Why Pro-Life?
by Bethany Kerr
For two months only, December 2007-January 2008, Eternal Perspective Ministries will be offering the book, Why Pro-life? by Randy Alcorn, for only $3.00!
The website description of the book says:
“Finally, a book has been written that presents the facts about abortion with grace and compassion, helping readers to root their beliefs in reality, not bumper-sticker slogans. Why ProLife?, by Randy Alcorn, is written mainly for fence-straddlers and professing pro-lifers, but also with pro-choicers in mind. Why ProLife? addresses the questions central to the abortion debate in a concise, straightforward, and non-abrasive manner.
Although many people will bring to the book their assumptions and impressions about abortion, they will not be grounded in science and logic. Many are “pro-life” because their religious leaders say they should be; many are “pro-choice” because it is the position that saturates popular media, and it sounds so positive and tolerant. In Why ProLife?, Randy Alcorn encourages all readers to reevaluate their positions and base their beliefs on factual evidence.
Why ProLife? asks and answers critical questions central to the abortion debate, including:* Is the unborn really a human being?
* Is the unborn part of her mother’s body?
* What do the new ultrasound technologies tell us?
* Is abortion necessary to ensure equal rights for women?
* Is it unfair to expect a pregnant woman to have an unwanted child?
* Does abortion affect a woman’s physical and mental health?
* What about abortion in the “hard cases”?
* Is adoption really a viable alternative?
You can purchase the book at this link. If you order 24 or more, the book will be discounted to $1.00 each!
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Awesome book.
What a rip-off. That’s at least $3 more than it’s worth.
great book, I going to buy it.
great book, I going to buy it.
Posted by: jasper at December 21, 2007 9:13 PM
…………………………
I not.
Hello America, how many sides does a triangle have?
Of course a fetus is human. But as long as it’s attached to my body I should be able to do what I want with it.
Exactly, Jess. That is another question the book will probably cover.
Jess, does that go for a nursing infant, too? Technically the infant is attached to you. Is it therefore OK to bash his head in?
Yes, John…that makes perfect sense!
Nursing is not “attached” like an enbryo or fetus inside the body of a woman.
Really? Why not? The baby depends on the mother for survival at the moment it is attached to her for a feeding.
“Of course a fetus is human.”
I think Sally would disagree with you on that one, Jess.
Right, Bethany. Not only is a nursing infant physically attached to his mother, but also if she refrains from nursing him, he will die.
Exactly. And a pro-abortion supporter will tell you that it doesn’t matter because the survival of the baby could be met by others. However, this scenario always stumps them:
Imagine a mother is out on a boat alone with her 3 month old child. She has sufficient food and water to keep her and her child safe on their journey. They will be back on land in about 9 months.
She is breastfeeding the baby.
She has plenty of room for the baby on the boat, however, she decides to throw the baby off the boat because she doesn’t want to have to deal with the responsibility of the baby anymore.
The baby depended soley on the mother for those 9 months.
Does that give the mother the right to throw her 3 month old off the boat without it being called murder?
Maybe she doesn’t know how long or if ever they will be rescued and mentally breaks down, deciding to spare her child the suffering of being lost at sea?
What suffering, Jess? The child has it’s mother.
And how do you see drowning a child as “relieving suffering” in any situation.
Even if it were to “relieve suffering” do you really see that as a good excuse to kill a born child?
Would you allow a mother to kill her child because she just found out he or she is a cancer patient, and she doesn’t want him or her to suffer?
Have you ever suffered, Jess? Do you think that maybe it would have been better for you to have been killed than to have endured any kind of suffering in life?
Sorry for the multiple posts, I just keep thinking of more questions to ask…
Maybe she doesn’t know how long or if ever they will be rescued and mentally breaks down, deciding to spare her child the suffering of being lost at sea?
Another thought, I already mentioned that in the hypothetical, they have all the essentials they need to get them through the trip safely. And the mother already knows that it will be about 9 months before they reach land.
There is no confusion…she knows the amount of time she has to expect to wait, and she has everything she needs to make it until then.
..ummm no answer for from Bethanys question at:
December 22, 2007 9:56 AM
Here’s the perfect new read for me and my three shiftmates at the PCC that I volunteer at! We’re always looking to sharpen our knowledge as we deal with our clients.
I highly recommend Randy Alcorn’s earlier writing titled “Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments” for those who don’t have it yet.
May Christ be at the center of your Christmas season, and blessings to all for 2008. :)
H
M E R R Y
I
S
T
M
A
S
P.S. I couldn’t agree more with Bethany’s comments above – Amen!
Oops, it was a cross when I previewed my post. Oh well, Jesus knew my intention. :)
“helping readers to root their beliefs in reality, not bumper-sticker slogans” … False dichotomy. I have several pro-life bumperstickers on both my car; the messages on them are thoroughly rooted in reality, or I would not have them on my car.
The media may discredit the message in some cases, but I don’t think this is necessarily one of them.
Otherwise, the book sounds interesting; perhaps I’ll get to it before too long. Who knows, some of it’s keener insights may be condensed to make new bumperstickers… ;D
“Nursing is not “attached” like an enbryo or fetus inside the body of a woman.”
Bethany: Really? Why not? The baby depends on the mother for survival at the moment it is attached to her for a feeding.
Is this even serious? No, the baby isn’t depending on the mother surival “at that moment.” At that moment, if the mother doesn’t feed the baby, it’s not dead. And anyway, somebody else can feed it. It could never see the mother again and survive, for that matter. “Attached” – ay yi yi….
Does that give the mother the right to throw her 3 month old off the boat without it being called murder?
Nope – right-to-life has been attributed. Doesn’t matter whether they are on the boat, in Chuck E. Cheese, at Karaoke night in Tulsa, etc.
She’d likely be up on charges for child endangerment just for taking the kid on the cruise in the first place – not even a Gilligan along.
Another thought, I already mentioned that in the hypothetical, they have all the essentials they need to get them through the trip safely. And the mother already knows that it will be about 9 months before they reach land. There is no confusion…she knows the amount of time she has to expect to wait, and she has everything she needs to make it until then.
Bethany, neither the mother nor anybody else is allowed to throw the baby overboard. Not even if Gillgan was along for the ride.
“Is this even serious? No, the baby isn’t depending on the mother surival “at that moment.” At that moment, if the mother doesn’t feed the baby, it’s not dead. And anyway, somebody else can feed it. It could never see the mother again and survive, for that matter. “Attached” – ay yi yi….”
Doug, what if the Mother and the baby are by themselves in the woods. Does the the Mother have to feed/nurse the baby? Your not going to force this Mother to feed her baby are you?
Jasper, if the mother and baby are by themselves in the woods, then….
….isn’t that bear going to get them? [rimshot]
Seriously, the mother is expected to care for the baby there, just as any guardian would be, subject to the laws on child abandonment, endangerment, etc.
“Seriously, the mother is expected to care for the baby there, just as any guardian would be, subject to the laws on child abandonment, endangerment, etc.”
..but except if the child is her womb.
you forgot that part Doug.
Doug, what if the woman gives birth in the woods, and the baby is still attached by the umbelical cord. If the mother refuses to do anything to help the child (bundling, feeding, etc) and allows the baby to die, has she done anything wrong?
*umbilical
And I’m not asking whether Society sees it as wrong, but whether the woman has done anything immoral. Just to make sure there is no confusion there.
Laura, Merry Merry Christmas to you too! :) (I fixed your cross, by the way!)
Bethany, neither the mother nor anybody else is allowed to throw the baby overboard. Not even if Gillgan was along for the ride.
I know, but Doug, that wasn’t the point of my question. My point was, would it be wrong? Not, would she be in deep trouble. We already know the answer to that- That’s not up for debate.
My question is similar to asking if it be wrong to abort a baby who is in the womb at 24 weeks. Just as in my analogy, all of your requirements for killing unborn babies are there- the baby is dependant on the mother for it’s survival.
The mother has everything the baby needs to survive, and is the ONLY means of the baby obtaining it for 9 months.
The mother only has to take care of the baby herself for those 9 months before being able to let someone take over the responsibility if she so chooses.
If the baby is dependent on her for it’s survival, what wrong has been done in the mother throwing her child overboard, if the baby is completely dependent on her for 9 months, that is not being done wrong in abortion?
…and please, would you hold a sweet, little, soft, warm, cuddly, wobbly headed baby while you type your reply?
I got to hold one tonight- awwwwwwww…made me wish I could steal him away. :-) I miss mine being that little!
…I think Doug has a warm heart somewhere in there…..he can stubborn as a mule sometimes! LOL!
Bethany, thanks for fixing the cross for me.
I saw people near our busy shopping mall holding those types of large signs today. They brought tears to my eyes, as they wanted to remind all people on foot or in vehicles that the true meaning of Christmas – or of life itself – is centered on that B-A-B-Y born to an unwed teen mom long ago.
Celebrate the King!
.but except if the child is her womb. you forgot that part Doug.
Jasper – yes, that makes a heck of a difference. If it’s inside the body of a person – you betcha it makes a difference, although of course at present in the US if it’s a post-viability pregnancy then that may make a difference too..
……
Doug, what if the woman gives birth in the woods, and the baby is still attached by the umbilical cord. If the mother refuses to do anything to help the child (bundling, feeding, etc) and allows the baby to die, has she done anything wrong?
Bethany, the Birth Standard takes care of that – there is no external “moral” or “immoral.” I don’t think the umbilical cord makes any difference. The baby is not inside the body of the woman anymore, and anyway – at present most states don’t allow abortion for purely “elective” purposes after viability anyway. The born baby, umbilical cord or not, is expected to be cared for to a certain extent.
……
and please, would you hold a sweet, little, soft, warm, cuddly, wobbly headed baby while you type your reply
There are some similarities with the baby in the womb and the baby in the woods or on the open seas, but there are differences also. By itself – that image of the sweet, little, soft, warn, cuddly, wobbly-headed baby does make a difference to me, as I’ve said before.
But it’s not by itself, as it may be in opposition to what the woman wants, to what is best for the woman, and that makes a difference to me too.
……
I think Doug has a warm heart somewhere in there…..he can stubborn as a mule sometimes! LOL!
Jasper – Dude, you’re gettin’ soft in your old young age. I have to laugh, but I wish you and all of yours a fine Christmas season and a happy time all through these weeks.
Best,
Doug
Doug,
thank-you….Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family.
Doug doesn’t seem to understand the question. He keeps bringing up US law. We aren’t talking about US law. We’re talking about basic philosophies which exist independently of the law.
Should a woman have a right to dispose of another human being just being he depends on her for survival? Or does it have to be something more than that? If a biological attachment is required for the woman to have this right, how strong must that attachment be, and how long must it remain intact? Does the fact that modern science gives just about anybody the ability to feed an infant change these issues in any way? What if modern science developed to the point in which fetal viability were increased to early pregnancy? If a fetus can be removed from the womb intact just as easily as a baby can be removed from his mother after nursing, then what is the difference between those two biological attachments?
There are many important questions to be answered. Unfortunately, instead of answering any of them, we sweep them under a rug called “choice” and pretend they don’t exist.
John L: Doug doesn’t seem to understand the question. He keeps bringing up US law. We aren’t talking about US law. We’re talking about basic philosophies which exist independently of the law.
Should a woman have a right to dispose of another human being just being he depends on her for survival?
Well, that “should” you mention is US law. It is US law that has you bummed out, frustrated, ranting, and arguing in the first place.
……
Or does it have to be something more than that?
No, the prevalance of the Birth Standard around the world and within human nature has you frustrated. I understand that – you wish things were different. However, they are not.
……
If a biological attachment is required for the woman to have this right, how strong must that attachment be, and how long must it remain intact?
No, that’s not the question. “Attachment”? Hey, knock yourself out. Born or not is the deal. And even beyond that – the stage of gestation makes a difference – there, being unborn is a given. It makes a difference.
……
Does the fact that modern science gives just about anybody the ability to feed an infant change these issues in any way?
No – born/unborn is still pretty much it.
……
What if modern science developed to the point in which fetal viability were increased to early pregnancy? If a fetus can be removed from the womb intact just as easily as a baby can be removed from his mother after nursing, then what is the difference between those two biological attachments?
Then, per the thinking in the Roe decision, the states could, if they wanted to, say that the unborn life was worth protecting. Bottom line = it’d still be dependent upon people wanting the unborn to live in those cases and wanting to pay for their care.
……
There are many important questions to be answered. Unfortunately, instead of answering any of them, we sweep them under a rug called “choice” and pretend they don’t exist.
Nope – just as above – it depends on what is wanted. If the desire is enough to change the laws and if the desire is enough to support the care of such extreme preemies (and if medical science had advanced enough that they’d be alive, anyway,) and ensure their placement (when they’re able) with individuals who wanted it, then it could be,
Doug (always willing to point out the obvious)
Jess, does that go for a nursing infant, too? Technically the infant is attached to you. Is it therefore OK to bash his head in?
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 22, 2007 8:32 AM
………….
Well no John. Sucking on another’s body part doesn’t make you dependent on that body for existence.
Sally said: “Well no John. Sucking on another’s body part doesn’t make you dependent on that body for existence.”
It doesn’t? So what happens if the mother doesn’t feed her baby?
Well, thanks for another ignorant, worthless post, Doug. I’ll really have to refrain from reading anything from you in the future.
John L: Well, thanks for another ignorant, worthless post, Doug. I’ll really have to refrain from reading anything from you in the future.
I realize there is stuff you cannot refute. If a thing has physical existence, then yes, it is there, as with a “baby,” as with a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. However, that does not necessarily mean that rights will be attributed.
Doug, if you post something even remotely intelligent and I might bother refuting it. But when I specifically exclude legality from the discussion and you intentionally not only include it, but pretty much suggest that legality and mob rule is what determines right and wrong in a philosophical sense, then expect to be mocked and ridiculed by yours truly. Happy Drunken Fornication Day!
John L: Doug, if you post something even remotely intelligent and I might bother refuting it. But when I specifically exclude legality from the discussion and you intentionally not only include it, but pretty much suggest that legality and mob rule is what determines right and wrong in a philosophical sense, then expect to be mocked and ridiculed by yours truly. Happy Drunken Fornication Day!
Well, we know that different people have different feelings and philosophies about this stuff. When you say, Should a woman have a right to dispose of another human being, then it is the law that you want changed.
If you really are not concerned about the law, then I think that’s a good thing for women and Pro-Choicers, and I hope that more Pro-Lifers would be like you.
I’m not trying to be a pain in the butt. Okay – set the law aside. What are we left with? You and I disagree. Yes, there is a baby there, and I will agree with you that there is a human being there. You and I have different “shoulds” as far as the abortion argument. You say the unborn lives should all continue, I say the women should be free to make their own best choice.
Merry Christmas, John.
Doug
Really? Why not? The baby depends on the mother for survival at the moment it is attached to her for a feeding.
Posted by: Bethany at December 22, 2007 9:14 AM
***********
And it can be unattached and handed to someone else to feed. WHY do antichoicers insist on coming up with arguments which make them look like idiots? Or do they simply not have a choice?
And it can be unattached and handed to someone else to feed. WHY do antichoicers insist on coming up with arguments which make them look like idiots? Or do they simply not have a choice?
Then move along to my analogy about the boat, Texas Red. What is your answer?
And it can be unattached and handed to someone else to feed. WHY do antichoicers insist on coming up with arguments which make them look like idiots? Or do they simply not have a choice?
Then move along to my analogy about the boat, Texas Red. What is your answer?
Posted by: Bethany at December 24, 2007 1:36 PM
**************************
Back to my point – why do antichoicers keep coming up with arguments which make them look like idiots? Whining ‘well what if …’ and ‘Well it MIGHT happen like ….’ and ‘Well lets just pretend ….’ just makes you look incredibly stupid. Its a scenario only an idiot would come up with and only an idiot would find impressive. The baby is separate from her. Its a separate person. She already made the committment of continuing the pregnancy and giving birth. Its not mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure inside her uterus. Trying to pretend that a pregnant woman and a woman on a boat trip are ‘really the same thing’ is slack jawed drooling stupidity.
Can you answer the question or not?
@Doug,
many moons ago I accused Doug of arguing in circles … he doesn’t get it … so here’s the argument …
we got down to the ‘proof’ of God’s existence … I proposed that Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs were valid. Doug said ‘no’ because of a Newtonian perception of spacetime that did not even exist then.
This is like saying Thomas employed a ‘flat-earth’ idea to these proofs, so they are invalid. However, Doug does not apply spacetime to his own argumentation. In spacetime: event is a singular reality. In this case, all events pre and post-born are one. The rights are attributed because the being is human, and alive, and existing … stage of maturity is irrelevant.
Now to the 3-D (Newtonian) perception. There seems to be a Capernican-style difficulty. A woman who makes this decision is acting independently … and Doug supports her ‘freedom’ to do so.
A huge problem arises because she is understood as an autonomous being acting alone, kinda like the stars revolved around the earth. If however, she and her child are spokes-in-a-wheel … with God as ‘hub’ and America as ‘rim’, then you have a whole different view of what pregnancy means.
In such a view, Doug’s picture would mean we are but ‘hub-less’. The problem is that we would not have any rights at all and that we would remain ‘aimless’ (Jean-Paul Sartre, philosopher from France).
If such a view is embraced, whim does not take precedence over responsibility.
John M: many moons ago I accused Doug of arguing in circles … he doesn’t get it … so here’s the argument. We got down to the ‘proof’ of God’s existence … I proposed that Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs were valid. Doug said ‘no’ because of a Newtonian perception of spacetime that did not even exist then.
John, we’ve been through this all several times now. You are grossly over-simplifying what I said, and even there it’s not the first time. Those aren’t “proofs,” they are really just assertions based on a desired conclusion that existed before even going through all the rigamarole.
Aquinas most certainly did have a “Newtonian” perception of time and space, though of course Newton hadn’t existed yet. Now we know of spacetime and more about the true nature of our universe and can see that some of the things Aquinas had as premises were wrong.
……
This is like saying Thomas employed a ‘flat-earth’ idea to these proofs, so they are invalid.
And in some cases that is exactly right. He viewed the universe in an incorrect way, given what he was proposing. Not to say that we now know “everything,” but we certainly know that he made some illogical leaps and unsupported conclusions.
……
However, Doug does not apply spacetime to his own argumentation. In spacetime: event is a singular reality. In this case, all events pre and post-born are one.
No, what you said there is false.
……
The rights are attributed because the being is human, and alive, and existing … stage of maturity is irrelevant.
No, rights are attributed because those doing the attribution want it that way. Development or “maturity” most certainly makes a difference, whether it’s stage of gestation, being born or not, being over 18 or not, over 21 or not, etc.
……
Now to the 3-D (Newtonian) perception. There seems to be a Copernican-style difficulty. A woman who makes this decision is acting independently … and Doug supports her ‘freedom’ to do so.
I largely agree there, though again that’s an oversimplification. Yes, she is free to choose, though of course she’s also free to weigh the opinion of the man, and/or of anybody else or any group she wants.
That includes your opinion, Joe Blow’s feelings, the dogma of any church, etc.
……
A huge problem arises because she is understood as an autonomous being acting alone, kinda like the stars revolved around the earth. If however, she and her child are spokes-in-a-wheel … with God as ‘hub’ and America as ‘rim’, then you have a whole different view of what pregnancy means.
It’s only a “problem” if you want her not to have that freedom. I certainly realize that there are different philosophies about this stuff, but it is a matter of desires not being the same in the first place, not any necessary “factual” matters beyond that.
John, you more want the unborn lives to continue. I more want women to retain the freedom they now have in the matter.
……
In such a view, Doug’s picture would mean we are but ‘hub-less’. The problem is that we would not have any rights at all and that we would remain ‘aimless’ (Jean-Paul Sartre, philosopher from France).
Wrong – that is pretending that nobody cares about this stuff. The Birth Standard, for example, is age-old, and incredibly prevalent around the world. It is human nature, to a very large extent, to note the difference between being born and being inside the body of a person, just as it is to see that in the case of pregnancy there is also, at the very least, the woman to consider as well.
……
If such a view is embraced, whim does not take precedence over responsibility.
Your whims should not be forced on women in this matter. Your desires are not women’s “responsibility.” They are responsible to what they want rather than to what you want, here.
Doug
@Doug
” They are responsible to what they want rather than to what you want, here.”
Are they different? I’ve spent considerable time trying to find what is ‘human’ about homo sapiens sapiens. Is it then your view that because the power of selection/choice is not maturing but is infallibly correct? As a person who professes moral relativism (you reject infallibility – even as it applies to your own philosophizing) then a person choosing does so period and there are no qualifiers such as ‘correct’. Is not ‘best’ just one more qualifier?
I am trying to attach any qualifier to abortion, but you say only the ‘best’ qualifies … How about ‘coercive’; or, others like it?
Then freedom is the act of choosing and not about what is chosen. So, a person cannot diminish freedom by choosing badly/improperly. What protection/meaning has ‘rights’ other than an imposition on my-will by another differing will)?
Your assertion that the exercising of a person’s ability to select is what freedom is about is problematic because a person can choose with or without intellect; guidance; in-the-dark; etc; and we (like you) should affirm these choices … I think not(my choice).
” They are responsible to what they want rather than to what you want, here.”
John M: Are they different?
No, they are people with desires just like you.
……
I’ve spent considerable time trying to find what is ‘human’ about homo sapiens sapiens. Is it then your view that because the power of selection/choice is not maturing but is infallibly correct?
Correct according to who, John? Of course they are human. And of course you or anybody else might disagree with what they choose, regardless of which it is.
……
As a person who professes moral relativism (you reject infallibility – even as it applies to your own philosophizing) then a person choosing does so period and there are no qualifiers such as ‘correct’. Is not ‘best’ just one more qualifier?
“Best” is obviously in the eye of the observer. Depends on what is wanted, yet again. I have my wants, as you do, but I don’t pretend that mine are “absolute” or that they come from any imaginary external source. I’d rather see women keep the freedom they have, here, rather than have other people try and force their desires on women.
……
I am trying to attach any qualifier to abortion, but you say only the ‘best’ qualifies … How about ‘coercive’; or, others like it?
Nope – nobody is telling you that abortion or not will necessarily be the “best.” There are no guarantees that ending a pregnancy will forever be seen as the best choice. Yes – people may have regrets. And of course that applies to people who continue pregnancies, too. They may well regret it, and think that it’d have been better to end a given pregnancy. What reason to take away freedom do you see there, hmm? Those are just facts of our existence, and they do not constitute a good reason to take away freedom. Yes – there is the possibility of regret, as with many, many things. If a woman is being coerced, then of course Pro-Choicers are not for that.
……
Then freedom is the act of choosing and not about what is chosen. So, a person cannot diminish freedom by choosing badly/improperly. What protection/meaning has ‘rights’ other than an imposition on my-will by another differing will)?
Continuing or ending a pregnancy is a given in this argument. No, a woman has the freedom that she does, in the matter, to a point in gestation in the United States, regardless of her opinion of her choice in the long run. Again – ain’t no guarantees, Dude, the same as for a multitude of choices we make all the time.
……
Your assertion that the exercising of a person’s ability to select is what freedom is about is problematic because a person can choose with or without intellect; guidance; in-the-dark; etc; and we (like you) should affirm these choices … I think not(my choice).
Well, there ya go. It ain’t yer choice, it’s the choice of the woman who is actually pregnant. Pro-Choicers are not “affirming” that a given woman should choose one way or the other. It’s up to her. Neither you nor anybody else has any “intellect” that overrides what she wants in this deal.
Doug
@Doug,
I’m attempting to find out why Doug repeats and repeats almost verbatim. It occurs usually because the debater has taken a false position as part of their foundation. The rest of their intellectual edifice will reflect this skewing.
It seems now that Doug perceives autonomy/individuality as the human reliquary of freedom. Where does human freedom exist apart from a mind-image/illusion/fantasy, if I can demonstrate that these concepts are themselves illusory?.
The word ‘autonomy’ connotes a ‘sole’-character or ‘isolate’-character to activity. It is quite easy to think this in the mind. but is it thus in actuality? Isn’t all activity between humans (whether language, work…etc) marked as interdependent instead of ‘independent’ activity? What did you do for the shirt you are now wearing? Did you grow the plant fiber that would be transformed into thread? How about the design of these machines? Or, did you actually fabricate these machines? Maybe then you mined the minerals. that are in he machines; or designed the electronics to make the machine function … on and on. Did you receive all this as gift: from one isolate to another?
The term ‘autonomy’ applies only in the mind. A person can change their mind/will. It is when this idea is superimposed on reality that we arrive at regretting. We can change before an action, but once done there are … . Actuality takes precedent over choosing …. you cannot undo an abortion. but you can change thinking … ‘unwanted’ to ‘wanted’.
John M: I’m attempting to find out why Doug repeats and repeats almost verbatim. It occurs usually because the debater has taken a false position as part of their foundation. The rest of their intellectual edifice will reflect this skewing.
I’d say there are some essential truths that you neglect, and thus people will often point that out. If your position is that women are somehow “more free” if we legally prohibit them from choosing to end pregnancies, (or from continuing pregnancies, for that matter), then I say you are wrong, and that it is your thinking that is skewed, any amount of philosophical wrangling notwithstanding.
……
It seems now that Doug perceives autonomy/individuality as the human reliquary of freedom. Where does human freedom exist apart from a mind-image/illusion/fantasy, if I can demonstrate that these concepts are themselves illusory?.
That’s putting the cart before the horse, John. First of all, either a woman is free to have an abortion or not, per the law. Nothing “illusory” about that. If there is “fantasy” at work, I’d say it’s on the part of those who pretend that less freedom is somehow “more freedom.” Understood that not everybody wants certain freedoms nor wants others to have them, but not everybody accepts the unprovable premises you do, and those desires by themselves do not constitute good reasons to take away freedom from people.
……
The word ‘autonomy’ connotes a ‘sole’-character or ‘isolate’-character to activity. It is quite easy to think this in the mind. but is it thus in actuality? Isn’t all activity between humans (whether language, work…etc) marked as interdependent instead of ‘independent’ activity? What did you do for the shirt you are now wearing? Did you grow the plant fiber that would be transformed into thread? How about the design of these machines? Or, did you actually fabricate these machines? Maybe then you mined the minerals. that are in he machines; or designed the electronics to make the machine function … on and on. Did you receive all this as gift: from one isolate to another?
Yes, we are all isolates to an extent, though of course there is commerce, etc. And of course I’m dependent on others to mine things, grow things, process things, short of doing it myself. No argument there. Likewise, we who are in society are dependent on society for the existence and enforcement of laws, and in actuality we are either legally permitted or forbidden from doing a thing. You wish for abortion to be forbidden, or more forbidden than it is. I wish for it not to be.
……
The term ‘autonomy’ applies only in the mind. A person can change their mind/will. It is when this idea is superimposed on reality that we arrive at regretting. We can change before an action, but once done there are … . Actuality takes precedent over choosing …. you cannot undo an abortion. but you can change thinking … ‘unwanted’ to ‘wanted’.
No, it does not only apply in the mind. Is one free, independent, or not? First of all, there is the external physical reality of it, yes or no. That is not in the mind, that is external to it.
And of course desires can change and of course some actions once done cannot be reversed and of course regret is not impossible. Free or not still applies, within the physical realm and within the legal realm, etc.
Doug
If there is “fantasy” at work, I’d say it’s on the part of those who pretend that less freedom is somehow “more freedom.”
Less freedom for rapists means more freedom for women who could potentially be victimized.
Less freedom for murderers means more freedom for people who could be potential victims of murder.
Less freedom for thieves means more freedom for store owners.
Less freedom for a woman to kill her unborn baby, means more freedom for that baby to grow, enjoying the most basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that he is entitled to.
Yes, Less freedom for some can many times mean more freedom for all, Doug
Bethany, those are weighing different entities against each other. That’s not the argument, and that is not the same thing as looking at the freedom of a given woman, or of all women. The fact remains that less is less, and more is more, there.
Doug
@Doug,
“That’s putting the cart before the horse, John. First of all, either a woman is free to have an abortion or not, per the law. Nothing “illusory” about that. If there is “fantasy” at work, I’d say it’s on the part of those who pretend that less freedom is somehow “more freedom.” Understood that not everybody wants certain freedoms nor wants others to have them, but not everybody accepts the unprovable premises you do, and those desires by themselves do not constitute good reasons to take away freedom from people.”
No cart and no horse, because both are of actuality …. now if instead you said a ‘dream’ before a horse’ then you would be still not correct because the actual(horse) is always prized-more/preferred to the virtual(dream/fantasy). This is so because truth lies in actuality and not in the virtual world.
Freedom (like courage) belongs in actuality … as does death, life and love. Choice is as tangible as a dream/fantasy and is in virtuality … a concoction of the mind.
It is not about the quantitative aspects of freedom. because a person only rarely talks of more-courage. This is about finding a whole different way of noting the qualitative aspect of freedom.
A clue: why is flight considered ‘freedom’? There is almost no ‘choosing’ involved in what has always been associated with ‘freedom’.
John M: No cart and no horse, because both are of actuality …. now if instead you said a ‘dream’ before a horse’ then you would be still not correct because the actual(horse) is always prized-more/preferred to the virtual(dream/fantasy). This is so because truth lies in actuality and not in the virtual world.
Actuality has women wanting to continue pregenancies and to end them. The “dream” here is you wanting your morality enforced by law on women, and I just do not agree with that.
……
Freedom (like courage) belongs in actuality … as does death, life and love. Choice is as tangible as a dream/fantasy and is in virtuality … a concoction of the mind.
Well, John, I guess I agree that it’s “in the mind” – in the minds of women in the first place, and then in our minds as we think about the same thing.
……
It is not about the quantitative aspects of freedom. because a person only rarely talks of more-courage. This is about finding a whole different way of noting the qualitative aspect of freedom.
John, I’d say that is a secondary concern compared to the yes/no of women being legally free in this matter. I like you and find a good bit of what you say interesting, even fascinating, but there remains a very basic on/off and yes/no deal here.
……
A clue: why is flight considered ‘freedom’? There is almost no ‘choosing’ involved in what has always been associated with ‘freedom’.
I beg to differ. Are we restrained by gravity or not? Jumping on a trampoline makes us somewhat more free from gravity than just standing on good old Terra Firma. Jumping off a high bridge moreso yet, and though few if any would pick it, your example of jumping out of a plane without a parachute still more. And there is choosing involved with all of those.
Doug
@Doug,
true, true but is the ‘freedom’ in the preliminary stages of yes/no or is the biggest part of the freedom in the exercising of ‘what’ is chosen vs the-act-of choosing?
and note that I never did say that a free-fall would be freeing – as you imply – bungie-jumping has such an element, as does some extreme forms of rock-climbing … the sudden stop is the face of the actual.
I’ve always dreamed of gliding or hot-air-ballooning for my ‘freedom’.
true, true but is the ‘freedom’ in the preliminary stages of yes/no or is the biggest part of the freedom in the exercising of ‘what’ is chosen vs the-act-of choosing?
I think both, John – there is the feeling of being free to choose as well as the actual legal freedom to do it. In the long run the exercising of the choice may still be seen as a wrong decision, of course.
…..
and note that I never did say that a free-fall would be freeing – as you imply – bungie-jumping has such an element, as does some extreme forms of rock-climbing … the sudden stop is the face of the actual.
Heh – I hear ya on the sudden stop. Still, I’d say it’s leaving the restraint of gravity that accounts for us as seeing flight as freeing.
……
I’ve always dreamed of gliding or hot-air-ballooning for my ‘freedom’.
I’ve literally dreamed of “flying” – this goes back to when I was around ten years old. Short dreams, always with an improbable ascent – I’m bouncing on a trampoline and then one bounce takes me way up, like a mile high. Or riding a motorcycle, and going over bumps, then one time I just keep going up, up, up in the clouds, looking down at the fields and farms. And then always – the pull of gravity is felt and I start back down. What a bummer. The dreams always end and/or I wake up before I hit the ground, but if anything I suspect that subconsciously I’m a “moralist” to whatever extent it implies.
Have you ever been up in a balloon, John?
Doug
@Doug,
nope – just a dream re. ballooning, doubly strange because I’m afraid of heights. For years, I thought I could ‘fly’ too – really ‘floating’ about 10″ above surfaces of anything. Have no idea what this means.
Me neither, John, and I’ve also had dreams of just “levitating” a bit, like floating or walking a couple feet off the ground. In the dreams it’s the greatest feeling – I know that something really cool is going on.