The abortion Rorschach test
UPDATE in italics….
I’m surprised but not that Abortion Gang blogger Max Kamin-Cross doesn’t understand what the problem is with his Twitter background. He likes the ambiguous slogan but doesn’t see that the harsh graphic with its red blob focal point is a depiction of abortion….
Kamin-Cross was confused by a pro-lifer who wrote that his graphic was “disgustingly ironic.” I, too, thought Kamin-Cross’s choice odd when spotting it awhile back. But he doesn’t appear to see what we see, writing:
… [B]ut this did get me thinking about what he meant by that. When I first made my Twitter I looked online for a while, trying to find the perfect picture that encompassed my thoughts on abortion and settled on this one. It states “Abortion is a personal decision, not a legal debate.” I really liked it because it demonstrates that abortion is a decision that a woman has to make for herself, and the government should not be stopping her. Woman’s choices are not something that should be limited by laws enforced by the government. Overall I thought it was a pretty good picture to use, so I couldn’t understand what this person was talking about.
To try and figure it out, I looked up what “irony” means just to be sure we were both thinking about the same definition. Irony (root word of ironic): Noun- the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning. So what’s ironic about the image I use for my background? Could it maybe be the fact that abortion is a personal decision? That doesn’t make sense though… I don’t think anything be more personal than a decision of what to do with your body. So if it’s not that, the ironic part must be the fact that abortion isn’t a legal debate. Though this has come true over the past few years, I still don’t see the irony.
Overall I’m confused about what anti-choice people see as ironic about a picture promoting a woman’s right to choose, one that no one should be allowed to take away….
Seriously? Apparently.
Jesus then said, “I came into the world to bring everything into the clear light of day, making all the distinctions clear, so that those who have never seen will see, and those who have made a great pretense of seeing will be exposed as blind.”
~ John 9:39, The Message translation
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.
I’m not getting it either. I’m afraid you are going to have to point out the irony.
This one has flown right over my head too, please point it out to me
Max Kamin-Cross is the 16 year old guy who ended up helping promote abortion in this article:
http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/07/most-misguided-people-on-the-planet-pro-abort-youth/
If I’m correct, the red circle could easily represent a growing baby in the womb (represented by the dark tissue blobs.)
I remember when we were first discussing this picture and I thought it was very threatening and ominous at the time (my first post is near the top of this thread). I still do. It looks like something that might be put out by an overbearing Big-Brotherish propaganda group, and it really is quite disturbing in terms of its overall impact. I really can’t see why anyone who wants people to see abortion as a good thing would deliberately associate it with such an ominous, creepy, disturbing visual. Honestly, that picture makes me want to run screaming in the other direction.
I don’t really get it either… unless the irony is just that of COURSE it’s a legal debate, and if it weren’t, you wouldn’t be on twitter making the case for abortion.
I think that the image looks like when you crack an egg into a frying pan and the egg white starts to spread out and cook. The red circle reminds me of the yolk.
Looks like a cancerous sample under a microscope. Maybe that’s the point. The whole ‘pregnancy as disease/baby as parasite’ schtick. Funny how un-personal a decision it is when they demand taxpayer funding for their personal decision, isn’t it?
It should be a personal decision. But when you have a significant number of people who have made it their business to attempt to restrict it using the force of law, a legal debate is inevitable. This problem could be sidestepped in a way that amicably resolves it for reasonable people on both sides by simply reframing the debate as a matter of whether abortion is morally or ethically objectionable or not, without introducing a legal element. I don’t think you’d find any major pro-choice resistance to the personal belief that abortion is immoral, less the usual accompanying demand that since you find it immoral, nobody should be able to partake. I could even see this leading to robust and respectful ethical discussions. There are perfectly legal things in society that I find offensive or objectionable–I can personally reject them without demanding that the law be used to prevent others from having access to them.
But if the image represents a cracked egg cooking in a pan, it could mean that the pro-choicers view an embryo/fetus as nothing more than an “egg” to do whatever they want with.
I don’t get the irony either.
In other news, I’ve been trying to set up that blog that Len and Carla and I talked about last week or so (or whenever it was). New philosophy: technology=confusing. Hate this. >:|
Does anyone have any earthly idea how to use WordPress? :O
I could envision the pattern as an egg traveling through the fallopian tube.
There are perfectly legal things in society that I find offensive or objectionable–I can personally reject them without demanding that the law be used to prevent others from having access to them
Joan – We’re not JUST talking offensive or objectionable here.. we’re talking about millions of babies being slaughtered. Apparently, you’re ok with that.
Max – Knowing this is going to get me in a LOT of trouble, But you know, if you would try to look like a girl, maybe people would know you’re a girl? Or are you planning on swapping genders?
Of course, abortion is a PERSON(al) decision.
Abortion is one person deciding that another person should be killed.
Thanks, Chris. Fixed.
The irony: The red blob.
Yeah, Joan, it’s not just a “procedure” that some may find unsavory. It’s the killing of another person. There are a lot of things I don’t agree with, but would support anyone’s right to participate in —really, practically, everything BUT abortion, since it involves the violent dismemberment of a child who doesn’t get a say and tries to get away from the abortionists’ tools….Yeah, I can’t really support that. I’m not sure how anyone could. Anyone faced with the facts of abortion either reject it, or delude themselves with double-speak in order to somehow lessen its heinousness. This goes beyond simply “disapproving” of something. Abolitionists didn’t just “disapprove” slavery….they were angered at the dehumanization of human beings, and fought for their dignity. Pro-lifers are the same as abolitionists.
Max – you still have no clue that the child is not part of the woman’s body. I suggested you research the biological aspects of human development.
You also continue to make non-sensical statements such as a government shouldn’t have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. May she use her body to destroy another innocent human being?
Jill – you’re welcome.
I guess the red blob symbolizes blood. Pro-aborts have an obsession with blood. Kamin must be too young to remember the days when abortion was considered a woman’s issue – it’s none of his business, really. A creepy, sad waste of time – promoting abortion .
Riddle me this: why don’t pro-lifers protest appendectomies? Wisdom tooth extraction? Laser eye surgery?
Tell us, why do you think we only object to this one thing?
Riddle me that: why don’t pro-so-called-choicers protest jails and prisons? After all, people who murder or rob with their hands have a right to do what they want with their bodies, and their hands are part of their bodies, right?
It is deeply frustrating to me that our unborn human rights movement has allowed itself to be completely defeated by supporters of unlimited killing of human beings. Theirs is a movement which has no strength and no arguments to make.
The abortionist mentality is exceptionally feeble and this is painfully obvious every time they try to make their “case”.
To say that “women’s choices” should not be “limited” by the government is absurd. This means that a woman can do anything under the Sun, from committing shoplifting to mass murder. Ridiculous.
What is a 16 year old Roe vs Wade generation abortion survivor doing supporting the crime which decimated his generation? Doesn’t he realize they would have destroyed him too if his mother had requested it?
After looking at Max’s red blob background poster I can understand exactly why he chose it – and why someone generated it in the first place.
They can’t win a valid legal debate. This is precisely why the route for Roe went through the Court and not through legislation.
So even though he thinks he’s doing something clever – he’s merely reinforcing the idea that abortion is based on personal self-fulfillment that fails to have a solid moral/ethical foundation.
Max – don’t let all this attention go to your head. You may think you’re making a positive statement, but are actually achieving the opposite effect – because despite what the background poster says – you are engaged in a legal debate. The poster even makes that statement.
The statement is circular – it’s a self-refuting piece.
So sadly, you’re not really debating us or refuting our position – you’re still arguing with yourself.
It really says something about how well read and educated teh other side of the abortion debate is when they can’t even comprehend the fact that we claim that abortion is the unjust taking of a human life. If abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life, then how is it not a legal debate? “Well, I don’t believe abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life!” Then this whole argument and poster is question-begging.
Seriously, I’ve become so disenchanted with teh level of sophistication of teh arguments of pro-choicers I”ve been seeing lately. They’re extremely shallow, poorly thought, and display absolutely 0 understanding of familiarity with the pro-life side and their claims. I am 100% convinced that I can put forth a much more compelling case for abortion than most of these pro-choicers. I wonder if they can even state the pro-life claim (hint: it’s written somewhere in this post)
Go Max! Keep it up!
To say that abortion is a “personal decision” is to allow others to back away from a woman in crisis and shrug their shoulders and leave it up to her in a moment of great need. They can hide behind their slogans and allow her to flounder on all alone. She is abandoned to do something she might not otherwise do if given help and support to see that abortion isn’t her only “choice.”
Also,
many are fond of saying Abortion is between a woman and her partner. Spouse. Pastor. Doctor. And to the woman who has NONE of the above? Well then it’s a “personal decision.”
“They can’t win a valid legal debate. This is precisely why the route for Roe went through the Court and not through legislation.”
This is a claim that is absurd on its face. The route for desegregation, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and due rights for accused criminals went through the Court also. Additionally, abortion access is legal to some degree throughout most of the entire world. Something that can’t be legally justified would not be a guaranteed civil right in virtually every First World country. Even before Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal in some measure in 20 of 50 of the United States. English common law traditionally held that abortion was legal up to the point of quickening. It would seem to me that if either side is unable to win a “valid legal debate” (whatever that even means), it would be yours, considering your complete lack of success in the United States and elsewhere.
Joan – Some rights are right, like desegration, but some rights are wrong, like abortion. As for Roe v Wade, the case was built on a LIE.
We had slavery and serfdom in every single “First World”society. We also had at one point every “First World” society prohibiting the crime of prenatal homicide.
“First World” governments today condemn the killing of innocent civilians by Al Qaeda,but in 1945 the British and American governments destroyed something like two million lives through fire bombing and atomic bombing. Go figure. The point is, because of the weaknesses and vagaries of human nature, things go in cycles. What is politically impossible today, is politically required tomorrow.
Just because European and North American societies support killing human beings, to a greater or lesser extent, it does not follow that this killing is morally justified. In fact, a careful analysis of natural law and our mammalian biology leads inevitably to the conclusion that all killing of human beings throughout the course of our lives violates our rights and is therefore a crime, with the exception of when it is a matter of absolute necessity.
Carla @ 8:57, 8:59,
Wow, your statements say it all. ”Flounder” is a great word choice.
Well, I have great plans to use my body to rob a bank. After that I plan to use my body to turn some tricks and make some extra cash. Of course, in order to stomach using my body to do that I will have to use my body to ingest some illegal drugs. I may wrap up the evening by using my body to drink heavily and then drive on the interstate. WHAT? I can’t do that????? How dare the government dictate what I can do with MY BODY!
Max, get a clue. The government tells us what we can and can’t do with our body all the time. The reason? To protect others. Its really not that complicated.
And btw, I have a son. How was his body ever part of mine when he had a penis and I have never had a penis? THINK MAX, THINK!
joan – should laws be based on truthful moral foundations, or should they be based upon the principle of “might makes right”?
Should they be based upon circular arguments?
Should they be based upon lies?
Positive Affirmation:
I will not let the views of others blind my own views, I am living in my business and not in other peoples business; if I’m living in others business then who is here to live mine? ME
To say that abortion is a personal decision, and not a legal debate, is to say that a woman’s decision to kill her two-week-old daughter is also personal and not a legal debate. The only difference is that her daughter is outside of the womb.
And what, pray tell, is the “truthful moral foundation” that you are privy to, but the governments of most of the world’s nations are not, Chris? Quite obviously the premise that life and thus legal protection begins at conception is not one that is universally accepted.
joan
October 9th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Quite obviously the premise that life and thus legal protection begins at conception is not one that is universally accepted.
Universal acceptance is not a prerequisite for truth, morality, or things-that-ought-to-be-illegal. Indeed, it can’t be since none of the things that are illegal now are universally agreed on.
What is the point you are trying to make?
I agree with you Keli Hu, murder is murder. It doesn’t matter if the whole world believes in murder. Reality isn’t decided by popular opinion. Otherwise, I’d have gotten 100% on every math quiz I ever took, lol!
“Really, teacher, me and my friends all agree that 2 + 2 equals 5, now give me my A!”
joan – please tell us when you believe life begins (if not at conception), and provide evidence to support your belief.
Joan – “…the premise that life and thus legal protection begins at conception is not one that is universally accepted.”
Granted. However, the fetus is alive in the same sense that the liver or kidney or heart is alive; it takes in nutrition and oxygen, creates energy, excretes waste and performs work (cell division). The difference is that very shortly after creation, the fetus starts building its own support systems. By the 13th week, the fetus has its own proto circulation system, proto nervous system, etc. It needs its mother for oxygen, nutrition and waste removal only. The kidneys, liver, heart etc of the mother are dependant on each other for the life of the mother.
The big question is: at what point does the blob of cells get the title: “human” and thus get political rights on its own and who decides? We think the title “human”, and the political rights that go with it, goes with the fertilized egg. Who decides? Take a guess….
Back when Roe v Wade first put children in danger, I think that few people could have foreseen what it would do in almost 40 years. Now, ALL pregnancies are somehow decision makers. People are much more judgmental and outspoken about whether the mother should have the child. Back before 1973, a married couple of about 25 years age wouldn’t have been told by one of their parents that it’s not the right time to have a child and that abortion is an option. Abortion is the leading cause of death for all human beings, more than cancer, car accidents, diseases, etc. The statistics are astounding. It’s not a “personal decision.” It’s a deadly social disease. Humans must heal, and so abortion must stop.
It really says something about how well read and educated teh other side of the abortion debate is when they can’t even comprehend the fact that we claim that abortion is the unjust taking of a human life. If abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life, then how is it not a legal debate? “Well, I don’t believe abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life!” Then this whole argument and poster is question-begging.
Accepting that construction, then what’s the pro-life argument but another set of logical fallacies? You have:
Circular argument + Argument from Authority (The Bible says life is sacred , and the Bible is authoritative, because it says it’s authoritative, so life is sacred.)
Appeal to consequences (If we allow this, we’ll be euthanizing toddlers next!)
Also…
By the 13th week, the fetus has its own proto circulation system, proto nervous system, etc. It needs its mother for oxygen, nutrition and waste removal only. The kidneys, liver, heart etc of the mother are dependant on each other for the life of the mother.
Hopefully it will provide you some measure of relief, then, that about 88% of U.S. abortions are performed at or before 12 weeks’ gestation, and over 60% are done at or before eight weeks.
“Woman’s choices are not something that should be limited by laws enforced by the government.”
.
Stupid with a capital S.
.
Women’s (and men’s) choices are often and appropriately limited by government on many personal issues.
.
There is an entire legal specialty devoted to family law.
.
Congress just passed tons of medical regulations with the health care rationing bill.
.
The choice to kill another human being certainly should be limited, entirely.
“Hopefully it will provide you some measure of relief, then, that about 88% of U.S. abortions are performed at or before 12 weeks’ gestation, and over 60% are done at or before eight weeks.”
.
It won’t relieve those children.
.
Life is the most basic human right.
.
No other right comes close.
.
Certainly not the privilege of legal immunity to kill one’s offspring.
Jason, on what planet do you think pro-lifers find abortion acceptable if the child is especially small? What part of abortion = murder do you not understand?
Hi Jason.
“Accepting that construction, then what’s the pro-life argument but another set of logical fallacies? You have:
Circular argument + Argument from Authority (The Bible says life is sacred , and the Bible is authoritative, because it says it’s authoritative, so life is sacred.)”
Thank you for BEAUTIFULLY illustrating my point that pro-choicers are not at all well read or educated when it comes to the pro-life sides arguments. Rather than state the pro-life argument as any sort of secular argument put forth by Frank Beckwith or Robert George or any one of the many numerous pro-lifers out there who argue from a purely secular point of view, you put forward the standard, tired old straw man. In fact, if you read Defending Life by Beckwith or Embryo by George, you will see that they mention in either the introduction or preface that the only time they will mention God or religion in teh book is now to say that they will never mention God or religion. But clearly you are not familiar with them nor any other pro-life argument, except the one you have heard characterized by pro-choicers. I could not be happier about how well this knee jerk response illustrates my point. Here is teh pro-life argument:
1. It is morally wrong to unjustly take the life of a human being.
2. Abortion unjustly takes the life of a human being.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
Valid syllogism, and I am prepared to defend each premise on non-religious grounds.
“Appeal to consequences (If we allow this, we’ll be euthanizing toddlers next!)”
I don’t even buy this argument, but you have failed to show the logical fallacy in it merely by stating it.
Jason, on what planet do you think pro-lifers find abortion acceptable if the child is especially small? What part of abortion = murder do you not understand?
I’ve noticed that metaphor, hyperbole and sarcasm seem to evade a lot of anti-abortion folks, and it puzzles me. Witness the confusion over the green movement ads w/ the kid in a noose, or the TV ad featuring kids being blown up – as if the people who created those ads are calling for the literal wholesale murder of children.
Now, as to my comment:
The person to whom I replied made mention of a 13-week fetus. I responded by being somewhat sarcastic, while attempting to point out that most abortions are done before that, at a point when the embryo/fetus is wholly non-viable and not demonstrably sentient.
So Jason you were being sarcastic but now have your bloomers in a wad over pro-lifers being sarcastic? Can’t take the heat huh?
@Bobby Bambino:
Here is teh pro-life argument:
1. It is morally wrong to unjustly take the life of a human being.
2. Abortion unjustly takes the life of a human being.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
Valid syllogism, and I am prepared to defend each premise on non-religious grounds.
I dunno – it doesn’t look like it’s valid to me. Your second premise has an unproven assumed premise built in – namely, that a fetus is a human being (i.e. a Person, a being with rights). It’s the very definition of begging the question. It also contains the unproven assumption that abortion is “unjust”. While it may seem common-sensical to you, as a matter of policy and logic it must be shown to be so.
“Appeal to consequences (If we allow this, we’ll be euthanizing toddlers next!)”
I don’t even buy this argument, but you have failed to show the logical fallacy in it merely by stating it
By way of example, allow me to refer to Joanna’s comment above:
To say that abortion is a personal decision, and not a legal debate, is to
say that a woman’s decision to kill her two-week-old daughter is also
personal and not a legal debate. The only difference is that her daughter
is outside of the womb.
This comment and numerous other comments I’ve seen over the years by anti-abortion folks suggest that if abortion remains legal, murder of infants and children will most certainly follow. This despite the fact that no such policy or practice is in evidence lo these nearly 40 years, and despite the fact that there’s been no evidence of any movement towards such practices/policies.
If that isn’t a logical fallacy, I don’t know what is.
Your second premise has an unproven assumed premise built in – namely, that a fetus is a human being
If it has human DNA, then it is a human being. Biology has proven this. It is basic science. You’ve just assumed that “human” equates to “having legal rights as a person in society,” but actually, it doesn’t. Being human is biological, just as being a reptile or being any other sort of mammal is biological. We are what we are. An unborn, gestating, growing human is not “potentially” a human, it IS a member of the human race biologically. It cannot be anything else. It sounds like it might be more accurate to say your position is “it isn’t a human being with legal rights, so I have the right to terminate its life.”
Hi Jason.
“I dunno – it doesn’t look like it’s valid to me.”
No, it is valid. You’re thinking of SOUND. A valid syllogism is one in which the conclusion follows logically from the premises. That is, given teh truth of each of the premises, does the conclusion logically follow? The answer in this case is yes. Now the premises must be defended, and that is teh question of soundness. But as far as being valid goes, it is a valid argument. That is what the term valid means.
“Your second premise has an unproven assumed premise built in – namely, that a fetus is a human being (i.e. a Person, a being with rights).”
It isn’t supposed to have the reasons for each premise built into it- it’s a syllogism. I have not in the least defended a single one of teh premises. All I have done is put forth a syllogism. This is why my last statement said that I am prepared to defend either premise.
It is clear that the unborn is biologically a human being. This is a simple matter of science, one which there is no need to go into, though one which I could go into if needed. The point you bring up is whether or not the unborn is a person i.e. worthy of rights. To reply, I would say that the standard assumption should be that every human being has rights and should be treated as an ends in and of themselves simply for being human. My question to you would be to hear by what basis you deem some human beings worthy of rights and others not? What is it that makes human beings valuable in and of themselves? Why should I not kill the two year but I can kill an unborn child in teh womb? The problem with personhood theories is that there are so many, and I simply can’t refute every single one right now. So what is it that makes human beings valuable and what is it that makes other human beings less valuable?
“It’s the very definition of begging the question. It also contains the unproven assumption that abortion is “unjust”.”
Jason, a syllogism is the bare meat of an argument, but it at least puts an argument on teh table. I don’t know which premise you would argue against, so I don’t argue for all premises immediately since that could be a waste of time. Nothing in a syllogism is question begging. It outlines an argument, and then teh one who proposes it must argue for the truth of each of the premises.
“This comment and numerous other comments I’ve seen over the years by anti-abortion folks suggest that if abortion remains legal, murder of infants and children will most certainly follow. This despite the fact that no such policy or practice is in evidence lo these nearly 40 years, and despite the fact that there’s been no evidence of any movement towards such practices/policies.”
I don’t think you quite understand the argument. No one is claiming taht the law will change. No, we know that it does not matter if teh law is consistant, all the argument says is that it LOGICALLY follows that if one uses certain arguments to justify abortion, then one can use those same arguments to justify killing a 2 year old. Of course the law will not allow two year olds to be killed. Abortion in the eyes of teh law is an a priori right, not based on logic or reason, but based on emotion. So abortion is definitely a moral right (according to teh government) and THEN given that it is a good, we try and come up with some sort of argument to justify it. Killing 2 year old is morally reprehensible, so we will never make a law that allows that. Abortion must be legal. Killing 2 year olds must not be. Let’s not let any sort of arguments or reason interfere with teh law.
The point is that the argument says that if one is intellectually honest, they will see that the same logic that allows abortion allows infanticide. That is all.
“If that isn’t a logical fallacy, I don’t know what is.”
EVEN if teh argument was that the law must change, all that follows is that those in change of the law are inconsistent. That isn’t a fallacy, that’s bad government.