"anti-choice rhetoric (not necessarily yours) is more often than not couched in religious terminology and iconography"

If you didn't know Baltar didn't have a chip in his head by the end of "Home, Part 2" (season 2), after he had that brain scan, then you weren't paying attention.

That's what happens whenever people with socio-political goals (in this case, Racial Hygiene) get their hands on science — they break it to their will, and end up breaking science itself. One could say that's a problem with "goal-directed" science more generally: the goal will eventually break the science.

And it's that logic that really cuts to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?: You can't rely on people to make the "right choices" for themselves; the state knows better; individual autonomy must be subordinate to the scientifically-ordered government.

"Abortion is Eugenics. Eugenics is evil. Abortion is evil."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/california-forced-sterilizations/index.html

Voluntarily choosing not to have children is different from an official state policy of *forced* sterilizations:

"It's very easy for us, with our modern perspective, to argue x or y position."

And I'd rather people acknowledge that decentralization in education may not be such a bad thing, especially when it comes to idiotic, high-stakes standardized testing.

I guess instead of local morons, you have federal morons.

The problem with the absolute-bodily-autonomy folks is that not even Roe v. Wade said that women have unlimited bodily autonomy:

The problem with consequentialist arguments is that you really can't possibly know the full consequences down the line. Thus, you really can't say what that unborn child's life would be like once it's born, and arguing that it should be killed to "spare it pain and suffering later" is unsound, since you really can't…

Your appendix is not distinct organism and a human being. Really, these sorts of idiotic pro-choice arguments really don't help your side of the issue.

Huh? What does this even mean?

I find it funny that you think your response is in any way clever. Carry on, idiot. Carry on.

"Another angle on personhood is the idea of potentiality — that it's the potential of an entity that confers moral status. But this doesn't work either."