Certainly, from a biological standpoint, you’re right, but I never disputed that.

“The idea that pro-lifers oppose abortion because of threats to human populations seems a bit unhinged.”

But you need to reread my posts. I didn’t say that, and tried to respond to your statement about “human populations” and “sea turtle populations.” (There are pro-life advocates, though, in low-birth countries like Russia and Spain, that actually do have that concern, whether legitimate or not.)

I’ll certainly admit to misunderstanding your reference to a particular species of turtle, and not to a more general reference to turtles. I read “population,” and then a few posts down read “species.”

But you read something entirely different in my remark about “brutal, oppressive, polluting Gaia-haters.” Mine references those radical environmentalists who greatly revere planet earth, nearly to divinity (hence Gaia) status. Any of those Christians to which you’re referring likely aren’t seeing such a statement as you are. Equating radical environmentalism with the doctrine of original sin doesn’t make much sense.

You also seem to be failing to see how my other observation relates to my earlier claim that it is Christians who are suggesting that, as you’ve put it, “non-human animals are completely innocent, and we humans are the brutal, oppressive, polluting Gaia-haters.”

Mark, you’re correct, but I wonder if you missed my point (which, of course, could be my fault, as I may not have made it as clearly as possible).

I was responding to Janice’s assertion that human populations are not threatened in the same way as animal populations (her words, “populations”), that human groups, essentially, are not endangered. It’s a completely ridiculous assertion, as many human groups–be they divided by ethnicity or religion–have been threatened, even pushed towards complete extermination.

Yes, sea turtles are a different species from, say, snapping turtles. And yes, Tutsis and Jews are both homo sapiens, so I understand your concern. The implication, at least as I understood it, was that elements of humanity have not been endangered in the way that animal species have, somehow almost implying that the plight of sea turtles is somehow worse. Which is absolute nonsense.

Certainly I wouldn’t use a term like “endangered species” for a persecuted group of people (it would be, as you point out, incorrect). But clearly, there are many examples of people who were endangered, whose very existence was being threatened.

Analogizing ethnic or religious groups to species is venturing into some pretty dangerous waters.

There is a serious moral question to be asked on whether mass murder on the scale of several million people is somehow less horrific and less of an atrocity if the victims are not concentrated in one ethnicity or religion in particular. I can see plausible arguments in both directions.

The real point is that wiping out the human race would require nothing less than a nuclear war. World War II killed as much as 3% of the world’s population and that was one of the most violent and genocidal conflicts in history. By comparison, the flu epidemic of 1918 killed about the same proportion of the world’s population.

I’m not sure, but I think you’re saying that sensible people should value the unborn life of a species solely according to how endangered it is. But aren’t competition and survival of the fittest the laws of nature? If we humans are to be considered merely as an animal species, neither better nor worse than any other, why should we care if the members of another species become extinct, unless that extinction threatens our own survival? Dogs don’t care if sea turtles become extinct, and, if we are no better than dogs, why should we? If, on the other hand, we are to be held to a higher standard than dogs or turtles, haven’t you then smuggled in the hated doctrine of human exceptionalism?

And I wonder what other aspects of the human continuum Janice finds reason to respect less than others.

“They’re suggesting that human fetuses deserve to be punished for being descendants of Adam. That also seems crazy, but you must admit, it is Christians who are saying these things.”

So yours isn’t a defense of the unborn, but a criticism of the doctrine of original sin? If so, you’re taking the original topic of this thread on a far-ranging journey. (Of course, even a hypothetical like infant limbo isn’t dogmatically held by many–or even most–Catholics.)

“Some of these folks confidently affirm that fetuses deserve far worse than prenatal dismemberment. A lot of others just suspect this.”

‘Far worse’ being what? Hellfire? Again, if this is what you’re pointing to, I’d like to meet these folks. I’ve never heard a Christian of any stripe–even some of the most doctrinaire Calvinists–argue that humans who die in utero go straight to hell. (I’ll admit ahead of time that I certainly could be wrong, but I just haven’t met any of them.)

“I guess these views are really strange, but your suggestion that human populations are threatened in the same way that sea turtle populations are threatened also a bit out of touch with reality. Are you familiar with the concept of an endangered species?”

Really? I’m the one out of touch with reality? European Jews, I assure you, felt quite endangered only a few decades ago. As did European Roma, Russian Jews, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Tutsis in Rwanda, black Africans in Darfur, ethnic Albanians in the former Yugoslavia, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I care for endangered animal species a great deal. I’m a conservationist. But your inability to see how humans of various ethnicities have been endangered over the centuries is shocking.

I appreciate your sentiment but humans have never been safe in the womb. Recent studies appear to show shockingly high rates of miscarriage in the early stages of pregnancy — before the woman may even know she is pregnant. The estimate right now is that 25% of pregnancies terminate naturally. It differs by age: young women have lower rates while women nearing menopause have rates between 50-90%.

One can imagine these numbers were even higher historically when humans had to fight for their survival. Miscarriage is part of the natural order — it’s something Darwin could have only imagined.

I suppose that when most people speak of a human fetus they “use the word with respect, not contempt.” But “respect” is a really fuzzy, multi-dimensional, concept. Most pro-choice people respect human fetuses, but probably not to the extent to which that you are hoping. Most pro-life folks respect non-human babies to some extent, but usually not in the way they respect human babies.

I’d love to hear more about your theory about how “much of the resistance to the pro-life cause is grounded in the false pride of angelism.” Sounds interesting, but, even with what you say, I’m not exactly seeing a strong connection. Would you also say that much of the resistance to the animal rights cause is grounded in the false pride of angelism?