“I would argue that this is evidence that the particular individuals who are unaware of this do not really care that much about fertilized eggs. For example, most pro-lifers “know” that Plan B causes failure of implantation (murder in some cases and not in others), even though a recent rather solid study concluded that this is not true. Yet this is unknown to them? Has the pro-life movement not informed them of this, or exhorted its political supporters to sponsor science that will stop this? If not, is the pro-life movement unaware of this, or is it simply not important enough when it can’t be used to take away the rights of women?”

Most pro-lifers, like most pro-choicers, have not put in the sort of time and energy to get fully informed about the issue that you and I have. Their support or opposition to the issue is largely driven by intuition, etc. I would wager that most people in the pro-life camp probably could not tell you much about Plan B at all. Or if they could, then they would still be unaware of the sheer number of human embryos lost naturally. Pro-lifers do have lots of educational resources, but obviously they tend to be consumed by the most committed, which represents a small percentage of those who call themselves pro-life. This cuts both ways too. I have met plenty of pro-choicers who were surprised to hear that embryology textbooks state that fertilization marks the beginning of a human being’s life.

Furthermore, we live in a country where late-term abortion is legal. Given that pro-lifers actually have a reasonable chance in today’s political climate to address that injustice, they tend to spend the bulk of their time and energy on stopping something that is within the realm of the possibility. Focusing on stopping natural loss of human embryos is just not as high on their priority list for obvious reasons. Something that happens naturally is just not considered as tragic as something that happens deliberately. Again, you strike me as someone who is smart to figure this out on your own.

And enough with the “rights of women” nonsense too. One of the things you would learn about the pro-life movement if you studied it at all, is that the most committed are disproportionately women. I could just as easily call the pro-choice movement the “adolescent male’s right to have sex without having to take any sort of responsibility movement.”

“Why is that? Even though I am not a Christian, I can see the empirical evidence for original sin, if you will. In the abstract it is probably better to have fewer humans.”

Umm, let’s move on.

“That is probably not true for my grandparents’ generation (they’re in their 80s, and none of their children died), maybe for my great-grandparents. But mindlessness often leads to heartlessness and cruelty. People unthinkingly commit rather severe evils.”

Is having children a severe evil? Are you sure you understand the difference between natural death and murder? Because you continually state that you do, and then continually write sentences like the above that indicate that you don’t.

“I would be, if there were a 50/50 chance that they’d die as a child. I would be horrified that someone “had” me, if there were a 50/50 chance that I would die as a child.”

Fine.

“Probably. But some of these folks want to outlaw Plan B for this reason, that it leads to the “natural” death of eggs, even though recent research shows that it does not.”

Come on. Plan B makes it more difficult for human embryos to implant. That’s the point. It doesn’t follow at all that pro-lifers are aware that so many don’t implant naturally.

“Whether or not someone is meddling in the affairs of others is completely unrelated to the question of whether they are being hypocritical. Infanticide is killing a separate and independent human being, so opposing it is not meddling in the affairs of anyone. The same is not true for abortion (I know you disagree), so that’s automatically interfering in the affairs of others, regardless of whether someone is being hypocritical.”

You’re right. I disagree. :)

“The IVF argument is separate from the fertilized egg argument, though they share one thing in common. My argument is that a lot of pro-lifers like to apply their beliefs when it takes away from the rights of others (women mostly), but don’t want to consistently apply these beliefs to their own rights. A Christian pro-lifer who is using IVF is one example. Why did the Persoonhood Amendment lose in Mississippi – a state where most would be all too happy to take away the rights of women? A state where the current governor said that a loss for the Personhood Amendment would be a victory for Satan? It’s because of people like the Carpenters, who think that their ability to have children is more important than the fact that the (they think) brothers and sisters of those children will die: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-07/us/us_mississippi-personhood-amendment_1_fertilization-carpenters-anti-abortion-amendment?_s=PM:US”

You really do care about this Mississippi personhood amendment. I didn’t really follow it that much. One interesting thing about that CNN article, is that it stated that the family was Christian, but on my quick reading, it did not state that the family was pro-life. The first does not always lead to the second. I have no idea why the amendment failed. My guess is that people thought it went too far. I do recall reading somewhere that the Catholic Bishops opposed it, but cannot remember why. Anyway, I think you are putting way too much stock into this one failed amendment. Most people don’t use IVF, most people are not aware of the facts of natural loss of human embryos, and most people think that reproducing is worthwhile even if it leads to natural death at the earliest stages. I think you are greatly exaggerating both the numbers of people who are holding the sort of “hypocritical” views you ascribe to them, and the motivations for their alleged hypocrises.

I would argue that this is evidence that the particular individuals who are unaware of this do not really care that much about fertilized eggs. For example, most pro-lifers “know” that Plan B causes failure of implantation (murder in some cases and not in others), even though a recent rather solid study concluded that this is not true. Yet this is unknown to them? Has the pro-life movement not informed them of this, or exhorted its political supporters to sponsor science that will stop this? If not, is the pro-life movement unaware of this, or is it simply not important enough when it can’t be used to take away the rights of women?

Tim: And that since reproduction is still a worthwhile endeavor

Why is that? Even though I am not a Christian, I can see the empirical evidence for original sin, if you will. In the abstract it is probably better to have fewer humans.\

Tim: Do you consider your grandparents’ generation heartless and cruel specifically for continuing to reproduce in a world where so many infants (and mothers) did not survive?

That is probably not true for my grandparents’ generation (they’re in their 80s, and none of their children died), maybe for my great-grandparents. But mindlessness often leads to heartlessness and cruelty. People unthinkingly commit rather severe evils.

Tim: Are you slightly horrified that your grandparents went ahead and had your parents?

I would be, if there were a 50/50 chance that they’d die as a child. I would be horrified that someone “had” me, if there were a 50/50 chance that I would die as a child.

Tim: First of all, why do you assume that everyone who opposes abortion knows the facts of embryo loss? I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea how many human embryos fail to implant.

Probably. But some of these folks want to outlaw Plan B for this reason, that it leads to the “natural” death of eggs, even though recent research shows that it does not.

Tim: Secondly, would you consider people who supported laws against infanticide a century ago to be meddling in the affairs of others given that there was a not-insignificant chance their own children might die in infancy?

Whether or not someone is meddling in the affairs of others is completely unrelated to the question of whether they are being hypocritical. Infanticide is killing a separate and independent human being, so opposing it is not meddling in the affairs of anyone. The same is not true for abortion (I know you disagree), so that’s automatically interfering in the affairs of others, regardless of whether someone is being hypocritical.

Tim: Who are these pro-life Christians using IVF who fought against the Personhood Amendment? How many of them are there? How many of them know the facts about human embryo loss?

The IVF argument is separate from the fertilized egg argument, though they share one thing in common. My argument is that a lot of pro-lifers like to apply their beliefs when it takes away from the rights of others (women mostly), but don’t want to consistently apply these beliefs to their own rights. A Christian pro-lifer who is using IVF is one example. Why did the Persoonhood Amendment lose in Mississippi – a state where most would be all too happy to take away the rights of women? A state where the current governor said that a loss for the Personhood Amendment would be a victory for Satan? It’s because of people like the Carpenters, who think that their ability to have children is more important than the fact that the (they think) brothers and sisters of those children will die: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-07/us/us_mississippi-personhood-amendment_1_fertilization-carpenters-anti-abortion-amendment?_s=PM:US

[Maximilian] …it’s rather hard to engage “you’re going to hell” on the merits, or to take it seriously as a secular argument.

You seem to be confusing me with another poster.

[JDD] Well, it’s only taken a week to get here.
[Maximilian] You didn’t ask for evidence, you demanded that I google “atheist pro-life”

Your original ‘eccentric lone wolf’ statement was the problem. As a matter of fact, I suggested that a simple web search might reveal that the evidence was against it. You responded with, “… I will not spend hours of my time in exhaustive study of arguments I’ve known for a long time.” I then asked you to show me your source for this knowledge. It took about three tries to get it. A week later, you’ve provided me with a document that backed up my point.

[JDD] Not sure why you left “Secular Unaffiliated” out of your group. Even so, how does your above statement of 13-14% square with your first statement of [lone eccentric],
[Maximilian] Perhaps you thought I meant that in the whole of the US, there were two or three atheists who were anti-abortion. In actuality, I meant a very small number, and I suspect (though can’t prove beyond anecdote) that a lot of the 13-14% are anti-abortion because of their affiliation with conservative political ideology. There certainly are more than 13-14% of atheists/agnostics who will vote for the likes of Mitt Romney.

Oh, you actually meant a very small number. Come on, Maximilian. Just admit that, hm, 13-14% – from your own source! – is a significant percent of persons who oppose abortion outside of religious reasons, and stop trying to argue it’s a mere aberration. You omitted ‘secular unaffiliated’ (19%) because… ? But anything to avoid having to admit that there are a significant amount of persons who hold a pro-life position apart from religious convictions. It must be *secretly religious*, or because of party affiliation, or *something*…

[JDD] My question was to point out how ridiculous your equivalency was. I doubt it actually failed. (…) The embryo is immediately alive as a newly created entity, and we’re discussing that lifespan.
[Maximilian] You stand by your statement that “something is what it will naturally become”? Then I do not see how you could disagree with my statement that you and I are then dust. Your statement did not limit the application of this principle only to the lifespan of the organism – indeed, I can’t see how it could, seeing as this something will naturally die and turn to dust.

As a quick perusal of the conversation thread will show, I didn’t disagree with your statement that ‘we are then dust’. I disagreed with your next leap of logic. We’re discussing the lifespan of a living entity – though our point of disagreement is with what that bookend represents, we still agree that there are bookends. When that entity begins living, we begin evaluating. When it stops living, we conclude. Within those bookends, I argue that something is what it will naturally become. If indeed you ‘can’t see how’ my statement could ‘limit the application of this principle,’ then you’d also have to argue that, for example, I can punch a stranger on the street in the nose with no moral culpability because they’re eventually going to be dust, and there’s nothing wrong with punching dust. That’s where your additional principle of application takes us. That’s why I don’t hold it.

Along these lines, I’d be interested in hearing your response to the acorn-to-tree defense presented in the previously linked paper.

[JDD] Could you please give us your definition of what a DNA test is suited for?
[Maximilian] A paternity test, for example.

Another use: to determine what species something is. Do you agree that this is another use?

[JDD] and “it [technological advances in viability] won’t [change our understanding of the nature of the fetus...]” Well, you’ve just offered a faith-based opinion yourself.
[Maximilian] A reasoned argument is not ‘faith-based’ or ‘dogma’.

“It won’t,” as a prediction of a cultural response to emerging technology is not a particularly reasoned response – it’s a guess. You’ll argue an educated guess, sure. In light of, as I mentioned before, your statement already being disproven based on previous technological advances, it seems to be without empirical support. It appears to be more of a argument based on what you already hold to be true – namely, ‘the embryo isn’t a human being’.

[Maximilian] …while technology may allow us to create a brooding machine in which a fertilized egg can come to term, that would not change the nature of a fertilized egg.

I agree, a ‘brooding machine’ would not change the nature of a fertilized egg; it might however change our culture’s understanding of that nature. It would be a disaster for the viability argument.

[JDD] Are you saying that if viability is advanced before the age that you would consider a fetus “identical in function…” then you would allow abortion to that viable fetus?
[Maximilian] I am hampered somewhat by my lack of knowledge of what machines are used to help a viable fetus survive, and in what way. But here is what I can say. In my understanding, a 24-week fetus is identical in function to an actual baby, but just weaker – so it needs the aid of machines to survive. This would not be true for a 16-week fetus.

So would you allow the abortion of a fetus that was viable, but not ‘identical in function to an actual baby, just weaker’? Is a baby who is 28 weeks, but unable to breathe because of an undeveloped lung, ‘identical in function to an actual baby’, or not?

This baby was born at 22 weeks:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

[JDD] Sadly, a young girl or woman is often told that the abortion will reset things and remove the stigma of incest or rape – when in reality that doesn’t happen. What happens instead is the woman becomes even more isolated than before; because to everyone outside her experience, all evidence indicates that everything’s been reversed.
[Maximilian] A utilitarian argument, based on no evidence? I’ll let that pass – if you made an argument like “yeah, it’s bad for the victim, but she just needs to suck it up” , it may make you sound heartless, and you probably do not want to think of yourself in that manner.

Again, you make up some thoughts that *must* be in your opponent’s head. I provided you with evidence by citing the organization Rachel’s Vineyard. http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/

Here’s another one: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/

[JDD] Prolife people simply don’t have a problem with natural death.
[Maximilian] You do, just like everyone else. If a child dies “naturally”, you do have a problem with it.

We’re not talking about sorrow, here. By ‘don’t have a problem’ we mean that we don’t have a big moral conundrum.

“You are consistent in that regard, though this answer does slightly horrify me, and I mean no offense. Even though you keep pretending that I say there is no difference between ‘natural death’ and murder, that is not my argument (go back and read my first comments), my argument is that pro-lifers don’t act as if fertilized eggs are actual human beings.”

But why does this slightly horrify you? There was a real chance during your grandparents’ generation that their children (i.e. your parents) would die in infancy. Are you slightly horrified that your grandparents went ahead and had your parents?

“If I believed that half/one quarter (I don’t have the qualifications to either affirm or dispute your claim) of all human beings died, I would be pushing for scientific research, to prevent this great atrocity.”

Atrocity? I think you used the word “massacre” earlier on. You keep reassuring me that you know there is a clear difference between natural death and murder, and then you use the word “atrocity” in describing a natural occurrence. Most people associate “atrocity” with some type of agency/action. I suppose it’s possible to label a natural occurrence an atrocity, but not many people do that. Do you consider the deaths that came about as a result of that earthquake in Port-au-Prince part of an atrocity? A massacre?

“People also do their best to avoid children dying in infancy due to natural causes.”

Again, people know their children are alive and have formed an emotional bond with them, whereas most people have no idea that roughly one quarter of all human embryos fail to implant. And again, even if they did know this, they may conclude that there is little that can be done about it, and that reproduction is still worthwhile. In short, they are acting the way people did one hundred years ago when infant mortality rates were so high.

“I am not sure what you mean. Is it your assertion that “everyone will die, so any child being born is one death, so according to your reasoning, that’s murder”? Of course, you would have to take the relativist course and insist that there is no difference between a child and a senior dying of natural causes.”

I had a hard time following this paragraph. And I don’t think “relativist” means what you think it does.

“And again, I am not saying that fertilized eggs being naturally destroyed and abortion are ‘the same thing’. I never have. You can look at earlier posts, and you will never see me saying that they are equivalent. Perhaps you think this is a straw man that is easier to knock down. But my argument has always been that pro-lifers don’t act like they believe that fertilized eggs are human beings, or we would se more concern about this fact. You may say that it does not matter, because it’s a ‘natural’ death, but I can assure you that if half of my children died of ‘natural’ causes, I would be very upset. Yet I can perceive no such thing.”

When you add together the parts that a) most people, and that includes pro-lifers, are unaware of how many human embryos fail to implant b) mothers who lose children at the embryonic stage are often unaware of it c) it is more difficult to form emotional attachments to human beings when you are unaware of their existence d) even if you are aware that sexual activity can and does lead to the natural death of human embryos, that the good of reproduction is still worthwhile, then when taken together, the opposition of pro-lifers to the deliberate destruction of human embryos is still perfectly consistent.

“It all boils down to “fertilized eggs are humans, but only if it inconveniences others, and not us”.

Inconveniences? First of all, why do you assume that everyone who opposes abortion knows the facts of embryo loss? I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea how many human embryos fail to implant.

Secondly, would you consider people who supported laws against infanticide a century ago to be meddling in the affairs of others given that there was a not-insignificant chance their own children might die in infancy?

It’s comments like this that really make me wonder whether you do understand the difference between natural death and murder despite your protestations to the contrary.

“That’s also why pro-life Christians using IVF fought against Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment.”

Who are these pro-life Christians using IVF who fought against the Personhood Amendment? How many of them are there? How many of them know the facts about human embryo loss?
Do these people really serve as a sort of stand-in for all pro-lifers?

“Parents grieve over children who die from natural causes. Despite believing that fertilized eggs are children, pro-lifers do not grieve over, or even acknowledge, the fertilized eggs that failed to implant. Can you explain this?”

Sure. Most people, and that includes most pro-lifers, are unaware that roughly 25% of human embryos die as a result of a failed implantation. When a mother grieves over the loss of her child, she obviously has known about the existence of her child and has been able to form an emotional attachment to it. That’s why you see women (and men too) mourning after miscarriages, even if they obviously have never held the child that was within them. Max, you strike me as intelligent enough to figure this out.

Even those people who do know this fact rightly conclude that there is little that can be done about it at present time. And that since reproduction is still a worthwhile endeavor, the risk of natural death is worth it, given that at the end of the day, everyone must die. And yet it is perfectly consistent for these people to oppose the deliberate destruction of human beings at any stage.

“I was wondering why it took you so long to come with this argument. And I have also wondered why people in the Middle Ages would have children, when so many of them would die. I wouldn’t.”

You really do wonder that? I wonder at your wonder.

“People of yesteryear were pretty heartless and cruel. Even though I’m not impressed with what we are today, we are ever so slightly better than the people of 1000 years ago.”

Okay, but that’s a bit of a dodge. Do you consider your grandparents’ generation heartless and cruel specifically for continuing to reproduce in a world where so many infants (and mothers) did not survive? Do you consider their continued opposition to infanticide and other forms of murder as hypocritical?

Parents grieve over children who die from natural causes. Despite believing that fertilized eggs are children, pro-lifers do not grieve over, or even acknowledge, the fertilized eggs that failed to implant. Can you explain this?

Tim: Since you don’t bother responding to my question, I’ll go ahead and assume that you have never actually criticized a couple for losing a child to natural causes while continuing to oppose murder.

I did answer your question. I just changed your question to make it analogous to the case we were discussing.

Tim: One hundred and fifty years ago, infant mortality rates were at least this high in several parts of the world, and yet people managed to continue to oppose infanticide without someone leveling ridiculous charges of inconsistency at them.

I was wondering why it took you so long to come with this argument. And I have also wondered why people in the Middle Ages would have children, when so many of them would die. I wouldn’t.

Tim: By the way, in your scenario, I would probably try to have kids and hope for the best

You are consistent in that regard, though this answer does slightly horrify me, and I mean no offense. Even though you keep pretending that I say there is no difference between ‘natural death’ and murder, that is not my argument (go back and read my first comments), my argument is that pro-lifers don’t act as if fertilized eggs are actual human beings.

Tim: What if they are concerned, but conclude that natural death is a part of life, and that reproducing is still a worthy undertaking?

That’s a decent argument, one that I don’t see pro-lifers making.

Tim: People continued to reproduce years ago when infant mortality rates were higher than the actual rate of failed embryonic implantation today. Do you consider these people of yesteryear heartless and cruel?

People of yesteryear were pretty heartless and cruel. Even though I’m not impressed with what we are today, we are ever so slightly better than the people of 1000 years ago.

Tim: Maybe a time will when come when we can understand how to reduce, or even avoid altogether roughly a quarter of all human embryos failing to implant in the womb

If I believed that half/one quarter (I don’t have the qualifications to either affirm or dispute your claim) of all human beings died, I would be pushing for scientific research, to prevent this great atrocity.

Tim: And the number of children who die in infancy even today is higher than the number of actual infanticides carried out in this country. And yet people continue to oppose infanticide.

People also do their best to avoid children dying in infancy due to natural causes.

Tim: In the meantime, the thought experiment I proposed is what actually happens in the real world, and you ignored it completely.

I am not sure what you mean. Is it your assertion that “everyone will die, so any child being born is one death, so according to your reasoning, that’s murder”? Of course, you would have to take the relativist course and insist that there is no difference between a child and a senior dying of natural causes.

And again, I am not saying that fertilized eggs being naturally destroyed and abortion are ‘the same thing’. I never have. You can look at earlier posts, and you will never see me saying that they are equivalent. Perhaps you think this is a straw man that is easier to knock down. But my argument has always been that pro-lifers don’t act like they believe that fertilized eggs are human beings, or we would se more concern about this fact. You may say that it does not matter, because it’s a ‘natural’ death, but I can assure you that if half of my children died of ‘natural’ causes, I would be very upset. Yet I can perceive no such thing. It all boils down to “fertilized eggs are humans, but only if it inconveniences others, and not us”. That’s also why pro-life Christians using IVF fought against Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment.

I do, insofar as there are arguments. But it’s rather hard to engage “you’re going to hell” on the merits, or to take it seriously as a secular argument. You are free to disagree, and to provide evidence for your position, if you have it.

JDD: Well, it’s only taken a week to get here

You didn’t ask for evidence, you demanded that I google “atheist pro-life” – I responded to what you said, not to what you may have desired.

JDD: Not sure why you left “Secular Unaffiliated” out of your group. Even so, how does your above statement of 13-14% square with your first statement of [lone eccentric],

Perhaps you thought I meant that in the whole of the US, there were two or three atheists who were anti-abortion. In actuality, I meant a very small number, and I suspect (though can’t prove beyond anecdote) that a lot of the 13-14% are anti-abortion because of their affiliation with conservative political ideology. There certainly are more than 13-14% of atheists/agnostics who will vote for the likes of Mitt Romney.

JDD: My question was to point out how ridiculous your equivalency was. I doubt it actually failed. (…) The embryo is immediately alive as a newly created entity, and we’re discussing that lifespan.

You stand by your statement that “something is what it will naturally become”? Then I do not see how you could disagree with my statement that you and I are then dust. Your statement did not limit the application of this principle only to the lifespan of the organism – indeed, I can’t see how it could, seeing as this something will naturally die and turn to dust.

JDD: Could you please give us your definition of what a DNA test is suited for?

A paternity test, for example.

JDD: and “it [technological advances in viability] won’t [change our understanding of the nature of the fetus...]” Well, you’ve just offered a faith-based opinion yourself.

A reasoned argument is not ‘faith-based’ or ‘dogma’.

JDD: And to your second statement, there’s ample precedent to demonstrate that technological advances *already have*, on numerous occasions, changed our understanding of the fetus.

Didn’t you ask the freezing question? The point is the same. Technology may advance to enable freezing of actual human beings, but that doesn’t change the fact that human beings are so developed and complicated that technologically unaided freezing will destroy the complicated organic tissue that they possess – which is not true for embryoes and fetuses. And while technology may allow us to create a brooding machine in which a fertilized egg can come to term, that would not change the nature of a fertilized egg.

JDD: Are you saying that if viability is advanced before the age that you would consider a fetus “identical in function…” then you would allow abortion to that viable fetus?

I am hampered somewhat by my lack of knowledge of what machines are used to help a viable fetus survive, and in what way. But here is what I can say. In my understanding, a 24-week fetus is identical in function to an actual baby, but just weaker – so it needs the aid of machines to survive. This would not be true for a 16-week fetus.

JDD: It’s becoming clearer now why, in an earlier post, you included a parenthetical phrase that you, “would not allow for the use of technology that would simulate the womb.” It’s an odd condition to just throw in there. Can you explain why not?

I didn’t mean that I would outlaw it, only that it should not be used in consideration of what is and what is not a human person that should be protected. If it is used as a substitute womb, it does not change our understanding of the fetus – it only means that we are able to simulate the conditions of a womb.

JDD: Sadly, a young girl or woman is often told that the abortion will reset things and remove the stigma of incest or rape – when in reality that doesn’t happen. What happens instead is the woman becomes even more isolated than before; because to everyone outside her experience, all evidence indicates that everything’s been reversed.

A utilitarian argument, based on no evidence? I’ll let that pass – if you made an argument like “yeah, it’s bad for the victim, but she just needs to suck it up” , it may make you sound heartless, and you probably do not want to think of yourself in that manner.

JDD: Your third criticism – about not conceiving at all, lest I miscarriage?

A miscarriage tends to be something people are aware of. It’s unpleasant to put it mildly. The 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant pass without the individual noticing or caring much. Which just shows to me that pro-lifers do not believe that these are human beings, or they would be upset.

JDD: Prolife people simply don’t have a problem with natural death.

You do, just like everyone else. If a child dies “naturally”, you do have a problem with it.

JDD: But your redirection rebuttal is noted.

Just showing you that you appear in the same way to me as I do to you.

“Already answered multiple times, so let me quote myself: “Should people die after a long life, from natural causes? Yes, [it's unavoidable]. Should they die as children? No. I don’t regard fertilized eggs as children, so this is not a problem for me.”

Repeating a non-answer is not an answer. It is unavoidable that some children die from natural causes. What percentage of children that die at this stage is irrelevant. They do die. Does that make opposition to child-murder hypocritical? Of course not.

“If I had a serious hereditary disease, which meant that there was a 50% chance of my children dying an untimely death, I would not have children. What about you?”

Since you don’t bother responding to my question, I’ll go ahead and assume that you have never actually criticized a couple for losing a child to natural causes while continuing to oppose murder. You might want to practice the sort of bold action that you require of others.

As for your actual reply, it is both inaccurate and irrelevant. Roughly 45% of human embryos fail to implant, but it is estimated that at least half of these involve defective fertilizations, and thus do not involve complete human organisms. One hundred and fifty years ago, infant mortality rates were at least this high in several parts of the world, and yet people managed to continue to oppose infanticide without someone leveling ridiculous charges of inconsistency at them. One hundred percent of elderly people die, most of them from natural causes. Normal people understand this sort of thing, and yet a) continue to think procreation is a worthy thing to engage in, and b) continue to oppose the murder of elderly people.

By the way, in your scenario, I would probably try to have kids and hope for the best, although if I did have a child who died, I would continue to oppose child murder and not feel the least bit hypocritical. I suspect that most people, being able to distinguish between natural death and murder, would agree with me on that.

“I am concerned about deaths due to natural causes in children, even though they in no way approach 50% of the subject population.”

Concerned enough to criticize people who lose children to diseases or other natural causes? What percentage of children have to die of natural causes for you to become worried about your own consistency in opposing murder?

“Yet here we have a group of people, who proclaim that fertilized eggs are human persons, while not being concerned at all about the fact that 50% of fertilized eggs die, and not taking any steps to prevent such deaths.”

What if they are concerned, but conclude that natural death is a part of life, and that reproducing is still a worthy undertaking? People continued to reproduce years ago when infant mortality rates were higher than the actual rate of failed embryonic implantation today. Do you consider these people of yesteryear heartless and cruel? Hypocritical? My grandparents’ generation lost kids in infancy all the time, and yet they continued to reproduce and continued to support laws against infanticide. And they would have had little patience for the sort of argument that they were somehow hypocrites.

Maybe a time will when come when we can understand how to reduce, or even avoid altogether roughly a quarter of all human embryos failing to implant in the womb, but until that time it is perfectly legitimate and consistent to support the legal protection of all human beings at every stage of life.

“One death for every person alive, it dwarfs the number of supposed deaths due to abortion. And yet, no concern, no calls for scientific funding. It seems that fertilized eggs are only human, when they can be used to take away the rights of women.”

First of all, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, and plenty of women (roughly half) oppose abortion. All of the original feminists did (think Susan B. Anthony). Heck even Margaret Sanger opposed abortion. So you’re just recycling tired arguments right now.

And the number of children who die in infancy even today is higher than the number of actual infanticides carried out in this country. And yet people continue to oppose infanticide. One hundred percent of elderly people die, and yet people continue to oppose murder. I’m not sure why you look at a natural event, that people rightly conclude that they can do little about at present time, and fault them if they oppose murder, as if the two were even remotely similar.

And it is really difficult to take your thought experiment seriously. You want me to envision a world in which people (somehow) manage to reproduce outside of sexual activity. And yet for some reason, sexual activity still leads to reproduction where the human being lives for only a few minutes or so in every situation. I think reproduction is a good thing. If it really occurred outside of sexual activity, then sexual activity would indeed be pointless. I find it illuminating that in order to bolster your odd views, you have to invent thought experiments that are totally bizarre and otherworldly. In the meantime, the thought experiment I proposed is what actually happens in the real world, and you ignored it completely.

Thanks for the conversation. Maybe one or two more checks, and then the weekend is upon us.

[JDD] And you erroneously categorize people exclusively in one ‘camp’ or the other because your think that religion and reason cannot function together.

[Maximilian] Not at all, I know that it is possible. But the arguments are religious in nature, not rational. It is “faith seeking understanding” – not the other way around. It is taken on faith that abortion is wrong, after which reasons for said article of faith are sought.

But that’s not really what you’ve argued before – you’ve argued that the arguments might be secular in nature, but that they just hide the *real* reasons for a religious person’s position against abortion. “Window dressing” and so forth. Well, that’s purely your subjective opinion, and it’s just not going to get much traction here. It amounts to a kind of ad hominem. Better to engage the arguments on their merits if you want to be taken seriously.

[Maximilian] This is a better question than your demand that I go look at websites run by such individuals – though you make the unwarranted assumption that I have no evidence for my assertion. Look at this: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf – Page 18. 13-14% of atheists and agnostics are anti-abortion…

Unwarranted? Well, it’s only taken a week to get here; I challenged your statement back on Sep 27th. Thank you for the link, and I read it through with some interest. Not sure why you left “Secular Unaffiliated” out of your group. Even so, how does your above statement of 13-14% square with your first statement of, “That may explain that apart from the lone eccentric, no secularist supports the anti-abortion position.” ?

[JDD] Do we have to travel to the end of time in order to determine how to treat anybody?

[Maximilian] Apparently, yes. I did not propose that “something is what it will naturally become”, you did.

My question was to point out how ridiculous your equivalency was. I doubt it actually failed. We will immediately begin to decay to dust when we stop living. The embryo is immediately alive as a newly created entity, and we’re discussing that lifespan. And into that continuous lifespan the pro-abortion position inserts a completely arbitrary, internally disagreed about, continually adjusting and indeed requiring a ‘margin of error’ line of demarcation to determine a switchover of that entity’s rights.

[JDD] Therefore the DNA test will be irrelevant and unpersuasive to you. So much for advocating science.

[Maximilian] Simply because you view a “DNA-test” as “science” does not mean that someone opposes science, if he does not agree with you using a DNA-test for that for which it is not suited.

…What? All conversation in the room just came to a halt, and there’s an awkward silence. Could you please give us your definition of what a DNA test is suited for?

[JDD] If your margin of error is two weeks before viability, and a technological advance soon emerges that pushes the point of viability back three weeks, then how will you then describe what was terminated inside the previous margin of error?

[Maximilian] 6 weeks is reasonable. Current viability is about 24 weeks. Subtract from that six weeks, and you arrive at an age that only a faith-based opinion can hold is an actual human being. It would be unseemly to advocate for abortion, without dispelling any reasonable illusion that this is an actual human person. Now, if technology can advance viability beyond the six weeks – great. However, unless this changes our understanding of the nature of a fetus before week 18 – and it won’t – it should not affect what legal protection is granted. …”

You’ve twice in the above paragraph made a subjective dogmatic statement, “only a faith-based opinion can hold…” and “it [technological advances in viability] won’t [change our understanding of the nature of the fetus...]” Well, you’ve just offered a faith-based opinion yourself. But both of these statements have already been disproved. 13-14% of atheists and agnostics, by your own source, hold the opinion you call faith-based. And to your second statement, there’s ample precedent to demonstrate that technological advances *already have*, on numerous occasions, changed our understanding of the fetus.

Near as I can tell, you’ve also just hinted that viability *isn’t* actually your line of demarcation. And it’s not at all clear whether you’re using the term ‘viability’ in the same way as the phrase “identical in function to an actual baby” as you’ve argued before. Are you saying that if viability is advanced before the age that you would consider a fetus “identical in function…” then you would allow abortion to that viable fetus?

It’s becoming clearer now why, in an earlier post, you included a parenthetical phrase that you, “would not allow for the use of technology that would simulate the womb.” It’s an odd condition to just throw in there. Can you explain why not? This is one of those complications of your position I mentioned.

[JDD] The prolife advocate points to that line of demarcation, cites the inherent inconsistencies, resistance to scientific tools and evidence, and logical dead-ends associated with it, and says, “There’s your problem.”

[Maximilian] And I point to the fact that pro-lifers don’t actually treat fertilized eggs as human beings, that they usually allow for rape and incest exceptions, that they do not avoid conceiving as to not cause the death of a fertilized egg, that they do not protest against IVF-clinics – and say: “There’s your problem.”

Believe it or not, I sympathize to some extent with your second criticism. There is much inconsistency among the prolife community on this issue of rape or incest and I’m afraid that it is largely due to emotional and societal pressure. Sadly, a young girl or woman is often told that the abortion will reset things and remove the stigma of incest or rape – when in reality that doesn’t happen. What happens instead is the woman becomes even more isolated than before; because to everyone outside her experience, all evidence indicates that everything’s been reversed. Organizations such as Rachel’s Vineyard reflect this experience. I am Roman Catholic and do not support these exclusion clauses for the very reason you cited – it would be completely inconsistent, per your first criticism.

Your third criticism – about not conceiving at all, lest I miscarriage? Sorry – I’ve been following that conversation alongside this one. You’ve already slain your own straw man multiple times. Prolife people simply don’t have a problem with natural death. The position you advocate is genocidal paralysis. And you can’t carry through your own position to its logical conclusion – namely, that a species attempting to survive more than one generation is intrinsically and helplessly immoral.

To your fourth criticism, I think it has a little more to do with the technology, the time it’s taken our culture to even begin to think through the moral questions, and allocation of resources. Much of the public presence at abortion clinics is in order to offer an immediate alternate option to a woman at the very time of her decision. We protest IVF primarily on the legislative front, on the stages of science and ethics and the forum of public opinion.

But your redirection rebuttal is noted.

Already answered multiple times, so let me quote myself: “Should people die after a long life, from natural causes? Yes, [it's unavoidable]. Should they die as children? No. I don’t regard fertilized eggs as children, so this is not a problem for me.”

Tim: Have you ever actually criticized a couple who lost a child due to some disease for being hypocritical in their opposition to murder?

If I had a serious hereditary disease, which meant that there was a 50% chance of my children dying an untimely death, I would not have children. What about you?

Tim: But children do die from “natural causes” like diseases and so forth.

How likely is it, that they will die from “natural causes”? 50%?

Tim: You have stated before that you support laws against late-term abortion and presumably against infanticide as well. But children die at those stages too from natural causes. And yet you continue to support laws against the deliberate destruction of human beings at those stages of life!

I am concerned about deaths due to natural causes in children, even though they in no way approach 50% of the subject population. Yet here we have a group of people, who proclaim that fertilized eggs are human persons, while not being concerned at all about the fact that 50% of fertilized eggs die, and not taking any steps to prevent such deaths. One death for every person alive, it dwarfs the number of supposed deaths due to abortion. And yet, no concern, no calls for scientific funding. It seems that fertilized eggs are only human, when they can be used to take away the rights of women.

Tim: I prefer thought experiments that reflect the world in which we live.

But if your principles are sound, they should be equally valid when applied to hypotheticals. And let me remind you, you say that people cannot be expected to try to prevent their child’s death, if the death is “natural”, then you could easily apply them to this case. If 100% of the cases of conception would lead to the natural destruction of the fertilized egg, would you hold people accountable for conceiving?