a condom weighs significantly more than a zygote.  Does that mess with you on any level?

 You're suggesting that people can choose to go gay?  Or you want people to put their weiners in places they don't like?

 Actually, Pineapple, I'll take the snark away for a second.  I think maybe I can make this point clearly since you've just read this, and we've got our other abortion convo on the brain.

There are three choices if we want to reduce the population.  (Be sure to let me know if you can think of any others.)

1) Prevent pregnancies from occurring.

2) Terminate pregnancies that have occurred.

3) Kill people who have already been born.

Obviously, if we drop anthrax in the middle of every major population center, we'll get a very fast reduction in population, but I think everyone would agree that while effective, this method is not desirable.

Granting that we shall not kill human beings, we are left with preventing and ending pregnancies.  Presumably, you are in favor of preventing pregnancy with birth control, so long as people don't get "overly sexual."  By the way, I've asked you several times, and you haven't answerd -- how many times a week can I have sex and still be considered responsible if I don't want to make a girl pregnant?  I really don't want to be too overly sexual...

Anyway, suppose for a second that the pope reverses his stance and says that everyone in the world ought to use a condom every time.  Suppose that condom use becomes the greatest thing since raping virgins to cure AIDS.  What if that didn't reduce our population enough to be sustainable?  Would you rather sterilize people so that they don't have the chance of making a zygote, or would it be ok to scrape a few zygotes here and there in the interest of saving the whole human race?

 Why does anyone ever bother to argue about what it would be like in an ideal society?  Why not argue about the one we have?

How about we wait and see if the birth control is enough?

But as I said repeatitly, abortion should be a last resort. Or here's a double solution, if abortion is required, then the couple must adopt a foster child. That way we reduce the birth rate and the number of children waiting in foster care, and then people will be more careful.

Well, for now I imagine almost everyone would agree that it isn't desirable.

In perhaps one to two decades when empty fridges are a common household item and we keep hearing about how those other people way across the planet are just hoarding all that food to themselves and the Conservatives just swear it'll be a totally painless and humane death for all the people in the city and it'll all be over so fast and afterward there'll be so much food for everyone...

I wonder if there might be a change of heart then. :\

I can't derail Hamby's thread and point out that a Social Democracy would be capable of providing the very matching you wish to see can I?

oops

Well, technically, she's right.  If you take home a girl you don't know and have safe sex with proper condom use, you are rolling a die with a few hundred sides, and there is a possibility that the roll will be a 1.

You're also rolling the dice everytime you have sex with someone you know, since you don't know for certain that she hasn't cheated on you, or that she hasn't had an STD that was in remission, or is only now manifesting symptoms. 

Oh, and I should add that there are cases of women getting pregnant from sex during their period, although it's very rare.

The thing is, "rolling the dice" is an emotionally charged and very scary sounding phrase.  It's something opponents of various sexual activities often say, as if the fact that an activity has a risk means that it's necessarily high risk.  I linked the study that showed that out of 123 couples where one partner had HIV and the other one didn't, when they used condoms consistently, the transmission rate was 0% -- and that's not just 0 out of 123.  That's 0 out of 123 x multiple sexual encounters, as these were couples being studied over a period of several months.  If we assume twice a week for four months (I can't remember if it was 4 or 6, so let's go with 4 to be safe) that's 2x4x4=16x123= 1,968.  So, the transmission probability was 0/1,968.

Now, just for shits and giggles, let's suppose that one partner had become infected.  That would still be a .0005% chance of transmission per encounter.

Yeah.  Rolling the dice.  Rolling it in a dangerous game?  No.  At twice a week, you could have protected sex for nearly nineteen years before the odds would be stacked against you.

I did some math just now, and guestimated my own life.  In all my instances of protected sex with proper condom use, I estimate that there has been a 0.0002% chance per encounter that a pregnancy will result.  I had to fudge the numbers a little bit.  My ex-wife did get pregnant and we had an abortion, but she was on the pill, and forgot not to take antibiotics on the pill.  I wasn't wearing a condom.  Incidentally, in speaking with her a few months ago, we agreed that the abortion was the best thing either of us could have possibly done.  We honestly couldn't imagine how horrible it would have been for both of us -- on a LOT of levels -- if she had given birth.  We're both extremely glad that we made the decision that we did, and we feel no regrets whatsoever.  Incidentally, my incidence of impregnation with a condom is 0% over my life.

Also, I'm perfectly happy to admit that in my younger and more stupid days, I did not always use condoms.  Again, it's an estimate, since I didn't keep a journal, but I know how long I dated various women and approximately how often we had sex, so I'm pretty sure I'm close.  I'd guess the margin of error to be +/- 5% on the total number of sexual encounters.  Anyway, in unprotected sex, I have a 0% rate of impregnation.  Had I hypothetically caused one impregnation from unprotected sex, my percentage would still be under 5% impregnation rate.

My bill of health is clean, so I have a 0% rate of transmission for all diseases they test for.  I can't very well speculate on anything beyond that.  I suppose it's possible I'm the first carrier of a new STD, but I doubt it.

So yeah... It's rolling the dice, but the game is heavily stacked to the player, not the house.

 [EDIT: Ok.  I decided to count all of my sexual partners, since Pineapple's so concerned with casual sex.  I've had three extended relationships -- I was married, then had a long relationship, and am with my third partner who I consider a life-mate.  Everything else would have to go under the heading of casual sex.  (I'm counting dating that didn't lead to relationships, friends with benefits, one night stands, and one marvelous weekend of being flooded in with a new acquaintance during a hurricane with no power and nothing to do.... wow... what a weekend!)  Anyway, since I have a clean bill of health, I'm going to have to fudge these numbers to get anything besides 0%, but supposing I had tested positive for one disease, and had isolated the person who gave it to me, I would have less than a 3% chance per partner of contracting a disease.]

What were we talking about again overpopulation or something?

Anyway, I think we should invest more in re-newable sources such as wind and solar, to at least give us some breathing room to look for how to better distribute resources so we can at least think of ways to reduce the population without wars breaking out for the oil or if the oil runs out.

Given the stats birth control methods alone would most likely be sufficent to lower the population, so we need to increase awareness and education.

I see where she's going, but I still reject the argument for several reasons.

Arguing about ideal worlds is pointless.  Humans are humans, and we have to solve problems in the existing world.  In this world, there are a LOT of women who get pregnant and don't want to have a baby.  The world is overpopulated, and there's no reason to bring an unwanted baby into the world, even if we could hunt around and create a nice beaurocracy to find somebody somewhere who would be willing to adopt the thing.

In this world, education takes time, and the problem of unwanted pregnancy will continue to happen until and unless an "ideal world" is reached.  I'm right with Pineapple that good birth control is cheaper, easier, and less emotionally conflicted than abortion.  Given the best of all situations, it would be great if everybody did the smartest thing possible, and used contraception properly every time they had sex, and avoided sex during their most fertile days (when, incidentally, women are most horny.  It's science.  Look it up.)  and only had to consider abortion under very rare circumstances. 

If you believe that's ever going to happen, I've got a few bridges to sell you.  Even in the most sexually open and progressive countries in the world, there are still unwanted pregnancies from unsafe sex and improper use of contraception.

The reality is that we have to accept humans for what they are -- they're hornier than they are smart, on balance, and no amount of education is ever going to completely eliminate the demand for abortion.  I'm a big believer in as much sex education as possible for everybody.  I think sex education ought to be mandatory in all schools, and the curriculum ought to be science based, detailing what people do, not what some pencil pusher with an insecurity complex and a picture of Jesus on his desk thinks they ought to do in an ideal world.  For several reasons, sexuality is one of the last remaining areas of scientific inquiry where we simply refuse to deal with the way things are, instead preferring to appeal to wishful thinking, religion, and emotion to try to will another reality into existence.  Science should be science.

The point is that it's absurd to say because people need abortions more than they ought to need them, we should make abortions illegal or discourage them.  Instead, we should accept that the "not quite as good" solution is better than "no solution at all" and facilitate abortions while doing our best to educate people having them.

I actually agree with Pineapple that women getting an abortion ought to be required to attend a meeting, but not the kind she wants.  Instead, I think the abortion ought to be granted on demand, but that the woman be required to complete and pass a mandatory course on effective birth control methods and their proper use.  It couldn't hurt if the course also contained accurate information about world population, environmental resources, and the problems of overpopulation.  That way, you stand a chance of preventing her from needing an abortion in the future, as opposed to just telling her how naughty she was for getting pregnant and encouraging her to bring an unwanted baby into the world.

In short, yeah.  I get it.  If everybody was perfect, we wouldn't need abortion.  Great argument.  Also, if everybody was perfect, there would be peace and love everywhere, and nobody would ever want for anything, and all the children of the world would join hands and sing in a spirit of joy and harmony, and everyday would be Christmas.

In the real world, abortions are necessary.

Ah yes the "we don't live in an ideal world" argument.

The question Hamby, isn't whether or not birth control will prevent all unwanted pregnancies, the question is whether it is enough to lower the population, and whether the rate is sufficient.

If it is sufficient, then my point stands.

If you want I can put it in symbolic logic.

(We increase birth control education ->birth control will lower the population)/\ The birth control will be lower the population at a managable rate

also

Abortion is absolutly necessary <=> (Birth control alone won't lower the population\/ Birth control does not lower the population enough \/ We cannot find another way besides killing people

As for our current situation

Birth control isn't being widely used -> Promote the use of birth control.

 Vastet:  Yes.  I support abortion in all possible scenarios.  An embryo is not a human, regardless of what science can do outside of the womb.

So the fetus doesn't get the freedom to develop, yet the mother somehow deserves the freedom to get rid of it?

Let me guess, the woman has the right to make decisions with her own body right? Too bad the fetus isn't her. Unless you can scientifically show that the fetus has the same DNA.

That said I don't like the semantics of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" both merely seek to demonize the other side.

Everybody in the debate is pro-life and pro-choice.

"pro-choicers" don't think it's killing and "pro-lifers" don't think killing should be a choice.

 By the way, I ought to add that there's some gray area in terms of laws relating to fetuses that are intended for birth.  If a woman smokes or drinks constantly during the pregnancy of a fetus she intends to carry to term, it is more likely that the baby will suffer from defects.  I would argue that the mother's actions during pregnancy have infringed upon the rights of the baby (once it's born, it has rights), and she could conceivably be held legally responsible.  It's a fine line, but the only legal definition that makes sense is that the woman's actions can only be considered for potential crimes after the baby has been born.  If her actions cause the baby to abort, that would leave the absurd position of prosecuting a woman for finding an alternate way to get an abortion, which is legal.

This is not an odd precedent or a stretch.  At the restaurant I run, we often have spills which don't get immediately cleaned up.  Water on the floor is a potential liability issue.  If someone slips, falls, and hurts themselves, we could be sued (rightly so) for negligence if we didn't have an appropriate warning sign in place around the spill.  However, if a lawyer comes in and finds a wet spot on the floor, he can't sue us because no damage has been done to a person.

Likewise, smoking and drinking are potentially damaging to a person who might exist in the future.  If it turns out that this is the case, a crime has been committed.  If not, then no crime.

I'm being overly positive, though I only know a little about farming.  I hoped that by being overly positive and showing that it's still absurd, the whole reality of it might sink in more deeply.

Because they are neither agents nor humans.

I've already explained why the question of when a fetus becomes human is a non-question.  Birth is the only line that makes any political or practical sense in the real world, assuming that egalitarianism is your goal.

Giving "personhood" rights to a fetus is a pandora's box.  I don't think you've stopped to consider just how many incredibly ridiculous consequences would result.  Are you, for instance, ready for every fetus to have a guardian ad litum, or to grant that status automatically to a mother, but then attempt to repeal it in court while she's pregnant should she prove unworthy of the position?  You do know that any person who is incapable of agency on their own behalf is required to have such a guardian to make legal decisions for them, right?

In any case, these arguments are beside the point as well as after the point.  That is, the arguments against a right to abortion fail on their own, so there's no particular need to form an argument for why it should be a right.  Rights are assumed until they are proven to be a bad idea.  The status quo is keeping abortion legal.

Alison, I'm sorry but I'm not going to keep explaining to you why these analogies are not valid.  I've done so with several others.  I'm sorry if you can't understand the logic.

Not in my part of the universe.  Only if they kill a cat in a particularly cruel way.  In fact, in most places I'm familiar with, if it's legal to use whatever weapon you employ, you're free to kill animals on your own property so long as they're not endangered or otherwise protected.

Read it again.  Your analogy is not valid, so there's no reason to address it.  I'm not going to explain again why it's not valid because I've done it before with several of your analogies.  You just aren't getting it.  Use your brain, not your emotions, Alison.

 That's all very interesting.  Would you document it for me?  I'm seriously not going to re-read the entire thread to figure out what in the world you're talking about, but I'll be happy to address any points I've genuinely not addressed.  I'm getting a little confused because we're talking about the same subject in at least three threads, and on my blog.

This is pretty much the Cole's notes

five posts above it

Your response to it [immediatly below it]

My response

Then your response is the one I quoted at the begining.

You see?

The first of my posts I quoted addresses the problems [Zygotes are part of the human life process, ergo that's the answer to 1) and 2)]

First you ask what the problem with aborting a zygote is. Then you go on to ask why it's immoral to interfere with the human life process, I address that, and then you go back to asking what is the problem with aborting a zygote!

Here we go with the 'potential human' crap again.

Alison, you keep shifting your argument. You'll include and exclude this line of reasoning as it suits you.

Every sperm and evry egg cell is a 'potential human'. Having sex is part of the human life process. You're not opposed to the loss of sperm or the alteration of sex via contraceptives to interfere with the reproductive process; we've been over this already, and you've conceded that this is a very weak argument at best and that you would stop wasting our time with it.

You have a lot of gall to continuously change your position, never offering a pair of firm premises, and then accuse Hamby of circular reasoning.

Where have I conceded that it's a weak argument?

How is that conceding?

Perhaps I should re-word it to "part of the human development process" and then point as per my last post why it starts at the zygote.

I fail to see how this semantics change helps, given that sexual intercourse is also part of the human developmental process.

Alison, why don't you just be honest - unlike those other anti-abortion folk - and jut say what is obvious:

You don't want people to have casual sex.

Then you can have a runaway train suggesting that it is immoral to not have sex when about to get your period. Not to mention male masturbation.

Much like the other side has a runaway that in time could shift from zygote to fetus to child. A child has no responsibilities. A child is not productive. A child is only a potential adult, not an adult. Therefore kill the bad kids.

There's nothing logical to indicate this must happen, but there is nothing to stop it from happening either. Time has fucked up ideas worse than this, especially with frequent applications of illogic, emotion, and religion.

Frankly I think both sides are lacking here. Either a sperm and egg combined successfully is a human or it is not. Clearly most of the people here say it is not. My morality puts me on the side of it being human, hence my problems with the issue of abortion. The zygote is incapable of becoming anything other than human without direct and significant genetic manipulation. The argument that provision of resources is required to develop works for any life form of any age. No resources means no life. And life constantly develops.

Science convinces me that a human zygote is human. It convinces others that a human zygote is not human. Hence, I consider this a matter of opinion, and inarguable as a result. Much like some say a virus is alive, and others say it isn't. I fall on the side of a virus being alive, but that does not invalidate the position of those who say it isn't.

 “What I’m concerned with is how you develop.  I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being. ”   — Lewis Wolpert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Wolpert

 {EDIT:  Itchy trigger finger again...  Rest of the thought follows:}

See, it's like this.  Most scientists will not answer this question, mainly because it takes too long to explain why it's not even a valid question.  Still, when pressed, people in the science of embryology will happily concede that a zygote is not a human being.  

This rankles lots of people, including many atheists.  It doesn't sit well with them emotionally.  So, they object.  Those of us who have read the work of said scientists point out that they are disagreeing with science.  They continue to disagree, because it doesn't sit well emotionally.

They will argue some philosophical point or another.  Those of us familiar with the work of the real scientists will yawn, get bored with the conversation, and tell them again that what they're saying is all very interesting, but they haven't got the scientific chops to address the question.  

In other words, Vastet and Pineapple, your opinions as a sci fi geek and a crotchety student with some respectable physics chops, respectively, are not relevent to the conversation since neither of you has anything to back them up with save your gut feeling on the matter.