We Can Be Reasonably Confident that Abortion Entails the Killing of a Human Being

IntroductionI do sympathize with your take. I think it personally took me over five years to see the weight of these arguments. (I was a pretty good prolife debater back in the day.) And the political side of me still wants the prolife movement to succeed. However, the philosophical side of me can see now that their position in this regard does not have a foundation. I will try to convey this point more thoroughly and hope to show that this is far removed from a mere exercise in skepticism or solipsism. And that, it is my belief, that this illustration is actually fundamental to the entirety of the abortion (and 'end of life') debate.Let us try to understand your metaphors first.The Flat Earth Debate MetaphorJosh Brahm said: "We have some great evidence for the earth not being flat, so the opposing side must offer evidence for an alternative explanation. Simply responding with, “no one knows what an Earth is” won’t cut it."This metaphor is not equivalent to my argument.When Charles K. Johnson argued that the "Earth was flat," he indeed was not arguing about which matter in the universe constituted the Earth. (Nor about the definition of "flat.") Rather, his concern was about the shape of the already-agreed-upon material referent (e.g. "the Earth").If both parties already agree on the bounds of the material constructs in question, then there is no argument to be had in this vein.However, our debate is indeed about the very nature of exactly which material constructs are of the set of humans. This is a taxanomic issue -- which the Scientific Method cannot help us on. One cannot point a microscope at a cluster of atoms and see a category label.The Ice Berg Debate MetaphorJosh Brahm said:Historian 1: The Titanic sank because...Historian 2: Yes, but they probably wouldn’t have seen anything anyway. There was no moon that night, nor wind that would cause the water to….Rasputin: How do you know what an iceberg is?Historians: [Staring blankly at Rasputin] Really, dude? Get out of our meeting.This is an example of the injection of an ancillary issue (Climatological & Geological convention or nominalism), into a debate - in which they do not belong (e.g. Maritime Disasters).For example, when The International Astronomical Union is having a discussion on the proper usage of Optical/NIR Telescopes, it is not fruitful for them to discuss the definition of the material constructs at which they point their instrumentation. However, since they are responsible for the conventions used to label celestial bodies, they do indeed spend a great deal of time talking about construct definitions when appropriate. (Most famously in 2006, when they invoked their prerogative to redefine the criteria for "Planet.")In light of this, I can outline my own metaphor following your cue:IAU Member 1: I don't think we should make hydrostatic equilibrium a requirement on our planet criteria.IAU Member 2: Well if we don't then the bodies will oft be confused with the older "satellite" definition.IAU Member 3: Either way, we're going to have to come up with some other label for the other objects - like "dwarf planet" perhaps.Josh Brahm: Hey guys! We all know what a planet is! Doesn't everyone already get it? Why are we talking about this stuff? Let's get back to something more useful like my telescope issue or the email problem we're having with the I.A.U. web servers!IAU Members: [Staring blankly at Josh Brahm] Really, dude? Get out of our meeting.Josh said: "Will you make a list of what criteria you think is important?"I will indeed. But first you must provide me with a method by which we may judge one list to be OBJECTIVELY_BETTER_THAN another list.Josh said: "I think the question will be whether reasonable people can actually compare two lists and find fault with either of them. You think they couldn’t, and I think they could."Indeed the I.A.U. had many lists at their disposal when they chose a definition of planet. They are reasonable people and they made a reasonable choice.But the question we ask is, "Did the I.A.U. make the objectively correct choice?" Surely, these people don't think so.http://plutovian.files.wordpress.com... What scale might Josh Brahm offer these parties, so that they might judge who is holding the correct list in their hand?Josh said: [Biolotists] can also test our DNA to show whether we’re human or not. Actually, all biologists can do is analyze a genetic sample and provide us with a number that depicts how much the sample varies from a benchmark genome.But which sequence do you think we should use as the benchmark? (Personally, I'm voting for Angelina Jolie.) Moreover, how much may our sample vary from the benchmark, before Josh Brahm no longer considers it human? (1)(1) For a quite accessible treatment pertaining to the vast importance of this question, one might start with the 'criticism section' for the Neanderthal Genome Project wiki page and follow the cited papers. http://en.wikipedia.org...