Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart News

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not going to repeat it. This is not about victory or defeat, this is about earnest conversation. And you are signally refusing to have an earnest discussion.

I will not ever make the mistake of taking you for being sincere again.

I did not win anything. I lost a bit of time, and any confidence that you are willing to engage on an honest conversation. I hope everyone who has read this exchange keeps this is in mind when they deal with you.

I know he was dishonest about this subject ages ago. Since the last time a debate about abortion popped up.

Oh, I knew long ago that he has this streak in him. I like giving people chances; people can and do change.

[Aristocatt]

It seems to me that what you basically have is a life that's forming within a woman's stomach.

The question is at what point the fetus becomes alive and how comfortable someone is with killing/extinguishing this life/potential life.

I've been reading pro choice and anti abortion arguments and aparently even the presence of a brain doesn't guarantee the fetus is consious and alive.

On the other hand you have to think that at some stage before the birth the baby is what you'd class as being alive and not necesserily just potential life.

I can see why it's an interesting topic to some people but not really to me.  I did find out that a fetus isn't necesserily considered alive, so I've learned something new there.  I'll remember that for the next time I get into an argument with my friends about fetuses.

I'd be careful with this one.  A fetus is alive at all times.  When you talk about the fetus being alive, I think you are really talking about personhood, a philosophical concept about what attributes classify a being as having a certain amount of intrinsic worth.

I could have misunderstood, I'd just hate to see you start telling people that fetuses are not alive when you really were trying to have a discussion about personhood.

[Amarok]

It seems to me that what you basically have is a life that's forming within a woman's stomach.

The question is at what point the fetus becomes alive and how comfortable someone is with killing/extinguishing this life/potential life.

I've been reading pro choice and anti abortion arguments and aparently even the presence of a brain doesn't guarantee the fetus is consious and alive.

On the other hand you have to think that at some stage before the birth the baby is what you'd class as being alive and not necesserily just potential life.

I can see why it's an interesting topic to some people but not really to me.  I did find out that a fetus isn't necesserily considered alive, so I've learned something new there.  I'll remember that for the next time I get into an argument with my friends about fetuses.

I'd be careful with this one.  A fetus is alive at all times.  When you talk about the fetus being alive, I think you are really talking about personhood, a philosophical concept about what attributes classify a being as having a certain amount of intrinsic worth.

I could have misunderstood, I'd just hate to see you start telling people that fetuses are not alive when you really were trying to have a discussion about personhood.

Indeed it's always alive but it's not just personhood either .Because even a person would not be permitted to live inside someone  against there will . And no regulated abortion is not the same thing. And no one wants to violate it's bodily autonomy it just can't be in hers.

[Aristocatt]

I'd be careful with this one.  A fetus is alive at all times.  When you talk about the fetus being alive, I think you are really talking about personhood, a philosophical concept about what attributes classify a being as having a certain amount of intrinsic worth.

I could have misunderstood, I'd just hate to see you start telling people that fetuses are not alive when you really were trying to have a discussion about personhood.

Indeed it's always alive but it's not just personhood either .Because even a person would not be permitted to live inside someone  against there will . (and no regulated abortion is not the same thing)

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that defining personhood is the pivotal moment of a debate about the legality or morality of abortion.  More so, I just wanted to clarify that when people talk informally about a fetus being alive or not, they are really making assertions about personhood.  When written, moving fluidly between the two can be fine(although I don't like it very much), but if you just tell your friends "by the way, a fetus isn't always alive", you might find yourself in a not so cordial discussion because of a simple misunderstanding.
Sounds like you are alluding to Judith Thompson's argument on the subject, which is one of my favorite arguments of the 20th century.

Edit:
When I was in college, my first philosophy class was on ethics and morality. One of the first discussions we dove into was the abortion debate, and at the time I was staunchly pro-life. Judith Thompson's argument not only changed my position, but was so interesting and creative, that it got me really interested in the class. The class inspired me to study philosophy more broadly, and I believe has had a huge impact on my life since(including my shift from theist to atheist). If it weren't for the fact that the first discussion of that class had gotten me to change a view point so wildly on a subject I felt so strongly about, I may not have had the same enthusiasm for the class, or philosophy, in the future. Judith Thompson's argument had a bit of a butterfly effect and I can trace it to being a fairly important moment in my life, although I didn't realize it until much later.

Sidenote: After my first philosophy 101 class, I was definitely "that guy" who would talk about philosophy all the time and act all aloof about my super sick arguments and shit.

[paulpablo]

It seems to me that what you basically have is a life that's forming within a woman's stomach.

The question is at what point the fetus becomes alive and how comfortable someone is with killing/extinguishing this life/potential life.

I've been reading pro choice and anti abortion arguments and aparently even the presence of a brain doesn't guarantee the fetus is consious and alive.

On the other hand you have to think that at some stage before the birth the baby is what you'd class as being alive and not necesserily just potential life.

I can see why it's an interesting topic to some people but not really to me.  I did find out that a fetus isn't necesserily considered alive, so I've learned something new there.  I'll remember that for the next time I get into an argument with my friends about fetuses.

I'd be careful with this one.  A fetus is alive at all times.  When you talk about the fetus being alive, I think you are really talking about personhood, a philosophical concept about what attributes classify a being as having a certain amount of intrinsic worth.

I could have misunderstood, I'd just hate to see you start telling people that fetuses are not alive when you really were trying to have a discussion about personhood.

So the argument boils down to when is it ok to kill the fetus.
People can argue about when the fetus is developed enough to call the fetus a person but that's only really important because if it's significance in the argument of when its ok to kill the fetus.

[Aristocatt]

I'd be careful with this one.  A fetus is alive at all times.  When you talk about the fetus being alive, I think you are really talking about personhood, a philosophical concept about what attributes classify a being as having a certain amount of intrinsic worth.

I could have misunderstood, I'd just hate to see you start telling people that fetuses are not alive when you really were trying to have a discussion about personhood.

So the argument boils down to when is it ok to kill the fetus.
People can argue about when the fetus is developed enough to call the fetus a person but that's only really important because if it's significance in the argument of when its ok to kill the fetus.

It's part of the argument, not the entirety.
I think of it as a prerequisite to the pro-life position.  If you can't convince someone of some level of intrinsic value(personhood) of a being at time t, it is unlikely you be able to provide other compelling arguments in defense of the pro-life position at that time.

It is not the entirety of the argument though.  There are lots of different people that have argued the pro-choice position while accepting that personhood has been established, either for the sake of argument, or because they agree with that position, but disagree with the pro-life conclusion.
Judith Thompson's argument on abortion is the classic example of this.

There are also the social costs to weigh, which for many can also be a compelling reason to support abortion. I have heard one argument in defense of the pro-life position that discusses social costs. "The person who would cure cancer will be aborted" which I believe was popularized by Mother Theresa is basically an argument of the loss of potential for social good when we abort. I think it is a little silly, but it seems worth mentioning.

[Amarok]

"The person who would cure cancer will be aborted"

I'm very familiar with this one best comeback I've heard was from Hitches about how the next Stalin might also be aborted or worst carried to term

As for the rest your second point mostly reflects my own position (thou the question of personhood is still vague) And the question of pain is another . Abortion is a complex issue despite what morons like Pool seem to think.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Pool, say technology was developed to transfer a fetus to a man to carry. Meanwhile, a mother somewhere is unable to carry a fetus to term. Would you support forcing the father to carry it?

First of all, I wouldn't classify it as "forcing" at all. If a mother is incapable of carrying the child and the father is alive and well then it would be his duty to do it because the child is his too. So yeah, provided that kind of technology exists it would make sense for a father to do it.

[Aristocatt]

Pool, say technology was developed to transfer a fetus to a man to carry. Meanwhile, a mother somewhere is unable to carry a fetus to term. Would you support forcing the father to carry it?

First of all, I wouldn't classify it as "forcing" at all. If a mother is incapable of carrying the child and the father is alive and well then it would be his duty to do it because the child is his too. So yeah, provided that kind of technology exists it would make sense for a father to do it.

If the father has a duty to do something, and they say "Fuck you I'm not putting that thing in my tummy", is that the end of the discussion?  Give up on the baby and let the man go about his business like he was before?

[vorlon13]

"The person who would cure cancer will be aborted"

I'm very familiar with this one best comeback I've heard was from Hitches about how the next Stalin might also be aborted or worst carried to term

As for the rest your second point mostly reflects my own position (thou the question of personhood is still vague) And the question of pain is another . Abortion is a complex issue despite what morons like Pool seem to think.

The argument is also specious from the (Christian) believers viewpoint too, which makes it all the more curious when a (supposed) believer advances it.

The body, of course, is responsible for nothing; achievements, sin, pleasure, evil, work, NADA.  The immortal soul, after all, is where the action is.  And abortion of any stripe will not impede an immortal soul from eventually inspirating whatever viable human form it encounters.  So, the next Lenin, or Lennon if you will, is not prevented in any way, the destined soul will nevertheless lodge appropriately and the rest of us will either share in it's achievements or it's disasters.  And as a son (or daughter) of Adam, that soul will eventually find it's reward or eternal torment, no matter what.