'I condemn abortion because it kills human beings who have done nothing to deserve that death, generally for less than extreme reasons.'

i disagree fundamentally. nevertheless, that answer feels honest to me. now, can you give an equally honest explanation of why you condemn george tiller's murder?

sorry to post so much, and thanks for indulging my questions.

"One [term] deals with what things are and the other deals with what things may be."

is not the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective.' it is the difference between 'indicative' and 'subjunctive.' you should have said, 'one term deals with what things are and the other deals with what things are perceived to be.' that is muddier ground, but it's more in line with your point.

one of the reasons the comparison with slavery is disturbing is that not only did the abolitionists encourage the public to think of slaves as people, they also, directly or indirectly, instigated a war that killed thousands of people (who are comparable to george tiller in your analogy). don't get me wrong — thank god for that war, without which we would have remained a primitive nation — but if you believe in the full humanity (and personhood, i suppose) of fetuses, it is contradictory to condemn george tiller while applauding the abolitionist sentiment. (contradictory views are the best kind! but they are hard to be glib about and easy to attack.)

i think your slavery comparison is too fraught to be useful. even so, there is something powerful in what you're saying. if i may make a suggestion, instead of comparing fetuses with slaves, you should compare them with children. after all, children do not have the full rights and responsibilities of (adult) personhood. the law protects them from harm only by virtue of their potential to one day assume those rights. fetuses, in most cases, have the same potential.

if the law acknowledges the value of that potential in children, why not in fetuses? i don't know a good argument against that (though i suspect such an argument would take the form of a 'challenge of assumptions'); i hope someone here who supports abortion can come up with one.

I was using the word "personhood" to indicate that we'd be tiptoeing through less sharply-defined realms if we really wanted to tackle the abortion issue.

So far as I know (and I could well be wrong), the scientific definition of “human being” includes the unborn as well, to a certain point (which is the matter of viability I mentioned a few comments ago).

That's fine, but it's not the point. Now I'm arguing semantics, too–if you say "science says," as an appeal to authority to support your argument, then your audience is likely to think you're referring to knowledge gained through scientific methods.

In this case, what you're actually referring to is scientific terminology, which is not based on any scientific procedure. It's just the conventional use of language scientists have arbitrarily chosen, and your only appeal to authority becomes, "Scientists are smart. Smart people pick good words."

I believe that fetuses are human beings who should possess the same basic right to live as every other human being. That means that no one has the right to take their life unless extreme circumstances require it. I condemn abortion because it kills human beings who have done nothing to deserve that death, generally for less than extreme reasons.

This argument doesn't require cleverness. It does, however, require reasonableness enough to give the other side credit for not being rampant baby killers/rank enslavers of women.

if we are going to make this conversation a moral one, as you rightly suggest is necessary, we'll need more than new, weird definitions. not to sound hokey, but we'll each need to trust the other is a thinking, feeling person. otherwise, it will just be the most clever person who decides whether fetuses are people. my own views on this issue are pretty extreme — i don't feel that a child is technically a person until it has language — yet even i see that abortion is an issue that cleverness can't penetrate.

i don't believe you think that fetuses are full people like you and i are. i think you figured that position was the most defensible way to attack abortion. why do you condemn abortion? please provide an answer with shades of grey, if you still think it's appropriate.