Mageth

Core set of values that are common to all societies and are in fact necessary for any society to exist. These values are:
(1) we should care for children,
(2) we should tell the truth, and
(3) we should not murder.

With the possible exception of #1, there are many examples of societies which have not held one or more of these "core" values as I think you would define them.

BTW, how would you define them?

Albion

The pro-choice position is not argued from moral relativism. The conditions that you listed aren't unique to human societies (apart from telling the truth - and in animal socieities I assume that can translate to behaving honestly); since they're necessary for social animals to live in groups and since social animals have evolved that way, then it's much more likely that this level of morality is part of our evolutionary heritage.

You've assumed your conclusion by defining a foetus at any stage as being a child; the issue of murder follows directly from that. That's the whole point of this disagreement - not whether killing children is acceptable, but whether a foetus is a child. Your worldview says it is, mine says it isn't. Yet you're happy to try and change laws so that I have no choice but to live my life in accordance with your worldview. Why not live your life according to your definitions and leave me alone to live mine? I mean, I've had this argument with Christians before and their desire to control other people's lives comes right down to details like preferring that the Harry Potter books be banned because it isn't good enough that Christians choose not to read them; they won't be happy until nobody's able to read them. I think that this degree of demanding control over other people's lives is sickening.

abe smith

I understand that the following qy . to you SirenSpeak, and to you GeoTheo, is undeniably *ad hominem* and you can label it so, & mock it out of the discussion:
Do/does either of you (and if they wish, any other members of this discussion who reject a woman's right/choice to abort her [sic] fetus,or embryo, or 4-celled zygote...) Does any of you defenders of the conceptus's right-to-life PRESENTLY HAVE children; and /or have you ever been pregnant? I am just collecting data, as is my wont.. I will withhold from branching-out into qys about contraception, tubal pregnancy etc. Abe (Edited to exclude "ardent' modifying "defenders".) My/this qy is not mere rhetoric.

GeoTheo

This is what I am objecting to. If you more or less agree with Seanie. I disagree with you. If not I may not. He is saying asigning personhood is a mere matter of opinion. No one opinion should be valued above any other (If this is not moral relaticvism what is?!?!) So then everyone is free to treat unborn babies as they wish as they are created.
So survey:
Disagree or not?

Pseudonymph

Rick...at what point does an embryo become a person?

GeoTheo

That is correct. This would be the responsibile thing to do. You don't fire guns toward houses, because there might be someone in there.
It is not OK if you are unsure if the house is occupied.

You have not established any criteria for determining this. You admit any criteria is arbitrary.

Because I am not a moral relativist.
Could you say "You don't believe in wife beating. I do. So don't beat your wife, but don't prevent me from beating mine." ? Or
"You don't believe in owning slaves. I do. So don't own any slaves then. Just don't prevent me from owning them."
Or "You don't believe in torturing little puppies for fun. I do. So....." see my point?
Total red herring. I am not debating Harry Potter books.

Albion

That's the point of this entire thread. If you read back, you might find that Rick has already answered that.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

Mageth

Because I am not a moral relativist.
Could you say "You don't believe in wife beating. I do. So don't beat your wife, but don't prevent me from beating mine." ? Or
"You don't believe in owning slaves. I do. So don't own any slaves then. Just don't prevent me from owning them."
Or "You don't believe in torturing little puppies for fun. I do. So....." see my point?

No.

We can all agree that wives and slaves are persons (like us), so we can all agree that they deserve to not be beaten or owned, just like us. Similarly, puppies are animals like us, and we can all agree that puppies and other animals shouldn't be tortured.

You're back to albion's statement:

That's the whole point of this disagreement - not whether killing children is acceptable, but whether a foetus is a child. Your worldview says it is, mine says it isn't.

The Other Michael

GeoTheo,

Michael, please. Thank you.

If you want to start a new topic on this subject I think it might make for some interesting discussion - but responding to it here would be off-topic.

cheers,
Michael

Pseudonymph

Oh really? Kindly point out to me rick's evidence for that claim. Hell forget the evidence...point out to me where rick even made a claim at all about it.

Thanks

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: SirenSpeak ]</p>