In short, you make an argument from potential. However, that's not an argument that I find convincing. Given the millions upon millions of sperm that die in the cause of making a baby, the number of eggs sloughed out from the ovaries in a lifetime, I just can't see a rational reason to get overly excited about something that is a clump of largely undifferentiated cells.
As technology progresses, I also think the argument from potentiality is going to run into problems. If we have the capability to readily clone from existing cells, if we're going to be consistent, rationality will obligate us to do so.
In short, I think the logical progression behind each of our positions is sound; we disagree on the premise, which leads us to different conclusions.
I used "in short" twice. Wow. I should proofread.
Fatman and Andy, I came over after reading the rest of the comments at RWS and just wanted to say I've enjoyed the back and forth between you two. I still can't believe Andy takes the time to respond to the kooky commenter but I imagine he was having a ball.
Blake - yeah, crazy state is fun for me. 
"Welcome to my home. Enter freely, and of your own will." - Count Dracula to Jonathon Harker.
Glad you both could make it. And thank you, Blake, for your kind words. As for the matter at hand...
No, andy, it's not about potential (at least, mostly not). It's about rights. Human rights. I firmly believe that if it's human and it's alive, it has rights. One of them being the right not to get sucked out it's mother's womb and thrown into a red plastic bag for disposal in a hazardous waste incinerator. Especially when you consider that nearly 75% of all abortions are strictly birth control. No mother's health, no child's health, rape and/or incest not a factor. Just a woman who couldn't remember to take a pill or keep her legs closed teaming up with a guy who couldn't keep his zipper up and didn't like the feel of condoms. My source for that stat:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/j...ls/
3711005.html
Finally, andy said
Blake - yeah, crazy state is fun for me.
Really? You know, I could make you a nice deal on a set of pre-owned whips and chains. They're like new, barely used. The previous owner was a little old lady from Pasadena who only used them at church on Sunday.
You said:
And what I'm saying is that a single human skin cell or liver cell or piece ..."of intestinal tissue you slough off with each crap..." is not capable of developing into a thinking, self-aware human being. An embryo, on the other hand, is. Unless it's aborted.
That certainly sounds like an argument from potential to me, as you introduced it as a qualifier to your position of something being human and alive (which includes, of course, every cell in your body, none of which independently are "you").
Further, we're not arguing about the method of abortion itself, so the rest of your paragraph is more an appeal to emotion than reason. If the Nazis had just gently put six million Jews to sleep like dogs, it would not have made their crime any less of an offense against their fellow man.
I don't think we're going to agree on conclusions because we disagree with each other's premise. I don't see how we can consider an undifferentiated cluster of cells a human being with rights; you apparently do. That's the chasm between our positions and I don't think there's a bridge either of us can build.
andy:
That was in response to your comparison of individual skin cells, liver cells or bits of intestinal tissue to an embryo. Those cells or tissue are part of a living organism. An embryo or fetus is the living organism.
When I said
And what I'm saying is that a single human skin cell or liver cell or piece ..."of intestinal tissue you slough off with each crap..." is not capable of developing into a thinking, self-aware human being. An embryo, on the other hand, is. Unless it's aborted.
I didn't mean to imply that my whole argument, or even the greater part of it, is based on potential, though that is a major consideration. My basic argument is that if it's alive and it's human, then it's entitled to human rights, regardless of its stage of development.
I think you're right; we're not going to agree on conclusions. But as I said elsewhere, I'm not really trying to change your mind; I'm going after the undecided vote.
Oh, and when you said
Further, we're not arguing about the method of abortion itself, so the rest of your paragraph is more an appeal to emotion than reason.
you were absolutely right.
you were absolutely right.
See, I"m good at this stuff. 
(This is also the same reason I'm against allowing victims and family members to testify in the sentencing phase of trials...but that's another topic)
Thanks for the welcome, fatman. You've got a nice blog here and I'll check it out every now and then. I apologize for not participating further in this discussion but I assume you'll understand why.
Commenting by HaloScan
