It's actually funny that you can't see the similarity between selective abortion and forced miscarriage. Funny in a disturbing way.

Actually, it's not funny in a disturbing way, it's just disturbing.

What is funny is that you think that we should ask mothers what they think, and you seem to think that they will tell you that the baby is part of their body. So I guess mothers involuntarily kick themselves in the ribs on occasion…. But when a pregnant woman relates her pro-life opinion, you are quick to correct her. Interesting.

If you must insist on calling the unborn baby a fetus because that is the medical term for an unborn baby, I must insist on calling the mother a gravida, since that is the medical term for a pregnant mother.

An egg is not a chicken, but if it is fertilized it has a small chicken inside it. An acorn is not an oak tree, but it has a small oak tree inside it. A pregnant womb is not a human, but it has a small human inside it. Yes, a fetus is a human, even if it is completely dependent on its gravida.

Perhaps another proposition should be added to Matt's syllogism. A human is a person. But humanity and personhood are not the same to abortion advocates of his stripe. This, along with the moral relativism in which this idea is grounded, would seem to be the major reason for the breakdown of understanding that we have seen in this forum, and the reason the arguments keep going in circles. We Christian pro-lifers believe on the basis of scripture that personhood is unconditional to humanity. But for the abortion advocate, personhood is conditioned on independence, therefore rights are not intrinsic to human life, but are related proportionally to independence. Since a fetus is completely dependent upon its gravida, the gravida has the right to determine the life or death of the fetus. Twisted as it may seem, on this line of argumentation the fact that the fetus is a living human being that has committed no crime other than being an inconvenience to its gravida – which is completely out of the fetus's control – is rendered irrelevant. So for the argument to go anywhere, it really has to be about scripture versus moral relativism.

To this end, it should be pointed out that Christians don't claim to be morally superior people, but we do claim to have a morally superior God.

The first premise is definitional, such that ‘human’ means ‘Homo sapiens’. The second premise is falsifiable, that Homo sapiens reproduce only Homo sapiens. The conclusion is what logically follows from those two premises. And Tavarish helps us understand what the point of this argument is.

Is a fetus dependent on its mother for oxygen and nourishment? Yes. Does that mean the fetus is therefore not a human? It’s difficult to see how that would follow. Perhaps Tavarish could provide an argument that produces his conclusion, similar to how we provided one that produces ours.

Then Tavarish wondered if a pregnant woman who falls down some stairs should be held morally culpable, given the conclusion of the second argument. His question is tremendously irrelevant, of course, as losing a baby from falling down some stairs is neither “deliberate killing” nor an “elective abortion.” If she threw herself down some stairs with the intention of losing the baby, then that would be “deliberate killing” and morally wrong. (The same analysis applies to his twins scenario; i.e., it is likewise not “deliberate killing.”)

And Tavarish should know better than to say that all Mathew “regurgitated is pro-life talking points,” because he should recognize the difference between formal arguments and talking points. Taking a formal argument and calling it names is an intellectually bankrupt way of conceding, “I have no rational defeater against that.”

(As for the five counter arguments he presented, I will be publishing a separate article that deals with each one. I will include a link in this comment once it is published.)

Let's address your assertions.

1. “1). All humans are homo sapiens
2). Homo sapiens reproduce only homo sapiens
3). Therefore, all humans reproduce only humans”

Who is contesting this? Why just assert a tautology? “Humans are humans! Wow, how could I have been so blind?

Humans make more humans. That's not a new piece of information or explanatory in any way, as I didn't assert that they necessarily weren't human as far as SPECIES is concerned. I said that they were necessarily dependent on the mother in utero, and therefore not deserving of rights reserved for a standalone human entity.

2. “1). The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong
2). Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human
3). Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong”

How about for once, let's not paint this as a black and white issue. It's not a true dichotomy, and morals are ultimately relative to their respective societies. Unborn fetuses are not independent physiological entities. It would be a stretch of any imagination to pair them together with other, independent humans, as that is not the case.

Let's grant your premise. If a pregnant woman falls down some stairs and loses her baby unfortunately, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter? How about a twin that takes resources from its brother in utero that ends with the discarding of that fetus? Did that fetus just commit an act of murder, since we're granting human rights equally across the board?

By the way, you never answered the question of when the fetus is alive and when it dies. If a fetus develops without a brain, at what point is that fetus dead? When was it alive? If the mother knew beforehand that the baby would develop without a brain, would elective abortion be appropriate?

This is not a black and white issue. Stop making fallacious arguments from analogy, as they don't necessarily apply to those who don't share your ideology.

Abortion terminates a pregnancy, which ends the possibility of an independent human life, and that should be taken into account. However, it is still the decision of the mother as to what will be done with the developing organism inside her. However, equating it to murder is ridiculously stretching the term.

An egg is not a chicken. An acorn is not an oak tree. A fetus is not a human. There is a difference.

It's actually pretty ironic that you named the article trying to combat Pro-Choice rhetoric, when all you've regurgitated is pro-life talking points. I outlined my argument in detail in my last post. Nothing has changed, and you've provided no new information, you just repeat the same information as if it's somehow stronger for having been itemized, but hey, I can do that too so you don't have to read so much between the lines, because contextual hints often get lost in the banter.

1. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion or pro-death. It's for the woman's right to choose what she does with her body – including things growing and necessarily developing because of it.
2. A fetus has the potential to become an independent, standalone human entity with human rights. However, since it is dependent on the mother alone, its rights lie with the mother and her discretion until it is born.
3. Abortion is a multifaceted issue, as morality is relative and heavily dependent on the society administering it. What you think is wrong may not be so for another individual. Telling people what they must do according to you ideology is pandering and imposing a belief system.
4. I don't agree with the methods and actions of abortion. I find it needless, but I won't condemn someone else for their decision to have it done, as it is their body, and they shall live with the consequences, whatever they may be.
5. People will have abortions. You can't stop it. Banning it will only make women resort to questionable means for these procedures, and creating many more issues than are currently presented. Making an appeal to emotion doesn't work, as opinions vary greatly. The best method to reducing abortions is an outline of the options available to women that don't wish to keep the pregnancy. Scare tactics are deceitful and make their claims with shock value rather than valuable information.

Feel free to answer my questions, or don't.

The humanity of the unborn
When arguing that abortion deliberately kills an innocent human, it helps to define how we arrived at the humanity of the unborn, that is, to have a clearly defined, logically consistent argument that produces such a conclusion:

1). All humans are homo sapiens
2). Homo sapiens reproduce only homo sapiens
3). Therefore, all humans reproduce only humans

As the staff and others here have previously argued, when two humans conceive it is only another human that they reproduce. When we talk of the unborn (i.e. zygote, embryo and fetus) and then about the born (I.e infant, adolescent and adult) we use these terms to define developmental stages. They are not species terms. Human development begins at conception and ends at adulthood (biological maturity). Throughout every stage, we have a human and cannot have anything else.

Therefore, we state that the unborn are human.

The immorality of abortion
If the unborn qualify as being human, as we've reasoned above, we can then offer up the next syllogism addressing the immorality of abortion.

1). The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong
2). Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human
3). Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong

It follows that if the deliberate killing of an innocent human is morally wrong then such a criterion as dependency – which Tavarish argues to advocate for abortion – is an irrelevant criterion for justifying abortion. The fetus is no less human than the child or the adult.

That abortion kills something no one should be in doubt; we reason that what abortion does kill is an innocent human. And there's no place to doubt about that, too. Therefore, if there's no doubt that the unborn are human and if we hold that the deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally abhorrent, then elective abortion is a morally abhorrent procedure.

During the discussions above, it's been difficult to decipher how Tavarish definitively views the unborn. It would be interesting to see which of the following he agrees with:

1). The unborn is human and we know it
2). The unborn is human and we don't know it
3). The unborn is not human and we know it
4). The unborn is not human and we don't know it

Based on our arguments above, it remains difficult to see how he could choose any option other than #1. He may elect option #3, but then he must argue how the unborn are not human. We'd be surprised if he chose the other two. He must still, of course, then argue how elective abortion could be justifiable no matter which option he chooses.

As such, I've removed your links to mitigate others from becoming thus side-tracked of the issue. We won't publish any further responses made in reference to this comment – if only to effect a more concerted effort to keep the discussion from diverging too greatly.

This is to also serve as a reminder and caution to the rest of our other commenters also; this is not the first instance – though hopefully it will be the last. (Mods – be mindful of what comments are being posted.)

This web site is called the ‘Aristophrenium’ because it is supposed to be a place “where thoughtful and intelligent ideas can be shared and critically engaged, far above the clamor of superficial rhetoric and inane caricatures.” So when you come here spewing gratuitous invective, I won’t hesitate to expose it for the incoherent twaddle that it is. Drop the sardonic irrationality and my tone with you will change.

I said the children of God have a firm foundation for their view on human rights, while God-denying sinners do not. The former produces human rights that are absolute and inalienable. The latter, relative and arbitrary. Any intellectually responsible reader can see that precisely zero references to moral issues are implicated. Your bewildering invective came out of left field, defying any semblance of reason.

(If you wish to respond, you shall have to do so at your blog, as your commentary on my remark to René has zero relevance to the article that this Comments field attends. I won’t publish any further off-topic commentary. It’s akin to hijacking a thread and bad form.)

I say this, not because I think it might convince people, but because at the end of a long discussion that is designed to never really go anywhere but in circles, it always seems appropriate to go to proclaiming God.

After that, of course the discussion just goes on…:P

You made the point that you, being a child of God – among others, answer to a higher power, and not the rules of some society that is only as real as the ink and paper it's written on.

I don't know where you got a straw man argument from me- it's pretty clear you're claiming a moral high ground.

If I'm mistaken, please explain yourself with a bit more detail.