Call to Action

As we approach the year two thousand and ten, we approach the year of the Personhood Amendment. With activity in 32 states, at least one is likely to pass, but fight vigorously anyway to make sure.

But don't let this very important issue mak e you loose track of the bigger picture. Fight for the unborn, yes, but also fight for the poor, the young, the old, the gay, women, et cetera. Fight for free speech, freedom of religion, for the separation of church and state, for school reform, for a more reasonable language (Esperanto), for a more reasonable numeral system (dozenal), and for logical arguments.

Fight against euphemisms, restrictions on freedom, and unequal treatment.

I may have posted this before, but...

Morally equivalent does mean politically equivalent.

I am very, very, very offended by the assertion that I am "anti-choice". You claim I want others to follow my beliefs and that everyone should be allowed to follow their own conscience. This is the relativist fallacy. This is clearly not true; if the unborn have rights, it is the duty of every human being to respect those rights.

Some people think lynching is okay.

Some people thought slavery was okay.

Some people believe it is okay to fly planes into buildings to kill the infidel.

Clearly, this is not an issue of being "anti-choice". I take it that you do not oppose those laws criminalizing rape, or assault, or arson? Does that make YOU anti-choice? After all, that IS forcing others to follow your morality.

The claim that I am a terrorist is simply absurd. I have never attempted to make a government surrender by force. I am a pacifist.

My desire to have everybody respect the natural rights of every other human being does not make me a terrorist.

It makes me a humanist.

EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that the author adds the caveat "as long as they don't hurt other people." Well, then. I guess he refuted his own argument.

Baby Velez

Read this article then come back.

Now, instead of addressing the humanity of the unborn, the author tries to go on a red herring tangent and address the logistical problems of listing an unborn child in a list of victims. Because the sex of the child is unknown, and the child lacks a name, Malusinka argues, he or she is not a person.

Anybody with half a brain can see why that doesn't make sense, but I know that an entire half brain is too much to expect from some people, so I will go into detail.

First of all, parents are typically given a number of days after birth to decide on a name for their baby. Does an unnamed newborn not have any rights? Of course (s)he does.

We know nothing about many casualties of war. Were those incinerated by atomic bombs never persons because we don't know their sexes? Does the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier house the remains of non-persons? Were their deaths meaningless? Of course not.

Now, on to the issue of the deaths of people not counted in the population. Again, registration of infants doesn't always happen at the instant of birth. And what about someone the census didn't count for some other reason, whether they be homeless or immigrants or visitors? Historically, was the death of a slave only three fifths of a tragedy?

...or, you could just list the names of the victims and add "and Velez's unborn child".

EDIT: The victim of the Virginia infanticide case had no name and was not yet registered. Does that mean it was okay?

Broodmares of the state?

No, not the 1937 Soviet porno flick of the same name.

I'm referring to the "argument" that pro-lifers just want to force women to pop out babies. This is absurd. I would be okay if nobody reproduced ever.

The definition of reproduction indicates that at least one additional organism is produced. The law of biogenesis states that organisms reproduce after their own kind: dogs make dogs (puppies), cats make cats (kittens), cows make cows (calves), wolves make wolves (pups), and humans make humans (babies).

Therefore, once reproduction occurs, another human being is brought into existence. And along with this human being comes human rights. One of the human rights is the right to live.

Censored? Really?

Cap-and-trade only allows companies to sell their extra carbon credits. It does not punish polluters. It certainly does is not a tax.

Your cute little chart is misleading, since much of the sections are automated and you don't have to work through it. Plus, it's not laid out in a line like it should be.

Quote mining Obama is not an argument.

The public option is just that: an option. For health insurance. It's not "government-run health care".

So, Republicans. Pelosi saying you can't lie to your constituents is not violating your freedom of speech. Your job is not to use shady tactics to manipulate and defraud your constituents. Your job is to represent them. You work for them.

Omegle

("..." means I've deleted an irrelevant comment.)

Stranger: Wouldn't u rather live happily for all eternity than just big black nothingness?

You: Believing something different isn't going to make an afterlife materialize

You: that's an argumentum ad consequentium

You: aka wishful thinking

Stranger: Except there really is afterlife. If there wasn't what's the point in being born and created?

You: Who says there has to be a point?

You: I was conceived because a sperm happened to fertilize an egg

You: Life began because Carbon likes to bond into long chains

Stranger: How do you think you were created? And the universse? Where'd it come from?

You: When a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much...

Stranger: They don't have to love each other

You: I know

You: it's just a cliche'

Stranger: But into the world. Where'd ppl come from?

Stranger: I know that

You: what do you mean by people?

Stranger: Humans

You: We evolved from simpler lifeforms. duh

Stranger: Where'd the simpler lifeforms come from?

You: Like I said, carbon likes to form chains

Stranger: Where'd the carbon come from?

You: Stars

Stranger: And stars, where are they from?

You: Stars are formed when clouds of gas are pulled together by gravity and are compressed enough to begin fusion

Stranger: Where'd all that stuff come from. Something had to create everything

You: The gas?

You: It's just hydrogen atoms mostly.

Stranger: But who created that?

You: Who?

You: Nobody.

Stranger: Then how'd it get there?

You: When gamma rays cool down enough, they become matter

You: e=mc2

You: forces like electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces pull together and maintain the atoms

Stranger: ...

You: The gamma rays were cooled by the expanding universe

You: ...

You: Anyway

Stranger: ...

You: The gamma rays and universal expansion came from the big bang

You: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: brb, don't disconnect

Stranger: Ok

Stranger: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: yes

Stranger: ...

You: kk

You: Anyway

You: back to universal history

You: The gamma rays came from the Big Bang

Stranger: Alright

Stranger: I'd still think it's scary to live life thinking this is all you have. A fucked up life and then nothing after u die. Not too comforting

You: It'd be an awful life to live finding out that I live in a celestial dictatorship

You: that there's no way out of

You: And that there's a god who punishes people for not guessing (s)he exists when the universe was made in such a way as to suggest the Big Bang

You: and when we were given the power to reason

You: Plus everlasting life would get boring eventually

Stranger: No I don't think it would

You: and I'd never be able to rest knowing that billions of souls are burning forever

You: and that I couldn't communicate with those on earth

You: I'd probably stage an uprising against God

You: Because he's a dick.

Stranger: But it's their fault. Plus in heaven u can't feel pain so either you wouldn't know or it doesn't bother you

You: Then that's plain manipulation

Stranger: I'm sorry you think like that

You: I wouldn't want to be happy if it means mindcontrol

You: It'd be like being drugged

Stranger: Wow. You're ... difficult ...

Stranger: I'm drugged right now.. Vicodin plus pot equals fantastic

You: lol

You: It'd be like being drugged against my will

You: I'd rather keep my brain thankyouverymuch

You: and my reason

Stranger: Arghh I got chocolate on my blankets

You: and freewill

You: Yum

Stranger: Well you're entitled to your beliefs and opinions so I'm nor gunna push u into Christianity

You: But, anyway

Stranger: I don't like when people do that

You: If God drugs people into complacency

You: Then I don't want to worship him

You: If he exists, I hope he gets overthrown

You: I'd replace him with a democracy

You: a constitutional democracy

Stranger: ...

You: He'd go in jail for mass murder and property damage

Now, I may not be a big-city lawyer, but...

I want to talk about the military tribunals.

First off, there are no such things as "additional rights". Any of these rights are basic human rights that are not dependent upon any other factor. Likewise, there is no such thing as a person who does not deserve their rights. Such a notion is abhorrent and contradicts the basic values America was based on.

Secondly, I am enraged with the question "What happens if they're acquitted?". The obvious answer is "We let them go." Any other answer is, frankly, unAmerican.

Thirdly, the simple fact that we're trying them doesn't make them criminals. Saying "we've already decided that they're criminals" is absurd; we have made no such decision until we try them.

On the fourth hand, saying that military tribunals have been used since the Revolutionary War is an ad antiquitatem.

Fifth of all, it is absurd to make a distinction between sins (for want of a better word) committed "in uniform" or "out of uniform". The idea of a separate "law of war" is special pleading. Anyways, we should not elevate the actual terrorists by calling this an act of war; this would simply lend them an air of legitimacy.

Of course, I would also like to make the cliché observation that we could free up a lot of space in our prisons by freeing all the nonviolent drug offenders.

On the topic of torture, the idea that the torturers were trying to make us safer doesn't mean they didn't break the law. No, Graham. Using techniques not outlined in the manual does not make it illegal. Using torture, which is against international law, does. Then again, you "saw the law as a nicety we could not afford." But you aren't criminals. Riiiight.

I would like to end with a quote from Blaise Pascal.

Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him?

This post would be about something else had you payed attention in 8th grade.

You know the deal. You're defending prenatal rights online. Perhaps even more certain than Godwin's Law, a Roebot will eventually submit some form of this argument. Examples below.

• If abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide. (and/or some reference to the "Tubesock Holocaust")
• LIFE BEGINS AT MEIOSIS!
• If abortion is murder, any woman who's ad more than one period is a serial killer!
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Now, for this post I'm going to assume a fundamental understanding of the subject of biolo-...

Actually, I'd better not.

You see, sperm and egg cells (reproductive cells that fuse to form a zygote, collectively referred to as gametes) are formed through a process called meiosis, in which-

Whoa, there! Don't you think I should handle this?

Um, this is kind of my blog. Who are you exactly?

I'm Gamete Pete!

Err... okay?

Anyway, meiosis occurs when a body cell splits in two, copying its chromosomes as in mitosis, resulting in 2 daughter cells with a normal number of chromosomes. Next each of these daughter cells splits in two, but do not copy their chromosomes. The result is that the original parent cell produces four new cells with half a full set of chromosomes. This occurs in both the male and the female, though in the female 3 of the 4 granddaughter cells merely become polar bodies. This is simplified, but it's enough for our purposes. When half the chromosomes from a mother and half the chromosomes from the father join in a process called fertilization, a new organi-

MY TURN!

Um...

Who are you?

I'm Kate the Prenate!

I should've expected.

When the father's spermatozoon (sperm) fertilizes the mother's ovum (egg cell), the two half-genomes (sets of chromosomes) join to form a new genome, thus a new and unique organism is formed. Unlike gametes, which are cells of the parent, the zygote (the single celled organism created by the union of the two gametes) is a new organism. The zygote then begins to grow through mitosis into a blastocyst. In viviparous animals, the blastocyst travels down a fallopian tube of the mother into her uterus, implants in the uterine lining, and becomes an embryo. In humans, the stage of development after approximately five months is termed the fetal stage, and the individual is termed a fetu-

Ahem.

No, sorry Cletus. No.

As you can see, there is no comparison to be made. Gametes are cells of the parent and a prenate is a separate individual. A gamete has the potential to contribute half of the genome of a human being. A prenate is a human being.

Loki's Wager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager

I was actually asked in one argument when in the fertilization process rights arise. Obviously it's when the genome is finished forming, but let's assume the question was hard. What would that mean?

Nothing.

It is important to define life begins so that no one is denied their rights, so iffy some-time-in-gestation philosophies don't cut it. But there's no method of contraceptive or abortion that happens during fertilization.

The question, practically speaking, is meaningless.

Rule 1 of Debating Obama's Health Care Plan

Rule 1: Debate Obama's health care reform

That means don't debate the systems of other countries (non sequiturs) and don't make things up (misinformation).

Um, what?

I agree with most of it {though I'm not sure Blue Dogs oppose health care reform because they get contributions [it's probably the other way around (using the method of concentric brackets used in math - how nerdy!)]).

However, skip to 1:18.

See the problem?

He could've pointed out that the insurance companies already put in bureaucrat. Bureaucrats that decide whether you're worth treating. The public option, if it can even be said to be adding bureaucrats at all, is at least adding ones accountable to the people and not merely corporate bourgeois greed.

Sadly, he doesn't take this route. Instead he basically says "So, you're opposed to a panel of people appointed by a democratically elected government deciding whether to provide care based on cost and social utility? Well, then you must support a more dire life-or-death decision being made by a single person on nothing more than a whim, or, at most personal convenience."

Also, I would be remiss in point out that, in addition to a non sequitur, this is an ad hominem tu quoque.

Turning women and their doctors into criminals?

So? By that logic, laws protecting children against abuse turn parents into criminals.

In both cases, they're only criminalized if they violate the rights of their offspring. Parents are not criminalized just for being parents.

I do not see how mothers and their doctors should be exempt from responsibility for their action just because.

Can anyone explain how this is anything more than an appeal to emotion?

Durr... it's medical!

Describing abortion as a "legal medical procedure" does nothing for it. So is circumscision. But both are performed on nonconsenting parties.

I also had someone say that doctors take an oath to do no harm, so abortions would never be performed if the prenate was a person.

1. This assumes oaths are unbreakable.
2. This is an argumentum ad verecundiam.
3. This ignores the fact that doctors are often forced to perform them (especially after Obama rescinded conscience protection).
4. Holocaust executions were done by "doctors".

Appeals to emotion

Coathangers and difficult choices do not a justified homicide make.

Imagine a news story. A poor man kills his daughter for the insurance money. Is this justified? No. Does the distress lessen the offense to manslaughter? Yes*. Does he deserve social services? Yes.

Imagine another news story. Man rapes woman. Woman fights back. Man gets AIDS from woman.

Now, the man fears he'll get arrested if he he goes to the hospital. The wounds get infected and he dies. This death could've been prevented had rape been legal and regulated. Yet do we decry the anti-rape laws? Do we say rape should be legal?

No.

*Depending on how good his lawyer is.

Spotlight Fallacy

The attention garnered by the assassination of George Tiller is proof of its abnormality. If this sort of thing was common it wouldn't be news.

Pro-life groups have instantly condemned the murder, and the murderer himself was associated with extremist political groups but not the mainstream pro-life movement.

Progress

Similar to the "It's legal" [nonsense], I will not accept the ad novitatem argument that abortion used to be illegal and now isn't. Even if I grant that the law, overall, tends toward the truth, it can have hiccups along the way.

Durr.. it's legal!

I am willing to debate abortion, but any arguments that defend abortion because the law says it's okay will be promptly ignored in the order in which they are recieved.

Arguments pro-lifers should not use 01

Pro-prenatal rights argument: Arguments that Assume Personhood

Example(s): What if you went to you're mom's house and she wanted to kill you? Would she have that right?

Why you shouldn't use it: Personhood is the state of having rights; basically, this is circular logic.

Exceptions to this prohibition: Arguments where personhood is a given. For example, arguing against abortion in case of rape. Also explaining how you think, not persuasively. Also, to get the discussion back to the issue of personhood.

War

Whenever I point out all the immoral things that happen in war, I get "That's what happens in war". This is an appeal to common practice.

If these things come with war, it's pretty obvious war must end.

Oh, and please forgive the wonky fontage on a few of these posts; I'm still trying to fix that.

Appeal to society

This is not a common or official term, but I'm using it to encompass ad populums, ad antiquitatems, and appeals to common practice.

Those attempting to initiate social change often see this. Those in favor of youth rights hear appeals to society frequently. Being against the current state of traditions, social morres, social structures, or society in general is framed as being anti-society, with a negative connotation.

History has taught us that society can be wrong. The Colonists faced capital punishment for High Treason if they failed, but I'm sure my American readers will recognize they did the right thing. Rosa Parks keeping her seat was not immature. The early feminists were fighting against society. They were probably seen as having some sort of pathological disregard for simple social structures. But they were far from evil and any inability to function in the "real world" (i.e., the social structure they were attempting to fix) was not their fault, but that of society.

This happens so often we have a term for it: "ahead of your time". Anyone who is ahead of their time would seem dysfunctional. Imagine if you were transported back in time, or to anywhere with ancient barbaric practices. You may be seen as dysfunctional if you refuse to burn a girl for going to school, or refuse to stone adultresses, or refuse to throw disabled infants into a Spartan cliff, or if you dare to speak out against sexism, or racism.

Those attempting to initiate social change do so of their own free will. No matter how much an opponent may like the status quo, the revolutionaries are "controlling themselves", and do not by default have to be reigned in by The Powers That Be for the crime of Free Will.