You lose some points when it's not even known WHAT the killer's motive was yet. Seems you've been rather quick to jump straight to witch hunts lately Cop.

Nothing like taking a single and isolated case and blowing it completely out of proportion.

BTW, Cop, I didn't realize that you were a proponent for late term abortions, Tiller's specialty.  You must be, I reckon, since you said he was "providing pregnant women with the right to choose to terminate their pregnancies."

I don't remember clearly from your previous posts but I seem to recall that you thought that abortion was easily justifiable... up to a point... on the grounds that prior to that point the 'fetus' was no more than a lump of cells no different than the scrapings of skin off the back of your hand.  Right, I remember, something about how there isn't an brain to feel pain or to think, etc, etc, and that's the 'socially accepted' definition of personhood.

If a child was 40 weeks along and due to be born on Wednesday, Tiller was happy to abort them on Tuesday.  Is that in fact the kind of choice you think women should be able to make?

Nothing like taking a single and isolated case and blowing it completely out of proportion.

It wasn't an isolated case.  A group of right-to-lifers have been trying to terrorize and kill the man for years.  One of them just got lucky, figuring that the best place to get away with it would be in a church.  Bombing his clinic didn't do it.  Nor did shooting him on the street.  In church, he was sitting still and made a much easier target.

BTW, Cop, I didn't realize that you were a proponent for late term abortions, Tiller's specialty.  You must be, I reckon, since you said he was "providing pregnant women with the right to choose to terminate their pregnancies."

I have nothing against late-term abortions when they are motivated by preservation of the mother's health.  I certainly do not see a role for the government to make those kinds of choices for the woman.

I don't remember clearly from your previous posts but I seem to recall that you thought that abortion was easily justifiable... up to a point... on the grounds that prior to that point the 'fetus' was no more than a lump of cells no different than the scrapings of skin off the back of your hand.  Right, I remember, something about how there isn't an brain to feel pain or to think, etc, etc, and that's the 'socially accepted' definition of personhood.

I don't think that the choice to have an abortion is ever easy for a woman to justify, and I certainly do not see it as my place to make a judgment for her.  From my perspective, there are many reasons why a fetus should not have the same social status and rights as a baby.  Roe v Wade says that the government has an interest in the pregnancy that begins in the third term of the pregnancy, which includes late term abortions.  From what I have read, late term abortions are very rare, and they almost always involve a case where the mother's health is in jeopardy if the pregnancy is allowed to go to term.

If a child was 40 weeks along and due to be born on Wednesday, Tiller was happy to abort them on Tuesday.  Is that in fact the kind of choice you think women should be able to make?

I don't know as much about Tiller's attitude and feelings as you seem to, but I do not have telepathic powers.  I suspect that it is the same characterization of them that inspired the hate crime that just took place.  I certainly do not believe that you or most anti-abortionists approve of the cold-blooded murder of doctors who perform.  However, it is the atmosphere of anti-abortion demagoguery that sustains those who are deranged enough to go out and commit the act. 

And it is no surprise that anti-abortion groups have condemned the act after the fact, although some still can't help trashing the man after his murder.  That doesn't mean that they did much to restrain the violent tendencies of some of their most extreme supporters before the act.

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kan. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

http://www.kansas.com/457/story/833995.html

lol, I don't know why they would think that!

They must have got a hold of this blog post:  http://naastika.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-victory-for-sanctity-of-life.html

"There are many different senses of the word "person", so it is impossible to answer such a question without qualifying it."

Wow, this is swell.  So all your talk about brain waves and the like were utterly irrelevant.  Why did you waste our time?

"Hence, it only compounds the tragedy to have people who have no stake in the pregnancy barging in with their opinions and prescriptions."

Nonsense.   We're talking about a procedure that is literally available up until the due date.  We aren't talking about the 'glob' in the second trimester. 

"I'm not dodging that in the slightest."

You are totally dodging.

"Such terminations are almost always under extraordinary circumstances, and I don't think that the moral choices are as cut and dried as the anti-abortion ideologues would have us believe."

First of all, I doubt very much that they are 'almost always under extraordinary circumstances.'  Feel free to provide some data.  Second of all, we are talking about a third trimester baby that by your own definition- up until the last post, anyway- qualified as a person.  If it is not 'cut and dried' that persons deserve our protection, then there is nothing else to talk about.

"I have not acknowledged that such a fetus is a "person", because we have not agreed on what "person" means in this context.  I will certainly acknowledge that a late-term fetus is closer to personhood than a zygote or an embryo, but not as close as many mature animals."

Amazing.

Why should we have to agree on what 'person' means in this context?  All I am asking you is to use your own definition.  My definition is irrelevant.

For example, do you know who said:  I think that a fetus that can survive independently of the womb without extraordinary measures is entitled to civil protections.


?

Do you think that a 'fetus' that is due on Wednesday can survive independently of the womb Tuesday without extraordinary measures?

Or who said:  "Embryos are not capable of thought in the same way that a comatose patient is."

Surely we are not talking about embryos anymore?

Do you wonder who said:  "It is about what the role of government should be in regulating the lives of individuals.  In the case of pregnancies, society has to decide when a new individual comes into existence from its perspective.  In our society, that happens to be the end of the second trimester of a pregnancy."

It is silly to demand that we agree on personhood.  It is only important that you agree with yourself on personhood status.

"I have not endorsed any such action or behavior, but I am not surprised that you impute it to me."

I haven't imputed it to you.  As I said to start with, I wasn't aware that you believed late term abortions were what was meant by 'right to choose.'  As seen from the above quotes (I wonder who said them) I had every reason to believe that you rejected late term abortion because the 'entity' could survive independently and otherwise qualified as a person (it has a brain that works up to your standards, etc).

So, it is a very simple question:  do you believe that a baby due by wednesday is a person on Tuesday?

If this question is too difficult for you, perhaps above your pay grade, maybe you need to leave such important matters to the rest of us.

"I agree, but the problem is that there are always those gray areas in life,"

This isn't a gray area on your own previously stated terms.

"You were faced with such a choice, and I think that you made the right decision."

I'm really not talking about me here.

We are talking about the coherency of your own position.  As you well know, I never considered your position very coherent to begin with, at least as it corresponded with reality.  However, I recognized that in some sense it was internally consistent.

Consider the following:  The 'baby' is due on Wednesday.  Is it a person on Tuesday based on your own definitions?  If not, if it is still ambiguous and gray and a hard moral choice, what about on Thursday after it is born?  What 'scientifically' changes in the course of a scant three days so that what is done on Tuesday is legal and permissible and 'none of our business' but on Thursday you'd call murder?

"But it is her responsibility to make it, not the government's."

By your own arguments previous to this point, the question of 'personhood' is determined not by the woman or the government but by 'society.'  And by your own statement, this "happens to be the end of the second trimester of a pregnancy."

"Again, I think that it depends on a case by case basis."

This seems like a red herring to me.  It'd be like saying it was ok to execute slaves because, well, its only done rarely- but it's ok, because, well, society doesn't really think they are persons.  But if you'd like to provide data that shows that late term abortions are not predominantly elective, feel free.  Otherwise, 'I think' isn't going to cut it when it seems the principle itself is already specious. 

"Nor is it unjustifiable simply because it is abhorrent.  Sometimes, people must choose between two evils."

Like... torture?

"But it is unlikely that my source materials would be the same as yours."

My sources are Tiller himself.  The man wasn't exactly shy about what he believed. 

"Once you start to condone cold-blooded murder, you lose your right to proclaim your reverence for the sanctity of life."

But it seems that you are prepared to condone cold-blooded murder right now.  I'm sitting here thinking that you are at risk of losing YOUR right to proclaim your reverence for 'personhood.'

"Our on-going and unlikely-to-ever-be-resolved ideological dispute, this sure is fun.  Is that wrong somehow?"

Yes.

"i mean that almost before the gunshots have died away, SJ has unleashed a flurry of blog posts"

I don't suppose that you noticed that Cop posted a blog post first designed to show how this act represents the entire pro-life community?  Or did you notice that you are posting on the very thread spawned by his post? 

"and damage limitation rhetoric designed to show how this act does not in any way negatively portray the anti-abortion community in the United States."

For good reason.  The DHS has put all of us pro-lifers into the 'right wing extremist' category (along with anti-illegal immigrationers, gun owners, etc) so it is necessary that we keep some perspective.

"EB, on the other hand, goes straight for the denial-of-historical-probability defence:"

I thought EB was right to do so.  Even now we haven't been given an idea of what evidence there is or what the motives are.  I saw one news report that indicated the man had a history of mental illness.  All this is relevant as we begin to make our analysis and it seems silly to begin analysis based on scanty facts on hand.

"Seriously, if someone blows themselves up on a packed bus in Jerusalem,"

Very different.   People blowing themselves up on packed buses in Jerusalem happens a dozen times a year.  You will snort out your tea if I suggest that it would have been possible too that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.   Church shootings haven't been absent in America.  Maybe 10 this year alone?  I don't begrudge those who confidently predict that it will be an anti-abortionist, but before leaping to condemn half the country at least make sure you've got the facts.   That just seems reasonable to me.  :)

"(Also, witch hunts may not be an image you want to invoke at this time, because your side really doesn't come out as the good guy there either)"

Actually, I was thinking that you don't want to take this tact yourself, for if you think it is a no-brainer that an abortionist gets shot that the nature of the event is specific enough to automatically infer design, then you are tacitly admitting that one can reasonably infer Intelligent Design.  If you think you can infer pre-meditation and agency based on the mere report of a man being murdered than surely you are willing to respect the inferences of those like myself who look at the biological world and see 'pre-meditation and agency' all over the place based on much stronger evidence.
 
However, it seems that when applied to other sorts of occurence, the "rarity"

"So is it not strictly irrelevant that this has 'only' happened 8 times in the last x number of years?"

You've got apples and oranges going here.  'Only' 8 times is irrelevant as to the morality of the events.  'Only' 8 times is definitely relevant if one is trying to decide if there is a huge pattern, or as NOW put it, "the Department of Homeland Security must root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded criminal acts for decades."

Organized and funded criminal acts for decades?  What?

"By that criteria, 9/11 was an extremely rare event,"

That's just nonsense.  In one of the blog entries I provided a list of terrorism up until 2003 and Islamic terrorism by far dominates the list.

THAT is a pattern worthy of investigation by DHS.

"Why should these groups condemn it?"

Because in this country the current estimation by the pro-life community is that the rule of law is still intact in this country and as such Christians must submit to it (Romans 13) and work within it.

"i note that you haven't condemned it - is that because you dont?"

I condemn it.

"What i suspect is that, acknowledge it or not, "pro-lifers" also admit a gradient of personhood, which is why abortion doctors killed or menaced tend to be those specialising in later terminations, not those who deal strictly with the earliest stages of pregnancy, such as inserting a coil after unprotected sex."

I don't think the gradient is in regards to 'personhood.'  I am pretty sure that most (Christian) pro-lifers do believe abortionists of all terms are committing murder.   But there is the question of knowledge.  A punishment is more severe if you know what you're doing and less if you don't, even for the same crime.  This is reflected in American law, for example, 'involuntary manslaughter.'  There is a certain 'plausible deniability' that the early term abortionists get.

This principle is alluded to in the first few pages of Spero.  "Surely you know."

Speaking personally, if the law was such that abortion was illegal at all terms and a person still did it, I may be willing to consider capital punishment.

What is your perspective on personhood?  If a baby is due on Wednesday is it a person on Tuesday?

SJ,

I don't suppose that you noticed that Cop posted a blog post first designed to show how this act represents the entire pro-life community?  Or did you notice that you are posting on the very thread spawned by his post? 

Oh, he started it?    i didn't actually examine the times on the various posts, i just saw one blog entry of Cop's and three blog entries of yours and drew the completely unwarranted conclusion that you were homing in on the cultural lightning rod with your customary accuracy and fervour.

The DHS has put all of us pro-lifers into the 'right wing extremist' category (along with anti-illegal immigrationers, gun owners, etc) so it is necessary that we keep some perspective.

i haven't read the actual wording, so i wont quibble too much, but do you think it possible that they're talking more about Christian Identity and,... well, people like this guy, rather than the maybe 50% of the country who, as you observe, self-identify as 'pro-life'?

"EB, on the other hand, goes straight for the denial-of-historical-probability defence:"

I thought EB was right to do so.  Even now we haven't been given an idea of what evidence there is or what the motives are.  I saw one news report that indicated the man had a history of mental illness.  All this is relevant as we begin to make our analysis and it seems silly to begin analysis based on scanty facts on hand.

Stalling.  The obvious and reasonable conclusion at this stage is that the guy was killed because of what he did by someone violently opposed to abortion for religious reasons (what other reasons are there?).  If it later turns out that it was a case of mistaken identity or a botched communion wine heist then put me down for a $10 donation for Athanatos Ministries, but i think my money's probably safe.

"Seriously, if someone blows themselves up on a packed bus in Jerusalem,"

Very different.   People blowing themselves up on packed buses in Jerusalem happens a dozen times a year.

And yet it is still possible that a Jerusalem bus explosion might be a result of a catastrophic brake-pad failure, but again, what are the odds?  i know that you want to play the numbers game here, but the principle remains - if someone or some group has a history of being targetted by a certain species of ideologue and that person/group is hit without any obvious extenuating motive then it makes sense to round up the usual suspects.  Don't worry, that doesn't mean you.  

I don't begrudge those who confidently predict that it will be an anti-abortionist, but before leaping to condemn half the country at least make sure you've got the facts.   That just seems reasonable to me.  :)

i'm not condemning half the country, and i dont think Cop is either.

...if you think it is a no-brainer that an abortionist gets shot that the nature of the event is specific enough to automatically infer design, then you are tacitly admitting that one can reasonably infer Intelligent Design.

   Right, therefore by arguing against that inference, you are supporting atheistic evolution?  Please.

'Only' 8 times is irrelevant as to the morality of the events.  'Only' 8 times is definitely relevant if one is trying to decide if there is a huge pattern, or as NOW put it, "the Department of Homeland Security must root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded criminal acts for decades."

What's 'NOW'?  Whatever, i'm not arguing for a nationwide conspiracy.  i just think it's fairly frikkin obvious what this killer's primary influences were.  That doesn't mean that i think you're a bad guy.

"Why should these groups condemn it?"

Because in this country the current estimation by the pro-life community is that the rule of law is still intact in this country and as such Christians must submit to it (Romans 13) and work within it.

Then what becomes of the insistence that private gun ownership is an essential precaution against a tyranical government?  Isn't this huge genocide of aborted embryos that you believe to be going on sufficient motivation for you?  If not, whatever would be?

I condemn it.

Ok, but why?  Do you condemn the judicially-administered deaths of convicted murderers?

I am pretty sure that most (Christian) pro-lifers do believe abortionists of all terms are committing murder.   But there is the question of knowledge.  A punishment is more severe if you know what you're doing and less if you don't, even for the same crime.  This is reflected in American law, for example, 'involuntary manslaughter.'  There is a certain 'plausible deniability' that the early term abortionists get.

Ok, that has a certain biblical justification, "Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance", etc (although slightly contradicted by Numbers 33-36).  However, whichever way you cut it, Dr Tiller deserved no such mitigation right?  Yet you still condemn his murder.

This guy at least shows some consistency:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/abortion.dan.holman/

What is your perspective on personhood?  If a baby is due on Wednesday is it a person on Tuesday?

i'm not sure.  Personhood is a complex phenomena, and i dont feel obliged to pretend otherwise in the pious intellectually-dishonest hope of avoiding slippery slopes to the Gas Chambers.  i think that a full term baby has the same right to life as a newborn, if that answers your question.


EB,

Yes, how silly of me to wait for the murderer to even be caught before jumping to conclusions.

Look, if you dont want to discuss this then just stay out of the thread, but dont pretend that it's not pretty obvious why this guy was killed unless you really believe that.  If this missing Air France plane turns out to have gone down as the result of an explosion on board, i wonder how long you will speculate about the religion of the culprits.  Actually, i dont.

"Oh, he started it?"

He was one among many.  I had read a lot of commentary before I sat down to craft my own.

"but do you think it possible that they're talking more about Christian Identity and,... well, people like this guy,"

Haven't you just established that anything is possible?  

Possible, yes.  Actual?  Pretty sure not.  Otherwise, that's what they would have said.  Instead they 'retracted it.'  FYI, the DHS report is just one among 3 reports that came out in the last few months that said such things.  The Missouri report was particularly fascinating.

"The obvious and reasonable conclusion at this stage"

Well that's really not fair now, is it, since at 'this stage' the man has been caught and we already know a decent amount about him.  At the time EB wrote that I don't think we'd caught the guy, or if we had, I don't think we knew his name or anything beyond that he was 'the guy.'

"Don't worry, that doesn't mean you."

Thanks.  When I'm rounded up with the rest of them I hope you'll vouch for me.  

"i'm not condemning half the country, and i dont think Cop is either."

I only said that Cop insinuated as much.  Much more blatant and explicit condemnations exist.  I have focused on two high profile ones on my blog and I think they represent the views of a large number of people from my reading of various comments.  Look at the comments by Hern and NOW.

"Right, therefore by arguing against that inference, you are supporting atheistic evolution?"

What?  Heck no.  The point is that if you think there is a reasonable pattern that can be detected from a scant 8 murders over 35 years because of the specificity involved then you should have no objection if I detect specificity in examples where the 'patterns' are much more robust.  But perhaps you are not in the 'Intelligent Design is unscientific and closet creationist' camp, denying the validity of principles like specificity.

"What's 'NOW'?"

I thought you read my blog entries!

Please do so now.  :)

"Then what becomes of the insistence that private gun ownership is an essential precaution against a tyranical government?"

What about it?  I'm not seeing your point.

"Isn't this huge genocide of aborted embryos that you believe to be going on sufficient motivation for you?  If not, whatever would be?"

Very tempting, but nonetheless I too still think the rule of law exists in this country, even if it is in shreds.

"Ok, but why?"

Asked and answered.

"Do you condemn the judicially-administered deaths of convicted murderers?"

Not at all.  This really stems from a profound misunderstanding of what it means to be pro-life.  It does not mean, though of course some say it, that life is utterly sacred and can never be taken.  It says that life is valuable and ought to be protected.  However, in valuing life and protecting it, this may require taking the life of those who don't value it and protect it.  A convicted murderer has committed a crime.  The unborn committed no crime.  The convicted murderer we assume had due process.  He had a competent defense team.  He was able to file all available appeals.  The unborn has no due process.  They committed no crime.  There is no defense team. There is no appeal.  It has no advocate to insist that he in fact did nothing worthy of death.

Abortion, we are told, is a medical decision between the woman and the doctor.

"Ok, that has a certain biblical justification,"

Good job.

"However, whichever way you cut it, Dr Tiller deserved no such mitigation right?  Yet you still condemn his murder."

Remember the story in Spero where Tasha and King deal with the man raping his own daughters?  What happened there?  Tasha did what she could to arrange for a fair trial of the man.  Why?  Because respect for life means that one does not carelessly dispense with it.  Respect for life does not mean that life is never taken, but that when it is it is a very solemn affair and all the best arguments are aired.  If Tiller was to be killed, it should have been done within these parameters, and I see no inconsistency in that.

And Tasha was acting in a time when there was almost pure anarchy and she still sought to have a trial.

Very little in my series is random or present without reason.  This incident with Tasha was included for discussions precisely like this one.

"i'm not sure.  Personhood is a complex phenomena, and i dont feel obliged to pretend otherwise in the pious intellectually-dishonest hope of avoiding slippery slopes to the Gas Chambers."

It is not dishonest at all.  We haven't got your view on it, but we've got Copernicus's views.  His views are common.  They are essentially that personhood is an agreed social convention.  Society decides when personhood exists and when it doesn't.  There is nothing more to it.  So if the Germans want to say that the Jews aren't persons, then on that principle they have every right to do so.

At that the likes of Cop hem and haw and sputter, "well it doesn't mean, uh, never does it mean, well of course not that, uh, uh..."

Unless you have a more robust appraisal of what personhood is and when it exists than Cop's, then there is no logical reason whatsoever that you can have any kind of objective objection to what the Nazis did.  You can not like it, and have preferred to do something else, but you cannot consistently condemn them.  Who are you to impose your values on them?

"i think that a full term baby has the same right to life as a newborn, if that answers your question."

I don't know if it does.  Don't you think it is full term on Tuesday if the 'due date' is on Wednesday?

What if it is due on Wednesday but doesn't come?  The woman aborts on Thursday, the day after the due date and indisputably 'full term.'  Is she aborting a person?

You realize that Tiller was carrying out exactly these sorts of 'procedures' right?

"Is that right?"

Yes.  I would have extended more courtesy to Tiller than he extended to others.  As for the right to over throw the government, I don't recall saying as much, but in theory this is a right that all Americans possess, whether they know it or not.  It is a uniquely American concept I'm not sure you Brits would get. 

As long as there is hope in the rule of law the exercise of such a right seems premature.

"Although simplistically we might imagine that there is some absolute standard of blue in the world, i dont think that such a theory will stand up to rational inquiry."

I beg to differ.  'Blue' can be precisely defined as a particular band on the spectrum of visible light.

"You don't have to like it, but that's all you're getting on this occasion.  Nice bait though."

:)  'You don't have to like it' is literally the only thing you could say here that is consistent with your stated worldview. 

"Yes, i would consider anything from 25-30 weeks to be "term"."

Great, and you say this because you think by 25-30 weeks you've got something that is indisputably a person?

"Those are separate questions.  Legal protection and personhood are not necessarily synonymous (animals have some legal protection, after all)."

I didn't see separate questions here.  I of course agree that our legal definitions may be different than our common usage definitions and that for the sake of the law we can have variations.  However, wouldn't you agree that ideally, we'd want to have legal protection for anyone deemed to be persons?  Ie, our legal definition of 'personhood' and our collective definition of 'personhood' should coincide if we can at all help it right?

I have to imagine that if you believe that full term is 25-30 weeks, and that "a full term baby has the same right to life as a newborn" you would answer my question "is a baby due on Wednesday a person on Tuesday" in the affirmative.

"Support please."

Ok, first of all, here is a description of partial birth abortion, a common procedure for late term abortions:

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html

Just for perspective.

Tiller's website is offline right now but you can see it on the Internet Archives here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080118044837/http://www.drtiller.com/

On that page is another page regarding elective late term abortions:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080127131037/www.drtiller.com/elect.html

It says:

"Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health."

By 'the pregnant woman's health' it has been argued that this includes 'mental' health.

There is plenty of pro-life stuff out there documenting various aspects of this stuff, but because you will likely be skeptical of that sourcing I decided a confession was the best.  The following words are from Tiller himself:

"We have some experience with late terminations... about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."

This was from a speech he gave in 1995.  The snippet is available online for listening here:  http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/latekills.mp3

This is what he admits, and you will note that this is within your 25 to 30 week range where you consider it to be full term.

If I were permitted to make wider use of pro-life materials, a more d--ning case could be made.

And to EB you said:

"Anyone who has given some actual thought to this issue would recognise that personhood is a complex phenomenon,"

To that I say that it is only complex if we've made humans themselves the 'final regress' in terms of meaning.

Having said that, I wonder at the logic that says "We might be wrong on our definition or application, but we're going to kill them anyway."  It would seem to me that the more rationale and morally sensible ( ) approach would be, "This is a very complex question and as such we are going to err on the safe side and do what we can to protect all human life, whatever its stage of development."

SJ,

As for the right to over throw the government, I don't recall saying as much, but in theory this is a right that all Americans possess, whether they know it or not.

i know that it has been advanced as an argument in numerous gun control debates on this forum, although i dont recall whether you have personally advanced it.  Either way, as a red-blooded right-of-centre American, i feel confident that you adhere to this principle.  My question really is, if you believe in this right, and a government-sponsored death toll of 3.7 million deaths a year (source: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) isn't enough to put you in revolutionary mood, what would be?

It is a uniquely American concept I'm not sure you Brits would get. 

It is, apparently, an entirely hypothetical American concept, since most of the people who claim to believe in it also claim to believe that 3.7 million innocent human beings are being murdered in the US alone each year and still do nothing about it, leading me to believe that they are either a) entirely apathetic, or b) lying.

As long as there is hope in the rule of law the exercise of such a right seems premature.

   Rule of law?!  Are you kidding me?  A Shoah recreated every two years and you still don't consider it appropriate to go against the 'rule of law'?  Wow, you guys are really... law-abiding.

"Although simplistically we might imagine that there is some absolute standard of blue in the world, i dont think that such a theory will stand up to rational inquiry."

I beg to differ.  'Blue' can be precisely defined as a particular band on the spectrum of visible light.

And i can precisely categorise different actions, but that doesn't change an individual's subjective experience of them.  i would find the colour-blind to be an interesting parallel for psychopaths in this analogy.

'You don't have to like it' is literally the only thing you could say here that is consistent with your stated worldview. 

As always, i must add the factual caveat, "...in your opinion".  Your personal opinion of my worldview is invariably more incoherent than my personal opinion of my worldview.

"Yes, i would consider anything from 25-30 weeks to be "term"."

Great, and you say this because you think by 25-30 weeks you've got something that is indisputably a person?

Nope, but i like to err on the side of caution.

I have to imagine that if you believe that full term is 25-30 weeks, and that "a full term baby has the same right to life as a newborn" you would answer my question "is a baby due on Wednesday a person on Tuesday" in the affirmative.

No.  That's inaccurate.  25-30 weeks is where i stretch the standard of human rights back to for safety's sake and with respect for considerations of viability and the development of the foetus.  Depending on the definition, i am not sure that new-born babies are 'persons', but i think they definitely need protecting.

Ok, first of all, here is a description of partial birth abortion, a common procedure for late term abortions:

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html

Just for perspective.

   Lovely.  Not an entirely unbiased source (use of words like "jams", as in "jams scissors into the baby's skull", where "inserts" might have been less loaded but equally factual), but perhaps a little bias is appropriate at +30 weeks.

i personally would not support (or allow, were i in charge of things) any elective abortion for any reason, beyond some irretrievably awful condition such as anencephaly, beyond 30 weeks gestation.  The baby can always be delivered and adopted if the mother decides that she doesn't want it at that stage, or if her mental health dictates an end to the pregnancy.


EB,

By the way, is your new animated avatar specifically designed to induce epileptic fits, or is that just an unintended side effect?

"Fine, do that.  Other people chose to draw the obvious conclusion and comment accordingly, and they are similarly entitled to do so."

Says the guy routinely denying Design.

Again, so this means that your position that we shouldn't assume motive is denying design?  This is a rubbish argument, whichever way you slice it.  There was an immediately obvious motivation for this murder from the begining.  You chose to be one of those not only sticking your fingers in your ears (which is your privelige), but also making patronising derogatory remarks about those who had put two and two together and come up with the radical conclusion of four.

I actually have a position on murdering abortionists because one naively thinks it will save lives. I just want to wait to make sure this is indeed the case before liberals start getting out their pitch-forks.

   Wait - your position on murdering abortionists is primarily influenced by the futility of the act?  Can you elaborate on that?

"More relevantly, based on the media reports that have come out since this debate started, do you think Cop was mistaken?"

I find it actually irrelevant whether he was mistaken or not.

Of course, the facts have no bearing at all on this matter!  

The simple fact is liberals are apparently willing and able to jump to conclusions and paint millions of people with a wide brush before the smoke even clears from the gun.

Is that deliberately hilarious?  This sentence suggests that all liberals, including i assume the 53% of American voters who supported Barack Obama in 2008, are guilty of painting other people with a wide brush.  Truly, irony is dead.

...there will come a time when the same thing is done and they are wrong.  But the damage will be done. But hey, that actually may be some people's plan anyway.

   So what if a hypothetical "they" get it wrong at some point in the future?  It's not like anybody was burned at the stake.  Get a grip.

"Anyone who has given some actual thought to this issue would recognise that personhood is a complex phenomenon..."

Not really, actual thought would show that the issue of 'personhood' is actually simple and irrelevant. Because the issue has been whether it's a human being or not. 'Personhood' is an issue brought up when it was found that human beings come into existence at conception.

When was that "found" to be true again?  i forget.

Make up your mind, either you have an answer with certainty or you don't. Not both at the same time.

When have i said that i have certainty about this?  i have said when i consider a baby to be full-term, and when i think legal protection should be extended to it.  You (and SJ) interpret that as being an admission of personhood, but it could just be playing it safe.