“How much shared ground there is between a secular and a religious person, depands on the person. I may have more shared ground with you, than with an atheist who is a moral relativist”

But that is not how you put it to Harry. You claimed a distinct difference between the two quests, and rejected him for his quest, not because you didn’t share ground but because you don’t share quests.

“Not so sure, what positive statements do(es) the author(s) of Timothy and Titus make about the rights of women?”

In Timothy, women are told to be submissive, but are described and treated with dignity: “That is why the presiding elder must have an impeccable character. Husband of one wife, he must be temperate, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher; not a heavy drinker, nor hot-tempered, but gentle and peaceable, not avaricious, a man who manages his own household well and brings his children up to obey him and be well-behaved. Never speak sharply to a man older than yourself, but appeal to him as you would to your own father; treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers and young women as sisters with all propriety.”

Women flocked to Christianity because it held men to high, moral standards that then led to men treating women well. A temperate man who doesn’t drink or get angry will respect his wife and treat her well. Men who must treat all women as mothers or sisters will respect the rights of women to be treated kindly and well.

“When a former dauphin fails to ransom you, because it is a discredit to him that he has to rely on a peasant girl, this is a fairly dubious proposition”

You’re just picking at gnats now. Christianity gave some women a route toward political, economic, and social power. Yes, it was circumscribed, but it’s circumscribed now, and the larger point is that you find more prominent women in Christian history than you do elsewhere and they exist before the Enlightenment.

“But we’re messing up the timeline a bit here. Are we talking about early Christianity, in which there were no such convents, to compare them to Platonists and Stoics? Sure, early Christians allowed women to attend church, but I would not think that this counts as giving them an education”

If you want to stick with early Christianity, there’s some evidence in Junia and Phoebe and even the legend of Thecla that women became leaders in Pauline communities. Women are more prominent in the history of early Christianity than they are in history of Platonism or Stoicism. We know their names and stories.

“This is a very difficult thing to do. But to give you just one example, monogamy came from Rome, and not from Christianity.”

Ok, you’re really reaching here. Polygamy had died out among Jews centuries before Christ, and Jesus was explicit that marriage was between one man and one woman, not multiple wives. Not even divorce was allowed. The passage I quoted from Timothy is clear that monogamy is the standard.

You’ve got to do better than this if you’re going to stick to your claim that Rome was civilized before Christianity.

“Philosophy. It was not “created” by pagan believers, but it was something that was largely tolerated by pagans. Compare that to the Christian Middle Ages, during which the only philosophy that was tolerated was Christian philosophy.”

Tolerated by pagan believers? Should I tell you about Socrates again? But seriously, your answer makes little sense. I ask you why you prefer philosophy over Christianity and your answer is circular—just philosophy. And you like pagans because they left philosophy alone. That’s hardly much to brag about. While some Christians were hostile to philosophy, the middle ages preserved Plato, read Aristotle eagerly when he reappeared, and admired Arab and Jewish philosophers. Christianity has a long engagement with philosophy.

“I also like the fact that paganism has no ethical pretensions – religious commandments rather often result in people doing evil”

But that’s the problem. Without ethics, there’s only raw power. Loyalty means only kin. It’s a small world with small minds. And religious commandments result in evil? That’s ridiculous.

“but for the simple ethical Golden Rule, I would cite rabbi Hillel and Confucius”

The golden rule is sweet and all, but it’s not too challenging. It doesn’t encourage us to push our morality to the heights demanded by the Sermon on the Mount.

“I am arguing that it does not follow automatically from Christianity, or it would not have taken so long.”

Too long compared to what? Given the sloppiness of the answers in this post, I’m beginning to think that you don’t have a very precise thing in mind when you say Enlightenment, so tell me what exactly what you mean by it. You seem to think it has something to do with abolition but EVERY significant leader of the anti-slavery movement was Christian. Plus, there’s a long line of Christian teachings against slavery. Not just Paul, but St. John Crysostom and a passel of popes: John VIII in 873, Pius II in 1462. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas condemned it, and Pope Paul III was active in fighting it.

Before you ask why people didn’t obey these Christian teachings, remember that popes don’t have armies. They can preach against slavery, but they can’t force even their own subjects to obey. Complicated, isn’t it?

“You will have a very hard time finding Christians who did any such thing between, 400 and 1700. I can’t think of one, though there may be one or two”

Care to take back this statement given my answer about slavery?

“I don’t think I’m ducking the issue at all. I’ve told you twice already that I am opposed to this. Saying it a third time won’t make it any stronger. What I do about it, is the same I do about anything that I don’t like: argue against it.”

I know that you’re “opposed to it,” but I asked whether it “bothers” you enough to do something about it. Babies are dying, being killed right here in your own country by the tens of thousands every year. More babies die each year in the US from abortion than all the people killed by cars in the US each year. We have seat belt laws and speed laws, and I presume you support these, but nothing for these babies. And remember that I’m using your definition of baby, not mine. Merely arguing against it seems pretty tepid to me.

“Unfortunately, the ceaseless attacks on women’s rights have so poisoned the political atmosphere”

Attacks on which rights? And why would an attack on one right make you any less concerned about the murder of children?

“even though I am the strongest pro-choicer one can imagine”

You seem inconsistently pro-choice to me. You insist on women’s right to choose, but you’ve decided on your own to oppose women’s right to choose after week 16. Some pro-choicers believe that women can choose right until the end, and your beloved pagans and philosophers saw nothing wrong with infanticide, though happily they were free of ethical pretensions and free of the religious commandments that would have caused them to do evil as they left children to be eaten by wolves. (A little sarcasm there.)

“That still leaves us with the question: why ban one particular method, and not all late-term abortions?”

I’ve answered that question. By banning the method, you’ve saved a few more lives.

“I often hear opponents of abortion describe ordinary abortion described as though it were ‘partial-birth abortion’.”

They’re wrong to do so. Harry and I have fought about this very issue.

“I suspect that was the real aim of elevating in the public mind this particular practice. The more you can identify abortion in general with gruesome, late-term abortions, the more opposition there will be to abortion”

I don’t have a problem with that as long as no truth is distorted. What makes abortion easy is that the baby is tiny, unseen, and sometimes not even felt. If you don’t see or feel it, you can pretend it’s not alive and that you’re not killing anything. That’s the point of sonogram laws. If you can see a head, fingers, then you know you are killing a child, not just a blob of tissue. Abortion is so tempting because it’s like bombing at thousands of feet. You press a button and people you never see die. Simple, easy, and hopefully untroubled by conscience.

“That’s stretching the definition of ‘baby’ beyond anything I can comprehend”

Why do you feel the need to call this developing human life by some term other than baby?

“I know, but that would be very difficult to find out, whereas this was very easy”

Then I win!

Don’t blame Michael for using the words ‘religious quest’, it is merely a reference to what I earlier said you were on. But Harry, tell me one thing. You say that it is wrong to take human lives clearly recognizable as babies. Would you then say that fertilized eggs are OK to eliminate, as they are not clearly recognizable as babies?

Harry: Long before Hitler came to power the German intelligentsia had embraced abortion and euthanasia

But not Hitler, who opposed abortion. Hitler attacked the intelligentsia for reading a lot of books but not understanding them very well.

Harry: There is even discussion in respectable medical journals advocating taking the lives of babies after they are born — including perfectly healthy babies. Blatant infanticide.

A very evil as well as absurd argument. Abortion refers to aborting a process – pregnancy. The idea of an after-birth abortion is an absurdity.

Harry: I think one just has to be a rational human being with a normal compassion for other members of the human family, possess a normal intelligence and have facts of the matter available to them to embark on this quest.

So what is it that I lack? Speak freely.

I am simply describing a situation the way it is (as I see it). I did not cause it to be this way, nor do my words have any effect on the situation. How much shared ground there is between a secular and a religious person, depands on the person. I may have more shared ground with you, than with an atheist who is a moral relativist.

Michael: Compared to today, no. Compared to other places and times, Timothy and Titus look pretty good. Many of your precious Enlightenment figures had some pretty low opinions of women.

Not so sure, what positive statements do(es) the author(s) of Timothy and Titus make about the rights of women? It seems that he/they is/are simply trying to take away established rights (or to legitimize it in retrospect). Insofar as women were treated properly by Christians, the credit belongs to Paul, and Jesus, and the Christians who treated women with respect.

Michael: Read a little more history. Some women acquired enough power to have considerable influence. Where else in world history have women created their own communities and ruled themselves as they did in convents? Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Joan of Arc, and Hildegard of Bingen all wielded significant power.

It depends on what you mean by ‘significant power’. When a former dauphin fails to ransom you, because it is a discredit to him that he has to rely on a peasant girl, this is a fairly dubious proposition.

Michael: Poor women who entered convents received an education. Women have always sought equality when they could.

But we’re messing up the timeline a bit here. Are we talking about early Christianity, in which there were no such convents, to compare them to Platonists and Stoics? Sure, early Christians allowed women to attend church, but I would not think that this counts as giving them an education.

Michael: Tease out which elements of civilization that you admire came from Rome and which came from Christianity. I’d love to see your list.

This is a very difficult thing to do. But to give you just one example, monogamy came from Rome, and not from Christianity. If you look at the Old Testament, you’ll find no evidence that monogamy is in any way prescribed. However, Rome allowed people to marry only one wife, and the church adopted this practice.

Michael: Why do you prefer these? What did they create that was so admirable?

Philosophy. It was not “created” by pagan believers, but it was something that was largely tolerated by pagans. Compare that to the Christian Middle Ages, during which the only philosophy that was tolerated was Christian philosophy. I also like the fact that paganism has no ethical pretensions – religious commandments rather often result in people doing evil.

Michael: Show me the equivalent anywhere of the Sermon on the Mount.

I cannot think of an equal to the radicalism and pacifism of this sermon, but for the simple ethical Golden Rule, I would cite rabbi Hillel and Confucius.

Michael: You’re trying to make distinct two things that were mixed for many people and continue to be.

Not at all. I am not arguing that Enlightenment is incompatible with Christianity. I am arguing that it does not follow automatically from Christianity, or it would not have taken so long. Certainly, when you’re following someone like Jesus, it would be insane to say that abolition of slavery is incompatible with Christianity. Some Pauline letters and Old Testament verses make your task slightly more difficult, but not impossible – because the abolitionist can only appeal to general principles, while the advocate for slavery can cite chapter and verse in which slavery is justified.

Michael: In every period, some Christians have demanded an end to slavery and for equality for women in the name of Christ.

You will have a very hard time finding Christians who did any such thing between, 400 and 1700. I can’t think of one, though there may be one or two.

Michael: But less unequal than they were anywhere else.

True statement for any agricultural society.

Michael: Of the 800,000 abortions in 2008, 40,000 were babies by your definition of baby. How many of those deaths bother you, and what are you prepared to do about them?

I don’t think I’m ducking the issue at all. I’ve told you twice already that I am opposed to this. Saying it a third time won’t make it any stronger. What I do about it, is the same I do about anything that I don’t like: argue against it. Unfortunately, the ceaseless attacks on women’s rights have so poisoned the political atmosphere, that pro-choicers commendably but wrongly in this case are on their guard against any possible attack. So I was once accused of being a stealth opponent of abortion, even though I am the strongest pro-choicer one can imagine.

Michael: Surely you wouldn’t accuse those abolitionists of being wrong to oppose the expansion of slavery or the fugitive slave act.

Garrison would, but I wouldn’t. That still leaves us with the question: why ban one particular method, and not all late-term abortions? How much of a consolation is it, to know that they will be killed using another method?

Michael: What motives do you suspect? I’m really interested in hearing the answer to this question.

I often hear opponents of abortion describe ordinary abortion described as though it were ‘partial-birth abortion’. I suspect that was the real aim of elevating in the public mind this particular practice. The more you can identify abortion in general with gruesome, late-term abortions, the more opposition there will be to abortion.

Michael: Yes, I call an implanted egg a baby. I call it a baby because it is a baby.

That’s stretching the definition of ‘baby’ beyond anything I can comprehend.

Michael: Thanks, but you looked up the wrong thing. I asked for when the term entered popular conversation.

I know, but that would be very difficult to find out, whereas this was very easy.

Michael: Similarly, words like “fetus” are needed to name the thing you want to kill without calling up a mental picture of the baby you are actually killing.

Why should the word ‘baby’ summon the mental picture of a born baby? After all, you just said that a fertilized egg is a baby. Why should I not think of a fertilized egg when I hear the word baby?

Thanks for this reply. I read through your comments on the other First Things thread, and they were clearer in this context.

I think anyone who is arguing for restrictions on choice and is acting on those arguments is an ally, and I hope that you will eventually see that consciousness is not a sufficient criterion for determining whether killing is justified.

“Harry is on a religious quest …”

I believe in God and in His Son, Jesus. I consider myself an orthodox Catholic. Yet one doesn’t have to believe in Jesus or be Catholic to see that deliberately taking innocent human life is wrong, and see that the evidence demonstrates that often the human lives being taken are clearly recognizable as babies; it is not like one has to depend on scientific knowledge to reach that conclusion. One just has to have eyes to see.

So, while I may be on a quest, it is not only a religious quest. It is a also very secular, human quest for basic justice and the reestablishment of the traditional Western ethic. That is a quest anyone and everyone would be on, it seems to me, whether or not they are religious, if they only looked into the origins of Nazi genocide. Long before Hitler came to power the German intelligentsia had embraced abortion and euthanasia, had deified the state and had set the stage for a Hitler to come to power and put their theories into practice.

Contemporary atheistic, radically secularized states have taken the same path. Abortion and euthanasia — state sanctioned killing of innocent human beings — is being legitimized in the public mind. There is even discussion in respectable medical journals advocating taking the lives of babies after they are born — including perfectly healthy babies. Blatant infanticide. See:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/03/01/a-sign-of-the-times-2/

I think one just has to be a rational human being with a normal compassion for other members of the human family, possess a normal intelligence and have facts of the matter available to them to embark on this quest.

By the way, Michael, I must say that you have made some very good arguments here. I am impressed. ;o)

How outraged are you by that number and what do you plan to do about it? … You seem much more intent on defending your definition of life’s beginning than ending the practice.

Because I think I can be most effective by convincing people of that definition. I think it will lead people on both sides to come to the conclusion that abortion after 20 weeks should be restricted to cases of medical necessity. The comments appear to be gone from this article, but I argued with some – ahem – rather obstreperous pro-abortion types about this very issue there, too.

I’m heartened by the fact that politicians are starting to present bills that would institute just such a ban.

“The 16th week is not the 20th week.”

Ok. Let’s take week 21, which has 1.1% of all abortions. If there are 800,000 abortions a year, then 8,000 occur after week 21.

“As Maximilian’s pointed out, it’s not clear at all how many of those abortions are medically justified, as well.”

The study I cited earlier about causes said that 21% of women aborting after week 16 reported that their most important reason for doing so was because they couldn’t afford a baby now. Another 21% said they were unready for responsibility. 42% had good reasons for being careful about sex.

Just 3% reported a health problem with the child, and another 3% that the mother had a health problem.

So that’s 6% of post-16th week. Let’s say it’s 12% for the post-21st week. That is still 7,000 dead babies every year by your definition of baby and by your definition of justifiable homicide.

How outraged are you by that number and what do you plan to do about it?

“In this political climate, getting a 20-week ban in place will be difficult – both of the large sides will view it as an unacceptable compromise”

I agree that it will be difficult, and I agree that most won’t accept it. I’m happy to accept it, however, because I believe that once pro-choicers start to imagine ending some abortions, their hearts will open to ending all abortions.

“but I’m trying to spread that idea”

Where? I don’t see you trying to do so here on First Things. You seem much more intent on defending your definition of life’s beginning than ending the practice.

I understand your point, but it makes me nervous because humans have a long history of determining what kinds of human life are worth keeping.

I’m actually concerned about that, too. I used to have problems with abortion after ~30 days, as that’s when neural tissue starts to form. But I’ve learned more about the neurology since then, and 20 weeks really seems to be the minimum possible window.

There are roughly 20 million abortions each year in the US, 5% after the 16th week.

The 16th week is not the 20th week. And the 20th week already contains a ‘margin of safety’ – the actual time seems to be around 22 weeks, but development rates differ so it’s best to be cautious.

As Maximilian’s pointed out, it’s not clear at all how many of those abortions are medically justified, as well. (For example, even without threat to the life of the mother, there’s anencephaly, often not visible for quite a while.)

In this political climate, getting a 20-week ban in place will be difficult – both of the large sides will view it as an unacceptable compromise – but I’m trying to spread that idea.

“The issue is not that I particularly care about whether he thinks people go to hell or not, but that he is on a religious quest, along with the vast majority of people who are anti-abortion. That may be why making secular arguments is fairly pointless”

Harry is on a religious quest; you’re on a quest for reason. He accepts religiously based arguments; you accept secularly based ones. Making religious arguments with you is as “pointless” as making secular ones with him. By putting the debate this way, you are making an exchange of ideas harder and less likely. There’s more shared ground between the secular and the religious than you seem willing to admit at such moments.

“Not in a particularly flattering way for Christianity, since what is claimed to be an apostle is saying that they should not speak in church.”

Compared to today, no. Compared to other places and times, Timothy and Titus look pretty good. Many of your precious Enlightenment figures had some pretty low opinions of women.

“I also think that you overstate the empowering effect of ‘female saints’ and convents.”

Read a little more history. Some women acquired enough power to have considerable influence. Where else in world history have women created their own communities and ruled themselves as they did in convents? Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Joan of Arc, and Hildegard of Bingen all wielded significant power.

“And you state that Christianity, unlike Platonists and Stoics, educated women. When – unless you count simply attending church as an education? Education is fairly rare for men in the Middle Ages, and definitely for women”

Poor women who entered convents received an education. Women have always sought equality when they could.

“Christianity started out with a civilization – Rome.”

Tease out which elements of civilization that you admire came from Rome and which came from Christianity. I’d love to see your list.

“But I prefer paganism (if I had to choose) and philosophy to Christianity”

Why do you prefer these? What did they create that was so admirable?

“It can’t be a form of Christianity, or it wouldn’t have taken so long. There is no doubt that it can be reconciled with Christianity, or that a particular interpretation of Christianity would lead one to advocate abolition and equal rights for women, but to say that Christianity naturally or automatically leads to these two things is mistaken. If it did, it wouldn’t have taken 1900 years.”

When Rousseau and Voltaire broke from religion, they took a lot of Christianity along with them, especially Christian values. Jefferson famously cut up the New Testament, but he didn’t throw it away. He found value in some parts of it that are not articulated strongly anywhere else. Show me the equivalent anywhere of the Sermon on the Mount. Elizabeth Cady Stanton also brought many of her Christian values into the abolitionist and women’s suffrage movements even after she broke from organized religion. Meanwhile, women like Francis Willard remained Christian even as they pursued abolition and suffrage. William Wilberforce was Christian. You’re trying to make distinct two things that were mixed for many people and continue to be.

But Christianity does lead naturally to abolition and women’s rights. In every period, some Christians have demanded an end to slavery and for equality for women in the name of Christ. It doesn’t lead inevitably, but it does lead naturally.

It took so long for abolition and women’s equality to be achieved *universally* because the Church early on succumbed to the temptation to align itself with political power.

“Despite commendably getting rid of those practices, women were still very much unequal.”

But less unequal than they were anywhere else.

“Actually, the CDC reports about 800,000 abortions for the year 2008. I tracked down your source, and you glosses over the “since 1973″ part.

My mistake again. I apologize, but I told you to provide your own numbers! ;-)

But you’re still ducking the issue. Since 1973, abortion has killed 2,450,000 babies, using your definition of baby. Of the 800,000 abortions in 2008, 40,000 were babies by your definition of baby. How many of those deaths bother you, and what are you prepared to do about them?

“Yes, but if murder were legal, I would not propose to only ban murders when they involve torture and dismemberment, even though I am more horrified by such murders. I would propose to ban all murders. It is no relief to know that babies would be killed less gruesomely.”

The pro-life movement has been quite clear that it wants to ban all murders. If it could, it would. And so it has gone for the strategy of chipping away at what it can. It’s a little like the abolition movement, which passed laws that prevented the expansion of slavery because it didn’t yet have the support to end slavery. Surely you wouldn’t accuse those abolitionists of being wrong to oppose the expansion of slavery or the fugitive slave act.

“I am naturally inclined to suspect the motives of the anti-abortion movement, all the more due to such intrigues”

What motives do you suspect? I’m really interested in hearing the answer to this question.

“But if you place such a premium on words, would you call a fertilized egg that has just implanted a baby – if you think that such a word makes it less likely that it will be ‘killed’?”

Yes, I call an implanted egg a baby. I call it a baby because it is a baby.

“I looked it up for you. First recorded use in the English language dates to the 14th century, in Trevisa’s translation of Bartholomew’s De Proprietatibus Rerum”

Thanks, but you looked up the wrong thing. I asked for when the term entered popular conversation. When did ordinary people start talking about fetuses and in what contexts? My answer is that doctors talk about fetuses, but ordinary folk only talk about fetuses when they are preparing to kill them. Otherwise, they talk about their babies.

“It strikes me as a rather weak argument to pounce on the words people use to make claims about what people “really” believe. It’s just what people say.”

I’ll quote the great George Orwell: “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”

Similarly, words like “fetus” are needed to name the thing you want to kill without calling up a mental picture of the baby you are actually killing.

The issue is not that I particularly care about whether he thinks people go to hell or not, but that he is on a religious quest, along with the vast majority of people who are anti-abortion. That may be why making secular arguments is fairly pointless.

Michael: But Titus and Timothy are also evidence that later Pauline communities had women who were still speaking. Prohibitions are evidence that deeds are being done.

Not in a particularly flattering way for Christianity, since what is claimed to be an apostle is saying that they should not speak in church. I also think that you overstate the empowering effect of ‘female saints’ and convents. And you state that Christianity, unlike Platonists and Stoics, educated women. When – unless you count simply attending church as an education? Education is fairly rare for men in the Middle Ages, and definitely for women.

Michael: I hope you noticed that you just claimed that the civilized world was Christian. Doesn’t that imply that Christianity creates what you call civilization?

Christianity started out with a civilization – Rome. But it’s not terrible, in my view, especially in a time when most people were ignorant to begin with. I certainly prefer Christianity to Islam. But I prefer paganism (if I had to choose) and philosophy to Christianity.

Michael: Many others were both Enlightened and Christian and would not have distinguished the two currents in themselves. For them, the Enlightenment was a form of Christianity.

It can’t be a form of Christianity, or it wouldn’t have taken so long. There is no doubt that it can be reconciled with Christianity, or that a particular interpretation of Christianity would lead one to advocate abolition and equal rights for women, but to say that Christianity naturally or automatically leads to these two things is mistaken. If it did, it wouldn’t have taken 1900 years. Yes, Christianity is more friendly to both causes than, for example, Islam.

Michael: Those are pretty important ways! And they also suggest that you exaggerate when you claim that Christianity didn’t have “that much of an effect.”

“That much of an effect” is talking about getting equal rights for women, not helping them. Despite commendably getting rid of those practices, women were still very much unequal. That was my point.

Michael: I apologize for misreading Guttmacher’s statistics. The CDC reports 50,000,000 abortions each year in the US, much higher than the 20 million I stated.

Come on. That number is illogical. It would mean that one in three women have abortions every year. It amazes me that you wouldn’t question it. Actually, the CDC reports about 800,000 abortions for the year 2008. I tracked down your source, and you glosses over the “since 1973″ part.

Michael: I’m asking about whether you oppose all abortions after week 16, with only the exceptions you listed.

Of course. I wouldn’t have said it, if I didn’t. The other reasons in the Guttmacher report aren’t nearly enough to justify an abortion after week 16.

Michael: You believe that after 16 weeks a fetus is a baby. You believe it is murder to kill such babies.

Not exactly, but close. After 16-18 weeks, in my view, you enter a gray area, and you don’t want to be there. Upon viability, it’s indisputably a baby. This may strike you as hypocrisy, because you said the same thing before, and I didn’t correct you, but I try to keep my comments as brief as possible.

Michael: But you think it is wrong to appeal to emotion when describing how one procedure used exclusively on such babies breaks their skulls and suctions out their brains. I’m sure that you believe that murder is murder, but aren’t you more horrified when the murder involves torture, dismemberment, etc.?

Yes, but if murder were legal, I would not propose to only ban murders when they involve torture and dismemberment, even though I am more horrified by such murders. I would propose to ban all murders. It is no relief to know that babies would be killed less gruesomely. I am naturally inclined to suspect the motives of the anti-abortion movement, all the more due to such intrigues.

Michael: One reason you insist on calling a week-old baby a fetus is because you want to be able to kill it.

Actually, a week-old ‘baby’ is still an embryo, I would not call it a fetus. But if you place such a premium on words, would you call a fertilized egg that has just implanted a baby – if you think that such a word makes it less likely that it will be ‘killed’?

Michael: The word “fetus” only entered the vocabulary of ordinary people when people started searching for ways to justify abortion. I doubt that the term appeared very often outside medical literature before 1973.

I looked it up for you. First recorded use in the English language dates to the 14th century, in Trevisa’s translation of Bartholomew’s De Proprietatibus Rerum.

Michael: Even today, the most pro-abortion couples will point to an ultrasound and show pictures of their “baby” or will tell you the “baby” has been kicking.

It strikes me as a rather weak argument to pounce on the words people use to make claims about what people “really” believe. It’s just what people say. For example, the fact that I say “oh my God” when I am shocked, does not mean that I believe in a god – sometimes theists use this as an argument.