Cease and desist… not
I posted a story and video last week about a mostly white Georgia State University pro-abortion protest group shouting down a black woman at a pro-life event with the ironic words, “Trust black women!”
Now an attorney for the students – who took it upon themselves to organize a public protest at a public university – has ordered Ryan Bomberger of TooManyAborted.com to “cease and desist” – take that video down. Click to enlarge…
What’s the problem? Are not these students proud of their stance?
Ryan responded in an email:
The footage was recorded by both CampusReform.org and me. The activists also intended on recording the entire scene as one of their members recorded this on her cell phone the entire time.
We do not intend on removing this video – a public university, a public forum….
Indeed, a student from the pro-abortion protest group can be seen videotaping with an orange cell phone throughout the protest – including the black woman trying to speak. Good for Ryan. They’re typical bullies – big mouths until publicity hits.
In case you missed the video in question the first time, here ’tis again…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f01PFcBieQY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
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.
How annoying are those students, huh? Had to turn it off. But not before I caught that silly young thing in the front saying “A woman has an abortion to be a better mother!” Help.
Funny, you’d think that they’d welcome the exposure if they honestly thought their message was so worthwhile.
My understanding is that if you are using someone’s likeness commercially (that is for profit), you can’t do it without their consent. I don’t know whether that differs from just doing it as a public record of an event. I suspect the “commercially” is there for a reason. The question is whether Ryan is actually using this video commercially. I doubt it — pro-aborts are too inclined to lie.
wow, the ” right to privacy” extends even farther than sarah weddington ever imagined. you bust in to someone else’s group meeting, in a group protest demonstration, and see cameras, and bring cameras, and expect that the whole deal is “private.”
And how patronizing and very much like Margaret Sanger for the white college student to tell
the black woman that she wanted her to have more birth control? Did I hear that right?
Awww. Poor little racist pro-abortion students. Are they a widdle upset that their wacist wies are all over the internet? Ha ha ha ha ha! TOUGH!
You’re racist, you want black women to be sterile and on birth control. You think they’re too poor to be able to take care of themselves and need Unca Sam to provide for them on the plantation. You want more black women aborting more black babies, and yup, its all on the web for the world to see. Next time bring your brains with you when you decide to protest!
Millions of videos on youtube, etc. have people in them who have no idea they are being recorded because they go to public events such as this. Those people will probably never know. And no one will ever be sued.
These students are only suing out of spite….or, as Jill says, maybe they are ashamed of ever being there.
I hate lawyers.
Amber, “I hate lawyers” is uncalled for. That is an insult to our friends at Alliance Defense Fund, Thomas More Society and other lawyers who donate out of their own resources to come to our aid.
If this pro-abort bunch were to go for it, the burden of proof would be on them to prove commercial purpose.
It’s not even spite. It’s a scare tactic. These kids don’t have a legal leg to stand on and their lawyer knows it. A group of people who intrude on a public gathering of others do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in doing so, especially since such a demonstration is, by its very nature, something only done in a public setting. Having failed to bully Ryan into silence, they are now trying to frighten him into silence. Because they’re too cowardly to actually enter into an honest dialogue.
What. Idiots.
Well, let’s link to the video as many as we can, so if indeed it has to get pulled, at least it went before more eyeballs that it ever would have had they not threatened to sue. Banning a book makes two readers out of one, so banning a video hopefully will make it more widely seen.
Yes, Leslie, you did.
You also may have heard her say, “You can’t afford it”. Gosh, darn, poor black folk can’t get a job either.
I agree; sheltered, closet racists, and they don’t even see it. Simply amazing the job the schools have done in health class (Read; Sex Ed).
I do so sppreciate the lady who stood and asked them to sit down and listen. Love the looks on their faces when the police officer called them abortionists…
hysterical.
Hey now! I’m a law student currently, and we aren’t all that bad! There is a ‘Lawyers for Life’ group that opposes abortion, and I’m a member. Don’t be so quick to judge an entire group of people based on one cease and desist letter. There are more pro-life lawyers than you might think (even though the typical person’s idea of a lawyer involves a politically far-left individual).
Hmmm… anyone take a look at the actual website of these lawyers? http://www.jeffreyscottllp.com/
Very interesting to say the least and would make a court case against them, with a lawyer from the Thomas More Foundation or Alliance Defense, to be quite entertaining.
I’ll donate more to the TMF or ADF just to ensure they get to smack down this group of narcissistic, spoiled brats of kids. I’d be embarrassed if any of them were my children (thankfully none of them are pro-abortion and I highly doubt they’ll ever change their minds)
Lyssie, I did not know there was a Lawyers for Life org — thanks for the great news.
Lyssie – Didn’t mean to offend. You, dear, are in a minority. I have a pro-life, devote Christian friend studying law and she said she is very different from her classmates – but thank God for the light in a sea of darkness – keep up the great work! Just remember that law is not about greed, it is about justice – and you will do fine :)
“You think they’re too poor to be able to take care of themselves and need Unca Sam to provide for them on the plantation”
And you think that they’re too stupid and too childlike to be able to make their own decisions regarding their fertility. And BTW, your reference to Uncle Sam’s plantation might be a teensie bit racist in and of itself as it insults those blacks who are on government programs – which, BTW, are necessary in order for all the black women and their post-born babies to exist. How very “pro-life” of you to attack government assistance which also benefits all people regardless of race. How very pro-life to want poor women to have lots of babies whilst taking away their safety network; i.e. Unca Sam’s plantation.
And another BTW, the woman who complained about the use of her daughter’s image in the anti-choice “black genocide” is black. Is she racist? Are all those pro-choice black women, including those in Sister Song of Color, racist?
It is a reality that if women live in poverty, continued childbearing works against their being able to escape it. We seek to give them the means to do that. Nobody is forcing them use birth control or have abortions. Planned Parenthood, which serves low income women of all colors, is a great benefit to poor women but you seek to take that away. You want low income women to pay co-payments for their birth control. You seek to criminalize abortion. And that all amounts to forcing poor women to have more babies. Why do you want to keep poor women, many of them minorities, poor? Talk about racism.
“The question is whether Ryan is actually using this video commercially. I doubt it — pro-aborts are too inclined to lie”
Bomberger is using the video on a website that seeks donations.
So Lori, anti-aborts are totally honest? Really?
Fuzzy out their faces like they do in criminal cases in the video and keep showing it.
CC says:
And another BTW, the woman who complained about the use of her daughter’s image in the anti-choice “black genocide” is black.
Where did this information come from?
I’m a law student too! And I agree, they don’t have a case here. It’s just a scare tactic. They obviously don’t know Ryan Bomberger very well– he will NOT be intimidated.
They have no legal ground to stand on. They were recorded in a public place.
Don’t blur their faces. In fact, see if you can track down their names, and tag them in the video. Future potential employers will be grateful for the opportunity to pass them over.
You claim to be concerned about black genocide – yet –
Yesterday, a black man who might be innocent of a crime, was killed by the state of Georgia. Did the right to life weigh in? The Pope did. While I am not a fan of Catholicism, I respect their consistency.
Unemployment and poverty in the black community is very high. Other than handing out diapers at CPC’s, is the ”pro-life” movement doing anything for post born black people?
CC, don’t you have someone to drive to the abortion clinic so they can feel like a real empowered woman?
DON’T FEED THE TROLLS, PEEPS.
And another BTW, the woman who complained about the use of her daughter’s image in the anti-choice “black genocide” is black.
Where did this information come from?
The mother of the child, Tricia Fraser, is black. As of April, she was suing the anti-choice groups that were behind the use of the picture of her daughter on the large billboard which promoted the abortion as black genocide meme. She is accusing them of racism. Her suit states: “The billboard was defamatory of Anissa and/or her mother in that it gave the false suggestion, impression, and implication that they approved of the racist and offensive message contained therein,”
Mother is pictured here:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-05/local/28673754_1_modeling-agency-two-years-anti-abortion-campaign-apology
CC, I know many, many pro-life people who protested the execution of Troy Davis. At a certain point, we all just felt helpless– there was nothing we could do to save him. And yet we continued to protest, because such a grievous wrong cannot be ignored.
Perhaps this gives you some insight into how sidewalk counselors feel every time a mother walks through the abortuary doors.
Ironic, that a billboard who wants more black babies to be born and not targeted for execution by their moms is labeled by a black woman as offensive and racist.
God (in whom I know you do not believe, CC, but just humor me here) is either laughing or crying.
and ps–CPC volunteers do a whole lot more for the black community than our current administration and Al Sharpton and his misguided bandwagoners.
CC, “Unca Sam’s plantation” is used by black conservatives to describe white racists like yourself who want them enslaved to welfare and don’t want to see them standing on their own two feet and taking care of themselves. Uncle Sam’s plantation is enslavement to the government, living where the government tells you, going to the schools government tells you, never having enough to actually get ahead, just subsisting and sucking on the government teat. Educate yourself please. Read some Star Parker books before calling me a racist. Thanks.
CC, the fact that you care so much about a CONVICTED killer who “might” (but isn’t) innocent and yet you care not one whit about INNOCENT unborn children being dismembered says a lot about your warped view. It is not inconsistent to be pro-capital punishment and anti-abortion.
I see and agree with the arguments on both sides of that debate (so not looking to debate here) just saying there is a GLARING difference in that inmates on death row have by their own choices and actions and crimes placed themselves there. Unborn children have done nothing wrong, have made no choice to be conceived and have committed no crime and yet are being brutally killed ( I mean, we put killers to sleep but we yank arms and legs off unborn children.)
But keep crying over rapists and murderers CC and glorying over how you killed your own child. Your whole worldview is topsy turvy.
CC says:
Unemployment and poverty in the black community is very high. Other than handing out diapers at CPC’s, is the ”pro-life” movement doing anything for post born black people?
I didn’t know the poor could get free groceries at the local PP clinic! I didn’t know PP would give a poor black woman the money she needs for her rent! I didn’t know PP would give a poor, unemployed black man a suit so he can go to an interview! And help him with his resume!
You can get these things from my Catholic church, which is part of the pro-life movement. And we provide for these things at another parish that is located in a poverty-stricken black neighborhood. While the “pro-life movement” may focus mostly on abortion, pro-life individuals support ALL LIFE. Yes, even the post-born poor, hungry, disabled, incarcerated, unemployed, addicted, depressed, hurting, lonely, etc.
What does the pro-choice movement do for post-born poor black people CC? Other than help them kill their offspring, of course.
I see the Pro-Abortion Propaganda Cliche Machine is still in fine working order…
CC, are you proposing that unborn children be given due process of law before they are executed, just like Troy Davis was? I agree 100%! (For the record, I do not think Davis should have been executed, and I am against capital punishment unless there is no other way to protect society.)
CC, many prolifers, including myself, are upset at the execution of Troy Davis. Please don’t lump us all in one category.
Dirtdartwife says:
Thanks for the link. I know a few lawyers and these two look like winners *eye roll*
That has got to be one of the most unprofessional websites I have ever seen and if you Google the address they give for their Atlanta office guess what? IT’S A POST OFFICE an actual post office on street view – which then corresponds to their reply to address of a PO Box. Classy. Can you say “My office is in my basement.” any louder! LOL!
DON’T FEED THE TROLLS, PEEPS.
Hear, Hear! Feeding trolls, with rare exceptions, just pushes them further into troll-dom. Ignore them, and let them face, in the resulting (relative) silence, whatever demons from which they’re fleeing.
I know Paladin… but its so much fun sometimes! Until you’re standing knee deep in troll muck. But I promise I’m done.
(LOL!) Vivid image, that. All right, I’ll rephrase: feed the trolls at your own risk! :)
Unemployment and poverty in the black community is very high. Other than handing out diapers at CPC’s, is the ”pro-life” movement doing anything for post born black people?
I’ll preface this by saying I’m Black.
With that being said, let me fill you in on something. Since about 1964, no Democratic presidential candidate has relieved less than approximately 85% of the Black vote. So know that, here’s a question for you: what are liberals/Democrats/pro-choicers doing for Black people? Tht’s a rhetorical question, because they aren’t doing ****. Of course, that’s not really their problem, is it? It’s the problem of conservatives/Republicans/pro-lifers, right? It’s odd to me how the people who consitently garner the majority of the “Black vote” somehow like to shift the “blame” for that group’s economic ills on someone else. If said individuals cared so much, then you would have think they would have done something to change the situation.
(And yes, I know there’s a bit of overlap between liberals/Democrats/pro-choicers and conservatives/Republicans/pro-lifers but, for the most part, the groups hold up.)
I think hardness of heart prevents “trolls” from being “fed”. But there are probably lurkers that are not posting that deserve to be fed with pro-life responses to the pro-choice arguments (or rhetoric) sometimes put forth by “trolls”. We may never know if any fruit results from our comments here, but to allow the same pro-abortion lies to be repeated again and again without correction just feels like a betrayal of the innocent unborn to me.
Amber,
As a lawyer, I share your opinion of the majority of us. There are some good ones, of course, like those at the groups mentioned above and scattered quietly around the rest of the country. As for the rest of them….well profanity is not allowed here, so I’ll leave it at that :-)
My favorite part was when stumped by a question, the chant started up just to fill the silence. Epic fail is right. These students have no facts, just slogans and unconsidered ‘feelings’. And this letter shows they are cowards to boot. They need to grow up.
Are all those pro-choice black women, including those in Sister Song of Color, racist?
No, they are just incredibly naive, Maybe they haven’t thought past what has been shoved at them by people like the shouting racist white girl in the video. Or maybe, like you, they refuse to see the humanity of all humans in attempts to rationalize how they’ve lived.
I say Ryan should try to publicize it more. This group of students is obviously embarrassed by what they did (as well they should be) and doesn’t want their parents/friends/employers to see it. They probably paid this lawyer $100.00 to write the letter so he could make the monthly payment on his scooter. I doubt they are willing to part with more money for litigation – that they would lose anyway – and the law firm hardly looks to be in the position to bankroll the lawsuit in hopes of getting some money in the end.
Father Frank Pavone stated on Facebook, ” A persons death should not be scheduled, whether in a prison or an abortion clinic.” I could not agree more.
CC says:Unemployment and poverty in the black community is very high. Other than handing out diapers at CPC’s, is the ”pro-life” movement doing anything for post born black people?
Besides all the things that Lrning said above my Catholic church/school provides tutors for students in a mostly hispanic/black area, school supplies in August, coats/hats/mittens for the same area, haircuts – free of charge, besides the well known PADS program at many churches of all denominations.
Why don’t you ask that question of the pro-abort crowd. Is abortion enough for them to provide?
JoAnna, I agree too!!! I also oppose the death penalty (many pro-lifers are consistent that way, unlike abortion fans who love to save criminals and hate to save babies).
I think it would be awesome if every mother who wants to abort her child, and every parent who wants to force their teens to abort unborn granchildren, would have to go to court to prove that the abortion is “necessary”. In the United States, we are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. It would be most consistent to extend the same courtesy to the pre-born. Each pre-born child should be assigned an advocate in court to speak on his or her behalf. Until, of course, abortion is made illegal again.
The title of this post could be “EPIC FAIL 2: Cease and Desist.”
Bomberger is using the video on a website that seeks donations.
So Lori, anti-aborts are totally honest? Really?
So accepting donations makes you a commercial enterprise? I believe some actual merchandise or service has to change hands. And I’m sure the students would not object if some pro-abortion org that accepts donations would put their video up on their website. On the other hand, maybe not, since even the students probably realize this wasn’t their finest hour. But no lawyer can seriously say this is for commercial purposes without lying.
No, this is not what it’s really about. They don’t like the fact that a pro-lifer is making fun of their antics by posting the video.
And no, I never said pro-lifers are always totally honest. But being a pro-abort is by nature to be a liar: you have to continually pretend a human being is not a human being. Hard work, isn’t it, CC?
Lori: And no, I never said pro-lifers are always totally honest. But being a pro-abort is by nature to be a liar: you have to continually pretend a human being is not a human being. Hard work, isn’t it, CC?
The lie here is the statement or implication that the physical reality of the unborn is the issue. It’s really not.
The physical reality of the unborn is THE issue. To make it about anything else is to become a monster. I don’t care what pretty euphemisms you wrap it in, if you adopt a position in favor of abortion that is indifferent to the physical reality of the unborn, then you are a person who believes there are innocent human beings who have no right to live or whose right to live is so flimsy that they can be executed on the whim of another. That is monstrous any way you slice it.
It is also intellectually more honest than the people who try to argue against the physical reality of the unborn. More honest, but so much more repugnant than people who delude themselves. At least the ones who delude themselves do so b/c they recognize that their stance becomes revolting when held in relation to a human being instead of a “clump of cells” or “appendage” or “part of the mother’s body”.
The physical reality of the unborn is THE issue. To make it about anything else is to become a monster. I don’t care what pretty euphemisms you wrap it in, if you adopt a position in favor of abortion that is indifferent to the physical reality of the unborn, then you are a person who believes there are innocent human beings who have no right to live or whose right to live is so flimsy that they can be executed on the whim of another. That is monstrous any way you slice it.
CT, right there is a good illustration. You and I aren’t debating the physical reality of the unborn. We believe different things about how society should treat the unborn, as well as how society treats the pregnant woman – that’s the deal.
It’s not “making it about anything else.” It’s simply not about the physical reality, really.
___
It is also intellectually more honest than the people who try to argue against the physical reality of the unborn. More honest, but so much more repugnant than people who delude themselves. At least the ones who delude themselves do so b/c they recognize that their stance becomes revolting when held in relation to a human being instead of a “clump of cells” or “appendage” or “part of the mother’s body”.
Well, if somebody argues against the physical facts about the unborn, then I will disagree with them. I don’t say the unborn are merely “appendages.” There is another organism there. On “part of the mother’s body” – again, the unborn are separate entities, to some extent, but they do grow in the mother’s body, they do grow from her body, etc.
“Clump of cells.” We’re all “clumps of cells.” As far as having a recognizable form that’s “more” than that – it happens very early on in pregnancy – no doubt about it. Zygote –> Morula –> Blastocyst (sorry if I’ve forgotten any other stages) –> we really are talking about cells and “clumps” here. At some point there’s a recognizable form there, and “embryo” certainly means it’s there, eh?
Doug: Even the ruthless Chinese abortionist in the post up above (on the one-child policy) knew what the physical reality of the unborn meant.
“One [woman] was eight months pregnant. According to Littlejohn’s testimony: ‘Before the operation, the doctor touched the baby in her abdomen and sighed: ‘The bone is already hard, already a human.’”
It’s very simple. You tie yourself in knots denying the obvious truth. That’s what I meant by hard work.
Doug: no matter, the stage of development: HUMAN.
Heck, I’m a clump of cells right now. It’s just a bigger clump.
Lori, with all due respect, that’s not true. What “obvious truth” do you see me denying? I’ve agreed all along that “human being” applies to the unborn in this argument.
“Before the operation, the doctor touched the baby in her abdomen and sighed: ‘The bone is already hard, already a human.’” — I assume this is what you were referring to. I think you’re wrong about that doctor “knowing what the physical reality of the unborn meant.”
With the quite-broad and inclusive definition of “a human” that I’m sure you would use, hard bones are not required. The doctor has a subjective meaning for “a human” and if anything I’d say you’d disagree with it.
Also, is Ryan Bomberger related to Don King?
http://tagsgf.com/wp-content/uploads/don_king.jpg
Doug: no matter, the stage of development: HUMAN.
Heck, I’m a clump of cells right now. It’s just a bigger clump.
Agreed, Courtnay. Never have said anything to the contrary.
Doug,
I guess my point is this. The physical reality of the unborn is that it is a distinct human being at whatever stage of human development it happens to be at. If you argue any of that you are arguing about the physical reality of the unborn.
If, on the other hand, you claim to accept that physical reality, then your argument necessarily is that there are factors and criteria under which it is permissible to end the life of a human being. In addition to being a fairly repulsive claim, an additional problem for the abortion supporters who make it is that there are no criteria that include the unborn without leaving other human beings (post-born) vulnerable to execution. Either way you slice it, it is monstrous.
So which humans do we offer protection to? The wanted ones? The pretty ones? The useful ones? Where is your line in the sand, Doug? The only intellectually honest, consistent, non-montrous position would be to extend dignity to all.
To accept anything less lessens us. Or you.
I guess my point is this. The physical reality of the unborn is that it is a distinct human being at whatever stage of human development it happens to be at. If you argue any of that you are arguing about the physical reality of the unborn.
CT, no argument on that, and I don’t think you can point to anything I’ve said about the physical nature of the unborn that isn’t true. And, if you could, then I’d say you were right and I was wrong.
___
If, on the other hand, you claim to accept that physical reality, then your argument necessarily is that there are factors and criteria under which it is permissible to end the life of a human being. In addition to being a fairly repulsive claim, an additional problem for the abortion supporters who make it is that there are no criteria that include the unborn without leaving other human beings (post-born) vulnerable to execution. Either way you slice it, it is monstrous.
I do think there are situations that justify killing human beings. “Monstrous” – well, okay, your opinion. But you’re wrong about the criteria that couldn’t exclude the born – the birth standard does that, in the first place. Our current society has enormous protection for the lives of born people, much more so any almost all (all?) societies in the past.
So which humans do we offer protection to? The wanted ones? The pretty ones? The useful ones? Where is your line in the sand, Doug?
Courtnay, “we” don’t do anything. It’s up to the pregnant woman or the couple themselves.
___
The only intellectually honest, consistent, non-montrous position would be to extend dignity to all.
To accept anything less lessens us. Or you.
I don’t agree with that. I see it as more “lessening” to take away the liberty that women have now.
Wanting NEVER confers inclusion in the human family.
But you’re wrong about the criteria that couldn’t exclude the born – the birth standard does that, in the first place
2 issues:
1. The birth standard is not a criteria. WHY can unborn humans have their lives ended a moment before birth but not a moment after? What is the reason that the first acceptable and the latter not?
2. That leads me to issue #2. Most people, including all but the most virulent abortion supporters would reject the birth standard. Indeed even the Supreme Court rejected the birth standard and allowed states to BAN late term abortions except when the life of the fetus and life of the mother were in conflict.
With the quite-broad and inclusive definition of “a human” that I’m sure you would use, hard bones are not required. The doctor has a subjective meaning for “a human” and if anything I’d say you’d disagree with it.
Darn right I disagree with his arbitrary criterion. But he was at least honest enough to agree he was killing a human being based on the evidence of his senses, not the intellectual obfuscation you practice.
If you admit that the unborn child is a human being, why will you not agree to recognize his human rights? And why won’t you give your opinion directly without all the verbiage?
CT: 1. The birth standard is not a criteria. WHY can unborn humans have their lives ended a moment before birth but not a moment after? What is the reason that the first acceptable and the latter not?
Well sure it’s a criterion, though you may not think it’s a good one. Personally, I’m not for late-term abortions. I was saying that things we apply or don’t apply to the unborn would not have any necessary bearing on born people.
____
2. That leads me to issue #2. Most people, including all but the most virulent abortion supporters would reject the birth standard. Indeed even the Supreme Court rejected the birth standard and allowed states to BAN late term abortions except when the life of the fetus and life of the mother were in conflict.
Yeah – the Court made viability the (possible) standard – (should a state find in its interest to restrict abortion). And just as with before or after “quickening,” the presence of other places where “the line is drawn” does not mean that society’s rulings on the unborn would necessarily be extended to the born.
As for the legality of elective abortions, you’re certainly right – few people are for full-term abortions. I don’t really see any significant amount of sentiment for it. If anything it’s a non-issue in the US.
“With the quite-broad and inclusive definition of “a human” that I’m sure you would use, hard bones are not required. The doctor has a subjective meaning for “a human” and if anything I’d say you’d disagree with it.“
Lori: Darn right I disagree with his arbitrary criterion. But he was at least honest enough to agree he was killing a human being based on the evidence of his senses, not the intellectual obfuscation you practice.
Nonsense. I say it’s a human being from conception. All I am seeing from you is some false pretense that I deny reality.
You said the doctor: “knew what the physical reality of the unborn meant.” The doctor said, in essence, that having hard bones meant it was a human being. How in the world does this support your position?
____
If you admit that the unborn child is a human being, why will you not agree to recognize his human rights? And why won’t you give your opinion directly without all the verbiage?
Sometimes it takes some “verbiage” to correct untrue assumptions and implications. The broad usage of “human being” to mean only a living human organism, nothing more, does not necessarily mean that rights will be deemed to be present.
And that’s what the real issue is. It’s not the physical reality of the unborn. The question is what will society’s position be. What status do we give the unborn, etc.
Okay Doug, you admit its a human being from conception. Good. Thats a place to start. Then explain to me why some human beings can arbitrarily decide to end the lives of other human beings that have committed no crime but are merely “unwanted”.
Sometimes it takes some “verbiage” to correct untrue assumptions and implications. The broad usage of “human being” to mean only a living human organism, nothing more, does not necessarily mean that rights will be deemed to be present.
Someone doesn’t understand the concept of human rights.
And that’s what the real issue is. It’s not the physical reality of the unborn. The question is what will society’s position be. What status do we give the unborn, etc.
So you’re saying that some humans don’t deserve human rights?
Well sure it’s a criterion, though you may not think it’s a good one. Personally, I’m not for late-term abortions. I was saying that things we apply or don’t apply to the unborn would not have any necessary bearing on born people.
Only if you adhere to the belief that there is no such thing as human rights that are ours by virtue of being human beings and not because they have been given to us by some societal authority. It’s like saying, ‘Things we apply or don’t apply to black or Jewish people would not have any necessary bearing on white or Catholic people.’ and when someone asks you what’s the difference between those people, you say “they’re black or Jewish.” It’s not a criteria – it’s just a line with no explanation. My question was why are unborn humans different than other humans such that they can be denied the right to live? What criteria makes them disposable but protects all other humans from the same fate?
Doug, “human rights” are inherent in being a human being, period. You do not add other considerations to that, like how much the human being is wanted or not valued, convenient or burdensome. So it comes down to the physical reality and recognition that a human being is present. And of course, society will either recognize that or not. Yes, sometimes society will not deem rights to be present in a living human being. Which means that this society does not recognize human rights. You treat this situation as if it is the same morally as recognizing those rights – as if you were talking about having ham and eggs vs. waffles and fruit. To you evidently, it’s just a meaningless option, one as good as another. Well, to anyone with a moral sense, it is not.
Sydney: Then explain to me why some human beings can arbitrarily decide to end the lives of other human beings that have committed no crime but are merely “unwanted”.
Because in this case it’s “subject to individual will or judgment.” I realize you don’t think society should permit it to be that way.
“The broad usage of “human being” to mean only a living human organism, nothing more, does not necessarily mean that rights will be deemed to be present.”
Some Guy: Someone doesn’t understand the concept of human rights.
Well, yeah, I do. A given status will be said to be present, or not.
____
“And that’s what the real issue is. It’s not the physical reality of the unborn. The question is what will society’s position be. What status do we give the unborn, etc.”
So you’re saying that some humans don’t deserve human rights?
I’m saying the woman’s rights come first, as she is the one pregnant. It’s not simply a question of “deserving” or not on the part of the unborn. It’s weighing the interest of society, if any, against the interest of the woman. If she wants to have a baby, then I’m for protection being given, i.e. I wouldn’t have it legal for somebody else to harm the unborn in such cases. If she does not, then I don’t see society having a good enough reason to overrule her wishes.
CT: Only if you adhere to the belief that there is no such thing as human rights that are ours by virtue of being human beings and not because they have been given to us by some societal authority.
You are talking about things which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary. Rights are a societal construct, and what you want is for society’s position on the unborn to change.
___
It’s like saying, ‘Things we apply or don’t apply to black or Jewish people would not have any necessary bearing on white or Catholic people.’ and when someone asks you what’s the difference between those people, you say “they’re black or Jewish.” It’s not a criteria – it’s just a line with no explanation.
Okay, that “could” be a criterion, sure. But the idea of bodily autonomy is an explanation as far as the birth standard. I know you don’t agree with it, but society saying that full rights and personhood are there at birth means that it’s a different deal than with the unborn, and so it’s not like “if we treat the unborn thusly, born people will be liable to be treated the same way.”
___
My question was why are unborn humans different than other humans such that they can be denied the right to live? What criteria makes them disposable but protects all other humans from the same fate?
I’m not pronouncing them “disposable” or “not disposable. I’m leaving it up to the woman or couple. The suituation matters. And I’m not singling out the unborn, here, it’s the same way for born people. There are plenty of cases where I see a good enough reason for the right-to-life to not be “absolute” or inviolable. Wartime, self-defense, execution for some crimes, etc. Joe Blow is walking down the street – that’s one thing. Joe Blow breaks into your house, that’s another.
Doug, “human rights” are inherent in being a human being, period.
Lori, I know that idea appeals to some, but you have no proof of any such thing. Meanwhile, the issue here is what status society attributes to the unborn. What you want is for society to change its position.
___
You do not add other considerations to that, like how much the human being is wanted or not valued, convenient or burdensome.
Many people do. That’s why there’s a debate.
___
So it comes down to the physical reality and recognition that a human being is present.
No, it really does not. The issue is not if a “human being” is there or not. The issue is what status we accord the unborn, and how we weigh that status, if any, against the wishes of the pregnant woman.
____
And of course, society will either recognize that or not. Yes, sometimes society will not deem rights to be present in a living human being. Which means that this society does not recognize human rights.
I disagree. For clarity, let’s look at born people – where society says that full rights and personhood are there at birth. At times society will say, “We’re going to kill you,” or “We’re going to lock you up.” This doesn’t mean that society “does not recognize human rights.” It just means that society sees a good enough reason for its action, even if it impacts the person’s life, freedom, etc.
____
You treat this situation as if it is the same morally as recognizing those rights – as if you were talking about having ham and eggs vs. waffles and fruit. To you evidently, it’s just a meaningless option, one as good as another. Well, to anyone with a moral sense, it is not.
Not at all. In no way do I think “meaningless” applies. The pregnant woman’s liberty means something to her. I don’t think your desires make for a good enough reason for society to take that liberty away. “Your side” of the argument has no lock on what is “moral” or not. It’s a difference of opinion.
You are talking about things which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary. Rights are a societal construct, and what you want is for society’s position on the unborn to change.
You don’t need to prove them. The argument is not that you must accept humans have rights granted by God, but just that a society needs to accept it as a principle. I am arguing that when human rights are viewed as something society or governments GRANT you rather than something that’s inalienable to your person by virtue of being a human (even if you don’t believe that they are God-given), that no human being is safe except to the extent that society allows them to be. At any time society could declare other arbitrary criteria that allows people to be killed and we could say nothing about their rights being violated b/c according to your view human beings have no rights.
Okay, that “could” be a criterion, sure.
No – those HAVE been criteria. When a human’s right to life depends not on our humanity but on society’s grant of that right, then those arbitrary lines will continue to be drawn.
I’m not pronouncing them “disposable” or “not disposable. I’m leaving it up to the woman or couple.
You are saying that some human life can be deemed disposable by someone. So what that you don’t make the decision – you allow others to pronounce them disposable.
There are plenty of cases where I see a good enough reason for the right-to-life to not be “absolute” or inviolable.
Based on what is the right to one person’s bodily autonomy more inviolable than another’s right to live (and to their own bodily autonomy for that matter)?
Well, yeah, I do. A given status will be said to be present, or not.
So again I state, apparently someone (you) doesn’t understand what human rights are.
I’m saying the woman’s rights come first, as she is the one pregnant. It’s not simply a question of “deserving” or not on the part of the unborn. It’s weighing the interest of society, if any, against the interest of the woman. If she wants to have a baby, then I’m for protection being given, i.e. I wouldn’t have it legal for somebody else to harm the unborn in such cases. If she does not, then I don’t see society having a good enough reason to overrule her wishes.
Ridiculous. This is nothing short than a lot of obfuscation. I’ve know I’ve pointed this out to you before, but the majority of woman have an abortion for a reason which is tangentially related to the fact that it’s her body. In fact, for the majority of abortions, the only part the woman’s body plays in the decision to abort is that because her body is involved she can abort. Most woman have abortions for reasons completely unrelated to it being “her body”. Examine the following two scenarios:
Woman #1 is pregnant. She decides that she’s going to have an abortion because she doesn’t feel as if she can care for a child. She could go through with the pregnancy and give that child up for adoption, but she can’t bear the thought of someone else raising her child.
Woman #2 has just given birth thirty seconds ago. She decides that she wants to strangle her newborn– I mean, neonate, since we’re striving for medical accuracy– because she doesn’t feel as if she can care for a child. She could relinquish that neonate for adoption, but she can’t bear the thought of someone else raising her child.
Now, explain to me why would woman #1 be allowed to have an abortion yet woman #2 be disallowed from engaging in infanticide? You’ll undoubtedly respond with “Because it’s her body!”, but this is a complete intellectual cop-out. Woman #1 would have an abortion for the same reason that woman #2 would kill her neonate. That is, they’re both looking to engage in their respective actions because they can’t afford to raise a child and they don’t want anyone else to raise their child. And if you’re okay with woman #1 killing her unborn child because it’s in her best interest to do so, then assuming you’re treating what the woman considers to be in her best interest as the “end-all-be-all” (as you apparently are), then you must also be okay with woman #2 killing her neonate for the exact same reason woman #1 kills her unborn child.
…But, see, I have this sneaky suspicion that you won’t do that.
“when human rights are viewed as something society or governments GRANT you rather than something that’s inalienable to your person by virtue of being a human (even if you don’t believe that they are God-given), that no human being is safe except to the extent that society allows them to be” – it has always been thus.
I’m saying the woman’s rights come first, as she is the one pregnant.
Well, Doug at least we know that for you there is one right that is absolutely inherent, unquestionable and incontrovertible – a woman’s right to her “bodily autonomy” and therefore an abortion. No right of the father, or society or the child’s own right to life itself can knock it from its sovereign perch. Every pro-abort I’ve known has felt the same way.
What I don’t understand is that holding the position on human rights that you do, logically, for you, this right would be a societal construct just like any other. If so, can’t it be changed? Isn’t it subject to conditions? Isn’t it all relative?
Ah, relativism — the world’s most insane philosophy.
The right to privacy does not extend to appearances in public.
CT: The argument is not that you must accept humans have rights granted by God, but just that a society needs to accept it as a principle.
I disagree there too, CT. Really – I think societies would be better off if there were no religion at all. Just my opinion. If we are talking about “societal principles” then the Birth Standard is a huge one. I don’t think any society, anywhere, at any time, has attributed full rights and personhood to the unborn.
I’m also not saying the Birth Standard *has* to be, either. It’s not impossible that something else could be. But as far as a “slippery slope” that extends to born people, the Birth Standard is pretty formidable as far as stopping it.
____
I am arguing that when human rights are viewed as something society or governments GRANT you rather than something that’s inalienable to your person by virtue of being a human (even if you don’t believe that they are God-given), that no human being is safe except to the extent that society allows them to be.
Well, how do things really work? What we are talking about *is* the status that society deems present or not present.
There is no “absolute safety.” I could be killed on the drive home from work today. The question is what is society’s position on it, and the same for the unborn.
____
At any time society could declare other arbitrary criteria that allows people to be killed and we could say nothing about their rights being violated b/c according to your view human beings have no rights.
You can present any number of hypotheticals, but again, the Birth Standard, and, for that matter – thousands of years of tradition and history – make what you say very unlikely. If anything, I think it is population pressure itself that would make things like what you propose become likely.
____
“Okay, that “could” be a criterion, sure.”
No – those HAVE been criteria. When a human’s right to life depends not on our humanity but on society’s grant of that right, then those arbitrary lines will continue to be drawn.
Any line like that is arbitrary – it’s subject to will, desires, choice, judgment, etc. It’s not something with external existence beyond the mind. What you want is for society to change where it draws the line.
_____
“I’m not pronouncing them “disposable” or “not disposable. I’m leaving it up to the woman or couple.”
You are saying that some human life can be deemed disposable by someone. So what that you don’t make the decision – you allow others to pronounce them disposable.
Yes, though there is the question of just what constitutes the “them” you mention. It makes a big difference to many people.
____
“There are plenty of cases where I see a good enough reason for the right-to-life to not be “absolute” or inviolable.”
Based on what is the right to one person’s bodily autonomy more inviolable than another’s right to live (and to their own bodily autonomy for that matter)?
In the case of a non-sentient, non-feeling, non-personality-having, non-being-aware-of-anything “other,” then it’s based on my weighing of various factors here – the nature of the unborn, the desire of the pregnant woman, any demonstrable need on the part of society – either way – and even the opinions of other people not directly involved in the situation, you included. In the end, I don’t think society has a compelling need to ban or severely restrict all abortions to a point in gestation. I think it’s better for society to allow women the retain the liberty they have at this point.
In the case of a non-sentient, non-feeling, non-personality-having, non-being-aware-of-anything “other”…
I don’t like your criteria. I vote we differentiate based on race, gender, weight, height, handedness, the ability to walk, the ability to engage in intelligible speech, the ability to solve complex differential equations, the ability to… Well, you get the point. Do I really need to continue?
Your criteria are arbitrary, and you can provide no valid justification as to why your criteria matter more than mine. In fact, I’ll just go ahead and point out that the only justification you can give is that you believe your criteria are more rational than mine are.
“Well, yeah, I do. A given status will be said to be present, or not.”
Some Guy: So again I state, apparently someone (you) doesn’t understand what human rights are.
Nonsense. I know what you are talking about, i.e. certain beliefs appeal to certain people, but there’s no proof that it’s anything beyond imaginary. Meanwhile, what you want is for society to deem a certain status to be present for the unborn. That’s really how rights work, and that’s the change you want to be made.
___
“I’m saying the woman’s rights come first, as she is the one pregnant. It’s not simply a question of “deserving” or not on the part of the unborn. It’s weighing the interest of society, if any, against the interest of the woman. If she wants to have a baby, then I’m for protection being given, i.e. I wouldn’t have it legal for somebody else to harm the unborn in such cases. If she does not, then I don’t see society having a good enough reason to overrule her wishes.”
Ridiculous. This is nothing short than a lot of obfuscation.
How in the world is that “obfuscation”? It’s straight-forward. I weigh the woman’s desires against the desires of those who think she should not have an abortion, that it should be illegal for her to do so. It’s not me saying “kill all the unborn.” If nobody wanted to have an abortion, fine with me. I’m not making any pronouncement of valuation about the unborn.
____
I’ve know I’ve pointed this out to you before, but the majority of woman have an abortion for a reason which is tangentially related to the fact that it’s her body. In fact, for the majority of abortions, the only part the woman’s body plays in the decision to abort is that because her body is involved she can abort. Most woman have abortions for reasons completely unrelated to it being “her body”. Examine the following two scenarios:
Woman #1 is pregnant. She decides that she’s going to have an abortion because she doesn’t feel as if she can care for a child. She could go through with the pregnancy and give that child up for adoption, but she can’t bear the thought of someone else raising her child.
Woman #2 has just given birth thirty seconds ago. She decides that she wants to strangle her newborn– I mean, neonate, since we’re striving for medical accuracy– because she doesn’t feel as if she can care for a child. She could relinquish that neonate for adoption, but she can’t bear the thought of someone else raising her child.
Now, explain to me why would woman #1 be allowed to have an abortion yet woman #2 be disallowed from engaging in infanticide? You’ll undoubtedly respond with “Because it’s her body!”, but this is a complete intellectual cop-out.
Now hold on a minute, here, Hoss. The development of the fetus matters to me. Late enough in gestation, and I’m not for elective abortion anyway. But, let’s assume that Woman #1 is having an early-term abortion. Woman #2 can’t legally kill the baby because at birth we attribute full rights and personhood. For #1, it’s legal to have an abortion. Okay, that’s the current societal position. If you are asking me how I would have it, personally, then I’d draw the line – as far as elective abortion – at 22 weeks, very close to the restrictions most states have now. I grant you that the unborn baby has its own body, all along. I’m not proceeding solely on the basis of it being “her body” as far as the pregnant woman.
____
Woman #1 would have an abortion for the same reason that woman #2 would kill her neonate. That is, they’re both looking to engage in their respective actions because they can’t afford to raise a child and they don’t want anyone else to raise their child. And if you’re okay with woman #1 killing her unborn child because it’s in her best interest to do so, then assuming you’re treating what the woman considers to be in her best interest as the “end-all-be-all” (as you apparently are), then you must also be okay with woman #2 killing her neonate for the exact same reason woman #1 kills her unborn child.
…But, see, I have this sneaky suspicion that you won’t do that.
The point with bodily autonomy, even including what was meant in the Roe decision, is that other people can care for the born baby. Thus, the mother’s interest – if it’s that she simply will not care for the baby – can be satisfied while the baby remains alive. Society is saying that at birth – whether one agrees with the birth standard or not – that “this is fully one of us, now.” Rights and personhood are deemed to be there, and society requires that the parents or somebody else care for the kid. The Roe decison allows the states, if they want to, to ban elective abortions past viability in the same manner.
Why would I have to “be okay with Woman #2 killing her neonate”? The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer an issue then.
Society isn’t going to let parents kill born kids because they don’t want others to care for them. Whether you agree with it or not, the Birth Standard has kicked in by then.
“I’m saying the woman’s rights come first, as she is the one pregnant.”
Lori: Well, Doug at least we know that for you there is one right that is absolutely inherent, unquestionable and incontrovertible – a woman’s right to her “bodily autonomy” and therefore an abortion. No right of the father, or society or the child’s own right to life itself can knock it from its sovereign perch. Every pro-abort I’ve known has felt the same way.
No, no, no, Lori. Of course it’s not “inherent.” There is no such thing, there. I grant you it can be hard on the guy who got her pregnant, but since she’s the one pregnant, I give her wishes the nod over his. Same as I give her wishes the nod over yours.
____
What I don’t understand is that holding the position on human rights that you do, logically, for you, this right would be a societal construct just like any other. If so, can’t it be changed? Isn’t it subject to conditions? Isn’t it all relative? Ah, relativism — the world’s most insane philosophy.
No, not “insane.” It’s just the way things are. Rights are ideas. When it comes down to it, what really matters is if they are deemed to be present, and if they are enforced. Sure – most definitely they can be changed.
If, to take a farfetched example, it was widely held that unless we drastically increased the population fast, the human race would rapidly become extinct, then I’d say that you’d have your illegal abortion in an instant. The flipside of that is that I think population pressure is and will be a force working against what you want.
“In the case of a non-sentient, non-feeling, non-personality-having, non-being-aware-of-anything “other,” then it’s based on my weighing of various factors here – the nature of the unborn, the desire of the pregnant woman, any demonstrable need on the part of society – either way – and even the opinions of other people not directly involved in the situation, you included. In the end, I don’t think society has a compelling need to ban or severely restrict all abortions to a point in gestation. I think it’s better for society to allow women the retain the liberty they have at this point.”
Some Guy: I don’t like your criteria. I vote we differentiate based on race, gender, weight, height, handedness, the ability to walk, the ability to engage in intelligible speech, the ability to solve complex differential equations, the ability to… Well, you get the point. Do I really need to continue?
Your criteria are arbitrary, and you can provide no valid justification as to why your criteria matter more than mine. In fact, I’ll just go ahead and point out that the only justification you can give is that you believe your criteria are more rational than mine are.
I don’t think you can make nearly as good a case as I can. How much sentiment do you really think there is for what you would propose? You are talking about beings for which we can have empathy, beings which can suffer, which are not inside the body of a person, etc. It makes a huge difference. No, I don’t think you have a rational case, there, but of course you wouldn’t seriously try and argue it anyway. Meanwhile, the wishes and liberty of the pregnant woman *do* matter to a lot of people. Does society have a good enough reason to have your hypothetical be illegal? I think so. Does society have a good enough reason to ban abortion prior to a point in gestation? I do not think so.
Nonsense. I know what you are talking about, i.e. certain beliefs appeal to certain people, but there’s no proof that it’s anything beyond imaginary.
Apparently, you don’t know what I’m talking about. How do you prove human rights exist? The answer? You don’t, because there’s nothing to prove.
Meanwhile, what you want is for society to deem a certain status to be present for the unborn. That’s really how rights work, and that’s the change you want to be made. Obviously, you seemingly don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Anyone who talks about society granting moral status is a deeply confused individual. Society does not grant anything; they either choose to acknowledge the rights of the individual or it does not. A society choosing not to recognize the rights of a certain group, however, does not mean they lack moral status and the rights that go with it. If, for example, tomorrow the U.S. Constitution is amended to state that Hispanics no longer have standing under the law, and Hispanics are rounded up and sent off to determent camps to spend the rest of their lives, chances are you would speak out against such an action. But under what basis could you do so? Since Hispanics would have no moral status within society and no subsequent rights, then the actions directed against them would not– and could not– be wrong. Heck. I’ll commit the Cardinal sin and invoke Godwin’s law. Under what basis can you say the Nazi’s were wrong in the way they treated Blacks, gays, Jews and gypsies, among other groups? And try to keep the reasoning within the context of the society they happened in.
How in the world is that “obfuscation”? It’s straight-forward. I weigh the woman’s desires against the desires of those who think she should not have an abortion, that it should be illegal for her to do so. It’s not me saying “kill all the unborn.” If nobody wanted to have an abortion, fine with me.
Abortion does not exist in a vacuum. Woman have abortions for specific reasons. When you say “I’m weighing the woman’s desires against the desires of those who think she should not have an abortion”, what you’re really saying is, “I’m weighing the reasons why the woman wants to have an abortion against society’s reason for wanting to bar her from doing so”. So when a woman has an abortion because she says that she can’t financially support a child and doesn’t want to give that child up for adoption, you’re essentially stating, “I support your decision to kill your child because you can’t afford to raise it and you don’t want to give it up for adoption”. Knowing that this is your argument– and it is– then why would you complain about a woman killing her neonate under the exact same justification? Do you not care about the woman’s desires? That’s a rhetorical question, because you don’t. What you care about is the gestational age of the unborn child. If the unborn hasn’t reached a certain gestational age, well then, you’ve no problem submitting to the woman’s desires. But once that line has been crossed, then you could give a rat’s *** about the woman’s desires. Of course, the line you’ve picked is arbitrary, but we’ll get to that later.
I’m not making any pronouncement of valuation about the unborn.
Yes, you are making a statement of value regarding the unborn. The value you ascribe to the unborn is the value the mother of that unborn child ascribes to the unborn. Up to a certain point, at least, after which time you will ascribe a value to the fetus which can be higher than the value the mother gives to the fetus.
Now hold on a minute, here, Hoss. The development of the fetus matters to me. Late enough in gestation, and I’m not for elective abortion anyway.
You’ve contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that a woman’s rights come first and that if she is pregnant and doesn’t want to have a baby, that she should be allowed to have an abortion as society doesn’t have a good enough reason to prevent her from terminating her pregnancy. Unless you’re distancing yourself from “society” at large, there’s no way to square your two statements with one another. Either (1) the development of the fetus matters, in which case the fetus being sufficiently developed enough will mean that a woman’s right to liberty will be considered secondary to the fetus’ right to life, and abortion will be impermissible or (2) the development of the fetus doesn’t matter as society has no good enough reason to prevent the woman from having an abortion whenever she wants, anyway, thus making your statement about “what you’re not for” wholly fluff. That is, of course, unless you want to make one statement to merely be a statement of personal opinion rather than what should be policy while the other should be a statement of actuality.
The point with bodily autonomy, even including what was meant in the Roe decision, is that other people can care for the born baby. Thus, the mother’s interest – if it’s that she simply will not care for the baby – can be satisfied while the baby remains alive.
You never read the text of Roe v. Wade, did you?
Why would I have to “be okay with Woman #2 killing her neonate”? The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer an issue then.
And yet again I point out to you that the overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with the woman maintaining her “bodily autonomy”, but rather her simply not wanting to care for a child after its born. I know that’s an inconvenient truth for you– and, indeed, most pro-choicers in general– but it’s one which you will have to come to terms with. Again, I point out to you something which you didn’t contest because you flatly ignored it; for the majority of abortions, the only part the woman’s body being involved plays in the decision to abort is because the woman’s body is involved, she can abort.
As it is, even you don’t ascribe to the whole “bodily autonomy” line of reasoning for abortion. Tell me, what month of pregnancy does the woman’s body cease to belong to her? The first month? The ninth month? Some time in between? For as long as the woman is pregnant, then “bodily autonomy” will always be an issue, and preventing the woman from having an abortion if she wants one would be just as much a violation in the first month as it would be the ninth month.
Society isn’t going to let parents kill born kids because they don’t want others to care for them.
So why do we let them to the same for the unborn (up to a certain point)? If, as you assert, what the woman wants for her own life is the “end-all-be-all”, then what’s the fundamental difference between letting a woman kill her unborn child because it benefits her in way X and letting that same woman kill her neonate for the exact same reason (obviously, physical discomfort at the thought of a woman engaging in infanticide aside)?
I don’t think you can make nearly as good a case as I can.
Sure I can! Watch!
“Because I say it is!”
That’s about on par with what you’ve provided.
How much sentiment do you really think there is for what you would propose?
Who cares? Is the strength of an argument judged by the number of people who agree with it?
You are talking about beings for which we can have empathy, beings which can suffer, which are not inside the body of a person, etc.
So what? Is that your reasoning for why your criteria are better than mine? If so, that seems an awfully lot like, “Because I say it is!”, which isn’t all that compelling.
It makes a huge difference.
Why?
No, I don’t think you have a rational case, there, but of course you wouldn’t seriously try and argue it anyway.
I wouldn’t? Try me.
Meanwhile, the wishes and liberty of the pregnant woman *do* matter to a lot of people. Does society have a good enough reason to have your hypothetical be illegal? I think so. Does society have a good enough reason to ban abortion prior to a point in gestation? I do not think so.
I’m sorry, but it looks like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Apparently, the wishes and liberty of the pregnant woman do matter to a lot of people, but the wishes of many more people who would restrict abortion to specific, limited cases, don’t matter? Tell me this; who gets to decide what’s a good enough reason to ban abortion. Aside from you, obviously.
“There is no “absolute safety.” I could be killed on the drive home from work today. The question is what is society’s position on it, and the same for the unborn.”
There’s no safety from accidents. Does that mean we shouldn’t seek safety from society legally allowing the killing of an entire group of vulnerable human beings?
“You can present any number of hypotheticals, but again, the Birth Standard, and, for that matter – thousands of years of tradition and history – make what you say very unlikely. If anything, I think it is population pressure itself that would make things like what you propose become likely.”
Pressure towards euthanasia for the sick and disabled is already growing.
“Any line like that is arbitrary – it’s subject to will, desires, choice, judgment, etc. It’s not something with external existence beyond the mind. What you want is for society to change where it draws the line.”
The state of being born no more exists “beyond the mind” than the state of being Jewish or black or disabled, or in a coma. All these criteria are nothing but a choice society makes that some humans should not be granted the full array of rights available to other humans. That you think being unborn is a good category to exclude is nothing but your desire and judgement that the right to bodily autonomy (which some guy rightly points out is rarely at issue) is more inviolable than the right to live. You chose a strange right as the one you desire society to consider inviolable. There is no logical basis for saying that a human being can be killed one moment before birth (or is it even in the birth canal), but not one moment after.
“Nonsense. I know what you are talking about, i.e. certain beliefs appeal to certain people, but there’s no proof that it’s anything beyond imaginary. Meanwhile, what you want is for society to deem a certain status to be present for the unborn. That’s really how rights work, and that’s the change you want to be made.”
Apparently, you don’t know what I’m talking about. How do you prove human rights exist? The answer? You don’t, because there’s nothing to prove.
Wow, Some Guy, that was a fast, and comprehensive, reply. :)
The idea of rights is well known. That society has laws with such a societal construct in mind cannot be argued. It’s not me that needs to “prove that rights exist.” The abortion debate is about what status we grant to the unborn. Do we say that personhood is there, etc.
____
Anyone who talks about society granting moral status is a deeply confused individual. Society does not grant anything; they either choose to acknowledge the rights of the individual or it does not.
Again, you have no proof of any such thing. It’s just a bald assertion on your part.
____
A society choosing not to recognize the rights of a certain group, however, does not mean they lack moral status and the rights that go with it. If, for example, tomorrow the U.S. Constitution is amended to state that Hispanics no longer have standing under the law, and Hispanics are rounded up and sent off to determent camps to spend the rest of their lives, chances are you would speak out against such an action. But under what basis could you do so? Since Hispanics would have no moral status within society and no subsequent rights, then the actions directed against them would not– and could not– be wrong. Heck. I’ll commit the Cardinal sin and invoke Godwin’s law. Under what basis can you say the Nazi’s were wrong in the way they treated Blacks, gays, Jews and gypsies, among other groups? And try to keep the reasoning within the context of the society they happened in.
That’s silly. There’s nothing that says that I will necessarily agree with society’s position on a given issue, any more than there is for you. Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Gypsies – these are sentient individuals, mentally aware, able to suffer, with personalities and desires of their own, not inside the body of a person. We can have empathy with them. They are part of the self-aware “us.”
____
How in the world is that “obfuscation”? It’s straight-forward. I weigh the woman’s desires against the desires of those who think she should not have an abortion, that it should be illegal for her to do so. It’s not me saying “kill all the unborn.” If nobody wanted to have an abortion, fine with me.
Abortion does not exist in a vacuum. Woman have abortions for specific reasons. When you say “I’m weighing the woman’s desires against the desires of those who think she should not have an abortion”, what you’re really saying is, “I’m weighing the reasons why the woman wants to have an abortion against society’s reason for wanting to bar her from doing so”.
No, I’m really not. Her wishing it so is enough, regardless of the reason, the situation, to a point in pregnancy – I am saying. I don’t consider the reason, there. Later on in gestation, I do look at the situation – though few and far between they are, very late-term abortions do need some justification beyond the desire of the woman, in my opinon, as then there’s usually a sentient, sensate, emotional individual with personality there (as far as the unborn) ETC. We can have empathy with them, then, and they are part of the conscious “us” that has led us to the place we have on earth, and led us to moral questions like abortion, in the first place.
___
So when a woman has an abortion because she says that she can’t financially support a child and doesn’t want to give that child up for adoption, you’re essentially stating, “I support your decision to kill your child because you can’t afford to raise it and you don’t want to give it up for adoption”. Knowing that this is your argument– and it is– then why would you complain about a woman killing her neonate under the exact same justification?
Because she does not have to support it at that point. Somebody else can take care of it. You’re proposing something for which there is no significant amount of sentiment, and you surely know that anyway. Meanwhile, for the pregnant woman, for who – if the baby is to live – surely must support it, there is no such option.
____
Do you not care about the woman’s desires? That’s a rhetorical question, because you don’t. What you care about is the gestational age of the unborn child. If the unborn hasn’t reached a certain gestational age, well then, you’ve no problem submitting to the woman’s desires. But once that line has been crossed, then you could give a rat’s *** about the woman’s desires. Of course, the line you’ve picked is arbitrary, but we’ll get to that later.
No, I do care about the woman’s desires, and I support “safe havens” where the baby can be dropped off, no questions asked. Her bodily autonomy isn’t violated. It’s the same deal – I’m weighing the woman’s desire. Does it now – that the baby is out of her body and can be supported by others – constitute a good enough reason for the baby to die? No, I don’t think so.
____
I’m not making any pronouncement of valuation about the unborn.
Yes, you are making a statement of value regarding the unborn. The value you ascribe to the unborn is the value the mother of that unborn child ascribes to the unborn. Up to a certain point, at least, after which time you will ascribe a value to the fetus which can be higher than the value the mother gives to the fetus.
Hey – that’s pretty good. :) Okay – yes – to a point in gestation I would let the pregant woman or couple determine things.
____
Now hold on a minute, here, Hoss. The development of the fetus matters to me. Late enough in gestation, and I’m not for elective abortion anyway. But, let’s assume that Woman #1 is having an early-term abortion. Woman #2 can’t legally kill the baby because at birth we attribute full rights and personhood. For #1, it’s legal to have an abortion. Okay, that’s the current societal position. If you are asking me how I would have it, personally, then I’d draw the line – as far as elective abortion – at 22 weeks, very close to the restrictions most states have now. I grant you that the unborn baby has its own body, all along. I’m not proceeding solely on the basis of it being “her body” as far as the pregnant woman.
You’ve contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that a woman’s rights come first and that if she is pregnant and doesn’t want to have a baby, that she should be allowed to have an abortion as society doesn’t have a good enough reason to prevent her from terminating her pregnancy. Unless you’re distancing yourself from “society” at large, there’s no way to square your two statements with one another. Either (1) the development of the fetus matters,
–Well yeah – I said, “The development of the fetus matters to me..”
in which case the fetus being sufficiently developed enough will mean that a woman’s right to liberty will be considered secondary to the fetus’ right to life, and abortion will be impermissible
–And as far as elective abortion I agree with that…
or (2) the development of the fetus doesn’t matter as society has no good enough reason to prevent the woman from having an abortion whenever she wants, anyway, thus making your statement about “what you’re not for” wholly fluff. That is, of course, unless you want to make one statement to merely be a statement of personal opinion rather than what should be policy while the other should be a statement of actuality.
There’s no contradiction. I’m going with #1.
____
The point with bodily autonomy, even including what was meant in the Roe decision, is that other people can care for the born baby. Thus, the mother’s interest – if it’s that she simply will not care for the baby – can be satisfied while the baby remains alive.
You never read the text of Roe v. Wade, did you?
Yeah. :) Several times. Do you actually have a point, here?
____
“Why would I have to “be okay with Woman #2 killing her neonate”? The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer an issue then.”
And yet again I point out to you that the overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with the woman maintaining her “bodily autonomy”, but rather her simply not wanting to care for a child after its born. I know that’s an inconvenient truth for you– and, indeed, most pro-choicers in general– but it’s one which you will have to come to terms with. Again, I point out to you something which you didn’t contest because you flatly ignored it; for the majority of abortions, the only part the woman’s body being involved plays in the decision to abort is because the woman’s body is involved, she can abort.
I hear you, here, but again – I’m saying that the woman’s desire to end the pregnancy – for whatever reason – is good enough for me to a point in gestation. Doesn’t matter what her exact concern is. I’m saying she *has* bodily autonomy, per our society, and that that is a good thing. “Bodily autonomy” itself, per se, may not be a “reason” for having an abortion, no – but nobody is saying it is. It’s a separate consideration.
____
As it is, even you don’t ascribe to the whole “bodily autonomy” line of reasoning for abortion. Tell me, what month of pregnancy does the woman’s body cease to belong to her? The first month? The ninth month? Some time in between? For as long as the woman is pregnant, then “bodily autonomy” will always be an issue, and preventing the woman from having an abortion if she wants one would be just as much a violation in the first month as it would be the ninth month.
Ahem – the woman’s body belongs to her all along. This is what I say, and what society says, as per “bodily autonomy.” Doesn’t *have* to be that way, but it sure is that way, now. The weighing of her bodily autonomy against the interest of the state – again – right in line with the Roe decision – is a separate deal.
____
“Society isn’t going to let parents kill born kids because they don’t want others to care for them. Whether you agree with it or not, the Birth Standard has kicked in by then.”
So why do we let them to the same for the unborn (up to a certain point)?
Because – wait for it – the Birth Standard has not kicked in by then. Isn’t that amazing? Whether you agree with the birth standard or not, no miracle to see that…. ;)
____
If, as you assert, what the woman wants for her own life is the “end-all-be-all”, then what’s the fundamental difference between letting a woman kill her unborn child because it benefits her in way X and letting that same woman kill her neonate for the exact same reason (obviously, physical discomfort at the thought of a woman engaging in infanticide aside)?
Good grief – your “if-then” statement is of your own construction, not taken from what I’ve said, and not reflective of the reality of our society.
As I’ve said ad infinitum – to a point in gestation I am saying the woman’s desires rightly take precedence. “To a point in gestation.” That is not only not applicable to born kids, it’s also not even much more than halfway through gestation in my case.
I look at desires, sure, but in no way am I making any blanket pronouncements about that being the “end-all” of the debate. Another example is you shooting me. If I’m walking down the street, and you shoot me, I’m probably going to say that’s wrong, all other things being equal. But if I break into your house and come busting through doors and rooms, well hey – fire away. In both cases, your desire is to shoot me, but – as always – the situation matters.
“I don’t think you can make nearly as good a case as I can.”
Some Guy: Sure I can! Watch!
“Because I say it is!”
That’s about on par with what you’ve provided.
No, not “about on par.” As noted before, there’s no significant sentiment behind your hypotheticals – differentiating on race, height, handedness, etc. Meanwhile, the abortion debate is quite different.
And even within the abortion debate, it breaks down pretty clearly – there are far fewer people who think elective abortion should be legal without any regard to gestational length, for example, than favor it being legal to a point in gestation.
____
“How much sentiment do you really think there is for what you would propose?”
Who cares? Is the strength of an argument judged by the number of people who agree with it?
Well, you care, for one. If nobody else shared your opinions on abortion, it wouldn’t be a meaningful issue in our society. It’d be like you saying, “All people on earth should die, right now.” People would, at best, be telling you, “Okay, have a nice day…”
If there is sufficient opinion for a law to exist, then it will be. And that’s what you want – you want our law to change. You better believe you care about how many people agree with your opinion. If it was only you, there’d be no chance of the law changing, and you don’t want that.
____
“You are talking about beings for which we can have empathy, beings which can suffer, which are not inside the body of a person, etc.”
So what? Is that your reasoning for why your criteria are better than mine? If so, that seems an awfully lot like, “Because I say it is!”, which isn’t all that compelling.
I’m not pretending there is any external “better” behind how I feel about the matter. You do appear to be pretending that. Being sentient, capable of suffering, etc., or not, as well as what the pregnant woman wishes – these all matter to me. I’ve never said they have to matter to you, nor that they are the “end-all” of the abortion debate. Yes, it’s me having my say, just as you have yours.
____
It makes a huge difference.
Why?
Because then there is “somebody” there as far as having awareness, personality, etc. Sure, there was a “human being,” if you will, there all along, a living human organism. But we’re far more than that as a race, and if not there would have never been any thoughts or morality, no consideration of anything like we’re talking about. Scoop out somebody’s brain while keeping the body alive by pumping oxygenated blood and nutrients through the arteries. There will still be a “human being” there. But my opinion is that the person they were is long gone. “They” are not there any more.
Not saying you have to agree or care, at all. Yet it does make a difference to me and to many people. I see a big difference in an early-term abortion and in China aborting “8 1/2 month twins.” I see a big difference in a miscarriage or early-term abortion versus a 26 week abortion, too.
____
“No, I don’t think you have a rational case, there, but of course you wouldn’t seriously try and argue it anyway.”
I wouldn’t? Try me.
Okay, let’s do the “handedness” one. How far do you really think you’ll get arguing that one?
____
Meanwhile, the wishes and liberty of the pregnant woman *do* matter to a lot of people. Does society have a good enough reason to have your hypothetical be illegal? I think so. Does society have a good enough reason to ban abortion prior to a point in gestation? I do not think so.
I’m sorry, but it looks like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Apparently, the wishes and liberty of the pregnant woman do matter to a lot of people, but the wishes of many more people who would restrict abortion to specific, limited cases, don’t matter? Tell me this; who gets to decide what’s a good enough reason to ban abortion. Aside from you, obviously.
If one of us is trying to have the cage and eat it too, it’s you, IMO. You’re giving your opinion but also attempting to portray it as “necessary external truth,” while I’m not. I’ve never said that your wishes or the wishes of people who want to further restrict or ban abortion don’t matter. They most certainly do.
The group that gets to decide on a good enough reason to ban abortion is whatever one has the sufficient opinion for the law to be. In the end, it could be just enough people like you and me. Or it could be a smaller group – for example, if the President and all members of Congress and the Supreme Court were in line with it.
“There is no “absolute safety.” I could be killed on the drive home from work today. The question is what is society’s position on it, and the same for the unborn.”
CT: There’s no safety from accidents. Does that mean we shouldn’t seek safety from society legally allowing the killing of an entire group of vulnerable human beings?
No, I don’t say that at all. My point is that there’s nothing “inherent” going on. It comes down to whether that seeking takes place or not, and to what society’s position is.
__
“You can present any number of hypotheticals, but again, the Birth Standard, and, for that matter – thousands of years of tradition and history – make what you say very unlikely. If anything, I think it is population pressure itself that would make things like what you propose become likely.”
Pressure towards euthanasia for the sick and disabled is already growing.
Well, there’s already significant population pressure. CT, do you mean in the US? I’m not aware of that, but if so, why do you say so? I was thinking of something like severe food shortages. Not saying we’ll see it, overall, in the US in our lifetimes, even, but IMO that is one thing that would really do it.
____
“Any line like that is arbitrary – it’s subject to will, desires, choice, judgment, etc. It’s not something with external existence beyond the mind. What you want is for society to change where it draws the line.”
The state of being born no more exists “beyond the mind” than the state of being Jewish or black or disabled, or in a coma. All these criteria are nothing but a choice society makes that some humans should not be granted the full array of rights available to other humans. That you think being unborn is a good category to exclude is nothing but your desire and judgement that the right to bodily autonomy (which some guy rightly points out is rarely at issue) is more inviolable than the right to live. You chose a strange right as the one you desire society to consider inviolable. There is no logical basis for saying that a human being can be killed one moment before birth (or is it even in the birth canal), but not one moment after.
First, I gotta say that born or not, skin pigmentation, being disabled or in a coma – all those things are physical fact, they are external physical reality, i.e. they really are “beyond the mind.” They will be true, or not, whether you or I agree or are even aware. Being Jewish – religion is “in the mind,” however, if Joe Blow thinks of himself as Jewish and is accepted by others as Jewish then I’d say that too is external fact – it’s not depending on what you or I think. No biggie – they’re all the same in that respect.
You are right – society chooses. And yes – I’ve been giving my opinion, my valuations. I’m not saying that bodily autonomy is “inviolable,” though. Heck – there are many times when I do think society has a good enough reason to restrict it. I’m not excluding all the unborn – I’d draw the line at 22 weeks. Really, CT, I would never say that “one moment before birth” means the baby can be killed. I don’t totally agree with the Birth Standard for rights and personhood. I also think the restrictions we have on late-term abortions constitutes a limited form of rights & personhood for the unborn at that point.
I’m also not simply choosing the woman’s bodily autonomy “over” the right to life. The right to life has not been attributed to the unborn. Even if it would be, it could still be a question, an issue, though – just as with capital punishment, killings in self-defense, etc.
I go to GSU and someone showed me this link…Everyone’s heard me complain about the posters. I’m pro-life, but I didn’t go because I thought the advertising that called black children a “species” was scientifically misleading/incorrect and really offensive. It’s making us pro-life and religious kids on campus look REALLY BAD.
Half of my friends are in the other christian group on campus and are really mad because people thought they set up the event. In Atlanta, especially at a school like ours that is really diverse, I think you have to be more sensitive… I know lots of students of color didn’t go because they were offended by the posters.
Please don’t come back to our school. Ever. This whole thing is making it really hard for us to have student unity. Lots of people who went to that told me they were really, really angry and upset afterwords… but we’re going to organize a better event with a panel of other pro-life and choice and feminist and public health people at the school soon. A lot of the religious and pro-life people at school really want someone else representing us who isn’t going to bully people or say really weird racist things.
CC,
I was going to just pass over your drivel, but attempting an ad hominem, based on the fact that “A black man” was executed over the weekend, implying inconsistency in the anti-abortion crowd, is a solid example of your rotten intellectual skills, and moral turpitude.
Davis was convicted in open court, and 20 years of appeals, including lately the US Supreme Court, found nothing wrong in the entire case. Exacting punishment for a crime, especially one of malice, is nothing alike to abortion.
The proper riposte though, is the execution in Texas of a white man. The Bishop of Rome refused him clemency, as did nearly everyone else in America. I will take it as given you oppose the death penalty. So what gives? Two murderers executed the same week in America, and you highlight just the one as injust?
Come on, out with it!