Comments on EvidenceOfGod/Haven head-to-head debate

[otseng]

This thread is for comments on the head-to-head debate between EvidenceOfGod and Haven.

Does a woman's right to bodily autonomy justify abortion?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 49 by WinePusher]

You (and others) may have convinced yourself that your the pro choice position is somehow better than the pro life position, and that there are no extreme aspects of being pro choice. But the complete and total adherence to your ideology, and the reluctance to adopt any type of middle ground position that incorporates policies from both positions is extreme, especially given the tragic nature of this issue.

Let's flesh this out a little bit. I don't (yet) see any extremes in the pro-choice ideology, in the way it has been explained here (on this thread, on this forum). Even in my own personal assessment of it, I only see extremes in the pro-life side.

Divine Insight's post explaining the pro-choice side was one of the best I've ever read, and in just a few paragraphs. We could use DI's post as a reference, and perhaps, what's NOT in DI's post (from a pro-life POV) to flesh out the extremes you claim are there.

Rather than make vague references to what happens with 'complete and total adherence' to the pro-choice ideology, what have you seen?

Recently I watched a documentary made about the four or so late-term abortion providers (in the US). Most of the clients had very damaged fetuses, with conditions incompatible with life. There was an individual pregnant woman, though, who was 35 weeks along and wanted their services. The fetus was normal, and no information was given about 'reasons' this woman would want such a thing. The abortion provider refused, but only after much deliberation.

Deliberating over the life of a 35 week normal fetus, whether or not to terminate it for no other reason than the pregnant woman wanted it so -- would that be an 'extreme'? I would call that an anecdotal extreme, but an indication that the pro-choice position has gone 'extreme'.

On the other hand, the pro-life position is extreme by definition, and I don't need to re-explain why.

[WinePusher]

But there is no difference; if the right to life of the unborn child outweighs the right to bodily autonomy, then women do not have a right to bodily autonomy in the case of pregnancy. I'm not saying the pro-life position claims there is no right to bodily autonomy whatsoever, only that there is no such right when it comes to pregnancy.

That is exactly what you said. You said that the pro life position 'logically entails that women do not have bodily autonomy.' As I pointed out, this is a gross and unfair misrepresentation. The pro life position clearly states that the right to life is unalienable and is outside the domain of anybody's choice.

If you want to engage in these biased, one sided caricatures I'm more than happy to oblige. You know who Tim Tebow is? He's the quarterback for Philadelphia. Had his mother decide to proceed with the abortion he'd be dead, and so clearly the pro choice position logically entails that an unborn child does not have a right to life. In fact, elective abortions have ended the lives of hundreds of people who would otherwise be here.

I don't fault any pro choice person for failing to see the extremes and flaws in their position, just as I don't fault any pro life person for failing to see the extremes and flaws in their position. It can be very difficult for people to question and objectively examine beliefs that they are heavily invested in.

No, this is simply a caricature. The difference between you and I is that I do not distort either the pro life or the pro choice position. I see value in both and when it comes down to it I suppose I'm actually pro choice since I wouldn't implement a legal ban on abortion. On the other hand, you seem more than happy to misrepresent the pro life movement and what pro life people stand for.

The fact that you don't go on to say how it is a caricature or misrepresentation is telling; it is not a misrepresentation.

What are you talking about? I've explained it multiple times. You wrongly said that the pro life position 'logically entails that women do not have bodily autonomy.' As I pointed out, this is a gross and unfair misrepresentation. The pro life position clearly states that the right to life is unalienable and is outside the domain of anybody's choice. I'll explain it as many times as is needed.

There's no way around it; if the pro-life position holds, as it explicitly and demonstrably does, that the right to life of a fetus trumps the bodily autonomy of the woman, then the pro-life position is against the bodily autonomy of women in the case of pregnancy.

Sorry, there's no way around it; if the pro choice position holds, as it demonstrably does, that the right to choice of women trumps the right to life of an unborn child, then the pro choice position is against the right to life of unborn children. Hundreds of unborn babies are aborted every year. Had they not been aborted, they would currently be members of our society. So I suppose if you want to continue unfairly characterizing pro lifers as being against women's choice then you really shouldn't have a problem when your own cherished belief is distorted.

Once again just noting that you fail to actually substantiate the accusation by saying where or how I've distorted or mischaracterized everything. Is it, or is it not, the pro-life position that abortion is immoral and should be legally restricted/prohibited?

I've already explained this several times. Let's look at the points that you are conveniently ignoring. Your opinion is no better than a pro lifers opinion, and everything you've written here is just your opinion. Agreed?

Also, once again, you didn't actually address the point being made here; i.e. the disparity between the two positions in terms for allowing for disagreement. Pro-choice inherently allows for people to hold and live by the pro-life view. The pro-live view does not return the favor.

Uh yea I did. As I pointed out, your argument stems from a gross misconception of the pro life position. You distort the pro life position by making it seem as if it is against the right to bodily autonomy of women. I can equally distort your position by asserting that pro choice people are against the right to life of unborn children, but I'd rather not.

As I already explained, you have some sort of misconception about what the pro life position actually is. As a legal matter, the pro life and pro choice position are, as you say, 'two sides of the same coin.' One position says abortion should be illegal, one position says abortion should be legal.

One position says, individuals should have the legal and moral right to choose between an abortion and no abortion, whereas the other position says that individuals should not have the right to choose, abortions should not be legally available.

Right, that's what pretty much what I said. One position says abortion should be illegal, one position says abortion should be legal. If you have a problem with this sentence then please explain.

As noted, and as you've failed to address, there is a fundamental disparity here. Pro-choice allows for people to both hold and live by pro-life beliefs. Pro-life does not allow for people to both hold and live by pro-life beliefs. Is there a reason why you're avoiding addressing this?

Again, your definitions are horribly inaccurate. Pro choice allows for pro life beliefs? What on earth? The pro choice position is that abortion should be LEGAL, the pro life position is that abortion should be ILLEGAL. So, how in the world does the pro choice position allow for pro life beliefs?

You (and others) may have convinced yourself that your the pro choice position is somehow better than the pro life position, and that there are no extreme aspects of being pro choice.

Well, your (and others) failure to mention any reasons to think otherwise certainly helps in this respect.

I've already given you plenty of reasons.

1. You have presented false caricatures of the pro life position, claiming that it is against women's choice. Pro life people can equally distort your position by asserting that pro choice people are against the right to life of unborn babies. IMO, both your caricatures are wrong.

2. You think that the pro choice position allows for the pro life position, but this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the terms. Pro choice=abortion is legal, pro life=abortion is illegal. Thus, basic logic shows you're wrong.

Hand-waving about middle-ground without actually addressing the specific case doesn't really cut the mustard.

Interesting how you delete the portions of my post that talk about this. Like I said, the complete and total adherence to your ideology, and the reluctance to adopt any type of middle ground position that incorporates policies from both positions is extreme, especially given the tragic nature of this issue. Care to address that?

[WinePusher]

You (and others) may have convinced yourself that your the pro choice position is somehow better than the pro life position, and that there are no extreme aspects of being pro choice. But the complete and total adherence to your ideology, and the reluctance to adopt any type of middle ground position that incorporates policies from both positions is extreme, especially given the tragic nature of this issue.

Let's flesh this out a little bit. I don't (yet) see any extremes in the pro-choice ideology, in the way it has been explained here (on this thread, on this forum). Even in my own personal assessment of it, I only see extremes in the pro-life side.

Ok? A pro life person would say that he only sees extremes in the pro choice position. A pro choice person would say that he only sees extremes in the pro life position. It's not surprising that people play for their own team.

Divine Insight's post explaining the pro-choice side was one of the best I've ever read, and in just a few paragraphs.

Ok? Is it suppose to be surprising that someone who is pro choice likes a post that argues favorably for the pro choice position?

We could use DI's post as a reference, and perhaps, what's NOT in DI's post (from a pro-life POV) to flesh out the extremes you claim are there.

As I've already said, I am by definition pro choice as I wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade or institute a ban on abortion. Having said this, I recognize that there are flaws and extremes on the pro choice position as there also are on the pro life position, and what I've been advocating for in this thread is that we take a moderate, middle of the road approach to this issue and avoid distorting and unfairly misrepresenting the opposing side. Is this REALLY something you (and others) are against?

Rather than make vague references to what happens with 'complete and total adherence' to the pro-choice ideology, what have you seen?

What do you mean?

Recently I watched a documentary made about the four or so late-term abortion providers (in the US). Most of the clients had very damaged fetuses, with conditions incompatible with life. There was an individual pregnant woman, though, who was 35 weeks along and wanted their services. The fetus was normal, and no information was given about 'reasons' this woman would want such a thing. The abortion provider refused, but only after much deliberation.

Deliberating over the life of a 35 week normal fetus, whether or not to terminate it for no other reason than the pregnant woman wanted it so -- would that be an 'extreme'? I would call that an anecdotal extreme, but an indication that the pro-choice position has gone 'extreme'.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I've already said that I'm pro choice because I would keep abortion legal. I wouldn't, however, make it so that abortion was unrestricted and unregulated. I also wouldn't provide government funding for centers that perform abortions and I would promote and actively fund alternative programs and options for women with unwanted pregnancies.

In terms of the debate between Haven and EvidenceOfGod, they both made a host of abstract, philosophical arguments that were equal in terms of persuasiveness and strength. But as a matter of public policy, when it comes down to actually making laws in Congress about abortion, I would say that the pro choice position is the most reasonable of the two as there is something tyrannical about having a government force women to give birth to children.

On the other hand, the pro-life position is extreme by definition, and I don't need to re-explain why.

A pro life person would say that the pro choice position is extreme by definition. I'm sure you'd say that they're wrong, and would dig up whatever reasons you could find to support this. As I said, it's not surprising that people play for their own team and unfairly misrepresent the other team.

But Hamsaka, maybe you can directly address this point that others have failed to address. You state that the pro life position is extreme. You state that the pro choice position isn't extreme whatsoever. Can you admit that these are just your opinions? A pro life person would say that the pro choice position is extreme and that the pro life position isn't extreme. This is just their opinion.

Can you admit that your opinion is no better than theirs, and their opinion is no better than yours?

[enviousintheeverafter]

That is exactly what you said. You said that the pro life position 'logically entails that women do not have bodily autonomy.' As I pointed out, this is a gross and unfair misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, what I said was-

at the end of the day, it is an argument against the bodily autonomy of women- namely, in the case of pregnancy.

I feel like I was fairly clear on this point.

What are you talking about? I've explained it multiple times. You wrongly said that the pro life position 'logically entails that women do not have bodily autonomy.' As I pointed out, this is a gross and unfair misrepresentation.

And has been noted, this is an erroneous and likely just uncharitable reading of what I said. It seems you were mistaken about which one of us was doing the misrepresenting here.

I've already explained this several times. Let's look at the points that you are conveniently ignoring. Your opinion is no better than a pro lifers opinion, and everything you've written here is just your opinion. Agreed?

Of course not.

Uh yea I did. As I pointed out, your argument stems from a gross misconception of the pro life position. You distort the pro life position by making it seem as if it is against the right to bodily autonomy of women. I can equally distort your position by asserting that pro choice people are against the right to life of unborn children, but I'd rather not.

You continue to focus on this (evidently deliberate) mischaracterization rather than address the relevant point.

Again, your definitions are horribly inaccurate. Pro choice allows for pro life beliefs? What on earth? The pro choice position is that abortion should be LEGAL, the pro life position is that abortion should be ILLEGAL. So, how in the world does the pro choice position allow for pro life beliefs?

Because the pro-choice position doesn't mandate abortions. Pretty simple. On the pro-choice view, if you are pro-life you are allowed to live by that belief; you are not forced to have an abortion (of course, you are forced to give up the ambition of coercing everyone else into living by your beliefs as well). On the pro-life view, on the other hand, if you are pro-choice you are essentially S.O.L because you don't have the option of living by that belief; you are forced to be pro-life. Again, a fundamental disparity- one you seem unable to address, and one that makes it clear that in a significant sense the pro-choice position already occupies the middle ground and the pro-life position is an "extreme" one.

1. You have presented false caricatures of the pro life position, claiming that it is against women's choice.

It is, in the case of preganancy. As covered above, the only one presenting caricatures of people's views here is you, when I specifically stated that the pro-life position denies women's autonomy in the case of pregnancy, not across the board.

2. You think that the pro choice position allows for the pro life position, but this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the terms.

Not at all. I understand that part of the pro-life agenda is to coerce others into living by their views via legislation. Which is, of course, the entire point here.

Pro choice=abortion is legal, pro life=abortion is illegal. Thus, basic logic shows you're wrong.

Lol. I gather its been a while since you've done any logic.

Interesting how you delete the portions of my post that talk about this. Like I said, the complete and total adherence to your ideology, and the reluctance to adopt any type of middle ground position that incorporates policies from both positions is extreme, especially given the tragic nature of this issue. Care to address that?

Its been addressed.

[WinePusher]

That is exactly what you said. You said that the pro life position 'logically entails that women do not have bodily autonomy.' As I pointed out, this is a gross and unfair misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, what I said was-

at the end of the day, it is an argument against the bodily autonomy of women- namely, in the case of pregnancy.

I feel like I was fairly clear on this point.

Obviously it's in the case of pregnancy since we're talking about abortion.

What are you talking about? I've explained it multiple times. You wrongly said that the pro life position 'logically entails that women do not have bodily autonomy.' As I pointed out, this is a gross and unfair misrepresentation.

And has been noted, this is an erroneous and likely just uncharitable reading of what I said. It seems you were mistaken about which one of us was doing the misrepresenting here.

First, it's highly ironic that you're bringing up the issue of charity in a thread where you have been uncharitably misrepresenting pro lifers. Second, it's obvious that we're talking about a woman's right to choice in the context of pregnancy. Do you think that underscoring this already obvious point helps your argument?

I've already explained this several times. Let's look at the points that you are conveniently ignoring. Your opinion is no better than a pro lifers opinion, and everything you've written here is just your opinion. Agreed?

Of course not.

Well there it is. Thanks for admitting that.

Uh yea I did. As I pointed out, your argument stems from a gross misconception of the pro life position. You distort the pro life position by making it seem as if it is against the right to bodily autonomy of women. I can equally distort your position by asserting that pro choice people are against the right to life of unborn children, but I'd rather not.

You continue to focus on this (evidently deliberate) mischaracterization rather than address the relevant point.

How is it a mischaracterization? It's already obvious that we're talking about bodily autonomy in the context of pregnancy. Focusing on this frivolous and trivial point doesn't help your case.

Again, your definitions are horribly inaccurate. Pro choice allows for pro life beliefs? What on earth? The pro choice position is that abortion should be LEGAL, the pro life position is that abortion should be ILLEGAL. So, how in the world does the pro choice position allow for pro life beliefs?

Because the pro-choice position doesn't mandate abortions. Pretty simple. On the pro-choice view, if you are pro-life you are allowed to live by that belief; you are not forced to have an abortion (of course, you are forced to give up the ambition of coercing everyone else into living by your beliefs as well). On the pro-life view, on the other hand, if you are pro-choice you are essentially S.O.L because you don't have the option of living by that belief; you are forced to be pro-life. Again, a fundamental disparity- one you seem unable to address, and one that makes it clear that in a significant sense the pro-choice position already occupies the middle ground and the pro-life position is an "extreme" one.

Envious, you have described this so called 'fundamental disparity' as being that "pro-choice allows for people to both hold and live by pro-life beliefs. Pro-life does not allow for people to both hold and live by pro-life beliefs." But again, I have to point out the following:

Again, your definitions are horribly inaccurate. Pro choice allows for pro life beliefs? What on earth? The pro choice position is that abortion should be LEGAL, the pro life position is that abortion should be ILLEGAL. So, how in the world does the pro choice position allow for pro life beliefs?

Please answer the question directly this time.

1. You have presented false caricatures of the pro life position, claiming that it is against women's choice.

It is, in the case of preganancy. As covered above, the only one presenting caricatures of people's views here is you, when I specifically stated that the pro-life position denies women's autonomy in the case of pregnancy, not across the board.

Right, and I've been proceeding under the same assumption. We're talking about bodily autonomy in cases of pregnancy, nothing else. So what's the problem?

2. You think that the pro choice position allows for the pro life position, but this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the terms.

Not at all. I understand that part of the pro-life agenda is to coerce others into living by their views via legislation. Which is, of course, the entire point here.

Good for you, you're certainly entitled to believe that. You're also entitled to believe that your opinions are facts and that your opinions are better than other people's opinions.

Pro choice=abortion is legal, pro life=abortion is illegal. Thus, basic logic shows you're wrong.

Lol. I gather its been a while since you've done any logic.

You'd be wrong again. The last time I actually did any logic was actually several nights ago when I derived the proof for the Heine-Borel theorem, a result in topology stating that a subset of R is compact if it is closed and bounded. Btw, the boldface R denotes the set of all real numbers. I'd be more than happy to discuss the proof with you in another thread to provide a demonstration on how advanced logical reasoning is done.

Interesting how you delete the portions of my post that talk about this. Like I said, the complete and total adherence to your ideology, and the reluctance to adopt any type of middle ground position that incorporates policies from both positions is extreme, especially given the tragic nature of this issue. Care to address that?

Its been addressed.

Yes, you refused to concede that everything you've written here in just opinion, and that your opinion is no better than another's opinion. If you seriously can't concede this I don't see how we can have an honest and objective dialogue about this issue.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Obviously it's in the case of pregnancy since we're talking about abortion.

But even if it went without saying, I said it nonetheless, which makes your misrepresentation all the more curious.

First, it's highly ironic that you're bringing up the issue of charity in a thread where you have been uncharitably misrepresenting pro lifers.

Ironic indeed. The claim that I misrepresented pro-lifers was simply a misrepresentation of what I said in the first place.

How is it a mischaracterization?

Because what you claimed I said was demonstrably not what I said. I specifically noted that the pro-life position entails that women do not have a right to bodily autonomy in the case of pregnancy.

Envious, you have described this so called 'fundamental disparity' as being that "pro-choice allows for people to both hold and live by pro-life beliefs. Pro-life does not allow for people to both hold and live by pro-life beliefs." But again, I have to point out the following:

Again, your definitions are horribly inaccurate. Pro choice allows for pro life beliefs? What on earth? The pro choice position is that abortion should be LEGAL, the pro life position is that abortion should be ILLEGAL. So, how in the world does the pro choice position allow for pro life beliefs?

Oh dear, the irony of faulting my definitions. The pro-life position is that abortion is immoral, and that it should not occur. Achieving this through legislation is certainly a crucial part, if not the main priority, of the pro-life agenda. But it is not exhaustive of the pro-life position. And one can obviously maintain pro-life belief and behavior in a substantive sense by both opposing and abstaining from abortions- which is allowed for by the pro-choice position. As I noted, this involves giving up the further ambition of coercing everyone else into abiding by your beliefs as well, but I thought you were the one preaching about giving up extreme positions in favor of a middle ground? Evidently you didn't mean all that?

Good for you, you're certainly entitled to believe that.

Lacking any credible reasons for thinking otherwise, I will.

You'd be wrong again. The last time I actually did any logic was actually several nights ago when I derived the proof for the Heine-Borel theorem, a result in topology stating that a subset of R is compact if it is closed and bounded. Btw, the boldface R denotes the set of all real numbers. I'd be more than happy to discuss the proof with you in another thread to provide a demonstration on how advanced logical reasoning is done.

Lol. Clearly you're getting way ahead of yourself, as you have some misconceptions about far more basic elements of logic, as demonstrated by your (simplistic and mistaken) previous comment.

Yes, you refused to concede that everything you've written here in just opinion, and that your opinion is no better than another's opinion.

What do you think an opinion is? And why would I hold that my opinion is no better than any other, when this not only doesn't follow from the mere fact that its an opinion, but also when I've provided clear reasons why my opinion is "better" in this case?

[WinePusher]

But even if it went without saying, I said it nonetheless, which makes your misrepresentation all the more curious.

Right, you said it, I agreed with it. I've been operating under the assumption that we're talking about autonomy in the context of abortion, not across the board. So I'm agreeing with you, and yet you're still accusing me of misrepresenting you.

How is it a mischaracterization?

Because what you claimed I said was demonstrably not what I said. I specifically noted that the pro-life position entails that women do not have a right to bodily autonomy in the case of pregnancy.

Yes, and I agreed with that and have been debating you under that assumption. Only in the case of pregnancies, not across the board. Even after agreeing with you multiple times on this you keep bringing it up? Why? Do you think it diverts attention away from your indefensible positions?

Oh dear, the irony of faulting my definitions. The pro-life position is that abortion is immoral, and that it should not occur.

Yes, as in it should be illegal. We're getting somewhere.

Achieving this through legislation is certainly a crucial part, if not the main priority, of the pro-life agenda. But it is not exhaustive of the pro-life position.

Oh you don't live in the United States? Because in the United States, the main priority of the pro life movement has been to overturn Roe v. Wade, up to the point where many pro lifers want to impose an abortion litmus test on Supreme Court nominees.

And one can obviously maintain pro-life belief and behavior in a substantive sense by both opposing and abstaining from abortions- which is allowed for by the pro-choice position.

Again, horribly inaccurate definitions. Would you like to use the dictionary? Maybe that'd be better.

Pro Life: Advocating the LEGAL protection of human embryos and fetuses, especially by favoring the OUTLAWING of abortion on the ground that it is the taking of a human life.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-life

So the pro choice position advocates legal abortion and the pro life position is defined by the dictionary as advocating legal bans on abortion. So using real, standard definitions rather than made up definitions, how can you maintain the position that pro choice allows for the pro life position?

Lacking any credible reasons for thinking otherwise, I will.

I'd say that intellectual honesty and humbleness are very good reasons to concede that all opinions are equal and that no one's opinion is better than another's. Have you reconsidered your answer?

You'd be wrong again. The last time I actually did any logic was actually several nights ago when I derived the proof for the Heine-Borel theorem, a result in topology stating that a subset of R is compact if it is closed and bounded. Btw, the boldface R denotes the set of all real numbers. I'd be more than happy to discuss the proof with you in another thread to provide a demonstration on how advanced logical reasoning is done.

Lol. Clearly you're getting way ahead of yourself, as you have some misconceptions about far more basic elements of logic, as demonstrated by your (simplistic and mistaken) previous comment.

And what is my misconception exactly? Please point it out. You made it seem, using inaccurate definitions, that pro choice allows for pro life. The dictionary proved you wrong.

Btw, my challenge still stands. I'd be more than happy to discuss the proof of the Heine-Borel theorem with you in another thread to provide a demonstration on how advanced logical reasoning is done. Or if topology is to advanced for you we can discuss logic in the context of a more simpler topic, something like discrete mathematics or introductory real analysis, or even high school geometry.

What do you think an opinion is? And why would I hold that my opinion is no better than any other, when this not only doesn't follow from the mere fact that its an opinion, but also when I've provided clear reasons why my opinion is "better" in this case?

Do you know what the difference between objective vs. subjective is? Did you know that while you may subjectively think that your opinion is better than somebody else's, it is not OBJECTIVELY better?

[enviousintheeverafter]

Again, horribly inaccurate definitions. Would you like to use the dictionary? Maybe that'd be better.

Pro Life: Advocating the LEGAL protection of human embryos and fetuses, especially by favoring the OUTLAWING of abortion on the ground that it is the taking of a human life.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-life

So the pro choice position advocates legal abortion and the pro life position is defined by the dictionary as advocating legal bans on abortion. So using real, standard definitions rather than made up definitions, how can you maintain the position that pro choice allows for the pro life position?

Because, once again, as you've still failed to address, while the pro-life position undeniably includes opposition to the legality of abortion (can't imagine why you think I dispute that the pro-life position includes this- the point is it isn't exhausted by this), this is derivative of the more fundamental view that abortion is wrong and should not occur (pro-lifers do not hold that abortion is immoral because it should be illegal, but that it should be illegal because it is immoral- the moral claim is fundamental), and thus that the pro-choice position allows for one to both believe and live by this position given that abortions are not mandatory, while the converse is not true.

Its also worth noting that many dictionaries define "pro-life" without mentioning opposing legality of abortion; M-W defines pro-life merely as "opposition to abortion", and the Cambridge dictionary gives the following definition-

"supporting the belief that it is immoral for a pregnant woman to have the freedom to choose to have an abortion (= an operation to end a pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby"

So clearly, you've cherry-picked the a definition of "pro-life" that allows you to continue avoiding addressing this inconvenient point.

I'd say that intellectual honesty and humbleness are very good reasons to concede that all opinions are equal and that no one's opinion is better than another's.

That has nothing to do with intellectual integrity. Indeed, "conceding" a patent falsity, just to be nice (apparently) would be dishonest. Not all opinions are created equal.

And what is my misconception exactly?

That there was anything about your statement that contradicted what I had said. You repeat your error here. And all to avoid addressing an inconvenient point.

Btw, my challenge still stands. I'd be more than happy to discuss the proof of the Heine-Borel theorem with you in another thread to provide a demonstration on how advanced logical reasoning is done. Or if topology is to advanced for you we can discuss logic in the context of a more simpler topic, something like discrete mathematics or introductory real analysis, or even high school geometry.

I'm sorry my remark clearly struck such a nerve, but I'm not going to go off on yet another tangent simply so you can prove yourself. If you have an interesting topic involving logic and pertinent in any way to Christianity/religion you'd like to start a thread on, I'll almost certainly participate as my background is philosophy and logic, and you can have your opportunity to school me with your "advancing logical reasoning" skills there.

Do you know what the difference between objective vs. subjective is? Did you know that while you may subjectively think that your opinion is better than somebody else's, it is not OBJECTIVELY better?

Yeah, obviously that doesn't follow.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 26 by enviousintheeverafter]

A bit more on this; even though EvidenceofGod failed to fill in the premises necessary to imply that a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion, it's clear that the argument revolves around the personhood of fetuses. EvidenceofGod suggests that the biological designation of being a human being entails personhood- that if X is a human being, then X is a person:

Now, there is a possible distinction to be made: human in the biological sense does not necessarily mean they are human in the moral sense... the two terms are not equivalent. However, it has never been conclusively shown that there are any human beings who should be excluded from the moral community. I submit that all humans are persons, even though all persons are not humans.

And claims that, because "it has never been conclusively shown that there are any human beings who should be excluded from any moral community" all humans are therefore persons. So if all humans are persons, because it hasn't been shown that not all humans should be excluded from the moral community, then clearly personhood isn't directly a function of biology, but participation in the moral community (though perhaps participation in the moral community is entailed by biology, though that seems dubious and would need to be established). But can fetuses participate in the moral community? In what sense? Intuitively, participating in the moral community involves being a moral agent; an entity capable of making, and acting in accordance with (or violation of) moral judgments/standards, and thus bearing moral responsibility. It’s unclear how fetuses qualify here- fetuses certainly cannot make or understand moral concepts much less make moral judgments, and are not capable of actions with any moral status. So they cannot be held morally praise/blame-worthy. It would seem that they are clearly not moral agents, and then not members of the moral community- and thus not persons, if EoG's line of reasoning is correct here.

Later, in response to Haven's claim that a fetus is merely a potential person, we see a slightly different conception with a distinction between different types of potential:

Consider a cake. Sugar and flour are ingredients in a cake. Left on their own, the sugar and flour will not become a cake. This is because while they have the potential to become a cake, they have this potential passively. It requires an outside baker to mix the ingredients together to become a cake. Passive potentiality is identity-changing. The sugar and flour lose their identities and become part of the cake.

The unborn organism is different. She has the power within herself to actualize these capacities. She doesn’t need an outside builder, she has the power on her own to actualize them. This is an active potential. Active potentialities are identity-preserving potentialities, so she remains the same thing through all of her changes. The sperm and the egg are potential persons, but the unborn human, from fertilization, is an actual person.

Of course, this is not strictly correct; the fetus needs external help to realize its potential as well, until it reaches viability. Until it is viable, it is in the same dependent/contingent position as the cake ingredients. The further argument is that the fetus does possess the features relevant to moral agency and thus personhood- just as a matter of "active potential". This is to say, basically, that left to its own devices the fetus will eventually possess those features. But this is simply to concede Haven's point; the conclusion then is that the fetus will eventually possess moral agency and participation in the moral community, and thus personhood. Just not presently. But then, the personhood of the fetus is out the window, and the argument from personhood fails. Its also worth noting here that there are other reasons to be skeptical of this biological criteria of personhood and personal identity- the Stanford article on personal identity discusses both this and other criteria as well as objections to them. But this is probably a more philosophically involved angle to the topic than most posters here are interested in.

It also should be noted that EoG's dismissal of neo-Lockian accounts of personal identity as misinterpretations of Locke is simply a genetic fallacy (they may be derived from a misinterpretation of Locke, that doesn't mean they aren't correct or superior), and more significantly, that most contemporary accounts of personhood focus on features like rationality/ability to reason, consciousness/self-consciousness, linguistic ability, and the capacity for moral reasoning/judgment. Not only does EoG not provide any substantive reasons for rejecting this sort of account, good cases can be made for preferring these to the more outdated, vague, and problematic definitions EoG has offered for personhood. When the abortion issue is framed in terms of personhood, it needs to be stressed that fetuses do not posses the necessary features according to the best and most plausible conceptions of personhood; rationality, moral agency, etc. and so the pro-life argument likely doesn't even get off the ground.

[Haven]

Sorry, there's no way around it; if the pro choice position holds, as it demonstrably does, that the right to choice of women trumps the right to life of an unborn child, then the pro choice position is against the right to life of unborn children. Hundreds of unborn babies are aborted every year. Had they not been aborted, they would currently be members of our society. So I suppose if you want to continue unfairly characterizing pro lifers as being against women's choice then you really shouldn't have a problem when your own cherished belief is distorted.

What if a pro-choice advocate rejects the concept of "unborn children" entirely? If someone's position is that unborn children don't exist (knowing what "unborn" and "child" mean, I can say that an "unborn child" is literally a contradiction in terms), then how could they be against these nonexistent individuals right to life? I don't support tax benefits for married bachelors either, does that mean that I'm against marriage equality?

Again, to argue this point you must first demonstrate that "unborn babies" are a thing, and seeing what "baby" and "unborn" mean, I don't see how that's possible (except as a cheap, political manipulation of language).