[r9etb]

Sorry -- missed this post earlier.

You used the phrase, "mass of undifferentiated cells." That is a false assertion on the face of it.

Sure it is. Hell, we both know it's a human child at a single cell. But whether the euphemism is "mass of undifferentiated cells" or something else, the fact is that there will be some label to "make it sound not human" that we're going to be forced to deal with. The other side will present the choice I stated above, whatever the euphemism happens to be.

The only way we answer their question successfully, is to have already won the moral battle. If we can't win that, then the war is lost.

Please understand: my purpose here is to try to identify the actual grounds of the debate in which we're engaged.

As we've already seen with the pro-aborts, they work very hard to get people to use their euphemism, as a means of hiding the true nature of what they're doing.

[supercat]

The only way we answer their question successfully, is to have already won the moral battle. If we can't win that, then the war is lost.

Suppose you're trying to convince someone who hates rich people that he shouldn't rob them. Which is apt to be the more effective argument:

1. Robbing people is morally wrong.
2. Thanks to the new CCW law, if he tries to rob someone he may get shot.

While argument #1 may be the morally superior argument, it will likely fall on deaf ears. Argument #2 would be more likely to get the person's attention.

[MHGinTN]

The war is not over the moral position of the 'other side', it is over the ignorant middle ... those ignorant of the truth and not already amoral.