be described as having a focus toward "trying" to get water through the faucet seal.  I'm certain I've read such descriptions in various general-audience books over the years, things like (paraphrasing) "a steam boiler has to be quite strong, because the steam pressure tries to make the boiler explode".  The English language allows such usages of the word "try", regardless of how much they might offend your scientific sensibilities.  And per Feynmann, since such usages are not forbidden, they are mandatory to the extent that at least one such usage must exist.  (Your earlier remarks about owning cars can be given the same treatment; only one owner is mandated/must-exist, as a consequence of the fact that car-ownership is not forbidden.)  And I'm not talking about my own usages of "try" here; I'm talking about the ones I encountered in various books years and years ago, which paved the way for me to follow in their footsteps. V (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ""to the effect"???? Sorry, sweetheart; but, when you ask if "when anything not forbidden is mandatory" is the same as "if anything not forbidden is allowed", you are indeed, equating "mandatory" with "allowed". You repeated that equation when you attempted to clarify by substituting different terms for "allowed" and "mandatory". Feynman's argument cannot be applied to the car example. The laws Feynman is discussing are natural laws. Car ownership falls under man made laws. Our discussion is supposedly about rights - man made laws. You are committing a logical fallacy of category error. For laws of man's origin to allow something, it is not necessary for any actual instance of the allowed thing to exist. In the car instance, it is only necessary that cars be conceived of as being plausible and that the concept of ownership exist. Try: earnest and conscientious activity intended to do or accomplish something - from alphaDictionary. While the word "try" is often used when discussing natural phenomena, it is in a metaphoric sense. To take such usage literally is to fall into a logical fallacy of equivocation (weasel words, in wikispeak). One of your first criticisms of my comments was that it contained irrationality. Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. And you want me to discard scientific sensibilities when discussing the argument of a scientist. I have a big tip for you: when you have to ask your opponent to abandon reason, you've lost the debate. And your half remembered arguments out of long forgotten books do not count as evidence. Try again. Ermadog (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you continue to ignore what I actually wrote, and substitute what you think I wrote, here (inside braces below) is what I actually originally wrote:
 * {One rather famous interpretation (by Richard Feynmann) is, "Anything not forbidden is mandatory." Isn't that another way of saying, at the very least, that anything not forbidden is allowed (only more so; it is inevitable!)?}  (Time-stamp of its original posting is 03:00, 30 September 2010)
 * If you are unable to perceive that those statements clearly indicated that "mandatory" means more than merely "allowed", that's your problem, not mine. You also ignored my request that you present an rational example of something being mandated, but which also is not allowed to be done.  (If you are unable to present a counterexample to my overall claim that the meaning of the word "mandatory" includes the concept of allowed, then that means you lose that part of this debate, dude!)
 * Next, you are also wrong about "equivocation" as you shall see. I notice you did not deny that when a blastocyst makes an effort to crack its egg, the word "try" is applicable, even though volition is not part of the description.  You also did not deny that the blastocyst is equivalent to a complex stimulus-&-response machine.  Question: How simple must a mechanism be before the word "try" no longer can be associated with a potential action of that mechanism?  If a virus particle encounters a cell wall and an effort is made to inject viral DNA or RNA into the cell, cannot the word "try" be relevant in describing that effort (especially if an antiviral drug might happen to be present at the injection site, to interfere)?  If a hydraulic ram has a slightly damaged part (and it has very few moving parts to begin with!), can we never say that it is trying but not succeeding at pumping its normal quantity of water uphill?  Why haven't you noticed that the word "effort", a key part of the definition of "try", is closely related to the word "force"?  I distinctly recall in high school being informed that in a situation where opposing forces are balanced, it is possible to claim that zero forces are actually present, since by definition a force must be associated with a mass that is actually accelerating (and this does not happen when opposing forces are balanced).  I also suspect the scenario was presented to us students just to make us think; I'm confident that the actual description must say something about the net force being zero, and not say that zero forces are present.  Anyway, each of the opposing forces can be associated with the word "try"; this is simply a pretty minimal situation that includes the concept of "effort".  Therefore you lose again, since you have tried/failed to decree some sort of arbitrary lower limit to using the word "try" when describing various things; metaphors are not necessary, and the word "equivocation" is totally inapplicable.
 * Finally, about "rights". (I am reminded of an old joke: "Two wrongs don't may a right, but three lefts do.")  Rights are all about things that are allowed.  Let's consider something simple, like a "right to breathe air".  I'm pretty sure most people would claim to have such a right, but there is an unstated assumption that air is always present to be breathed.  If you were in a deep-diving submarine that sprung a major leak, how long do you suppose you will continue to have a right to breathe air, eh?  Obviously, you are not allowed such a right if no air is present!  When I say that Nature grants every living thing a "right to try", I'm talking about all the variety of  things that are possible, per natural laws (no matter how well or how poorly we describe those laws), for any/every living organism to do.  As a specific example, consider the possible event known as "an abortion".  It is because that event is physically-possible/"allowed" that we can say that Nature grants us a right to try it.  (And of course this means Nature grants us a right to try to commit murder, also.  Some people exercise that natural right, but most of us find that the Golden Rule is an excellent reason to avoid exercising that natural right--and the Golden Rule doesn't apply to fetuses, since they are incapable of understanding it, just like ordinary animals.)  For the other side of the coin, it appears that Nature does not grant anyone the right to build a local-scale perpetual-motion machine --yet we still have a right to make an effort (because it is possible to make an effort, "to try") to accomplish it, regardless if every effort toward that goal is always doomed to fail. V (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to comprehend the meaning of the words you actually wrote, that is not my problem. How is"when anything not forbidden is mandatory" (the words I cited you as saying) any different from the phrase "Anything not forbidden is mandatory." (the words you just now cite yourself as having said? I see no difference. And further, how is "anything not forbidden is allowed" (the phrase I cited you as saying) any different from " anything not forbidden is allowed (the words you now cite yourself as having said)? I see no difference. I have quoted you exactly. Your continued assertion that I have repeatedly misquoted is slanderous. If you continue in this vein, I will be resorting to Wikipedia conflict resolution efforts.
 * What I said was that you ignored what I wrote; I said nothing about you misquoting me. The thing that you ignored was the parenthesized modification of the question I had originally asked about "mandatory" being at least equal to "allowed" (the modification that indicated something naturally "mandatory" was also "inevitable").  It is because you ignored the modification (e.g. took the rest out of context) that you kept insisting that I had claimed that "mandatory" equaled "allowed".  And (timestamped 06:17, 1 October 2010) when I wrote this sentence (adding braces now as delimiters):  {What I actually wrote was words to the effect that "mandatory" includes/is-a-superset of "allowed".} --I was attempting to describe-in-different-words the earlier parenthesized modification.  You can reread your own response to that to see you continued to take part of what I originally wrote out of context!  And so, of course I wrote this, also (delimited now by braces: {If you continue to ignore what someone writes, pretending something else was written, ...} which is completely true, since what you wrote did not give due respect to the entire context of what I written about "mandatory" and "allowed".  I see that the preceding does not apply to your next paragraph. V (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your equation of "allowed" with "mandatory is implied in the question: isn't "A" another way of saying "B". "When you then add (only more so; it is inevitable!)" as a further clarification of "B"; and your clarification of "B" is an exact meaning of "A", you are in fact equating "A" (mandatory) with "B" (inevitable). It is a logical error of equivocation when a word which can, under some circumstances and under some conditions, mean the the same as some other specified word, is arbitrarily employed as a substitute for that other specified word. This is an equivocation you continue to make with the word "try", which has validity when applied to natural phenomena only in a metaphoric sense, which is a usage disallowed in logic and science. I provided you with a dictionary definition of the word "try" which includes "volition", which "Nature" clearly does not have. Your statement that "I also suspect the scenario was presented to us students just to make us think" implies an awareness on your part that the case was hypothetical, which indicates that the uses of the word "try" (and effort with an implication of volition) was not meant literally. Need I remind you that half remembered arguments from long forgotten books (and/or lectures) does not count for evidence? The fact that the word "try" includes the meaning "effort" does not mean that these two words can be arbitrarily substituted one for the other. To make such substitution without providing a case for its validity in the specific case at hand is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation, especially when the equivocation is being employed as a means of proving that something which can be true is true. In these cases, equivocation is also the logical fallacy of question begging. As previously mentioned, the concept "Anything not forbidden is allowed" has a long pedigree in various legal fields, such as - but not limited to and without prejudice - Judaism and English common law. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these arguments before continuing our current discussion.
 * And now that you have finally bothered to pay attention to the whole context of what I wrote, it looks to me that you are going out of your way to misunderstand it, because you have now ignored my other statement about (repeating earlier embraced quote): {What I actually wrote was words to the effect that "mandatory" includes/is-a-superset of "allowed".} This means your so-called logic regarding "A" and "B" above is utter nonsense, because you are not talking about the thing that I originally explicitly stated and the thing that I later added clarified-meaning!  In other words, you are still ignoring part of what I wrote, taking only the part that suits you out of context yet again! V (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did address what you put in parentheses, which was "(only more so; it is inevitable!)", which was included in your original formulation, and showed how it is precisely that stipulation that turns your implied equation of "mandatory" with "inevitable" into an actual equation. You additional phrase about the superset was a later response to my critique of your original argument. Your superset clarification was an attempt to change the parameters of your argument because your original argument failed and continues to fail. This is a logical fallacy known as changing the goal posts. Nice try, though.Ermadog (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong; I did not move the goalposts; they have been unchanged since I first posted that description of "mandatory" at 03:00, 30 September 2010. Your ridiculous claim that they've changed is just a poor excuse for your failure to pay full attention at the beginning.  Not to mention that I've challenged you to provide a rational example of something that is mandatory that is not allowed, and you have avoided it, obviously because the fact that you can't provide such an example proves that "mandatory" does include the concept of "allowed"; it is more-than-equal to "allowed'; it is a superset of "allowed". V (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no need to address your blastocyst example, as it is a subset of "Nature". (i would not go down this road if i were you. If the blastocyst can be shown to have volition, it can be shown to have personhood) It is therefore covered under the general declaration "Nature" has no volition", variants of which I have repeatedly made, and therefore does not "try'. Unless you are going to try to prove that a blastocyst has volition, your example has been dealt with. I will not address each and every example of natural phenomena "trying" anything, except to the extent that naturally occurring sentient beings have volition. The salient feature of naturally occurring reasonable sentient beings is the fact that we are able to self-consciously intervene directly in the chain of cause and effect which governs the existence of all other natural phenomena.
 * (interjecting) I wrote that a blastocyst is a stimulus-&-response machine, that it does not have volition. Nevertheless it is able to attempt to break out of its eggshell; it has genetic programming to make that effort, programming that is triggered when its cell-division process uses up most of the original food supply inside the egg.  Simple stimulus-&-response stuff; any computer programmer could write something that simple/non-volitional, a trigger for an equivalent encased machine (was actually done for the Mars Pathfinder lander), to break out of its case.  The point of that basic fact is that the word "try" does not have to be associated with volition.  You wrongly insist that it must, but I have seen that list of definitions, and very few of them incorporate volition as a factor.  Who are you to enforce your chosen definition of "try" upon everyone else????  Especially when common/widespread English usage does not insist that "volition" be part of its definition! V (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Look it up at alphDictionary. Try entails volition.Ermadog (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoop-te-do; your chosen dictionary supports your chosen definition. Too bad I never heard of that dictionary before (probably like huge numbers of other people).  I repeat, who are you to insist that that definition of "try", which includes "volition", must be the one-and-only-correct definition???  Because it most certainly is not!!! V (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why man made laws exist in a category discrete from natural laws, and why applying laws found in natural philosophy (now known as science) to man made laws such as rights is a category error. Feynman himself, upon whose argument you rely, recognizes this. When he states that social science is pseudo-science and not science, he is placing the two phenomena into different, largely irreconcilable, categories. He denies outright that social sciences have discovered any testable laws. Your entire case rests on this category error, on your equivocation error in your use of the word "try", and in your equivocation error in your uses of the words "mandatory" and "allowed". You have no case; and, at this point, you are beginning to look like a troll rather than a good faith debater. i will not go round this mulberry bush with you much longer.
 * And your entire case rests upon your chosen definition of "try". I've written too many computer programs that non-volitionally attempt to find certain unknown data items that are related to certain specified data items (sometimes the programs succeed; sometimes they don't) to swallow your chosen definition of "try".  You "do not go down the road" of talking about a blastocyst "trying" to break out of its eggshell only because your chose definition of "try" won't let you!  Tough!!!  I don't have that problem because I'm not stuck with your minority-usage definiton!!! V (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "And your entire case rests upon your chosen definition of "try"." Bwahahahaha! Bwahahaha! Shows what you know about logic! You're the one making a case. I'm just critiquing yours. I don't have to make a case. In a logical argument, the burden of proof is on he who alleges. You alleged that you could make an excellent case for natural rights. You have to prove that. You posited that things in "Nature" have a right to try. You have to prove that. You can't.
 * I used common meanings of common words to make my case. You basically stated that those meanings aren't good enough.  Tough.  You can prove or disprove anything if you change the language enough (talk about "moving goalposts!).  Which I didn't do!  Not to mention, I quote: {I think I could make an excellent case ...} --that is not the same thing as offering to prove something.  The fact that you have to resort to such tactics as changing the language just means that my case is, indeed, excellent. V (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your computer programmes do not try any more than anything else in nature tries. Your computer programmes do things because you've written those possibilities into the programmes. They seem to develop a life of their own because you put so many variables, loops, and and capacity for self-replication into it and because there are usually way to many lines of code for an individual to analyze. You have to rely on the capabilities of debugging programmes and the like. As a result, process arise that were not foreseen by the programmer. There was a time when any computer hobbyist could knock off a decent programme in an evening and debug it himself. Those days are long gone.Ermadog (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple programs can still be written relatively quickly. Much of the complexity of todays' coding work comes from all the bells and whistles that get added.  But nothing you wrote shows that when a computer attempts to accomplish an assigned task, the word "try" can not an appropriate part of the description of its effort.  Volition does not have to be part of the definition of that word! V (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have a general "right to make an effort" does not mean we have a right to build a perpetual-motion machine. A case could be made that the term "perpetual-motion machine" is meaningless, as it has such little relation to reality as to be meaningless. I have no knowledge of the technicalities on this point, and am trusting prevailing scientific opinion to be allowable (not mandatory) on this point.Ermadog (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you messed up what I wrote (now quoting it in braces): {it appears that Nature does not grant anyone the right to build a local-scale perpetual-motion machine} --that was my primary statement, after which I talked about trying to build one, anyway. I wrote several days ago that a "right to try" was not the same thing as a "right to succeed", and this particular example is basically about how everyone can try all they want (to build a "perpetual motion machine of the first kind"--I have to be more specific here because superconducting current loops are PMMs of the third kind), and, very likely, nobody will ever succeed (contingent upon current knowledge; we don't yet know absolutely everything, after all). V (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And my rejoinder remains: a general right to try does not automatically grant a specific right to try. In the example you gave, the right to try might be invalidated by the fact that the term describing the thing being attempted is a nonsense word. It's also a logical error of inductive reasoning. And of course, "nature" doesn't grant anybody anything. Nature has no volition. btw you are still ignoring the category error I pointed out in your Feynman based argument. Ermadog (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The example I gave does not involve a nonsense word. According to General Relativity, the Law of Conservation of Energy is a "local" phenomenon, which implies that it might be possible to build a perpetual motion machine if its dimensions approached the scale of the Universe.  But I'm aware of possible "nonsense phrases" like "a four-sided triangle".  Someone who thought they have a right to try to create such a thing might instead actually be invoking a right to try to look stupid --or they might create a tetrahedron....  I'm sure there are other nonsense phrases that have fewer loopholes; I'm not sure that there is never such a thing as a right to try. V (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Is there a reason why various Religion-based points, in the abortion debate, are not included in the article here? I see an implication in what Ermadog wrote that Religion no longer decides what a culture can embrace or reject, but I also see that Ermadog appears to be focusing on modern Western cultures, and we know that Wikipedia is accessed internationally, and some places still have Religions in control (not to mention also banning abortions in those places). V (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice the section on Religious Beliefs? which leads to a whole page on Religion and abortion? Religion was the basis of anti-abortion arguments in the 1960s and 70s. However, religious beliefs are inherently irrational and not available for objective scrutiny and proof. The anti abortion argument has shifted ground, relying on misreadings of scientific advances to claim that a fetus is a human being simply because it has human DNA. Heraclitus does not belong to modern Western cultures, and his dialectics are routinely overlooked by mainstream culture. The culture of ancient Greece bears little resemblance to modern Western culture.Ermadog (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about particular debate-points, of which a reader might think this article should provide some examples or summarize. The only points I see actually spelled out (e.g., "human life begins at conception") are no different from some of the non-religious debate-points (why does this article need such redundancy?).  But if the points unique to Religions are in the other article, then this objection becomes less important. V (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did a word search on the term "human life begins" on the Debate page. You know the only place it shows up is in the Religions section under Roman Catholic beliefs, don't you? And on this discussion page, your use of it here is the first time it shows up. There are plenty of non-religious statements about the beginning of human life that could be included under that particular point. For instance, Carl Sagan makes the point that life began in the stars billions of years ago, and that human life began millions of years ago on this planet. More to the point, Michael Gazzaniga has stated that it takes at least 6 month's gestation before a human being can be said to exist in the fetus. You did not begin this discussion with a question about the beginning of human life. You started with a question about whether reproduction rights exist. Lets finish that discussion before moving on to something unrelated, shall we?Ermadog (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)