Very good and I hope to be as articulate the next time it comes up.

i think both,but in specialy the slavery example is so true…and i hope generations after us will look back and say:"how people can be so limited and think that abortion is ok if it's legal?"

As far as I'm concerned this only applies to Pro-Lifers who oppose abortion in rape cases. In rape the mother isn't morally responsible for the life she is carrying, and like in Judith Thompson's "Violinist" analogy, we aren't duty bound in general to give up our bodily autonomy to strangers or even family for that matter.

So by forcing her to have the baby even though she isn't morally responsible, would be like us being forced to either donate a organ to save a life.

Regarding adoption, Pro-Life often argues against the argument that viability and the bodily independence is relevant, partly due to the point that neither the born or unborn, are truly independent organisms. Since the only real difference is that one is cared for internally and the other externally.

Therefore if we are saying there is a sort of equivalence in care, that an innocent life is of utmost value, and we are asking a rape victim to give up her bodily autonomy to save a life she isn’t responsible for, it isn't unreasonable to ask Pro-Lifers to adopt or foster for at least 9months and do the same. If we refuse we are then saying we can force a rape victim to give up her bodily autonomy but don’t ask me to do the same.

What Josh hasn’t done is correctly zeroed in on who is doing what to whom and what are the relevant rights in question. So there is no general equivalence in his counter.

BTW I’ll be speaking to him tomorrow so it will be interesting to hear his reply.

I have taken in three; for the last rwelve years they are the light of our life!

how many have you taken in?

Oops, I hit submit too soon.

The countering question to pro-choice people might be: Are you willing to pay for any and all counseling, psychiatric care, anti-depressents, fertility treatments, surgery to repair scarring, divorce costs, etc. etc. for post abortive women?? Because unless you are willing to personally take responsibility for the emotional and physical effects of the proceedure then you cannot call yourself pro-choice.

Pro aborters are people that know it is wrong but they get a kick out of murdering un born humans because they just want to kill people and have power over life but woe to those who shed innocent blood they face the wrath of their creator Jesus Christ

"Consistent moral rules followed consistently" I couldn't agree more. My stance is that abortion should never be legal. I would say that is pretty consistent.

I'm not understanding your last point. We are determining right from wrong. It's not relative, based on whether or not everyone else in the entire country would be willing to carry a baby conceived out of rape, to full term. (Which, I would do that, by the way, but that has nothing to do with the moral aspect of abortion.) Some people DO choose to murder, steal, rape, etc… Should we make those actions legal, to avoid living in a "hypocritical country"? Perhaps I just really misunderstood your point, but I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Abortion is either okay, or it is not. The act of abortion is the act of murdering an innocent human being. "Life" trumps "bodily autonomy" every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Period. Again, I have compassion for the poor woman who finds herself in that situation. However, allowing her to have an abortion, is morally unacceptable, in my opinion. However, what does MY opinion matter, when compared to the opinion of God, our Creator.

I will close with this paragraph, that I found from a pro-life website: "The final outcome of the battle for life has already been decided by the Resurrection of Christ. We are not just working for victory; we are working from victory. We joyfully take a victory that has already been won, and proclaim, celebrate, and serve it until He comes again to bring it to its fullness. "There shall be no more death" (Revelation 21:4). "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22:20)."

I can see both sides. It's not fair to the baby, but if you believe in god, you believe it will be born to another mother. But it is fair to the woman. It's HER body and it's HER uterus. There are always exceptions. I can understand a 16 year old accidentally getting pregnant and getting one abortion, but people shouldn't be allowed to get like 12 of them because they're not smart enough to use protection.

Thanks for responding to my piece, Simon. Sorry we missed our conversation last week, but I'm looking forward to talking to you in the future. In the meantime, let's dialogue a little about your counter-argument, so the others can understand both of our views a little better.

I have a few clarification questions for you. I think I understand where you're coming from, but I want to make sure I do before offering my own counter-argument, so as not to accidently commit a strawman.

Do you believe abortion is justified in rape cases?

Do you think Judith Thompson's "Violinist analogy" is a sound one, or do you think there are areas where the analogy fails to describe a pregnant woman's situation?

If you do think her analogy is sound, why is it that you believe abortion isn't morally justified for non-rape cases? Thompson's analogy is certainly more powerful when talking about rape cases, but Thompson believed abortion was morally justifiable in general, not just in rape cases.

Lastly, you wrote that I failed to correctly zero in on who is doing what to whom and what are the relevant rights in question. Enlighten us on who is doing what to whom, and what are the relevant rights in question.

Thanks, Simon!

It occurs to me that the larger problem with the argument that "abortion is okay because the baby will be born to another mother," is that the argument proves too much. Why would it be wrong to kill a newborn? After all, it'll just be born to another mother, right? If not, why is the fetus different than the newborn?

There is nothing in Scripture that can even be taken out of context to back up this thinking. It strikes me as more wishful thinking / an attempt to get pro-life Christians to not care so much about ending abortion.

But maybe I'm wrong…

and maybe I'm not.

Richard, thanks for your thoughts on this. Instead of just attacking me, you have attacked my arguments, and I appreciate that.

“As usual, each of your arguments begin with a set of assertions you assume to be proven.”

My arguments do presuppose that the unborn entity is a valuable human being like you and me. But I can provide sophisticated philosophical arguments to base that on. You are right though, that if the unborn entity is not a valuable human being, than the rest of my arguments are gone. If you can prove that the unborn is not a valuable human like you and me, then you’ve pretty much defeated the pro-life argument.

“There is no child, there is a fetus.”

I try to be careful not to play word-games, like some on both sides of this issue play. But this looks pretty similar to word games to me.

I guess it depends on how you define “child.” If “child” only means a young human that has been born, then you’re right, a human fetus doesn’t qualify. I don’t think that birth is relevant to your inherent value, though.

Either way, it doesn’t really matter what we call this living, human entity. What matters is the way we treat this entity. We either treat this entity as another human being at a different stage of development as us, or we discriminate against her because she is less developed.

If I had instead written, “how would this in any way justify the act of dismembering a defenseless human being,” would that have satisfied you? Because I see the two as equivalent. I’m not trying to use over-emotional terms to just get people on my side. That’s lame when either side does that.

“No one has made this claim, [that abortion is justified whenever that obligation is left unmet] but you clearly need it rationalize your position.”

I disagree. I’ve personally talked to lots of pro-choice people that make this claim. I’m glad that you’re not making that claim, but some do. They say pro-lifers shouldn’t even talk about the humanity of the unborn or claim that abortion is morally wrong if they’re not willing to first adopt all the unwanted babies. I’m just arguing that this is a poor pro-choice argument, because abortion is either right or wrong, regardless of how many babies I’ve personally adopted.

That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be willing to adopt an unwanted child; but even if I didn’t, even if I hated kids, that would only prove me inconsistent, not that my position is false.

Where it appears we agree is that talking about pro-lifers not being willing to adopt enough kids is not a good argument for abortion rights. But I was specifically responding to a letter to the editor in the Fresno Bee from a woman that spent most of her space making this argument. If she had made a more sophisticated argument for abortion rights, then I would have responded to that instead of responding to this. (which would have been equivalent to attacking a straw man.)

“What has been suggested is that the person taking the action take responsibility for the outcome (anti-choicers should take responsibility for the outcome of their own actions).”

In other words, if anti-choicers make it illegal to abort unwanted babies, they better be willing to adopt them first. I actually think that would happen, but that’s beside the point. If my foundational argument is correct, that the unborn are valuable human beings like you and me, then this pro-choice argument would be tantamount to telling William Wilberforce that unless he’s willing to take responsibility for the outcome of his actions in the abolition movement, (taking care of all the freed slaves) he shouldn’t be trying to abolish slavery.

Yes, I think it was important to help the freed slaves transition to a very new life, but even if William Wilberforce had lived long enough to refuse to participate in that, I wouldn’t have lectured him for helping free the slaves in the first place.

“Many pro-choice people also adopt unwanted children — clearly ones position on this issue has nothing to do with their attitudes on the morality of the issue.”

That’s not at all what I’m arguing. I’m responding to Jackie’s case that the pro-life position is not true because pro-lifers are supposedly unwilling to adopt all the unwanted babies. Thus, my counter-argument is valid.

What I am NOT arguing is that the pro-life position is true because many of us are willing to adopt babies. I know some high-level pro-choice activists that are very concerned about the foster care system for example, and good for them! I’m concerned about that as well. We have common ground on that issue. That doesn’t make either one of us right or wrong on the abortion issue. And I think that’s pretty clear when you understand Jackie’s argument that I’m responding to.

“And illegal? You have supplied no evidence that your personal beliefs should become laws that govern the private actions of others.”

That’s right. I haven’t supplied that evidence in this piece, because there’s a word count limit when writing letters to the editor. If I were asked to make a legal case against abortion rights, it would not be my above response to a lame ad-hominem attack against pro-lifers. It would be something more like this:

1. The unborn entity, from fertilization, is a full-fledged member of the human community.

2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.

4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

Josh –

Again, please refrain from straw men, they add nothing to your argument.

"You are right though, that if the unborn entity is not a valuable human being, than the rest of my arguments are gone"

This is not my wording at all. I only insist that you bring an accepted dictionary to the discussion, not your own personal one.

"If you can prove that the unborn is not a valuable human like you and me, then you’ve pretty much defeated the pro-life argument."

Trying to shift the burden of proof is a waste of time here, Josh. I buy into none of your premises, and you have not proven them. This is poor basis to pass laws that govern others — what's next, prove you are not a child molester and I will let you bear children?

"What matters is the way we treat this entity. We either treat this entity as another human being at a different stage of development as us, or we discriminate against her because she is less developed."

This is a false dichotomy. Are you proposing we treat children as adults, and give them the right to vote and drive cars? Treatment of human beings is based upon rational justification, not personal prejudice, as this treatment is never called discrimination. Again, quit trying to use your own dictionary.

"If I had instead written, “how would this in any way justify the act of dismembering a defenseless human being,” would that have satisfied you? Because I see the two as equivalent"

I know you do, but seeing a false equivalency is basis for a convincing argument. Many see all Muslims as equivalent to the 9/11 terrorists, or all Christians as David Koresh. Any equivalency needs to be justified independently.

"I’ve personally talked to lots of pro-choice people that make this claim."

I sincerely doubt you have ever met anyone who has said "Unless a anti-choice person will adopt your child when born then you should abort it". Please. You are forgetting that pro-choice is just what it says — no judgement is made on what a person should do with their unborn child. Your assertion is too ludicrous be believed without some objective evidence.

"But I was specifically responding to a letter to the editor in the Fresno Bee from a woman that spent most of her space making this argument."

You specifically claimed in this blog to be supplying arguments in general against a position. Are you now saying you only have an argument against a specific individual? What is the use in that? Or are you moving goalposts here?

" I actually think that would happen, "

Again, what you think would happen, in opposition to all known fact (the statistics on what happens when abortion is illegal is quite easy to look up. Do you really think we should make laws based on fantasy?)

" telling William Wilberforce that unless he’s willing to take responsibility for the outcome of his actions in the abolition movement, (taking care of all the freed slaves) he shouldn’t be trying to abolish slavery."

Your premise: Africans were unwanted humans requiring the care of others. Actual premise: Africans were completely able take care for themselves, given freedom.

This issue exists because a fetus and a newly born child cannot care for themselves. You must address the issue, not try to argue through bad analogy.

"That’s not at all what I’m arguing. I’m responding to Jackie’s case that the pro-life position is not true because pro-lifers are supposedly unwilling to adopt all the unwanted babies. Thus, my counter-argument is valid."

No, because you have not answered Jackie at all: What do you propose to do with children that society lacks the resources to care for? A real solution, not a fantasy one. Answer that, and then you have supplied a counter-argument.

" That doesn’t make either one of us right or wrong on the abortion issue."

Then why do you link adoption to the morality of abortion in your final statement in the blog? When you can't stay consistent over such a brief period of time, clearly something is fundamentally wrong with your logic.

"it would not be my above response to a lame ad-hominem attack against pro-lifers. It would be something more like this:"

This is really lame Josh. As someone who has invested heavily (on a personal basis) in a movement that claims the right to govern the actions of others, I would expect something more than a highly flawed bit of logic. I can defeat it at assertion #1:

"The unborn entity, from fertilization, is a full-fledged member of the human community."

Membership in a set is always based upon a series of tested attributes. For instance bonobos, while being primates, are not humans, because they fail some of these tests. Your inclusion of the "unborn entity" in the set "human community" is circular reasoning, because its rests on the premise that it belongs by definition.

Any any logical argument, if the basis is incorrect, then all that follows is considered unproven.

You would radically change the lives of others, by legal fiat, based upon bad logic?

“This is a false dichotomy. [That we either treat this entity as another human being at a different stage of development as us, or we discriminate against her because she is less developed.] Are you proposing we treat children as adults, and give them the right to vote and drive cars? Treatment of human beings is based upon rational justification, not personal prejudice, as this treatment is never called discrimination.”

Richard, there is a MAJOR difference between giving children drivers licenses, and legislating that we may not kill them. There is a reason we don’t give kids licenses or the right to vote. That doesn’t disqualify them from basic human rights, like life.

Amazingly, you accused me of creating a false dichotomy by creating a false dichotomy. This tells me that there’s a communication gap happening. It seems that you’re not really understanding my argument, and perhaps I’m not truly understanding yours. Thus we’re just talking past each other, which is clearly not effective.

I can provide rational justification for treating unborn humans as valuable entities, the way we treat born humans. If you are actually interested in that rational justification, then go to http://www.caseforlife.com/

“I sincerely doubt you have ever met anyone who has said ‘Unless a anti-choice person will adopt your child when born then you should abort it’.”

No, I haven’t heard someone say that. As I wrote above, what I HAVE heard people say is that unless pro-lifers are willing to adopt all the unwanted babies, they shouldn’t even talk about the humanity of the unborn or claim that abortion is morally wrong. That’s way different then the words you put in my mouth in the above statement. I’m trying very hard not to attack strawman arguments here, Richard. Are you?

“Membership in a set is always based upon a series of tested attributes. For instance bonobos, while being primates, are not humans, because they fail some of these tests. Your inclusion of the “unborn entity” in the set “human community” is circular reasoning, because its rests on the premise that it belongs by definition.”

It’s only circular reasoning if I have no evidence to support the statement. I do, and you can read about it in the above website that summarizes it well. (Or for a more sophisticated legal argument against abortion rights, Francis Beckwith’s “Defending Life” is the best treatise I’ve read.)

I wrote out a syllogistic argument, and you rejected it because I didn’t provide all the reasoning within the syllogism, even though that’s not required in a syllogism. It’s not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be me saying “humans are valuable because they are human.”

Richard, this article may help with the misconception that the unborn develop like a skyscraper. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/11/st…

I can find other lines of argument, but you refused to carefully read my entire entry. I wasn't going to make an exhaustive argument because two other people had done that already.

If you insist on using words, then etymology is very important. If you insist that we call the unborn child a "fetus," then it is important to understand what the word fetus means. Offspring, plain and simple. You cannot argue against etymology simply because it shatters your argument.

There is a fundamental difference between a living unborn child developing inside a womb and a mechanical structure. Josh provided a link for your perusal.

So what you're saying is that the definition of human life changes with the development of modern science? Currently, a child can be born about five months prematurely and have a chance, however small, of survival. What about if science one day perfects artificial womb technology and a child can survive outside the womb at any stage of pregnancy? Would that, then, determine that life begins at conception? Why would that be any different than now? Why is viability such a "be all and end all" of when life begins?

The facts of the matter are that the child is conceived by human parents, and everything reproduces after its own kind, plus the child has human DNA. The child is human at all points of his/her life span, ergo the child is alive at conception.

Another criteria for life, according to you, seems to be the imprinting of stem cells. What about other imprints? Through a young child's life, his/her brain is constantly developing, and his/her emotional state is being imprinted by his/her family and the world around him/her. We don't actually become fully developed until we become adults, so by your logic it should be acceptable to kill any non-adult. Not to mention that I'm sure the imprinting process doesn't stop at exactly the same time for each unborn child. So does one unborn child become human a few minutes or hours before another? Why is the beginning of life so arbitrary?

Plus, infants cannot live apart from their mother. They may not reside inside their mother any longer and may not be attached, but they cannot survive without the care of their parents. So by your logic, infanticide should also be legal.

For your edification, here is the definition of ad hominem: "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument." This comes from the Latin for "to the man." It is an ad hominem attack to call pro-lifers "anti-choicers." In fact, you've committed intellectual dishonesty by even defending your usage of it.

The truth is that pro-lifers are not trying to take away the woman's right the choose. We believe that women are wonderful and should have the right to choose their religion, their spouse, where to go to school, what car to drive, what outfit to wear, etc, etc. I may love someone dearly, but I would never support their right to go murder someone they don't like. By the same token, I would never support a woman's right to kill an unborn child. She may make any choice she wants but when it comes to a moral wrong, then choosing the moral wrong (like abortion) is unacceptable. You are "anti-life" when it comes to abortion, but I doubt you're "anti-life" when it comes to murder, genocide, etc. So I will not call you "anti-life" because it's just an inflammatory insult. As such, I am "anti-choice" when it comes to abortion, murder, genocide, etc. However, I am "pro-choice" when the choices don't involve the taking of innocent life. We are not setting out to rob women of anything.

"I can find other lines of argument, but you refused to carefully read my entire entry. I wasn’t going to make an exhaustive argument because two other people had done that already.

If you insist on using words, then etymology is very important. If you insist that we call the unborn child a “fetus,” then it is important to understand what the word fetus means. Offspring, plain and simple. You cannot argue against etymology simply because it shatters your argument."

Talk about refusing to read what people have written! As I previously wrote, Latin origins of words cannot possibly have anything to do with laws that govern our actions.

"There is a fundamental difference between a living unborn child developing inside a womb and a mechanical structure"

Obviously. I was using an analogy to demonstrate your argument was flawed. "Developmental stages" is also an analogy.

"That was Josh, I believe."

Oops, maybe it was Clinton. Either way…

"Oh no, Richard? Then are are the names of many of our laws in Latin? “Habeus Corpus,” and all that? Latin plays a major role in our laws."

I am going to show this to others, Clinton, because they will not believe someone making arguments in favor of making abortion illegal is fixated on the fact some people speak words derived from Latin.

I hope you don't mind, be forewarned if you do.

I guess I didn't refresh fast enough. Richard, you are not making arguments, you are trying in desperation to prove your side. As such, I will no longer argue with you. Good day.

"Actually, Richard, you misunderstood. Which was probably my fault for not explaining clearly. What if a woman is just a month pregnant, but something severe happens and she faces the decision that her life is in jeopardy. The child could then be transported from her womb to the artificial womb to live. That is completely relevant to the conversation because you used viability as one of your arguments."

Because viability is a legitimate area of discussion and our current abortion laws reflect this. A recently passed law (Nebraska?) made a precise statement as to when an abortion is allowed (prior to 20 weeks). This law was passed by anti-choicers, who somehow possess a precise definition of when conception occurs and when taking away a women's right to terminate begins.

But this is not the issue is it? The issue is making abortion illegal without giving a justification that does not resort to personal prejudice.

I have pointed out that the fertilized cell is doomed to extinction by its very design until imprinted by the mother. Would you say a non-viable organism should be treated differently than a viable one? I would.

"Richard, this article may help with the misconception that the unborn develop like a skyscraper. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/11/st…

I just found it confusing, full of straw men, and containing many scientific errors. Can you summarize for me what you gathered from it you find enlightening?

"For your edification, here is the definition of ad hominem: “attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.” This comes from the Latin for “to the man.” It is an ad hominem attack to call pro-lifers “anti-choicers.” In fact, you’ve committed intellectual dishonesty by even defending your usage of it."

Ok, this is an ad hominem attack against me.

I still fail to see that using the label "anti-choice" in the current discussion to highlight that the issue I am discussing is whether one is in favor of a women's right to choose or against it, while still allowing anyone to label themselves anyway they choose is an ad hominem.

Richard, what is you specific qualification for a human being, that it can survive without imprinting? Isn't that just a stage, just as a toddler's full reliance on his mother is just a stage? A fetus has the same genetic material, no new information will be added. It has human parents, how can human parents create something non-human?

GREAT ARTICLE, JOSH!! I personally know several Pro-lifers that are seeking adoption. I will also adopt in the future. It is such a long and EXPENSIVE process. I have an idea… Why don't we as a nation reduce the charges for adoption and the paperwork and paper filing, so that women who are in need of willing couples to adopt their children, are able and free to do so, in a timely manner. Instead of just saying let's destroy the life, if that's what the woman wants. We can make it easier on both ends. The woman struggling with the decision of adoption, the child soon to be murdered and the couple willing to adopt and raise the children with love. Of course, I am being a bit fasicious; however, I am trying to make a point. And that is… NOT all Pro-choicers are in it for the womens rights, they just don't want to have restrictions, guidelines and rules for their life and their bodies. So, to them by standing up for a "woman," allows them to shield themselves from any type of judgement. It doesn't matter what anyone else experiences or goes through, as long as, number one is ok. And of course, that is themselves. The only thing that I can do is pray for people with that mentality. I am a Pro-lifers and I care about the woman, the baby and the couple desiring to adopt. I am not some radical extremist with no heart, religious fanatic, unmerciful and an enemy of womens rights. Come on now, I am a woman. However, I know my role and I know my limitations as a woman. I have rights; however, they are not to supercede other peoples rights, as humans with the breathe of life; regardless, of their location, environment, age or size. I can go on, but I will not. Selah.

Exactly the second I’m legally allowed to adopt those precious angels I will.