Quick question for pro life people.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]

Your analogies don't work at all. Are sperm cells and skin cells "alive"? Yes in the technical sense they are alive. However, they are merely parts of a living organism, namely the human in question. The same goes for unfertilized egg cells. Then when fertilization occurs, parts from two different human beings combine to form an individual separate from both the father and the mother, so it's sensible to differentiate between this new cell and the previous ones. That's why this is not the same as skin cells or sperm cells being killed.

[/ QUOTE ] It's arbitrary, it makes just as much sense to distuguish based on ammount of genetic material as not having concern for gm. Fertilization is a entirely arbitrary point that one puts special place on person hood to. It's still just cells. GM does not a person make.

[ QUOTE ]
Now the question becomes whether or not that entity is worthy of protection from destruction. Some may phrase this as whether that entity has achieved personhood. That is the key divide between those for and against abortion.

[/ QUOTE ] I wish people were that sensible. Not because of abortion but because of stem cells.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

[/ QUOTE ] lol. Royalists are a small portion of what society? You come off as exceptionally ethnocentric.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

[/ QUOTE ] lol. Royalists are a small portion of what society? You come off as exceptionally ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society. If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists can be extrapolated to all societies then I think you need to take a look in the mirror when you accuse someone of being ethnocentric.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the number of people in the world that hold "pro life" viewpoints is much, much larger than those who consider themselves "royalists."

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you think royalty would still exist if these societies did not exist?

[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists can be extrapolated to all societies then I think you need to take a look in the mirror when you accuse someone of being ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say that I live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people I meet are pro life. Just like you still live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people you meet are royalists or communists.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the number of people in the world that hold "pro life" viewpoints is much, much larger than those who consider themselves "royalists."

[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't take that bet obviously. There are so many religious people in the world, and so low population in societies that still have royalty. But I happen to live in a pretty secular society that still has royalty. Of course I have met people that were pro-life in my life, but I've never met anyone knowing they were pro-life.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communists are common through the developed world. Pro-lifers are only common in a few developed nations (one in particular, where fundamentalists wage war for control).

We don't have to look at trends though. We're talking about a specific country.

Norway!

Yes, we're talking about Norway, and whether a person who lives in Norway is "living in the real world." Are you going to claim there are more pro-lifers than communists in Norway?

Are you so ignorant as to think everyone lives in the US, even when their location and posts state otherwise? For the record, I live in New York and I rarely meet pro-lifers. I'm sure they're common in the ethnic communities around here, but I don't mix with those communities much. Does that mean I don't "live in the real world?"

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Now the question becomes whether or not that entity is worthy of protection from destruction. Some may phrase this as whether that entity has achieved personhood. That is the key divide between those for and against abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a pro-life agenda question, and it's unfortunate that it has been taken seriously in the US at the level that it has. The idea of "personhood" doesn't really exist outside the religious fundamentalist worldview. It has no medical or scientific relevance, and the secular world largely dismisses the notion that some magical property of "personhood" is imbued in a fetus at some magical point in time. There are many different things that happen at many different stages in development, and the question of which of these things have some kind of ethical relevance is complex and usually dependent on the finer points of a person's individual system of morality. The attempt to short-circuit these complexities with a concept of "personhood" that is poorly defined and extremely contingent, and almost always dictated by religious figures with strong political agendas, is disingenuous.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you think royalty would still exist if these societies did not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious attempt to move the goalposts. Where did I claim that royalists didn't exist?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists can be extrapolated to all societies then I think you need to take a look in the mirror when you accuse someone of being ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say that I live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people I meet are pro life. Just like you still live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people you meet are royalists or communists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but that would seem to be a matter of choice on your part but maybe not. The point that was trying to be made which you seem to choose to side step is that not encoutering people who hold mainstream ideas is probably not receiving a diversity of opinion.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the number of people in the world that hold "pro life" viewpoints is much, much larger than those who consider themselves "royalists."

[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't take that bet obviously. There are so many religious people in the world, and population in societies that still have royalty. But I happen to live in a pretty secular society that still has royalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're claiming I'm ethnocentric? More or less an admission that you have a prejiduce against people who hold "pro life" viewpoints and you're not open minded about it IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I have met people that were pro-life in my life, but I've never met anyone knowing they are pro-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh??

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to look at trends though. We're talking about a specific country.

Norway!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not, then I would be ethnocentric.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think royalty would still exist if these societies did not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious attempt to move the goalposts. Where did I claim that royalists didn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society. ... If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok but that would seem to be a matter of choice on your part but maybe not. The point that was trying to be made which you seem to choose to side step is that not encoutering people who hold mainstream ideas is probably not receiving a diversity of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not a matter of choice on my part. Pro-life ideas are not mainstream here. Of course, if I actively sought after people with a pro-life view, I'm sure I'd find some.

[ QUOTE ]
And you're claiming I'm ethnocentric? More or less an admission that you have a prejiduce against people who hold "pro life" viewpoints and you're not open minded about it IMO.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. I have a prejudice against people who hold "pro life" viewpoints. I think the vast majority of them are religious. Am I wrong? (Note that I didn't say it is bad to be religious.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course I have met people that were pro-life in my life, but I've never met anyone knowing they are pro-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh??

[/ QUOTE ] I meant I have not met anyone that I knew was pro life. But of the 100.000s (Or millions. I have no idea how many or how I should count) of people I have encountered in my life, obviously some have been pro life.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not, then I would be ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you aren't paying attention. This debate started when someone claimed wtfsvi lived in a cave. While not far off, this is false. He actually lives in Norway.