Announcing 2nd Annual “Ask Them What They Mean by ‘Choice'” Blog Day, January 22
Our response last year to NARAL’s “Blog for Choice Day” was frankly spectacular.
The plan was simple.
Every year NARAL uses the anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision to try to talk up “choice.”
But last year pro-lifers banded together on our blogs, their blogs, Facebook, and Twitter to cut through their ambiguous chatter with the disquieting question, “What do you mean when you say, ‘choice’?”
In all, 99 pro-life bloggers and countless activists overwhelmed 90 pro-abortion bloggers to the point NARAL had to abandon its Twitter hashtag #BlogforChoiceDay mid-morning because we took it over.
The idea is simple. On January 22, any time you read pro-aborts spouting obscure “choice” rhetoric on a blog, website, Facebook, or Twitter, call them out on it. Ask them to explain what the “choice” euphemism means. Tweeters plan to use their #Tweet4Choice hashtag.
If you are a blogger, plan on posting about “choice” on January 22. Email me the name and url of your blog, and I will post you as a participant.
Feel free to use the graphic above. Thanks to pro-life graphic designer Kimberly of Spectacle Graphics for creating it.
More details to follow.
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.
ZOEgirl Canada will be participating on this Pro-Life Blog Day on January 22! ZOEgirl is one of the most pro-life bands of all time! BarlowGirl and Skillet are also good examples of pro-life bands.
But wouldn’t the response just be the right to decide between abortion, adoption, or keeping the child? That seems like a fairly easy question to answer.
Elizabeth–read the last phrase of your sentence…”….the child.” They want the choice to abort the child. What is abortion?It CANNOT be anything less, or other, than this: a mom killing her own child before he or she gets to make his own choice.
Wht can’t men be pro-choice when it comes to sexual assault?
Why can’t I be pro-choice when it comes to drinking and driving?
Why can’t you be pro-choice when it comes to whether you feed your children or not?
Because that would be ridiculous. So is choosing whether you want your child to live or die. CHOICE, as a blanket term, is just stupid. Proaborts want you to choose abortion. Satan gives them special little medals when they have thier meetings.
I’m sorry – I have not met a single pro-choice person that WANTS everyone to abort their babies. I think they just want to have autonomy and the power to choose what is right for their own body. If you think abortion is murder that’s fine, but don’t conflate the right to an abortion with “EVERYBODY HAVE AN ABORTION!!”
Elizabeth, not ‘everyone’ just ‘everyone who may in some miniscule way be negatively affected by a preganancy at this time’ and ‘everyone whom society deems to young, too poor, or already having too many kids’ and ‘everyone who may be carrying a less than perfect baby’. No, pro-aborts don’t want “everyone” to have abortions, after all, if you are between 28 and 35, have one or fewer current children, are in a stable relationship with money in the bank, a good job, economic outlook, and private insurance, and all the prenatal tests come back perfect, they absolutely 100% agree women have a ‘choice’ between parenting, adoption, and abortion. Otherwise, in their oft-repeated and venomously spilled words, abortion is the *only* fitting ‘choice’ and anything else just simply unacceptable.
I’ve yet to meet a proabort who in any way encourages women to do anything other than abort. Get back to us with a list of prochoice charities aimed at helping women keep their babies instead of aborting. Never once in all my time sidewalk counseling has any proabort ever offered to help a woman either keep her baby or pay for her abortion. Not. Once. They’re happy to shove you through the clinic doors and spit a few expletives at prolifers-after that, you’re on your own. Where are proaborts when women are bleeding and crying after the abortion? Same place they always are-hiding. Where are proaborts when single mothers are struggling to feed their kids, or find jobs? Busy shrieking for their own entitlements.We’ve heard the ‘we support all choices’ schtick ad nauseum-now its time to prove it. Unless you’re too busy denigrating mothers on Twitter by calling them broodmares, breeding units, etc…let’s see some prochoice charities that are feeding, clothing and helping the poor-google it for yourself-all you’ll get is abortion funds.
no no no elizabeth you are wrong! listen you have body autonomy before you make a baby. that body autonomy bs is so old and stale! it doesnt hold water. you sound like a fool. and indeed the pro choice does want you to choose death. its another point for their team!
Great post Jespren. Well stated.
my above post should say pro choice crowd….anyway elizabeth pro choicers dont want a thing to do with pro lifers because we choose life. once you have a baby in your womb you should take care of it. abortion doesnt mean you arent a mom. abortion just makes you the mom of a Dead BABY!
Too often I have heard pro-choice family members pressure young pregnant women to abort, even if they were over the age of 20. I also hear the same family members try to tell married women how to space their children. “I’m just thinking of what’s best..” they usually say. I have heard a family member scream in a pregnant woman’s face during Thanksgiving that she should abort and I have seen other family members evict the pregnant from their home(s) for not aborting.
Many years ago, a family member tried to force her daughter to abort; made the appointment and drove her many miles to the building. The daughter refused to abort her mother’s grandchild. On the drive home, the mother pulled the car over and beat and kicked her own daughter in the stomach trying to force a miscarriage. Guess who was never invited to family celebrations after that? The child survived and today has children of his own.
So don’t tell me that pro-choice people are thinking only of their own “bodily autonomy,” which itself is nothing but “might makes right.” Lots of women who have killed their own children push others to do the same.
@Elizabeth: I have to chime in on the “choice means abortion” bit. Certainly there are any number of abortion apologists who will say, “No, it’s about choice and all of them are okay!” as you have said. But in a practical, boots-on-the-ground sense, their advice to pregnant women who are struggling seems to always come down to abortion. Aside from that, the word “choice” is frequently used as a euphemism for abortion.
And even outside of those two points, holding up abortion as an acceptable choice (and reducing it to nothing but) is an effort to normalize via language the unjust taking of innocent life. Which is why you see so many posters of aborted children with the word “choice” on them. Because that’s what that choice means.
bravo ninek! i will throw a few pro choicers a bone and say that there are a few who are okay with a woman choosing life. BUT they are far and few between. a lot of my girlfriends had abortions because their mothers did. their mothers convinced them it was ” no big deal.” but oh the regrets. remember the white girl who was a teen pregnant from a black man and her mom and dad tied her up tossed her in the car and tried to force her to abort? she told her parents she had to urinate and they stopped at a store so she could do so. the brave girl told store employees what her parents were doing to her and they called police. so much for choice. the girl had her baby! thats empowerment!
agreed alice;)
And then ask some of the ‘pro-lifers’ whether they support the death penalty or not. If they say yes then ask them what the ‘pro-life’ euphemism means.
I’ve always been against the death penalty. But, at least the criminals are adults who get legal representation. The death penalty solves nothing; it doesn’t undo the original crimes, nor does it bring slain victims back to life.
Please do supply us with a list of pro-death penalty pro-lifers. I’d be curious to see who’s on it.
Personally, my least favorite form of hypocrisy is pro-abortion vegans. Ugh.
@REality, there is a difference between the intentional killing of innocent life (the child in the womb) and a convicted murderer being executed for the deliberate killing of an innocent. Is all killing the same to you?
It isn’t necessarily contradictory to be pro-life and support the death penalty, at least in theory.
Since human life is the most valuable thing a person has, taking their life is the worst possible offense against them. Therefore only thing a murderer has that would approach a just punishment is their own life. Support for the death penalty is due to the fact that life is so very valuable, not in spite of it. In theory, anyway. In practice, right now, in the US, there are a number of things wrong with the way capital punishment is played out in our system and at least until those are straightened out, we really should put a moratorium on it entirely.
As ninek points out, though, a murderer is neither innocent nor are they summarily executed simply for being unwanted. This comparison is apples and oranges. But even if it weren’t, it would only mean supporters are wrong about the death penalty. That doesn’t make them wrong to oppose abortion.
im okay with the death penalty. unborn children are innocent! quite different from a grown woman choking her kids to death or a heartless child molester raping a child and tossing her into a garbage can ( take the case of jessica lunsford) the guy locked her in his closet for a week raped her and then buried her alive. florida gave him the death penalty but he died of natural causes before it came to that. do people like this deserve death?? you bet!
Reality, I’m pro-life and pro-death penalty, the two are complementary, not opposite. Pro-life means I believe, fully, that no human being, from the moment of ‘being’ until they cease to ‘be’ should be deprived of life without due process under the law. In the U.S. a human being is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But just like liberty can be revoked if a suitable crime has been proven commited, so can life. And rightly so, taking another’s life is so heinous that taking the guilty life is the only just punishment. But the unborn, while fully 100% human beings, are completely innocent of any crime that could even begin to merit the death penalty before a court of law. Being 100% pro-life in no way counterintutive to supporting justice and just punishment for willing criminals.
jespren….congrats on the pregnancy!!!!!!
Thanks Heather :) ironically (s)he has the same due date (by lmp) as my 1st kid. But since my cycle is a bit longer than usual I’m think first week in sept is more likely.
And thank you, Prolifer L. :)
“Personally, my least favorite form of hypocrisy is pro-abortion vegans. Ugh.” – :-) , come now, I’m sure there are instances of what you see as hypocrisy that you would favor even less.
“Is all killing the same to you?” – evidently not.
Questions for the supporters of the death penalty:
Does a thug who randomly rapes and kills someone deserve the death penalty?
Does someone who gets so angry in traffic that they drive into and kills someone deserve the death penalty?
Does a woman whose partner has beaten and abused her for years, who shots him while he sleeps, deserve the death penalty?
And for those who don’t support the death penalty:
Do you protest outside of or boycott businesses who deal with state executioners? What about their church? Their kids school?
“ask them what the euphemism ‘pro-life’ means.”
Ok. Then call me anti-abortion. Problem, Reality? lol
I’m glad I dusted off my old blog and gave it a makeover now. I can’t wait to write an article for my birthday about how I have to share my day with a legal decision that ensured MILLIONS of my peers would never see theirs.
Elizabeth,
By that reasoning, Pro-Life is also Pro-Choice, since we support the choices of parenting or adoption, and do not mandate only one outcome of childbirth.
Really, when you get down to it, the only difference between “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” IS abortion. That’s why the “choice” in “Pro-Choice” means “abortion”. And, as evidenced by the recent article about the facilitation of illegal abortion by Women On Waves, they don’t even care if it is legal, they’re willing to risk lives and freedom for abortion. I’ve had plenty of Choice Twit-wits tell me they’d self-abort/help others to do so if abortion was made illegal.
Wow, didn’t realize who supported capital punishment here. Still, since the convicts are adults with representation, I find it less hypocritical than pro-choice vegans. Reality asked me if there were other forms of hypocrisy as bad: none that I find so thoroughly annoying. Yes, there’s a lot of hypocrisy in the human race, but some is less grating than others. Was it Dante who wrote that in hell the hypocrites would be weighed down by lead robes?
I’ve written against the death penalty but haven’t engaged in any organized protests other than letter writing, voting, and petition signing. I do, however, volunteer with infirm and disabled elderly, and I do raise money for a scholarship fund for a large and famous university, and I raise money for grade school children. All of those are “positive” pro-life acts which impact people of all ages.
I think it’s fine for people on the opposite side to call us on our hypocrisy. And I continue to hope that you change sides, Reality. Come on over, we have great food at our potluck events!
Reality, well, I’ll give you two answers to your question.
1st my personal belief on who ‘deserves’ the death penalty is simple: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” Gen 9:6. Elsewhere it specifies that there should be 3 witnesses in agreement in order for the law to enact a death penalty for an alleged murder. Personally I would consider a piece of forensic evidence, like a fingerprint or dna to be 1 witness each, but I know Biblical Christians who take a different view on what weight physical evidence should be given, some are willing to give it more, some less.
This is what I would advocate for, if you kill someone and it’s not in self defense or the immediate defense of another, you deserve the death penalty, so to answer your hypopotheticals, yes, yes, yes. (Now if the battered wife shot her husband while he was awake and coming at her that would be justified self defense and the man got exactly what he deserved, but he’s no threat to anyone asleep.)
Now from a current legal perspective, given my understanding of standing law: 1)yes as the murder was during or in furtherance of another crime, the rape, that should be tried as 1st degree murder and should absolutely merit the death penalty. 2) probably not given I don’t think you could legally prove 1st degree murder, as the perpetrator could argue, probably convincingly, that he didn’t *intend* to kill anyone and there was no premeditation. 3) yes as the murder was premeditated and there was no direct threat to mitigate it, however, I do not think a jury would convict because of the current victim mentality rife in the justice so if I was prosecuting the case I would probably include a lesser charge since i’d rather her be convicted of a lesser charge than found not guilty.
hey jespren i have an april 20th baby and an april 19th baby. had i gone to my april 19th appt i would have had 2 april 19th babies…lol. they induced me at 39 and a half weeks because my blood pressure was up a bit. i also have 2 may babies! i love pregnancy. its so exciting;)
It would appear that santorum thinks children are better off with a jailed parent than a gay parent. I winder if it matters what they’ve been jailed for. Murder maybe? Or child abuse?
And for those who claimed that he wouldn’t bring his faith into the presidency to any great extent, how about “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual liberty idea. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Theoretically, I favor the death penalty.
That said, I would gladly trade the abolition of the death penalty for the abolition of abortion. And I think virtually every other pro-lifer would too.
Some of us in the pro-life movement believe that killing is morally allowable when done in the context of the death penalty. But we are not obsessed with preserving the legality of this killing. Were the death penalty to end, we might not be pleased, but it ultimately wouldn’t be that big of deal to most of us.
Conversely, those in the pro-choice movement ARE obsessed with preserving the legality of their favored killing. They would NEVER trade abolition of abortion for abolition of the death penalty.
i guess my view on the death penalty depends on circumstances. many years ago id read the story of susan smith. smith strapped her 2 young boys into their carseats she jumped out of her car and pushed it into john d long lake. she then went to a residence and made up a story that an african american man forced her out of her car and kidnapped her boys. she went before the media begging for their safe return. but as cops took a closer look at the circumstances smith broke and confessed to the double homicides. she is serving a life sentence. prior to her marriage to david smith susan was having an affair with a married man. she became pregnant and aborted. she remained very troubled over relationships after the abortion and attempted suicide. smith began dating another man who wrote her off after they had dated. he told her he liked her but wasnt ready for kids. she then cracked and killed her boys.
Pro-lifist, (is it supposed to be pro-lifest?) Well said indeed. I am a firm death penalty advocate, I believe 100% there can not be a proper justice system without one, but I would trade that in a second if it would stop abortions. Rather a broken justice system (we already have that anyway!) than the slaughter of innocents!
Heather, I thoughly enjoy pregnancy too. I love feeling the baby move. I love my big belly. I love those ‘exclusive’ first months before we have to share our little ones with the world. (And I love not having a period! My periods are so miserable I could never as a teenager understand why women didn’t stay pregnant *just* to avoid that blasted period. But then, two all-natural labors under my belt and my contractions have yet to hit the intensity of my period cramps). Despite how physically miserable pregnancy makes me (chronic pain and joint condition greatly aggrevated by pregnancy plus, no pain pills while pregnant so no real treatment for my pain either) I can’t help but just love it! I’m thrilled God ‘overruled’ us and we became pregnant despite our (non hormonal) attempts to avoid pregnancy. ‘Unplanned’ doesn’t mean ‘unwanted’!
“Where are proaborts when single mothers are struggling to feed their kids, or find jobs?”
Volunteering/working in food banks, crisis housing centers, community health clinics, mentoring programs and the like, just as often as pro-lifers. Oh, and lobbying for the “entitlements” that conservative pro-lifers love to disparage.
Pregnant women have tons of resources in my area. The food bank is well-staffed and gets donations from tons of local restaurants and groceries. Our county’s general assistance program helps any family in need with non-food expenses. Community centers provide early childhood education, childcare, and job skills programs. Our city’s free health & mental health clinics are even open on Saturdays. The woman’s shelter provides legal assistance to help women leave abusive situations and apply for citizenship if they’re non-native. The United Way has myriad resources for struggling families, too.
Through a combination of federal and state funds, as well as generous private donations, these organizations provide true assistance people in need. Of course, we don’t have a bunch of pro-life conservatives in this town crawling at the social safety net so underprivileged pregnant women fall into the clutches of CPCs, ripe and ready to be indoctrinated.
i agree jespren. pregnancy is a joyful time of celebration. i remember model angie everheart became pregnant later in her life. everheart made it quite clear “my pregnancy was unplanned NOT unwanted”!!!!! angie has joined the ranks of many others. her modeling career had nothing on being a mom! im always happy to see them embrace motherhood.
@Pro-lifist: I would take you up on that in a heartbeat. If ending abortion means ending the death penalty as well, then I’ll take that and call it cheap.
Yes ninek, I was slightly taken aback by who and how many here supported state execution when this topic came up previously.
“Come on over, we have great food at our potluck events!” – I won’t be coming ‘over’ and my partner requires a quite specialized diet which makes ‘potluck’ far too risky so I shall politely decline your generous invitation.
That is an easy answer. Pro choice to kill the baby.
ick wasnt it reality who eats in the nude? gross. i dont want to even picture it. a special diet? are you a diva?
when reality told us he ate nude i think i puked in my mouth. tell me do you also watch “fetus porn”??? sicko.
pass the steak and burgers. i need meat in MY diet. oh and susan smith should have gotten the death penalty. i forgot to give my opinion.
“ick wasnt it reality who eats in the nude?” – only on special occasions.
“gross. i dont want to even picture it.” – you can’t, you have no idea what I look like.
“a special diet? are you a diva?” – I said my partner, not me. For medical reasons. Are you illiterate?
“tell me do you also watch “fetus porn”??? sicko.” – I’m not the one running around with placards and films of fetuses. Think!
I’m not vegetarian either.
thats the problem with pro aborts. sex sex sex. look at lisa c. and her fetus porn comment. she can look at a dead baby and seriously call it porn? even if it was a joke it was sick. maybe if you pro aborts didnt always have sex on the brain we wouldnt have 75 million dead babies. gah im no prude and i enjoy sex but it doesnt rule my world. it doesnt invade my mind 2 4 7 sheesh.
i dont care what you look like! put some clothes on you pig!
i should have said you dirty disgusting nasty pig. thats better. i could care less what your partner eats. shes with you so shes got to be just as bad.
What are you on heather?
End abortion, end the death penalty, go vegetarian. Pro-life!
bye reality. youre a total joke.
Can’t we all just get along? Oh, I guess not. After all, the choice is life or death.
hans….lol;)
Um, Heather? Did someone else post under your name? Cuz that tirade against Reality seemed off topic, incredibly rude, and not like your usual posts. Reality certainly has some issues, but going off on the dirty, nasty pig line because of possible eating habits doesn’t seem to have an upside. I kind of doubt he’s stripping in restaurants, who cares if he eats naked in the privacy of his own home? One of the funniest things my dad ever said was, at breakfast one morning, “kids, never cook bacon naked” because we all knew it meant he’d got hungry in the middle of the night and just headed from bed to the stove. And why not (well, because of grease splatters) it’s his house and everyone else was asleep. I’ve gotten up in the middle of the night while pregnant and naked to gobble some food before going back to sleep. Company requires clothes, not food. And again, it was just completely off topic and didn’t seem to fit with posts I remember of your from the past.
Well… hold on, here; no need to descend to insults, on either side.
The original question is based on a perennial truth: advocates of legal abortion usually do not, for one reason or another, tend to specify the “choice” they advocate, and they often go to great lengths to use vague euphemisms for it. Consider the number of follow-up questions that are often needed to get to specifics, and it’s rather telling:
A: “I support a woman’s right to choose.”
B: “The right to choose what?”
A: “The right to choose what to do with her own body.”
B: “In what specific respect, in this case?”
A: “The right to decide whether or not to be pregnant.”
B: “Pro-lifers support that right, in general; do you mean something more specific?”
A: “The right to discontinue a pregnancy.”
B: “Discontinue it in what specific way?”
A: “By abortion.”
B: “What does that involve?”
A: “Stopping the pregnancy before birth.”
B: “The birth of what?”
A: “The fetus, of course!”
B: “The biological offspring of the mother (and father)?”
A: “Yes.”
B: “How is the pregnancy stopped?”
A: “By removing the fetus.”
B: “Intentionally?”
A: “Of course.”
B: “Does that offspring die in the process?”
A: “With most methods of abortion, yes.”
B: “What methods would those be?”
A: “D & C, D & E, saline, RU 486, other types of induced labor, and so on. Look them up, if you’re so interested.”
B: “All right, I did; the first two kill the living offspring by dismemberment, the third burns the offspring to death, and the last two expel the offspring before he or she can survive outside the womb. You support this?”
A: “What’s your point? I support a woman’s decision.”
B: “A decision to enact what I’ve just described, or not, as she sees fit?”
A: “Yeah, I guess. Why?”
B: “In summary: you support a woman’s legal right to kill her pre-born offspring by premature evacuation, dismemberment, and/or burning, in order to stop a pregnancy she doesn’t want?”
True, the above scenario is a conflation of several abortion-tolerant responses I’ve heard in the past; but it’s patently obvious that all but the most grotesquely callous of legal abortion advocates (many of whom haunt internet chat rooms, blogs, etc.) are quite “cagey” in their portrayals of what they support… which is quite odd. I know of few other causes where the advocates are not willing, and even eager, to describe in vivid detail that which they support. One would suspect a guilty conscience… or at least a sort of animal cunning which detects the typical person’s repugnance for discussing the brutalisation of one’s own child.
paladin–
That’s why the proaborts hate the pictures of the ultrasounds and the aborted bodies. There is no rhetoric that can surmount their truth, which is to say,
Killing innocent babies is wrong.
Choice? Just another word for murdering the weak.
Jespren: Elizabeth, not ‘everyone’ just ‘everyone who may in some miniscule way be negatively affected by a pregnancy at this time’ and ‘everyone whom society deems to young, too poor, or already having too many kids’ and ‘everyone who may be carrying a less than perfect baby’. No, pro-aborts don’t want “everyone” to have abortions, after all, if you are between 28 and 35, have one or fewer current children, are in a stable relationship with money in the bank, a good job, economic outlook, and private insurance, and all the prenatal tests come back perfect, they absolutely 100% agree women have a ‘choice’ between parenting, adoption, and abortion. Otherwise, in their oft-repeated and venomously spilled words, abortion is the *only* fitting ‘choice’ and anything else just simply unacceptable.
That’s really just a straw man argument, though.
If somebody is actually, “pro-abortion,” that is one thing. For pro-choicers, however, it’s not up to us or anybody else besides the pregnant woman whether she’s too old, young, rich or poor, etc.
Doug, that’s the whole point. What does the word CHOICE mean?
Bloody babies in buckets. It does NOT mean adoption. It never has. If you can get to a place in your conscience that one unborn baby is expendable, then we all (post-ROE) were vulnerable to the crisis-induced whims of the mother.
The killers need to choose another word. Oh, I know! KILLING.
Courtnay, women already have the right to continue pregnancies if they want to, and it’s not really an issue, i.e. there isn’t a meaningful portion of people who want abortions to be mandatory, are there?
The choice is the legal choice of having abortions or not, and that certainly includes giving birth and keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption.
Yeh, heather, I think you do need to apologize to Reality. I thought name-calling wasn’t allowed on this blog? We can disagree with pro-aborts and not resort to the insults.
Doug, in theory you might be correct, in reality your ‘pro-choice’ people are completely indistinguishable from pro-abortion people in their behaviors, words, counsel, and deeds. In 20 years of apologetics I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve met who claim to be pro-choice who are anything other than pro-abortion, believing abortion to be the *only* acceptable choice in at least some situation.
I don’t know why we’re so hung up on “pro-choice” vs “pro-abortion.” They’re the same thing. To be “pro-choice” as defined by our culture today, you have to be pro-women-being-able-to-choose-abortion. To be pro-choosing-a-certain-choice is to be pro-that-choice.
As Paladin rightly noted, it should be very telling to everyone that pro-choicers try to disguise what exactly they are “pro-“.
Yes, they are the same. but “we want choices’ sounds so much better than “we want abortion doesn’t it?” It’s all semantics when it comes to prochoice rhetoric. LOL @ the old ‘but you support the death penalty’ strawman. So do you, prochoice, but in your case the condemned are innocent, get no trial, and are put to death for the ‘choices’ of others nearly 4000 times a day. And yeah, Megan, we’re busily ‘indoctrinating’ women as we give them free food, cribs etc, unl;ike feminist ‘DV shelters’ which are indoctrination centers (not to mention great places for double y chromo type deathscorts to hit on vulnerable women. Again, name some prochoice charities that are actually helping women feed their kids (or keep the ones they’re pregnant with) ya know, names, locations of charities, links, stuff like that? I’ll just wait over here…
I wasn’t perturbed by heather’s words to me. But they did seem out of character so I wondered if she was a little ‘tired and emotional’ :-)
It would have been helpful if she’d got her facts straight though. I said nothing about what I eat. I mentioned my partner, who has to be extremely careful about what she eats and drinks due to a serious medical issue.
You are wrong Courtnay. For virtually all pro-choicers choice includes birth or adoption as well as abortion.
It is up to each individual woman concerned to decide what is “the *only* acceptable choice” for her. And that includes you.
Reality, but we’re ok with choosing to parent or put up for adoption as well, but that’s not good enough for pro-choicers. We have to be cool with choosing abortion in order for everything to be kosher. Obviously, it’s about abortion. Why do you contest this very simple logic?
Reality,
Put your money and your time where your mouth is.
You volunteer at your nearest Pregnancy Resource Center right?
You attend their Banquet for Life and write your check in support?
You donate diapers and wipes and help sort through the baby clothes?
Nice try.
“Virtually all” means nothing when you support and promote abortion.
This is about the choice regarding who uses our bodies. The analogy between pro-choicers and the “choice” to rape, drive drunk, or any number of things is asinine, and I’ll explain why.
Embryos and fetuses must use a woman’s body for survival, and often at the expense of her own immune system and sometimes her health. A woman deserves the right to either allow another person to use her body or not.
If you needed blood or organs, and would die if you did not get them, you never gave a right to demand that someone else offer them up to you. That would not be your choice, but the choice of whoever owns the blood or organs. The same goes for an embryo or fetus. It can never be their choice, but must be the choice of the woman whose body is being used.
The fact that pregnancy means offering up your body, something that belongs to the woman and the woman alone, sets it apart from the ridiculous analogies attempted here. A person cannot rape or drive drunk because that infringes on others’ rights. And a fetus cannot be given the right to occupy a woman’s body against her will because her own right to bodily autonomy trumps that (just as your right to not donate organs or any part of your body trumpsy right to live should I need them).
Make more sense now? This honestly isn’t a difficult question when a person’s bodily autonomy and rights to their own bodies are taken into account.
I’m more worried about what is “the *only* acceptable choice” for the human being gestating away blissfully unaware that mommy’s pondering having them killed. I highly doubt being killed and removed is a great career move for them.
Avak, the difference is, the person in need is the son or daughter of the woman (and man – let’s not forget the fathers who have no say) in question. There absolutely is precedent for requiring that parents care for their children.
Is a mother allowed to let her 2 year old child starve to death? Is that an ok choice with you too? Do we let parents dump their children off anywhere when they don’t feel like raising them anymore?
Give me a break. The problem isn’t “bodily autonomy.” You have that when you make the choice to create a child. This is about you still denying that the living human inside the mother is a person with the same right to live as any born human.
Bodily autonomy is a feminist construct, especially considering an unborn human is an autonomous being all on his/her own, which makes the ‘autonomy’ script self-refuting.
A fetus isn’t a person so we can kill it, but a person isn’t allowed to use a womb without permission… doh! Does not compute, Will Robinson!!
So, do tell, abortion fans, where can my fetus fill out his application for occupation?? And since you are alive to type, did your mother save your certificate of Occupation Permission and hang it on the fridge??
“Put your money and your time where your mouth is.” – you have no idea.
“You volunteer at your nearest Pregnancy Resource Center right?” – there are more worthwhile contributions I can make than through agenda-driven organisations.
“You attend their Banquet for Life and write your check in support?” – not an agenda I support.
“You donate diapers and wipes and help sort through the baby clothes?” – yes actually, I have done that and more. Furniture, household goods, cash, food, education and support.
Nice try.
Back in the olden days, a man who couldn’t read or write was allowed to make an X on the spot for his signature. What is a fetus to do, when she or he can’t even hold a pen yet?
Is it really fair to impose the death penalty on the smallest of minor children?
See, abortion isn’t about being fair. It’s about MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Jespren: Doug, in theory you might be correct, in reality your ‘pro-choice’ people are completely indistinguishable from pro-abortion people in their behaviors, words, counsel, and deeds. In 20 years of apologetics I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve met who claim to be pro-choice who are anything other than pro-abortion, believing abortion to be the *only* acceptable choice in at least some situation.
In some situations, some people will indeed be for abortion, i.e. there are such fetal deficiencies present that it’s much removed from most pregnancies. That doesn’t mean they’re not pro-choice, in general. Same as vast numbers of “pro-lifers” are okay with an exception for rape.
“Bodily autonomy is a feminist construct.”
So you wouldn’t mind if I came over to your house and wrenched out your teeth? Mine are looking kind of shabby these days, could use a new pair.
Avak, women absolutely have a right to avoid preganancy is she doesn’t want her body to support a fetus. (Which, btw, it’s oft and accurately been said a woman is never healthier than while pregnant. Pregnancy can compromise a woman’s health, but usually it does the opposite, including providing life-long boosts in health)
Choice, however, happens before actions, not after. In case you missed 8th grade (or 2nd grade depending upon your age) biology/human development, fetuses do not spontaneously appear in a woman’s womb. They do not wander the streets late at night in little gangs with names like ‘proto human tyrants’ seeking unsuspecting empty wombs to inhabit. Nor has humanity thought wombs slipped out of women’s bodies and went wandering around seeking carnal activities to get themselves pregnant since the Ancient Roman Empire (and frankly it wasn’t universally accepted then either). Your arguement would make *some* sense if humanity didn’t know how the heck those little people get into a woman’s body. But, thankfully, we are more enlightened than that. If a woman doesn’t want her body ‘used’ for pregnancy she has (barring rape which is a separate discusion) a 100% sure way to avoid getting pregnant, as well as several less sure ways she can choose if she is willing to accept some risk of pregnancy. But.com once YOU HAVE INVITED that new little life to use your body, it isn’t proper, right, just, moral, etc to them withdraw your invitation.
Your analogy of organ donation is lacking proper context and timing. Abortion isn’t like refusing to give an organ to save a life, it’s ripping the alreay donated organ out of the separate person who now needs it to survive. Once you give someone the right to your kidney by agreeing to donation you can’t revoke that donation, not 2 days after the donation or 8 months after, and demand your kidney back.
Andrew ensley: I don’t know why we’re so hung up on “pro-choice” vs “pro-abortion.” They’re the same thing. To be “pro-choice” as defined by our culture today, you have to be pro-women-being-able-to-choose-abortion. To be pro-choosing-a-certain-choice is to be pro-that-choice.
Wrong – being for abortion being legal is not the same thing as wanting the state to mandate it for women or “being for abortion,” in general. I’m for tattoos being legal, but in no way do I want to get one, and it wouldn’t bother me if nobody got them.
“Choice, however, happens before actions, not after” – no, we also have choices about how we deal with the consequences of our actions.
Having sex with no intention of conceiving does not mean that ‘YOU HAVE INVITED’ anything.
Driving a car does not mean that ‘YOU HAVE INVITED’ being involved in an accident.
LOL Ninek-doesn’t seem to bother them when they’re ‘occupying’ parks, crapping on sidewalks, obstructing traffic, running up millions in police overtime, refusing to leave when police ask them to…
“I consented to smoking three packs a day, but not to lung cancer!”
“I consented to driving drunk, but not to jail time for killing those people I hit while driving drunk!”
“I consented eating big macs every day, but I didn’t consent to that heart attack I hadI”
Too bad they won’t consent to growing up.
Take the analogy to its logical extent, MPCQ:
“I consented to smoking three packs a day, but not to lung cancer and not to ideologues trying to prevent me from accessing treatment for my condition.”
Yes, Megan, but the lung cancer isn’t another human baby.
Reality, yes, we get further choices about consequences. But those are about dealing with those consequences, not the underlying choice. It is a lie to call abortion a reproductive choice. You’ve already reproduced. If you want to argue that a parent *should* have the legal right to kill an unwanted offspring, well then, you are being honest in your position and reasonable debate is now possible. But you can not have reasonable discourse (and expect to get anywhere) with a person who lies and misstates their basic premise. Trying to debate abortion as a ‘reproductive choice’ is just as pointless and futile as trying to debate genocide as a ‘ethnic cleansing’.
Oh, and getting behind the wheel of a car doesn’t mean you *want* to have an accident, but it does mean you’ve accepted that possibility. People who refuse to acknowledge common facts such as the possibility of an accident while driving are considered to have a mental issue. And it’s not legal to go kill the driver that just caused you to have an accident/involved you in an accident. You can sue him for compensation (much like you can sue a man for child support even if the child is unplanned), but you don’t have the right to kill him because something you didn’t want but did invite by driving (invite isn’t always a positive word, haven’t you ever heard the phrase ‘to invite disaster’?) happened at his hand. If you have sex, you are inviting pregnancy. It’s a biological possibilty, and, in fact, the way it’s *supposed* to work. You can try to cheat the odds, just like we do with airbags and seatbelts, but ultimately if it happens, it happened, and you accepted that possibility by engaging in the action.
Personally, I don’t believe parents should be allowed the ‘choice’ to kill their kids. And I don’t believe they should have that choice regardless of how old the offspring is. I do believe a parent should have the right to give up their responsibilities as a parent by handing their offspring to another responsible party. If the offspring is 3 years old that might mean waiting a few hours or days for a social worker to pick up the kid. If the offspring is a newborn that might mean an immediate ability (thanks to sanctuary laws) by simply leaving the newborn when you leave the hospital. For a women who just discovered she is pregnant that might mean (depending upon how far along she is) a several months wait. It sucks. It also sucks when a car accident happens and you have to wait a month to get your car back or 6 months to get out of traction or 3 years to walk again. But you still can’t morally justify killing that which inconviences you.
Megan, treatment helps, not hurts. No one (that I’m aware of) is trying to keep pregnant women from getting treatment (prenatal care) for their pregnancy. Abortion doesn’t treat a pregnancy, it kills a baby.
Pregnancy. Is. Not. A. DISEASE!!!
Doug, you completely missed the point. Yes, we get that you say you just want the choice, not to actually do it. The point is you want other people to be able to make that choice, so you absolutely are pro-that-choice. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t allow it. You can’t deny that simple fact.
Your tattoo analogy is perfect. You absolutely are pro-tattoos if you think people should be allowed to get them. I am too, by the way – though I’d never get one. But if getting a tattoo were someone how morally reprehensible to you, you wouldn’t want others to get them either.
Let’s replace abortion with something else, say bullying. Let’s say I’m “pro-choice” in that I want others to be allowed to bully at school. I’d never do it myself, but I think it’s a choice others should have. Would you say that I am for or against bullying?
You can’t pretend to take this “well I don’t care, I’m just a neutral” attitude on this issue. You just can’t. It’s far too important. It’s far too serious. At the very least, you are an enabler. Wouldn’t you agree? And do you really want to be an enabler for the slaughter of over 50 million innocent children?
“It is a lie to call abortion a reproductive choice.” – no it’s not, it’s a choice which stops reproduction.
You have the driving analogy a bit off track. We choose to get behind the wheel of a car knowing that we could be involved in an accident, despite a desire not to be involved in an accident.
We have traffic rules which attempt to reduce the likelihood. We have safety systems such as anti-skid brakes which are designed to prevent accidents, we have safety equipment such as airbags designed to be protective if an accident still occurs.
If we are unfortunate enough to still be involved in an accident and get injured then we have modern medicine which gets ever better at restoring us the the condition we were originally in.
no it’s not, it’s a choice which stops reproduction.
No, it doesn’t. Reproduction has already occurred. It kills the result that has been produced already.
Andrew,
You answered Doug’s comment perfectly. If one is “pro-having the legal choice to have a tattoo” you are “pro-allowing tattoos”. If you are “pro-having the legal choice to have an abortion”, you are “pro- (allowing) abortion”.
“No, it doesn’t” – yes it does. Stops, ceases, ends. I didn’t say prevents.
yes it does. Stops, ceases, ends. I didn’t say prevents.
You can’t stop/end/cease an event that’s already been completed, herp-a-derp.
Reproduction isn’t completed when a sperm bumps into an egg.
Abortion stops reproduction.
Gee, Reality, then you’re not for reproductive health care. You’re for: ” Reproduction? I don’t care!”, I suppose. Can starvation and education join the number of human conditions you regard with ennui?
Way to go Hans, displaying the same thinking as on the other thread!
If you can’t grasp or accept the concept that I believe a woman who wishes to be pregnant should get the best care and support possible then you might need to re-assess where your thought processes are coming from.
Reality says:
Reproduction isn’t completed when a sperm bumps into an egg.
Abortion stops reproduction.
*******************************************************
Oy vey. Let’s play the Redefine Words game again!
Science Dictionary
reproduction (r?’pr?-d?k’sh?n) The process by which cells and organisms produce other cells and organisms of the same kind. ? The reproduction of organisms by the union of male and female reproductive cells (gametes) is called sexual reproduction.
When sperm bumps into egg a new organism is created. Reproduction is complete and now the new organism develops. Abortion stops the new organism from developing. Abortion does not stop reproduction.
Andrew Ensley: Doug, you completely missed the point. Yes, we get that you say you just want the choice, not to actually do it. The point is you want other people to be able to make that choice, so you absolutely are pro-that-choice. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t allow it. You can’t deny that simple fact.
Yeah, Andrew, for that choice to be legal. You got it.
___
Your tattoo analogy is perfect. You absolutely are pro-tattoos if you think people should be allowed to get them. I am too, by the way – though I’d never get one. But if getting a tattoo were someone how morally reprehensible to you, you wouldn’t want others to get them either.
Yep.
____
Let’s replace abortion with something else, say bullying. Let’s say I’m “pro-choice” in that I want others to be allowed to bully at school. I’d never do it myself, but I think it’s a choice others should have. Would you say that I am for or against bullying?
Neither, per se. You neither want it mandated nor prohibited.
____
You can’t pretend to take this “well I don’t care, I’m just a neutral” attitude on this issue. You just can’t. It’s far too important. It’s far too serious. At the very least, you are an enabler. Wouldn’t you agree? And do you really want to be an enabler for the slaughter of over 50 million innocent children?
There is no capacity for guilt on the part of the unborn in the first place. And to say that a blastocyst (for example) would be a “child” is pretty darn wacky, IMO. Neutral is neutral. If nobody wanted to have abortions, that would be fine with me. Do you want to be “an enabler” for the people who want to “enslave women to their will” in the matter?
Hans: If one is “pro-having the legal choice to have a tattoo” you are “pro-allowing tattoos”. If you are “pro-having the legal choice to have an abortion”, you are “pro- (allowing) abortion”.
Hans, yes, being for the legality of the thing. The difference between being against a thing being prohibited and being for the thing, per se, remains.
“Neither, per se. You neither want it mandated nor prohibited.”
Yeah, when your kid comes home with a shiner from the kid who steals his lunch money and he says the school won’t do anything to stop it from happening again tomorrow just tell him “Well, buddy, the school is neutral and so am I.”
If you don’t oppose school bullying, you are probullying. If you don’t oppose abortion, you are proaborting. Really the same thing but one has a smaller, deader victim.
And to say that a blastocyst (for example) would be a “child” is pretty darn wacky, IMO.
Why? Because you’re ignorant of biology/human development and that facilitates the support of your deplorable stance?
Do you want to be “an enabler” for the people who want to “enslave women to their will” in the matter?
“enslave women to their will”? Seriously? Doug, do social workers who make case plans for families because of things like child abuse and neglect “enslave parents to their will”? Ugh. Do you think about the things you say?
I’m down for this blogging event. Sign me up.
“Neither, per se. You neither want it mandated nor prohibited.”
Praxedes: Yeah, when your kid comes home with a shiner from the kid who steals his lunch money and he says the school won’t do anything to stop it from happening again tomorrow just tell him “Well, buddy, the school is neutral and so am I.
What sense does that make? Who is neutral on bullying?
“And to say that a blastocyst (for example) would be a “child” is pretty darn wacky, IMO”.
Why? Because you’re ignorant of biology/human development and that facilitates the support of your deplorable stance?
Has nothing to do with it, X. It’s a subjective thing, the “ignorance,” if any, being on the part of those who don’t realize that.
____
“Do you want to be “an enabler” for the people who want to “enslave women to their will” in the matter?
“enslave women to their will”? Seriously? Doug, do social workers who make case plans for families because of things like child abuse and neglect “enslave parents to their will”? Ugh. Do you think about the things you say?
Of course, and it was in response to Andrew’s hyperbole.
Gosh, I hate when people say something and then later play stupid like they don’t know what I’m talking about. I have a family member who does this often and work with several students who do this almost daily.
IMHO, It’s ten times as stupid to play stupid when the conversation takes place in black and white. LOL
God can fix stupid, though. All you gotta do is ask.
Lrning, the human reproductive process can be regarded as incorporating everything from formation of the reproductive organs, through conception and gestation, up to and including birth.
Abortion stops the reproductive process, it ceases or ends reproduction.
It’s a subjective thing, the “ignorance,” if any, being on the part of those who don’t realize that.
But it’s NOT “a subjective thing”, Doug. It’s not! We’re dealing with VERY concrete principles here! A child is by definition the young of a human being-our offspring-which demonstrably encompasses the gestating human being. Subjectivity is just your pathetic attempt to legitimize something that has no legitimacy.
The reproduction of organisms by the union of male and female reproductive cells (gametes) is called sexual reproduction.
Hmmm…believe the science dictionary…or believe “Reality”…hmmm…decisions, decisions…
Subjectivitiy is the refuge of shallow thinking. “Maybe, maybe not. It’s all relative.” Well, not when we’re talking about extinguishing the life of someone’s relative, it’s not.
“The reproduction of organisms by the union of male and female reproductive cells (gametes) is called sexual reproduction.” – which does not negate what I said. It is part of the human reproductive process.
Hmmm…believe the medical textbooks…or believe “xalisae, who isn’t quite sure what constitutes an autobiography”…hmmm…decisions, decisions…
What sense does that make? Who is neutral on bullying?
Doug, you can’t dismiss the argument because no one would do that. We find it really hard to believe anyone could be neutral on murder, but it happens. In fact, by expressing disbelief at that possibility, you have supported our argument. No one would be neutral on bullying. No one should be neutral on the killing of innocent children either.
My hyperbole? I absolutely was serious. My 50 million figure is actually very conservative. Some have estimated over 56 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade. By forcing parents not to kill their pre-born children, no one is enslaving women anymore than forcing parents not to kill their born children does.
Abortion stops the reproductive process, it ceases or ends reproduction.
Reality, by your argument, shooting someone in the head at church also stops reproduction. Should that be a protected choice, too?
Abortion stops the reproduction process-classic moronic quote that will soon be making an appearance on my blog. Hate to break it to you, but once conception has occured, reproduction has already happened. Everything that human being is going to be is already present, including whether he/she will be fat or thin, or get grandma’s diabetes when he/she is 50. Abortion doesn’t stop reproduction, it ends a life. If life were not already present at conception, nothing would happen after conception, and the new human being would not continue to develop. Why are antilifers so willingly ignorant of the facts? What do they presume is added after conception that was not already present? Who is this prochoice fairy that bestows the qualities that proaborts can never name and scientists recognize as rhetoric and junk science? The only two things added after conception to ensure that life continues are nutrition and time-coincidentally, the same two things that are added after we exit the womb. This is not difficult to understand. Fifth graders get it, but it completely eludes brainwashed feminists. Why do they try to pretend we don’t continue to develop over the course of our entire lifetimes? I certainly am quite different now than I was when I was two. Too sciencey for you, prochoice?
Please feel free to make a laughing stock of yourself MPQ.
Pot meet kettle.
“It’s a subjective thing, the “ignorance,” if any, being on the part of those who don’t realize that.”
Xalisae: But it’s NOT “a subjective thing”, Doug. It’s not! We’re dealing with VERY concrete principles here! A child is by definition the young of a human being-our offspring-which demonstrably encompasses the gestating human being. Subjectivity is just your pathetic attempt to legitimize something that has no legitimacy.
X, here is what I said: “And to say that a blastocyst (for example) would be a “child” is pretty darn wacky, IMO”.
I *did* say it was my opinion, and there is the often-seen primary definition for “child” which reads, “A person between birth and full growth.” So it’s certainly correct to say “not a child until birth” – at least as correct as to say “it’s a child” at conception. It does not have to be one way or the other, i.e. it’s the user’s choice as to which sense of the word to go with.
Same way with “baby.” Sure, you can say that the fertilized egg is a “baby,” but you could also say “it’s not a baby until it looks like a baby,” and people would know what you meant, and many would agree with you.
What sense does that make? Who is neutral on bullying?
Andrew: Doug, you can’t dismiss the argument because no one would do that.
If nobody is making an argument, why not dismiss it? The abortion debate exists because there are significant numbers of people on both sides of the issue. What sense does comparing it with a situation that is not at issue make?
____
We find it really hard to believe anyone could be neutral on murder, but it happens. In fact, by expressing disbelief at that possibility, you have supported our argument. No one would be neutral on bullying. No one should be neutral on the killing of innocent children either.
You are mixing many things up, Andrew. Your “shoulds” and “should nots” along with being factually incorrect – you not liking a thing, in this case, abortion, in no way makes it “murder.” You’ve also included your subjective opinion, that the unborn are “children.”
One way to answer is to say, “if you see a child being killed, call a cop.” Same for if you see a murder taking place.
____
My hyperbole? I absolutely was serious. My 50 million figure is actually very conservative. Some have estimated over 56 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade. By forcing parents not to kill their pre-born children, no one is enslaving women anymore than forcing parents not to kill their born children does.
You’re neglecting the fact that the unborn are inside the body of a person. I get that you think abortion is bad enough to trump the liberty of the woman as far as having an abortion, but (obviously) many people disagree with you, and the issue of bodily autonomy and the freedom of the pregnant woman *is* an important one.
I don’t think you’re wrong on the numbers of abortions, and I wasn’t seriously saying that all pro-lifers are “rabid, misognynistic woman-slavers.” My point is that there’s a lot of spin in saying “slaughtering innocent children,” and “murder.”
Hans: Subjectivity is the refuge of shallow thinking. “Maybe, maybe not. It’s all relative.” Well, not when we’re talking about extinguishing the life of someone’s relative, it’s not.
Shallow thinking is pretending something has to be just one way, when it doesn’t, and that one’s opinion is somehow magically “absolute.” Morality is a subjective thing, i.e. of the mind, rather than external to it.
Doug, you speak about abortion as though you’ve never seen one. I invite you to watch the video of abortion on this page and then tell me that “slaughtering innocent children” is just spin:
http://abortionno.org/
“A person between birth and full growth.” So it’s certainly correct to say “not a child until birth”
No, it most certainly IS NOT correct to say that, since when you look up “person” it says “human being”, and when the meaning of “human being” is sought it says a member of the species homo sapiens with no regard whatsoever for age or state of development which DOES include gestation and which DOES make it incorrect to say “not a child until birth”. Sorry it is more convenient for you to terminate your search for the truth before you actually find it, but I’m not going to let it end there with this grave injustice.
but you could also say “it’s not a baby until it looks like a baby,” and people would know what you meant, and many would agree with you.
And thank God slavery is not still legal even though “many would agree” that it was correct to classify blacks as “non-persons”.
Doug,
See answer immediately above for an example of “non-shallow” thinking. You really don’t have to be much of a deep thinker to know that any human below, say, 18, can rightly be called a child.
To deny the very youngest of us is a child is like saying someone over 100, now bedridden, is something other than an old person.
No, it most certainly IS NOT correct to say that, since when you look up “person” it says “human being”, and when the meaning of “human being” is sought it says a member of the species homo sapiens with no regard whatsoever for age or state of development which DOES include gestation and which DOES make it incorrect to say “not a child until birth”. Sorry it is more convenient for you to terminate your search for the truth before you actually find it, but I’m not going to let it end there with this grave injustice.
X, your error is in that string of relationships between words. You want to work things backwards. Yes, a person is a human being. That does not necessarily mean that all human beings would be persons. Personhood is a legal deal, and not even the same as “baby” and “child,” anyway. However, it *is* attributed status, and thus to some degree it’s in the ball park, i.e. we can say that a 30 year old is no longer a baby, and we can say that the unborn are not babies or children until birth or some stage of development in the womb.
____
“but you could also say “it’s not a baby until it looks like a baby,” and people would know what you meant, and many would agree with you.
And thank God slavery is not still legal even though “many would agree” that it was correct to classify blacks as “non-persons”.
Again, this is confusing legal status with the subjective choice of definitions. My point with “baby” and “child” is that it’s not a meaningful argument to say, for example, that “abortion is wrong because a baby is killed.” It’s the same for saying, “abortion is okay because no baby is killed.” Person A and person B can stand and yell at each other all day, “IS a baby!” and “Is NOT a baby!” and nobody ever gets anywhere.
Hans: See answer immediately above for an example of “non-shallow” thinking. You really don’t have to be much of a deep thinker to know that any human below, say, 18, can rightly be called a child.
Hans, that answer confused the objective with the subjective, and legal status with personal preference in terminology.
Between 18 or so and birth, yes – no argument; pretty much “child” applies regardless. But prior to birth it’s a different deal. The sense of the word meaning “between birth and full growth” or the like is undeniable. It’s the primary definition in many a dictionary. I’m not saying you have to like it or agree with it, but it’s most certainly there.
____
To deny the very youngest of us is a child is like saying someone over 100, now bedridden, is something other than an old person.
No it’s not. Who do you see saying there is “an upper age limit” on being “old”?
There is also the question of when the unborn become “one of us” – that too is a large part of the abortion debate.
Andrew: Doug, you speak about abortion as though you’ve never seen one. I invite you to watch the video of abortion on this page and then tell me that “slaughtering innocent children” is just spin
Andrew, the unborn die in an abortion – that is certainly true. My point about the abortion debate is that “children” does not necessarily apply. It’s just as true to say that it’s not a child until it’s born (or until some stage of development in gestation). Also, what does “innocence” matter in the absence of the capacity for guilt? If somebody maintains that the unborn are “guilty” or “culpable,” etc., I’d argue with them just as strongly as you would.
You and I really don’t disagree on the physical nature of the unborn and abortion.
Doug,
So you object to the term innocent because it’s obvious? Don’t see how it’s worth making an issue out of that. As for children:
child/CH?ld/
Noun:
1. A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
fe·tus/?f?t?s/
Noun:
1. An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
—-
Notice also the use of the term “baby” to define a fetus. Can we get off this pointless discussion of semantics and back to the issue? Abortion is the “choice” we’re talking about, and abortion kills a living human being. Agreed?
Andrew–
All Doug is interested in is sematics. That’s all you’ll get from him. Conversations with him left me with the preference of getting knocked upside the head with a brick.
All he HAS is semantics.
So you object to the term innocent because it’s obvious? Don’t see how it’s worth making an issue out of that.
Andrew, no, I certainly don’t think it’s worth making an issue out of it, because there is no capacity for guilt in the first place. Is a cow “guilty” when we kill it for meat? Is a tumor “guilty” when we have it removed? Is a rock “guilty” because it’s in our driveway and we don’t want to hit it with our car? They all are just as “innocent” as the unborn.
____
Notice also the use of the term “baby” to define a fetus. Can we get off this pointless discussion of semantics and back to the issue? Abortion is the “choice” we’re talking about, and abortion kills a living human being. Agreed?
Yes, indeed. Sure, you can say “baby” for the unborn. My point all along is that acting as if saying it constitutes a meaningful argument in the abortion debate is false, same as insisting it’s not a baby until after birth. Take away hyperbole, rhetoric, intended emotional spin, and the real facts and the real abortion debate remain.
So, yes – abortion kills a human being. In this case, the pregnant woman does not want it, does not want to be pregnant or remain pregnant. If she has a miscarriage, the effect on you and I is the same as if she has an abortion, almost always. Or if she’d never gotten pregnant. Do we, as a society, have such a need for every pregnancy to be continued that we would deny the woman an abortion if she wants one? I say no.
All Doug is interested in is sematics. That’s all you’ll get from him. Conversations with him left me with the preference of getting knocked upside the head with a brick.
All he HAS is semantics.
Nonsense, Courtnay. You’re 180 degrees wrong; you could not be more wrong. My point all along has been that a semantic argument is pointless, here.
Doug, nice try backtracking and pretending you’re trying to sidestep the semantics argument when you’re the one who started it. Give me a break.
If a woman has a miscarriage, it is an unfortunate natural occurrence, just like when a born person dies of a disease. Surely, you can see the difference. Abortion is the willful killing of an innocent human being (sorry for using that accurate word again, I know it offends you). Shooting someone in the head is the willful killing of a human being (let’s say, for argument, that person is innocent). By your argument, the consequence is the same as someone dying of cancer, so let’s make shooting people legal. Right? If results are all that matters, who cares what actions caused them?
Andrew, what started the semantics argument is saying “baby” or “child” for the unborn, as if it has to carry some weight in the debate.
As I said to Xalisae: “My point with “baby” and “child” is that it’s not a meaningful argument to say, for example, that “abortion is wrong because a baby is killed.” It’s the same for saying, “abortion is okay because no baby is killed.” Person A and person B can stand and yell at each other all day, “IS a baby!” and “Is NOT a baby!” and nobody ever gets anywhere.”
I have to get to work here – we’re tearing down and moving, but will respond to the rest of your post as soon as I can.
Doug,
You have to tread carefully with this line of thought. You concede the soon-to-be-born are human beings, yet you won’t grant them the status of “person”. This is the reasoning used by totalitarians and bigots throughout history.
You are living by the Animal Farm motto of some being “more equal than others”.
Hans, yeah – there’s been slavery, etc., on and off, probably “for all time,” so to speak, but what argument for it has the weight of the woman being pregnant, having bodily autonomy, etc.? Not saying you have to accept that it means that abortion is okay (I know you won’t), but it’s a far different thing.
On “not being equal,” there certainly is a difference between people, let alone between the born and the unborn. It’s our sentience, awareness, emotions, personality, etc., that make us “people,” rather than just lifeforms with a certain DNA. It’s our brains, and it takes time for the brain to develop.
However – on me “granting the unborn personhood” – I do think it develops as gestation progresses, for most fetuses. This is my own personal feeling, as opposed to the societal attribution of personhood. A full-term unborn “baby” (if you will ;)) is just about as much of a person as after being born. I say “just about as much” since there’s a real and fairly profound “waking up” both physically and mentally that occurs at birth. I’m no expert on it, but the process is fascinating and it’s interesting reading.
Anyway, I do think that the late-term fetus, with normal development, is a person, as I see it.
If a woman has a miscarriage, it is an unfortunate natural occurrence, just like when a born person dies of a disease.
Andrew, you are presuming some things there. If the pregnancy is unwanted, I don’t see the miscarriage as all that “unfortunate.” I imagine the woman feels relief, same as if she thought she was pregnant then finds out she’s not. If we are presuming that the born person wants to live, then I agree that the disease is unfortunate.
____
Surely, you can see the difference. Abortion is the willful killing of an innocent human being (sorry for using that accurate word again, I know it offends you). Shooting someone in the head is the willful killing of a human being (let’s say, for argument, that person is innocent).
The difference is that one is a directly willful action, the abortion. That by itself isn’t saying “it’s bad.” If we are shooting someone in the head, what argument for it would you hypothesize, that has the weight of the woman’s bodily autonomy? Not to mention that with the born person, rights have already been attributed
____
By your argument, the consequence is the same as someone dying of cancer, so let’s make shooting people legal. Right?
No, because I’m not advocating people dying of cancer. I’m not for shooting people (unless there’s a good enough reason), and I’m not for the cancer deaths. IMO one death due to cancer can be sadder than 10,000 abortions.
____
If results are all that matters, who cares what actions caused them?
Well, if I really *was* for cancer deaths, perhaps due to a feeling that we have to reduce the world’s population, pretty much no matter what, then yeah, I might feel that way, i.e. let’s legalize the shooting. However, that’s not the case.
There is “the same result” with miscarriages and abortions, and there I don’t really care “what actions caused them.” When a woman or couple wants to have kids, a miscarriage can be a very sad thing, and I’m not “for miscarriages” or abortions per se. When abortion is chosen, I’m taking it for granted that the woman wants to end the pregnancy.
So, one given woman has an abortion, ends the pregnancy, and the unborn, in that case, dies. Is this “the end of the world”? I say heck no – no more than it would be if she has a miscarriage or had never gotten pregnant in the first place.
but what argument for it has the weight of the woman being pregnant, having bodily autonomy, etc.?
The argument for a woman being able to legally obtain an abortion has a lot less weight than you attribute to it. I’d say the parent/child relationship shared between a pregnant woman and her gestating offspring immediately oversteps any claim on bodily autonomy she might have that you’d feel sufficient to allow her to kill that offspring. I mean, when my kids were younger they’d crawl all over me, pull my hair, smack me, shoved hands in my mouth while I slept, etc., but none of those would’ve been sufficient to tell a law enforcement official that I killed my minor child in self-defense because they were violating my bodily autonomy.
“So, one given woman has an abortion, ends the pregnancy, and the unborn, in that case, dies. Is this “the end of the world”? I say heck no – no more than it would be if she has a miscarriage or had never gotten pregnant in the first place.”
Or if she uses a pillow to smothers the pregnancy after it is born. Heck yeah, all is good, Dougy Boy.
” and it takes time for the brain to develop.”
You can say that again, Doug. Some brains take a lot longer time than others.
Doug,
The argument for slavery certainly does compare to a “bodily automony” arguement. “I bought them, they’re on my property, and they are my property.” Only problem is they are humans, not mere objects. The same goes for those will be born soon if you only leave them the heck alone for seven months or so.
And no, it is DNA that defines us as human, and ipso facto persons. Not “awareness”. A coma patient, heck a sleeping person is unaware of his surroundings, but is no less a person.
Your deigning personhood on a near-full-term baby just shows the arbitrariness of your side, and doesn’t jibe with your awareness requirement.
Doug, have you ever taken a logic course? You can’t discard or reinvent the argument when you start losing it. You have to follow it to its logical conclusion.
You said:
So yes – abortion kills a human being. In this case, the pregnant woman does not want it, does not want to be pregnant or remain pregnant. If she has a miscarriage, the effect on you and I is the same as if she has an abortion, almost always. Or if she’d never gotten pregnant.
I said:
Shooting someone in the head is the willful killing of a human being … By your argument, the consequence is the same as someone dying of cancer, so let’s make shooting people legal. Right? If results are all that matters, who cares what actions caused them?
You brought up the consequences being the same. I was responding to your argument and extrapolating it to another situation.
My argument is not about how you feel about each situation. I couldn’t care less. You are not the supreme ruler of the world. My argument is about objective truths. It is wrong to willfully kill an innocent human being. Period. And yes, all human beings are persons. The only times in all of history that we have called living humans “non-persons” were to justify horrible atrocities. I challenge you to provide an example that wasn’t.
Good point, Andrew. When folks start talking about degrees or levels or spectrums of humanity, it is only when a more powerful group wants to subjugate a less powerful group.
All humans deserve protection.
The unborn are human.
Therefore, the unborn deserve protection.
“but what argument for it has the weight of the woman being pregnant, having bodily autonomy, etc.?”
Xalisae: The argument for a woman being able to legally obtain an abortion has a lot less weight than you attribute to it. I’d say the parent/child relationship shared between a pregnant woman and her gestating offspring immediately oversteps any claim on bodily autonomy she might have that you’d feel sufficient to allow her to kill that offspring. I mean, when my kids were younger they’d crawl all over me, pull my hair, smack me, shoved hands in my mouth while I slept, etc., but none of those would’ve been sufficient to tell a law enforcement official that I killed my minor child in self-defense because they were violating my bodily autonomy.
X, the weight of the woman’s bodily autonomy *is* at issue. Whether it has less weight than what I attribute to it – who knows? As of now, it’s as pro-choicers view it. However, regardless of whether it’s seen as enough to justify abortions, the fact remains that there is nothing comparable for slavery, etc.
As for the unborn, no legal “parent/child” relationship exists, as far as being the same as for born children. I realize you feel it should not be that way.
And as far as your kids crawling over you, etc., they were no longer inside you, thus negating almost all of the bodily autonomy argument in the first place. Additionally, they had full rights and personhood attributed at birth, no? So of course the law enforcement official will see things differently.
“So, one given woman has an abortion, ends the pregnancy, and the unborn, in that case, dies. Is this “the end of the world”? I say heck no – no more than it would be if she has a miscarriage or had never gotten pregnant in the first place.”
Praxedes: Or if she uses a pillow to smothers the pregnancy after it is born. Heck yeah, all is good, Dougy Boy.
Again, a silly comparison. Is there a meaningful amount of sentiment for killing born kids? No, there is not. Is any argument for that as compelling as the argument for legal abortion? No. Do you seriously maintain otherwise?
Hans: The argument for slavery certainly does compare to a “bodily autonomy” argument. “I bought them, they’re on my property, and they are my property.” Only problem is they are humans, not mere objects. The same goes for those will be born soon if you only leave them the heck alone for seven months or so.
Saying, “I bought them,” presumes that slavery is legal, Hans, and that’s not the case now. That is not an argument “for slavery,” but rather an argument for slaveowners’ rights with respect to slaves. I’m not saying the unborn are “mere objects.” The fact remains that they can be unwanted.
____
And no, it is DNA that defines us as human, and ipso facto persons. Not “awareness”. A coma patient, heck a sleeping person is unaware of his surroundings, but is no less a person.
I didn’t say that DNA doesn’t define us as human. You are wrong about the “ipso facto persons.” In no way is DNA the issue. Rather, it is the status that society attributes to the unborn (as well as to the pregnant woman) that is at issue. With the coma patient and the sleeping person, you’ve removed things from bodily autonomy in the first place. Sleeping people do have awareness, also – they are sentient, sensate, etc. Even with the coma patient, again – what argument for killing them would have the same weight as the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy? None.
____
Your deigning personhood on a near-full-term baby just shows the arbitrariness of your side, and doesn’t jibe with your awareness requirement.
Oh for Pete’s sake – that is not the position of “my side,” that’s just my own opinion, and I said that. It’s not the same thing as the societal attribution, not at all, nor necessarily what pro-choicers think in general.
Andrew: Doug, have you ever taken a logic course? You can’t discard or reinvent the argument when you start losing it. You have to follow it to its logical conclusion.
No, I haven’t had such a course, but I make a good effort to keep things straight. Anyway, continue…
____
You said:
“So yes – abortion kills a human being. In this case, the pregnant woman does not want it, does not want to be pregnant or remain pregnant. If she has a miscarriage, the effect on you and I is the same as if she has an abortion, almost always. Or if she’d never gotten pregnant.”
I said:
Shooting someone in the head is the willful killing of a human being … By your argument, the consequence is the same as someone dying of cancer, so let’s make shooting people legal. Right? If results are all that matters, who cares what actions caused them?
You brought up the consequences being the same. I was responding to your argument and extrapolating it to another situation.
Noting that the consequences are similar or the same is not pronouncing on the goodness/badness of those consequences. It’s not logical to think otherwise.
You had said: abortion kills a living human being. Agreed?
I agreed, saying, “So, yes – abortion kills a human being. In this case, the pregnant woman does not want it, does not want to be pregnant or remain pregnant. If she has a miscarriage, the effect on you and I is the same as if she has an abortion, almost always. Or if she’d never gotten pregnant. Do we, as a society, have such a need for every pregnancy to be continued that we would deny the woman an abortion if she wants one? I say no.
I didn’t say that killing human beings was good, per se. There, I didn’t even pronounce upon the raw goodness/badness of abortion, miscarriage, etc. I only said that I don’t think that as a society we need every single pregnancy continued to the extent that we should deny a woman a wanted abortion. In all the cases – abortion, miscarriage, no getting pregnant in the first place, I don’t think that society should interfere with what the woman wants (with the exception of abortions late enough in gestation when there is no compelling medical need on the woman’s part for the abortion).
Yes – from what I said, you could logically get to “the consequence of dying of cancer is the same or similar to being shot in the head.” But that is not saying it’s what I desire, not saying it’s good, per se, nor that it should be legal. You can’t logically get to me advocating that. I didn’t say, “the results are all that matters,” I said that the results don’t affect you enough, IMO, that your desires should trump those of the pregnant woman.
____
My argument is not about how you feel about each situation. I couldn’t care less. You are not the supreme ruler of the world.
When I say that abortion, almost always, will not affect you enough, nor society enough, that we should ban it, that *is* how I feel. You extended that to dying of cancer and being shot in the head, and that’s not logical.
There are your and my opinions, and the opinions of pro-choicers and pro-lifers in general. There is society’s position. There is external, objective reality (at least to the extent that you and I share assumptions). Right there, it’s 6 things that may be different or the same, variously. Just trying to keep them straight… ;)
____
My argument is about objective truths. It is wrong to willfully kill an innocent human being. Period.
That’s your opinion, not any objective truth. The right/wrong/good/bad of it in the moral realm, all the “shoulds” and “should nots” depend on whether the observer sees a good enough reason for it or not.
____
And yes, all human beings are persons.
Wrong. It’s the fact that society doesn’t attribute full rights and personhood to the unborn that has you dissatisfied. You and I aren’t disagreeing on the physical reality of the unborn. What you want is for different status to be accorded to them.
____
The only times in all of history that we have called living humans “non-persons” were to justify horrible atrocities. I challenge you to provide an example that wasn’t.
In the main, I agree with you there, though I note that per the Birth Standard the unborn have never been considered full persons (whether one agrees with the Birth Standard or not, and I fully realize that you don’t). Changing legal status is not the same as never granting it in the first place. When you speak of those “living humans,” you are also talking about emotional, sentient, willful, aware people, too. Yes – horrible atrocities have occurred and still are occurring, around the world. None of them with remotely the same justification as legal abortion, IMO.
Courtnay: When folks start talking about degrees or levels or spectrums of humanity, it is only when a more powerful group wants to subjugate a less powerful group.
Well C, that is the case we have. There are always contests of wills going on, different societal positions desired, and in the matter of abortion, you want the pregnant woman’s will to be subjugated to your own. I’m not saying you “are a bad person” for feeling that way, either. You would rather have the unborn life continue versus letting the woman have an abortion.
And that’s always the way it is. Rather than any “external absolutes” (which cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary) being involved, it’s individuals, groups, even societies as a whole saying, in effect, “I want this,” or “I don’t want this.”
Doug,
Noting that the consequences are similar or the same is not pronouncing on the goodness/badness of those consequences. It’s not logical to think otherwise.
Thank you for stating exactly my point.
You and I aren’t disagreeing on the physical reality of the unborn. What you want is for different status to be accorded to them.
No. What I want is for the same ”status to be accorded to them” that is accorded to all other living humans. To try to say that any living human beings do not have the inalienable right to life for any arbitrary reason is wrong.
Yes – horrible atrocities have occurred and still are occurring, around the world. None of them with remotely the same justification as legal abortion, IMO.
Justification? What justification? Do you know that sex-selective abortions are quickly removing girls from China? Do you know that 9 out of 10 Down’s Syndrome babies are aborted?
Please tell me what justification there is for allowing women to kill their own children for absolutely any reason, as long as they haven’t been born yet.
So because might over right is the staus quo with regards to abortion, then I’ll just learn to live with it, right?
We have changed course in every instance where we have erred in this regard. With Blacks. With Native Americans. With Women. Why stop there? I don’t want to subjugate (and I know you like that word!) a mom’s will to MY own, I want it to be equal with her baby’s. Now it’s true that while the unborn cannot speak and say “I want to live”, his or her bodily functions speak volumes upon volumes of testimony that he does. His heart is beating. His cells are dividing and multiplying. Everything about the unborn says “This is what I’m striving for….life outside of my mom.” The fact that he cannot trust his own mother to protect him is monstrous.
We used to say we wanted slavery and lynchings and wholesale slaughter of peoples we found inconvenient. We used to think the disenfranchisement of certain folk would preserve our power, and we used political might over right. But we saw the error of our ways and we changed the laws, sometimes before we changed people’s hearts and minds.
You give me one instance of a human being with human skin, dna, a heart, and a mind where we can kill them because “it’s what we want.” That word want gets you in trouble, Doug. Because wantedness does not confer want upon the wantee by the wanted.
Big Bucket of Duh.
Noting that the consequences are similar or the same is not pronouncing on the goodness/badness of those consequences. It’s not logical to think otherwise.
Andrew: Thank you for stating exactly my point.
Okay Bro, so it really wasn’t any necessary advocation of cancer deaths or shooting people in the head, now was it? ;)
____
You and I aren’t disagreeing on the physical reality of the unborn. What you want is for different status to be accorded to them.
No. What I want is for the same ”status to be accorded to them” that is accorded to all other living humans. To try to say that any living human beings do not have the inalienable right to life for any arbitrary reason is wrong.
“Wrong” is your opinion. It’s in the eye of the beholder. It’s not an “arbitrary” reason; it’s because the woman is the one who is pregnant, not you.
Andrew, there *is* a difference between being inside the body of a person and not being there. I see that you don’t think it justifies abortion, but many do. Joe Blow is walking down the street – that is one thing. Or perhaps old Joe is dying of cancer or a prospective candidate for being shot in the head, eh? Well, if old Joe was inside your body, I bet you’d see a substantial difference, too.
____
Yes – horrible atrocities have occurred and still are occurring, around the world. None of them with remotely the same justification as legal abortion, IMO.
Justification? What justification? Do you know that sex-selective abortions are quickly removing girls from China? Do you know that 9 out of 10 Down’s Syndrome babies are aborted?
That the unborn are inside the body of the pregnant woman. Yes, I’m aware of China’s situation, and in no way is this any “perfect solution” to their perceived population pressure. Certainly – I agree that it’s causing big problems. But not because a “living human being” is killed, but because of the imbalance between males and females. Overall, China would be best off with less people, and whatever mix of males and females works best. On Down’s Syndrome babies – yes, we’ve seen that 90% figure here on Jill’s site many times. Would you try to legally force a woman or couple to have a Down’s baby? Apparently so. I would not, as many would not. Even beyond being “pro-choice” in general, lots of people would make exceptions for severe fetal deficiencies, extending to Down’s, often.
____
Please tell me what justification there is for allowing women to kill their own children for absolutely any reason, as long as they haven’t been born yet.
The unborn are hardly “children,” like that, and as stated, that’s not the pro-choice position. Myself, I’m not for totally elective abortion all through gestation, and I don’t think the majority of pro-choicers are either. Personally, when there is nobody there, as far as a sentient individual, nothing that is sensate, aware, emotional, nothing with personality, before there is “somebody” there, then this issue is your desire against that of the pregnant woman, and I certainly give the nod to her, since she’s the one pregnant, not you. You don’t need a given woman to conceive or necessarily not have an abortion, and neither does society as a whole.
Courtnay: So because might over right is the staus quo with regards to abortion, then I’ll just learn to live with it, right?
Nobody said that. There will be a sufficient opinion in order for a law to exist, and maybe you and/or I think it’s right or not. You don’t have to “live with it,” you can oppose it, you can defend it, you can advocate similar laws or oppose them, etc.
____
We have changed course in every instance where we have erred in this regard. With Blacks. With Native Americans. With Women. Why stop there? I don’t want to subjugate (and I know you like that word!) a mom’s will to MY own, I want it to be equal with her baby’s. Now it’s true that while the unborn cannot speak and say “I want to live”, his or her bodily functions speak volumes upon volumes of testimony that he does. His heart is beating. His cells are dividing and multiplying. Everything about the unborn says “This is what I’m striving for….life outside of my mom.” The fact that he cannot trust his own mother to protect him is monstrous.
And most women really don’t want to go back to the “before” times, Courtnay. There is no conscious will on the part of the unborn prior to a point in gestation. Yeah, the heart is beating and general biological “life” processes are occurring, but the same can be said for an amoeba or indeed any living organism. Has nothing to do with what makes us “people,” what has given rise to our feelings of should/should not (morality, etc.) and questions and debates such as we are talking about. It’s “monstrous” to want your opinion to trump that of the pregnant woman.
____
We used to say we wanted slavery and lynchings and wholesale slaughter of peoples we found inconvenient.
No, not “inconvenient.” If one wanted slaves, they’d probably be in favor of slavery. If one wanted a group dead, they’d probably be for them being killed, regardless of the “convenience” factor, if any, or not.
____
We used to think the disenfranchisement of certain folk would preserve our power, and we used political might over right. But we saw the error of our ways and we changed the laws, sometimes before we changed people’s hearts and minds.
Oh please. I bet you’d like it if there were less pro-choicers to vote. What you want is in no way necessarily “right,” in any absolute way. The Roe decision changed quite a few laws, and, as you say – before some peoples’ hearts and minds were changed.
____
You give me one instance of a human being with human skin, dna, a heart, and a mind where we can kill them because “it’s what we want.” That word want gets you in trouble, Doug. Because wantedness does not confer want upon the wantee by the wanted.
Again, I’m for legal abortion before a truly conscious “mind” can be said to be there for the unborn. Aside from that, there are any number of times where “what we want” is justification for killing. Somebody breaks into your house, and you don’t want them there, in many states you can legally kill them. If somebody attacks you, and what you want is not for them to do that – same deal – in many/most states you can kill them. An enemy soldier, as a society, as groups, and as individual, we may well want them to be dead; we can legally kill them. Without any conscious intent on their part – say they just run a stop sign without realizing they’re doing it – you don’t want them or anybody in front of you that way. If you hit them and kill them, it’s very likely that the killing will be deemed justified. It’s the situation, in all of this. It’s whether there is a good enough reason for the killing or not. And of course not everybody may agree.
“upon the wantee by the wanted”? What does that mean? Wantedness is the status from one entity to another.
Here’s my first entry for “Ask Them What They Mean by Choice”
http://moronicprochoicequotes.blogspot.com/2012/01/ask-them-what-they-mean-by-choice-roe.html
Still working on the one for the 22nd. :) I hope hundreds of bloggers participate!
Or perhaps old Joe is dying of cancer or a prospective candidate for being shot in the head, eh? Well, if old Joe was inside your body, I bet you’d see a substantial difference, too.
You make it sound like babies just appear inside of women out of nowhere and for no reason. Your whole “bodily autonomy” argument is flawed because of this assumption (or missed point). The child (yes I’m using that word – refer to definitions cited above and deal with it) didn’t will himself into existence. He is the product of an action that far more often than not, both his mother and father chose to do. That’s where the bodily autonomy is.
Your statement about Down’s Syndrome children is deeply offensive to me for two reasons:
1. Because I am a human being and recognize the dignity of all people; disabled or not.
2. My brother was born with Trisomy 7. As you may or may not know, Down’s Syndrome is Trisomy 21, where the person has 3 21st chromosomes. As the number gets lower, the genetic defects are greater. My brother couldn’t even breathe on his own. The doctors recommended not even trying to keep him alive, saying “wouldn’t you rather just find him in the morning?” when my mom asked for a breathing alarm.
Before my brother, no one with Trisomy 7 lived more than a month. He lived for almost 5 years and touched countless people’s lives in that time, including my entire family. For reasons too personal and complex to get into, my parents owe their marriage to my brother, and I owe my life to the lesson they learned from him. You see, the doctor recommended an abortion when he found out my mom was pregnant again. The genetic defect was in her, and he was worried I’d be another Trisomy 7 baby. My mom looked him squarely in the eyes and said, “I don’t care if I have to put another crib with all the alarms in our living room, I will not kill my baby.” I Praise God that I’m here today because of it.
Just think if they’d given into pressure from the people around them (and indeed, even my mother’s family). They would have let my brother die in the night and probably would have aborted me.
How dare you try to tell me what lives are or are not worthy of life? How dare you try to dismiss the existence of 50 million dead children because they weren’t ideal?
You sir, disgust me, and I will not stand for your insults. I thank God you are not in charge, and that most people have a great deal more sense and morality than you. I pray that some day you will extend love and compassion to others as it has been given to you.
Good day.
Doug says:
January 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm
“The unborn are hardly “children,” like that, and as stated, that’s not the pro-choice position. Myself, I’m not for totally elective abortion all through gestation, and I don’t think the majority of pro-choicers are either. Personally, when there is nobody there, as far as a sentient individual, nothing that is sensate, aware, emotional, nothing with personality, before there is “somebody” there, then this issue is your desire against that of the pregnant woman, and I certainly give the nod to her, since she’s the one pregnant, not you. You don’t need a given woman to conceive or necessarily not have an abortion, and neither does society as a whole.”
Exactly. Well stated.
“Or perhaps old Joe is dying of cancer or a prospective candidate for being shot in the head, eh? Well, if old Joe was inside your body, I bet you’d see a substantial difference, too.”
Andrew: You make it sound like babies just appear inside of women out of nowhere and for no reason. Your whole “bodily autonomy” argument is flawed because of this assumption (or missed point). The child (yes I’m using that word – refer to definitions cited above and deal with it) didn’t will himself into existence. He is the product of an action that far more often than not, both his mother and father chose to do. That’s where the bodily autonomy is.
Nope, babies don’t “just appear,” like that and nobody said they did. But the issue of bodily autonomy is very real. I was saying that being inside the body of a person is quite different from not being there, and that remains true.
____
Your statement about Down’s Syndrome children is deeply offensive to me for two reasons:
1. Because I am a human being and recognize the dignity of all people; disabled or not.
2. My brother was born with Trisomy 7. As you may or may not know, Down’s Syndrome is Trisomy 21, where the person has 3 21st chromosomes. As the number gets lower, the genetic defects are greater. My brother couldn’t even breathe on his own. The doctors recommended not even trying to keep him alive, saying “wouldn’t you rather just find him in the morning?” when my mom asked for a breathing alarm.
Before my brother, no one with Trisomy 7 lived more than a month. He lived for almost 5 years and touched countless people’s lives in that time, including my entire family. For reasons too personal and complex to get into, my parents owe their marriage to my brother, and I owe my life to the lesson they learned from him. You see, the doctor recommended an abortion when he found out my mom was pregnant again. The genetic defect was in her, and he was worried I’d be another Trisomy 7 baby. My mom looked him squarely in the eyes and said, “I don’t care if I have to put another crib with all the alarms in our living room, I will not kill my baby.” I Praise God that I’m here today because of it.
Just think if they’d given into pressure from the people around them (and indeed, even my mother’s family). They would have let my brother die in the night and probably would have aborted me.
How dare you try to tell me what lives are or are not worthy of life? How dare you try to dismiss the existence of 50 million dead children because they weren’t ideal?
You sir, disgust me, and I will not stand for your insults. I thank God you are not in charge, and that most people have a great deal more sense and morality than you. I pray that some day you will extend love and compassion to others as it has been given to you.
Oh please. There was nothing insulting there. I said nothing to the effect that such pregnancies “should” be aborted. I leave it up to the woman or couple involved. I didn’t make any pronouncements on those lives. I asked you what you would do, and noted that even among pro-lifers the feeling is not monolithic. Pro-Choicers are going to let the pregnant woman herself make the choice, not push her one way or the other. You mentioned your mom’s family; sounds like they advocated abortion. Well, that’s not being pro-choice.
Doug,
I don’t know what creeps me out more. Your specious, cold-blooded arguments about “bodily automony”, it’s legal, so it’s ok, “I’m sentient, you’re not”. or the ten trolls following you on some guided tour of this site.
For argument’s sake, let’s say that there is a such thing as the right to bodily autonomy. Explain to me, Doug, why shouldn’t the unborn be entitled to this same right? Well, obviously because the unborn aren’t persons, as you often times like to point out, which they’re not because, as you often times like to point out, “they’re not sentient/conscious and/or lack emotions”. Okay, fine. That only requires an explanation as to (1) why sentience/consciousness/having emotions/whatever else prevents one from having this right and (2) why your distinctions are more meaningful (or less arbitrary) than any distinction I can come up with.
You see, Doug. Your position is that only those humans you think are entitled to basic rights are entitled to them. For argument’s sake, let’s start from the position that only some, not all, humans are entitled to basic rights. Furthermore, we don’t know which humans are in the “entitled to basic rights” camp and which are in the “not entitled to basic rights” camp. Now let’s assume we have two groups of individuals; A, B and C and X, Y and Z.
Individual A points to Individual X and says “He’s not entitled to the same basic rights as me!”.
Individual B points to Individual Y and says “He’s not entitled to the same basic rights as me!”.
Individual C points to Individual Z and says “He’s not entitled to the same basic rights as me!”.
The instinctive response to the aforementioned individuals will be, “Well, why not?”.
Now to provide a bit of context, Individual A is White while Individual X is Black; Individual B is of some ethnoreligious group while Individual Y is of another; and Individual C is is born while Individual Z is unborn.
Given that piece of information, you will undoubtedly say that Individuals A and B not be allowed to dictate that Individuals X and Y, respectively, be defined out of basic the same basic rights that A and B share, though you will not say the same in relation to Individuals C and Z. But why is that? Why are Individual A and Individual B wrong but not C? The simple fact is that you can provide no objective reason why the former two instances are impermissible but the latter instance is permissible. Sure, you’ll throw out stuff like “because the unborn aren’t sentient!”, or “because the unborn lack consciousness!” or something along those lines, but the answer to that is “so what?”. Why is that a more meaningful distinction than the ones Individual A and B can come up with? Presumably, Individual A could look at your criteria and assert that they’re ridiculous because the only thing that matters is race. Individual B could look at your criteria and assert that they’re ridiculous because the only thing that matters is the ancestry of ones parents. So, assuming that only some humans are entitled to basic rights, why are your criteria for deciding who those humans are the de facto standard? If you allow Individual Z to be defined out of rights based on criteria you personally find important even though Individual Z is a human, then why can’t Individual A or Individual B define Individuals X and Y, respectively, out of rights based on criteria they personally find important even though Individuals X and Y are humans?
…Oh, but I asked you this question before, and the response you gave me was, “Because they are and more people agree that my distinctions are meaningful than would agree with yours!”. Still, it’s not going to work this time and no amount of verbal obfuscation, avoidance or sophistry is going to change the fact that your argument hinges on the fact that you like your criteria the best more so than any kind of logical basis.
Hans: I don’t know what creeps me out more. Your specious, cold-blooded arguments about “bodily autonomy”, it’s legal, so it’s ok, “I’m sentient, you’re not”. or the ten trolls following you on some guided tour of this site.
Hans, my argument is no more specious than yours or anybody else’s. I am not saying that the woman’s freedom and ownership of her own body are the end-all of the debate. But they’re certainly a big part of the mix.
Also not saying that I’ll necessarily agree with a given law, any more than you would.
It’s not that I’m saying, “You’re not sentient,” it’s that there is not that type of “you” there.
Some Guy: For argument’s sake, let’s say that there is a such thing as the right to bodily autonomy. Explain to me, Doug, why shouldn’t the unborn be entitled to this same right? Well, obviously because the unborn aren’t persons, as you often times like to point out, which they’re not because, as you often times like to point out, “they’re not sentient/conscious and/or lack emotions”. Okay, fine. That only requires an explanation as to (1) why sentience/consciousness/having emotions/whatever else prevents one from having this right and (2) why your distinctions are more meaningful (or less arbitrary) than any distinction I can come up with.
You see, Doug. Your position is that only those humans you think are entitled to basic rights are entitled to them.
Some Guy, the “should” or “should not” of rights for the unborn is at issue. If nothing else, bodily autonomy for the unborn can’t be applied in the same way, since they are inside the body of the woman. Not saying we “can’t” attribute rights to the unborn, rather that doing so would impact the woman and her rights. So it’s not purely a question of “rights or not” for the unborn.
I do make the distinction between what I personally feel, and what I’d have society do – they are not always exactly the same. I’m not arguing that society should look *only* at consciousness or not.
Rights are a mental construct, and without desire, there’s no such concept, no reason for the concept. Rights go to allowing or not allowing things, on the part of the individual and on the part of others with respect to them. There have to be desires, for and/or against things, for it to matter. Or, “if nobody cared,” then there would be no morality, no “rights,” no such conceptions.
To a point in gestation, the unborn aren’t aware of anything, have no caring at all, and obviously are inside the body of a caring, emotional, sentient woman. Why I say the unborn should not have rights – especially that conflict with the woman’s – is that the caring isn’t coming from them, but rather from others such as yourself, and I don’t think your desire should trump that of the woman. Prior to suffering being possible for the unborn, it’s your “suffering” (at the thought of abortion, almost always) versus the woman’s very real and immediate involvement. I say let her choose, rather than let you legally restrict her choice.
Some Guy: …Oh, but I asked you this question before, and the response you gave me was, “Because they are and more people agree that my distinctions are meaningful than would agree with yours!”. Still, it’s not going to work this time and no amount of verbal obfuscation, avoidance or sophistry is going to change the fact that your argument hinges on the fact that you like your criteria the best more so than any kind of logical basis.
Let me take this part right here – I really don’t think that was my response.
The “meaningful distinctions” will be in the eye of the beholders. There’s no necessary “logical basis” at work, for anybody. For all of us, it’s how *we* think things should be. It’s all our personal “shoulds” and “should nots” at work. Of course we all like our own criteria the best – that’s how it gets to be ours in the first place. For me, when it comes down to you versus the pregnant woman, I’m certainly for letting her criteria outweigh yours.
Doug and Reality, we have already established choice is a broad and effectively meaningless term due to its ability to be an excuse for any human action. With this in mind, I of course, agree that “choice” includes abortion. However, that is not the question or the issue. The question is whether abortion should be a legal option/choice.
So far, you have not provided any reasons why abortion should be legal.
Through our back and forth posts, we have proven/established that the bodily argument doesn’t justify it, and never can. We have also proven that the fetus is human like the rest of us and therefore deserves equal protection under the law. We also proved that consciousness is not inclusive enough to be used as a threshold for determining legal personhood. So you have no rational reason to support abortion as a legal option for women.
I am just patiently waiting for the day when you realize this.
God bless and please don’t be too hard on yourself when you do finally realize that there is no rational argument that can justify abortion.
Some Guy: For argument’s sake, let’s start from the position that only some, not all, humans are entitled to basic rights. Furthermore, we don’t know which humans are in the “entitled to basic rights” camp and which are in the “not entitled to basic rights” camp. Now let’s assume we have two groups of individuals; A, B and C and X, Y and Z.
Individual A points to Individual X and says “He’s not entitled to the same basic rights as me!”.
Individual B points to Individual Y and says “He’s not entitled to the same basic rights as me!”.
Individual C points to Individual Z and says “He’s not entitled to the same basic rights as me!”.
The instinctive response to the aforementioned individuals will be, “Well, why not?”.
Yes – going to the question of “Is there a good enough reason to have things one way, or the other, there?”
____
Now to provide a bit of context, Individual A is White while Individual X is Black; Individual B is of some ethnoreligious group while Individual Y is of another; and Individual C is is born while Individual Z is unborn.
Given that piece of information, you will undoubtedly say that Individuals A and B not be allowed to dictate that Individuals X and Y, respectively, be defined out of basic the same basic rights that A and B share, though you will not say the same in relation to Individuals C and Z. But why is that? Why are Individual A and Individual B wrong but not C? The simple fact is that you can provide no objective reason why the former two instances are impermissible but the latter instance is permissible.
There’s nothing “objective” involved there in the first place. It’s *all* opinion.
____
Sure, you’ll throw out stuff like “because the unborn aren’t sentient!”, or “because the unborn lack consciousness!” or something along those lines, but the answer to that is “so what?”.
X and Y care about things, and have desires. It’s a question of the desires of A and B versus them. Z has no desires, and is inside the body of a person, a much different thing. Here it’s not “C versus Z,” it’s Some Guy versus the pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy.
____
Why is that a more meaningful distinction than the ones Individual A and B can come up with? Presumably, Individual A could look at your criteria and assert that they’re ridiculous because the only thing that matters is race. Individual B could look at your criteria and assert that they’re ridiculous because the only thing that matters is the ancestry of ones parents. So, assuming that only some humans are entitled to basic rights, why are your criteria for deciding who those humans are the de facto standard?
I don’t say my opinion is the de facto standard. I do say that I don’t think your opinion should trump the opinion of the pregnant woman. Sure, A and B (and for that matter, C and X and Y) can say *anything,* but even though you don’t accept that being inside the woman’s body is enough justification for abortion, I don’t think you’d agree that opinions about the race or origin of other people and their ancestors has the same immediacy and impact that being pregnant has upon the woman.
____
If you allow Individual Z to be defined out of rights based on criteria you personally find important even though Individual Z is a human, then why can’t Individual A or Individual B define Individuals X and Y, respectively, out of rights based on criteria they personally find important even though Individuals X and Y are humans?
The question is whether to attribute rights or not. It’s not only the criteria we apply to Z. A and B, again, can say anything, but their claims are much different than the woman’s, i.e. they are talking about other sentient individuals that are not inside the body of a person, especially not inside *their* bodies. And, in reality, “A” and “B” do exist – there are people who feel that way. But society sees X and Y as “one of us” – they too have desires, caring, emotion, etc., all the things that go into morality in the first place.
Are X and Y having an impact on A and B in any measure similar to how Z may impact the pregnant woman?
I am 26 years old, in a commited relationship with my boyfriend. We use contraception responsibly. Neither of us are ready for children, so we take measures to prevent it happening. We’ve experienced contraceptive failure twice in the duration of our relationship. The first time, we went to a Planned Parenthood, as I did not have insurance or any financial ability to take on parenthood at the time. It was neither convenient nor cheap, even though the clinic picked up half the bill, I still paid $350 out of pocket. I had to travel 120 miles to get to a PP clinic that even provided abortion services, nevermind that there were multiple clinics within reasonable distance, none of them provided the service. (So much for the “Planned Parenthood clinics are just abortion mills!”) That was last July. On the 6th of this month, I suspected contraceptive failure, and rather than wait and test weeks from now (and have to find a way to come up with $350 and the gas money), I went to a pharmacy and got emergency contraceptive. My boyfriend has supported me on both decisions, and not a damned other person has any say or pressured my decisions. Nor should they. My body is my own, and that includes my uterus. Being pro-choice is not synonomous with being “pro-abortion”. it means having the choice of WHEN you start a family, even if that means never for some people. I am currently unemployed and on food assistance. I’m also the primary caregiver for my six year old nephew. Making the choice between a blastocyst and his welfare (as being pregnant and carrying it to term and supporting it would directly impact my ability to provide for him) was not a difficult choice. He wins, hands down. I love my boyfriend, and one day we might have a family together, but I have the right to choose the when of it.
This is a long and rambling bit, but it’s my experience, and I am unapologetic about my choices.
Sara, the account of your experience does not sound genuine or authentic. With that said, your personal experience is not a justification of the two murders you committed. You need to seek forgiveness, and if you don’t believe in foregiveness, you need to develop a conscience. I have no patience for you calluous and lying types. You are the scoundrels of the world and must ask mercy from the rest of us for the atrocity you committed against God’s own children.
Stop having sex, or get your tubes tied. Whatever you do, do not have another abortion – you may die because of it one day and may become infertile.
It is your body, and you obviously enjoy having it. The baby you killed also had his/her own body which you completely disregarded. Selfishness is what your actions and your opinions represent.
“Some Guy, the “should” or “should not” of rights for the unborn is at issue.”
Or, put more succinctly, the issue is whether or not all humans are entitled to human rights. Your position is that only some humans are entitled to human rights, while my position is that all humans are entitled to human rights. To invoke Godwin’s Law, such a position makes you virtually no different than the Nazis, for the only real but-not-so-meaningful difference between them and you is the group which you’re seeking to define out of rights. The underlying rationale– that only some humans deserve to be treated equally– is exactly the same.
“If nothing else, bodily autonomy for the unborn can’t be applied in the same way, since they are inside the body of the woman. Not saying we “can’t” attribute rights to the unborn, rather that doing so would impact the woman and her rights. So it’s not purely a question of “rights or not” for the unborn.”
Why can’t the bodily autonomy argument be applied to the unborn? So the unborn are inside the body of the woman? And…? Since when is the “right to bodily autonomy”– assuming it exists, which you’ve presupposed– constrained by location? You see, you never do put forth any real arguments. It’s mostly just a bunch of sophistry and not-so-brilliant wordplay. But I’m bored, so I will entertain you (as I usually do).
What is this “right to bodily autonomy” you keep going on about? I’m going to assume– since you’ve never offered up a definition of it– that this “right” entails making choices about what happens to one’s body. Even granting you that this right exists, it’s not absolute as you assume.
In many jurisdictions, you cannot dope yourself up on coke or PCP and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. In many jurisdictions, you cannot go out on the corner of the street, prostitute yourself out and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. In many jurisdictions, you cannot pay someone to cause you grievous bodily harm and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. In many jurisdictions, assuming one is a minor, you cannot go out and obtain a tattoo or use a tanning bed and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. And so on and so forth with inummerable other examples. So even assuming the “right to bodily automony” exists and even granting that affording the unborn that same “right” would inhibit the woman’s “right to bodily autonomy” in some form, so what? You are burdened with explaining why the woman’s “right to bodily autonomy” cannot be limited in this instance– especially since rights are often constrained if it prevents one from bringing harm to another. Simply saying, “Oh, well granting the unborn rights would limit her rights!” is not an argument; it’s an evasive tactic.
“I do make the distinction between what I personally feel, and what I’d have society do – they are not always exactly the same.”
I can only speak of abortion, but that’s a lie. I’ve been in enough arguments and have watched you post enough to note that most of your arguments boil down to you believing <X> and that <X> should be the status quo. You usually try to weasel your way out by asserting that you’re really not claiming anything, but rather are claiming that the woman should be the sole arbitrator of whether or not to obtain an abortion (up to a certain point), as if that’s not really a claim.
“I’m not arguing that society should look *only* at consciousness or not.”
No, you generally throw things like ‘sentience’ or ‘feelings/emotions’ in there, as if they mean anything substantial– or anything at all.
“Rights are a mental construct, and without desire, there’s no such concept, no reason for the concept. Rights go to allowing or not allowing things, on the part of the individual and on the part of others with respect to them. There have to be desires, for and/or against things, for it to matter. Or, “if nobody cared,” then there would be no morality, no “rights,” no such conceptions.”
All right, Doug. Let’s put this theory of yours to the test. What do you think would happen if you walked into your local hospital, found their ICU (assuming they have one), found a comatose patient on life support, unplugged them and watch them die. Do you think you’d get off because the individual you unplugged “wouldn’t care”? Or had no “desires”? No “reason”? Or would you be shipped off to jail for murder?
Obviously, the above is a rhetorical question. None of what you articulated have to do with rights. Individuals have them even if they’re not aware they have them and even if they have no concept of rights at all. Newborns would be a good example of this, for they lack any such understanding of the world or abstract concepts such as rights. Would you argue they have no rights?
“To a point in gestation, the unborn aren’t aware of anything, have no caring at all, and obviously are inside the body of a caring, emotional, sentient woman.”
Speak of the devil, there you go again talking about ‘sentience/feelings/emotions’. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m really not.
“Why I say the unborn should not have rights – especially that conflict with the woman’s – is that the caring isn’t coming from them, but rather from others such as yourself, and I don’t think your desire should trump that of the woman. Prior to suffering being possible for the unborn, it’s your “suffering” (at the thought of abortion, almost always) versus the woman’s very real and immediate involvement. I say let her choose, rather than let you legally restrict her choice.”
The more I read the things you type out, the more I am convinced that you truly do not understand the things of which you speak. I’m not going to deal with the “conflict” angle, since I addressed that above. Instead, I’ll focus on the latter issue.
Guess what, Doug? You know jack crap about rights. Your worldview asserts that humans are means to an ends, rather than as the end and that rights are merely ways to achieve that end. This is why you keep going on about “choice this” and “choice that” while either discounting the moral worth of the unborn or flat out ignoring them. But you know what? I, too, could play the game in which humans are means to an end, where the end is more freedom for the individual choosing to engage in some morally questionable actions. For example:
“Respect people’s CHOICE to own slaves!”
“Respect people’s CHOICE to steal!”
“Respect people’s CHOICE to rape!”
“Respect people’s CHOICE to kill!”
Oh, but you’ll cry foul, specifically because you don’t like those choices– even though those choices result is more net freedoms for the individual who engages in them.
“There’s nothing “objective” involved there in the first place. It’s *all* opinion.”
It’s funny you say this and then less than five minutes later say:
“X and Y care about things, and have desires.”
And…? That doesn’t explain why they’re more important than any criteria Individual A or B can come up with. If it’s “all opinion”, then why should Individual C’s opinion be considered valid while the opinions of Individual A and B are considered invalid? Again, as I usually point out, this is nothing more than a case of you liking your criteria better than the criteria Individual A and B use.
“It’s a question of the desires of A and B versus them.”
Says who…? Individual A and B don’t agree. So why should they be held to your standard of deciding what they can and cannot do to?
“Z has no desires, and is inside the body of a person, a much different thing.”
Sure it’s different, but the issue isn’t whether it’s different. The issue is whether or not it’s a meaningful difference. You think it is, yet you cannot explain why it is (without begging the question) or why it’s a more meaningful difference than is any distinction Individual A or B can come up with.
“Here it’s not “C versus Z,” it’s Some Guy versus the pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy.”
Nice try at trying to shift the proverbial goalposts. It’s between “me and the woman with an unwanted pregnancy” as much as it is “you between the slave owner and the slave” or “you between the Nazi and the Jew”. When you assert that only some humans are entitled to human rights, instead of all of them, you are then burdened with trying to explain who gets to decide which humans are deserving of those rights and which humans aren’t, and why the distinctions any one individual can come up with to deny one group of humans the same basic rights as all other humans are more meaningful than the distinctions any other individual can come up with.
This is precisely where you falter because, as most everyone here knows, you cannot do it. And why would you be able to do it? As you already stated, you’ve got nothing short of your opinion, and you opinion can be no more or less valid than the opinion of another.
“I don’t say my opinion is the de facto standard.”
Yes, you do.
“I do say that I don’t think your opinion should trump the opinion of the pregnant woman.”
Case and point. It was literally the next sentence.
“Sure, A and B (and for that matter, C and X and Y) can say *anything,* but even though you don’t accept that being inside the woman’s body is enough justification for abortion, I don’t think you’d agree that opinions about the race or origin of other people and their ancestors has the same immediacy and impact that being pregnant has upon the woman.”
Perhaps you need to take a fairly short trip over the Guttmacher and examine the reason women have abortions, after which you can come back and try this argument again. Of course, it’s not really the crux of the issue, so there’s really no need to.
“The question is whether to attribute rights or not. It’s not only the criteria we apply to Z. A and B, again, can say anything, but their claims are much different than the woman’s, i.e. they are talking about other sentient individuals that are not inside the body of a person, especially not inside *their* bodies.”
I’m going to let you in on a little secret here, Doug. Repeating that which you are burdened with showing to be a meaningful distinction does not mean you’ve shown it to be a meaningful distinction. It means that you’re content to BEG THE QUESTION and treat the criteria you come up with differentiate different humans as being “right” while all other criteria are “wrong”. That’s it. I know it. You know. Every pro-lifer here knows. And, truth be told, any honest pro-choicer here knows it, too.
“And, in reality, “A” and “B” do exist – there are people who feel that way.”
The unborn don’t exist? If they don’t, then how can abortion be an issue, for you can’t abort that which doesn’t exist?
“But society sees X and Y as “one of us” – they too have desires, caring, emotion, etc., all the things that go into morality in the first place.”
I should play the lottery, as I saw this response coming on January 20, 2012 at 4:09 am.
I realize that most of this is probably a waste of time, as you will undoubtedly come back with the same, easily rebuffed responses. But here’s hoping!
Some Guy,
You are, indeed, some guy. I was getting a little grumpy with Doug, like Andrew was. You carried the ball and scored, as far as I’m concerned. :)
You never cease to amaze me, Some Guy. :)
Tyler: Doug and Reality, we have already established choice is a broad and effectively meaningless term due to its ability to be an excuse for any human action. With this in mind, I of course, agree that “choice” includes abortion. However, that is not the question or the issue. The question is whether abortion should be a legal option/choice.
Hey Tyler. :) Hope you’re having a good weeked. “Choice,” in the context of the abortion debate, means the legal choice of having an abortion. You did get around to that, but it’s obvious from the get-go, no?
____
So far, you have not provided any reasons why abortion should be legal.
Sure we have, just like you provide reasons why it should be illegal. Eye of the beholder.
____
Through our back and forth posts, we have proven/established that the bodily argument doesn’t justify it, and never can. We have also proven that the fetus is human like the rest of us and therefore deserves equal protection under the law. We also proved that consciousness is not inclusive enough to be used as a threshold for determining legal personhood. So you have no rational reason to support abortion as a legal option for women.
You’ve stated your opinion about all those, but that is not proof of anything except that that’s the way you feel. If what you said was true, in a larger sense, then we would not have the abortion debate as we know it, and that is not the case. There are rational people on both sides of the issue.
____
I am just patiently waiting for the day when you realize this. God bless and please don’t be too hard on yourself when you do finally realize that there is no rational argument that can justify abortion.
That’s like saying there’s nothing that can justify taking away the freedom that women currently have in the matter. Hey man, you make different assumptions than lots of other people make, and they are not going to agree with you.
“Some Guy, the “should” or “should not” of rights for the unborn is at issue.”
Or, put more succinctly, the issue is whether or not all humans are entitled to human rights. Your position is that only some humans are entitled to human rights, while my position is that all humans are entitled to human rights. To invoke Godwin’s Law, such a position makes you virtually no different than the Nazis, for the only real but-not-so-meaningful difference between them and you is the group which you’re seeking to define out of rights. The underlying rationale– that only some humans deserve to be treated equally– is exactly the same.
I don’t think that would actually be invoking Godwin’s Law. ;) Also don’t think that’s really more succinct. In the case of abortion, to a point in gestation, I don’t think the pregnant woman’s rights should be lessened because of how you feel. That’s really where we are at on this. As far as Nazis, they were as anti-choice as any pro-lifer, wanting abortions mandated for some women and prohibited for other women.
You may not think the differences are all that meaningful, but you’re comparing conscious, aware, feeling, emotional people with “human beings” that are not, and people that do not have the entity in question inside them, with those who do. Well, it’s a big deal, and that’s why we have abortion as such a large issue.
There is no real “treating humans equally,” without qualification. There is no “absolute right to life,” even for born people. It depends on the situation. If we say, “all other things being equal,” that is one thing. But in the real world, it matters what is going on. It matters whether we’re talking about a born person or not. It matters if somebody breaks into your house, or is an enemy combatant, of if one’s actions are in self-defense, or accidental, etc. As things are now, we are treating the pregnant woman “equally” with other born people – we accept the concept of bodily autonomy, to an extent. You want to change this, alter it because she is pregnant.
If you had a claim with the same weight as a Jew tortured by the Nazis, that would be one thing. If you had the claim of one enslaved against their will, same deal. But 99.999% of the time, you will never be affected by a woman having an abortion, or not having one. Doesn’t matter whether she has an abortion, or a miscarriage, or doesn’t get pregnant in the first place.
Hans: I was getting a little grumpy with Doug, like Andrew was.
Hans, I hope you’re having a good weekend too. :)
Hey – you know from the get-go that not everybody thinks the same things you do, right? ;)
Working away on the Mississippi Delta here….
“If nothing else, bodily autonomy for the unborn can’t be applied in the same way, since they are inside the body of the woman. Not saying we “can’t” attribute rights to the unborn, rather that doing so would impact the woman and her rights. So it’s not purely a question of “rights or not” for the unborn.”
Why can’t the bodily autonomy argument be applied to the unborn? So the unborn are inside the body of the woman? And…? Since when is the “right to bodily autonomy”– assuming it exists, which you’ve presupposed– constrained by location? You see, you never do put forth any real arguments. It’s mostly just a bunch of sophistry and not-so-brilliant wordplay. But I’m bored, so I will entertain you (as I usually do).
Your arguments are weak enough that you tend toward the ad hominem stuff? ;)
Of course we have the right to bodily autonomy. It’s not absolute, and it’s not magical – it’s status attributed by society. It means we can exercise our will as far as what to do with our body, to an extent – all along the concept of “one person’s rights end where another’s begin” applies. With the unborn, there is not any conscious will, period (to a point in gestation). The abortion debate is not about the will of would-be slavemasters versus the will of would-be slaves, nor about the will of Nazis versus the will of Jews. It’s about the will of the woman versus others, others at a comparitively great remove, who want to restrict her exercise of her will.
If we were to attribute rights to the unborn, it would most certainly affect the pregnant woman. You don’t seriously contest that, do you? I’m not saying it’s impossible that we would do so, but the “one’s rights end where another’s rights begin,” would apply there too. The location, as far as being inside the body of the woman, most certainly matters.
____
What is this “right to bodily autonomy” you keep going on about? I’m going to assume– since you’ve never offered up a definition of it– that this “right” entails making choices about what happens to one’s body. Even granting you that this right exists, it’s not absolute as you assume.
With all due respect, that’s silly and patently untrue. I’ve never said anything to the effect that it’s absolute.
____
In many jurisdictions, you cannot dope yourself up on coke or PCP and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. In many jurisdictions, you cannot go out on the corner of the street, prostitute yourself out and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. In many jurisdictions, you cannot pay someone to cause you grievous bodily harm and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. In many jurisdictions, assuming one is a minor, you cannot go out and obtain a tattoo or use a tanning bed and claim that you have the “right to bodily autonomy”. And so on and so forth with inummerable other examples. So even assuming the “right to bodily automony” exists and even granting that affording the unborn that same “right” would inhibit the woman’s “right to bodily autonomy” in some form, so what? You are burdened with explaining why the woman’s “right to bodily autonomy” cannot be limited in this instance– especially since rights are often constrained if it prevents one from bringing harm to another. Simply saying, “Oh, well granting the unborn rights would limit her rights!” is not an argument; it’s an evasive tactic.
Sure, some drugs are illegal. As always, it’s a question of whether there is a good enough reason to restrict freedom or not. As a society we say that PCP is illegal. Same for most places and prostitution, etc.
As far as my “burden of explaining why the woman’s right to bodily autonomy” should not be limited in this instance, hang on a minute – first and foremost, you are the one that wants things changed. You want rights to be attributed to the unborn, and that’s a different thing than restricting or taking away rights already attributed. From the Founding Fathers and on down, it comes down to whether there is a good enough reason for doing it. “Does the state have a compelling reason,” and so forth.
Why I don’t want abortion to be illegal (more than it is now) is that I don’t see a good enough reason for restricting the woman’s liberty. I don’t see society needing every single pregnancy to be continued, any more than a miscarriage is the “end of the world” for society, any more than we need to force women to get pregnant. The sentiment for abortion to be illegal is coming from you and other pro-lifers, and in this case I don’t think that you should be allowed to make policy.
“I do make the distinction between what I personally feel, and what I’d have society do – they are not always exactly the same.”
I can only speak of abortion, but that’s a lie. I’ve been in enough arguments and have watched you post enough to note that most of your arguments boil down to you believing <X> and that <X> should be the status quo. You usually try to weasel your way out by asserting that you’re really not claiming anything, but rather are claiming that the woman should be the sole arbitrator of whether or not to obtain an abortion (up to a certain point), as if that’s not really a claim.
Oh please. Yes, I do think the woman should have first choice – to a point in gestation – but I’ve never said anything to the effect that this is any “absolute” nor do I ascribe it to anything that cannot be proven to be more than imaginary. My opinion does not “have” to be the status quo, but of course I have my own “shoulds” and “should nots,” just as everybody does.
It’s silly of you to say, “that’s a lie.” I have my own feelings of when the unborn are becoming persons and when most fetuses would get to that stage, but that’s not the same thing as where I’d have society draw the line as far as legal abortion or not. Do you not understand that we may feel a certain way about a certain thing, but not wish the presence of a law mandating that? I don’t want to get tattoos, but I also don’t want them to be illegal.
We all believe this or that, and as far as pro-lifers and pro-choicers, we all want the legal status quo to be a certain way. The only “weaseling” that goes on is when somebody pretends their opinion has to have some external or absolute truth to it.
____
“I do make the distinction between what I personally feel, and what I’d have society do – they are not always exactly the same. I’m not arguing that society should look *only* at consciousness or not.”
No, you generally throw things like ‘sentience’ or ‘feelings/emotions’ in there, as if they mean anything substantial– or anything at all.
Without sentience, without desire, there is no morality; nothing in the ethical realm. They may be a given physical reality, but there can be no ethics, no good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm, without there being a mind to have feelings, one way or another.
The entire abortion debate is different people caring about things in varying amounts. Within the abortion debate, I don’t say that consciousness is the only thing that society should consider – wouldn’t you agree?
____
“Rights are a mental construct, and without desire, there’s no such concept, no reason for the concept. Rights go to allowing or not allowing things, on the part of the individual and on the part of others with respect to them. There have to be desires, for and/or against things, for it to matter. Or, “if nobody cared,” then there would be no morality, no “rights,” no such conceptions.”
All right, Doug. Let’s put this theory of yours to the test. What do you think would happen if you walked into your local hospital, found their ICU (assuming they have one), found a comatose patient on life support, unplugged them and watch them die. Do you think you’d get off because the individual you unplugged “wouldn’t care”? Or had no “desires”? No “reason”? Or would you be shipped off to jail for murder?
That’s not a situation where “nobody cares.” Again, as always, the question is whether or not there’s a good enough reason for it, and you know darn well that society isn’t going to think there’s a good enough reason for pulling the plug – in the case of somebody walking in off the street and doing it, as you have me doing, there. Said another way, society feels there’s a good enough reason for legally prohibiting a “stranger” pulling the plug, there.
As far as “testing my theory,” then obviously – if nobody did care, there’d be no prohibition against pulling the plug.
In reality, comatose patient or not, that individual was attributed full rights and personhood at birth, and the desire of a third-party isn’t going to be seen as sufficient reason for the plug being pulled.
And, in reality, if the comatose patient was inside the body of a person, that would make one heck of a difference, too.
____
Obviously, the above is a rhetorical question. None of what you articulated have to do with rights. Individuals have them even if they’re not aware they have them and even if they have no concept of rights at all. Newborns would be a good example of this, for they lack any such understanding of the world or abstract concepts such as rights. Would you argue they have no rights?
Of course not – at birth personhood and full rights are attributed. Doesn’t *have* to be that way, but it is that way.
No, a given individual would not have to be aware of the status for it to be attributed by another entity (of course not).
“To a point in gestation, the unborn aren’t aware of anything, have no caring at all, and obviously are inside the body of a caring, emotional, sentient woman.”
Some Guy: Speak of the devil, there you go again talking about ‘sentience/feelings/emotions’. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m really not.
Well sure – it all goes to desire. As individuals we desire to be free, and we tend to legislate in accordance with that, unless we see a good enough reason for restricting freedom, case-by-case. We desire that government leave us alone, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
A person is allowed to donate his time and effort, even without compensation, if he wishes too. He can be a virtual slave, but it’s okay if he wishes it. But we don’t allow slavery against the desires of a person. As a society we don’t see a good enough reason for prohibiting the volunteered service, and we also don’t see a good enough reason for mandating it.
____
“Why I say the unborn should not have rights – especially that conflict with the woman’s – is that the caring isn’t coming from them, but rather from others such as yourself, and I don’t think your desire should trump that of the woman. Prior to suffering being possible for the unborn, it’s your “suffering” (at the thought of abortion, almost always) versus the woman’s very real and immediate involvement. I say let her choose, rather than let you legally restrict her choice.”
The more I read the things you type out, the more I am convinced that you truly do not understand the things of which you speak. I’m not going to deal with the “conflict” angle, since I addressed that above. Instead, I’ll focus on the latter issue.
Heh – I understand just fine, and am willing to clear up any lack of understanding on your part. ;)
____
Guess what, Doug? You know jack crap about rights.
Apparently I know a good bit more than you about them. They are attributed status. What you *want* as far as the unborn is for society to attribute a different status to them.
___
Your worldview asserts that humans are means to an ends, rather than as the end and that rights are merely ways to achieve that end.
I’m not sure what you mean here. I really don’t see us as a means to an end. Rights come from our desires – we want to live, we want to be free, we want to not have our stuff taken, etc., so we legislate, have moral codes, etc., in line with that. A society is really a bunch of individuals with things in common (to an extent), and rights facilitate that – it’s not only a commonality of desire that’s required, it’s a commonality of behavior.
____
This is why you keep going on about “choice this” and “choice that” while either discounting the moral worth of the unborn or flat out ignoring them.
I don’t ignore the unborn. I’m saying that with an unwanted pregnancy society does not need the unborn life enough that we restrict the freedom of the pregnant woman. Same as if she has a miscarriage – what real “harm” is done to society, there? Same as if she had never gotten pregnant. We don’t need every single pregnancy to be continued.
____
But you know what? I, too, could play the game in which humans are means to an end, where the end is more freedom for the individual choosing to engage in some morally questionable actions. For example:
“Respect people’s CHOICE to own slaves!”
“Respect people’s CHOICE to steal!”
“Respect people’s CHOICE to rape!”
“Respect people’s CHOICE to kill!”
Oh, but you’ll cry foul, specifically because you don’t like those choices– even though those choices result is more net freedoms for the individual who engages in them.
Nobody told you that “unlimited freedom” or “more net freedom” in a given case will necessarily be a good thing. It depends on the situation.
As always, the question is whether or not there’s a good enough reason. Should the desire of the slaveowners trump the desire of the slaves? I say no. Others should not be allowed to restrict their freedom like that, in my opinion, same as I don’t think you or pro-lifers in general should be allowed to restrict the freedom of the pregnant woman.
Who are these people who keep liking Doug’s posts? I would really like to know.
“I don’t think that would actually be invoking Godwin’s Law.”
And you think wrong.
“Also don’t think that’s really more succinct.”
And again, you think wrong, for that is what the issue boils down to. I say “human rights for all humans” while you say “human rights for some humans”. I say “Jim-Bob can’t define me out of rights, I can’t define you out of rights and you can’t define anyone else out of rights” while you say “Jim-Bob can’t define me out of rights, I can’t define you out of rights yet you can define someone else out of rights”. It is what it is and there is no use in sugar-coating it.
“In the case of abortion, to a point in gestation, I don’t think the pregnant woman’s rights should be lessened because of how you feel.”
Yet after a certain point in gestation, you have no problem “lessening” the woman’s rights based on how you feel? What happened to you trying to tell me that you don’t want your opinion to affect public policy.
“That’s really where we are at on this.”
Yes. We’re at the part where you’re content to treat your criteria as the de facto standard (1) by which abortion should be legal and (2) by which we decide what human is entitled to the same basic rights as all other humans. I said this in my last post, yet you ignored it. What are the chances you ignore this again?
“As far as Nazis, they were as anti-choice as any pro-lifer, wanting abortions mandated for some women and prohibited for other women.”
And they were also willing to define some segment of the population as non-persons to meet an end, much like you are content to do here.
“You may not think the differences are all that meaningful, but you’re comparing conscious, aware, feeling, emotional people with “human beings” that are not, and people that do not have the entity in question inside them, with those who do. Well, it’s a big deal, and that’s why we have abortion as such a large issue.”
So, in essence, your justification for why things such as location, consciousness, awareness, feelings and/or emotions more meaningful distinctions than are distinctions based on race, gender, ethnicity or even national origin is “because they are”. Is that right? Because if so, it leaves A LOT to be desired, since it’s not a justification at all as it puts forth no reason as to why the aforementioned criteria are more meaningful distinctions than the ones someone else could come up with. Just because you say they are, or want to believe they are, don’t mean that they are.
“There is no real “treating humans equally,” without qualification.”
Absolutely false. If you have to qualify the statement, then you’re not treating *all* humans equally; you’re holding those humans who make the cut above those who do not. I’m sure I’m not the first person to tell you this and I won’t be the last, but the old saying from Animal Farm holds true here as it pertains to your rationale; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
“If you had a claim with the same weight as a Jew tortured by the Nazis, that would be one thing. If you had the claim of one enslaved against their will, same deal.”
How about one being killed often out of convenience for another?
“There is no “absolute right to life,” even for born people.”
Could you show me who ever claimed this?
“It matters whether we’re talking about a born person or not.”
Even within the abortion debate, no it doesn’t, because there is only one jurisdiction I know of (Canada) where abortion is legal up until birth.
“It matters if somebody breaks into your house, or is an enemy combatant, of if one’s actions are in self-defense, or accidental, etc.”
(1) If someone breaks into your house and you kill them, unless you can show that they were posing an immediate threat to your health or life, you could end up in jail for murder.
(2) If an enemy combatant is unarmed, surrendering or otherwise not posing a threat to you and you kill them, that is considered an illegal act.
(3) If someone kicks you in the shin and you snap their necks, that is murder.
In every single one of these cases, one’s right to life is only able to be violated when they are trying to take the life of another, as the individual who is being acted against has the right to protect his or her own life with equal force. But you see, Doug. Let’s just cut past all the BS. Everyone here knows that the overwhelming majority of abortions are NOT done to preserve the mother’s life. They are usually done “as expressions of her liberty”– in other words, because she can have one. Essentially, your argument boils down to liberty trumping life, where one’s right to act is greater than another’s right to not be killed or, as it relates to abortion, the woman’s right to have an abortion (or even act in a way which could be construed as harmful) is greater than the unborn’s right to not be killed.
…Well, at least it does in the case of abortion, as if I were to try to apply the whole “liberty trumps life” logic elsewhere, you would stomp your foot and cry foul. What are the chances you’d agree with the following statement?– “Well, my right to kill Doug is greater than Doug’s right to not be killed!”
“As things are now, we are treating the pregnant woman “equally” with other born people – we accept the concept of bodily autonomy, to an extent. You want to change this, alter it because she is pregnant.”
Doug, you’re not nearly as sly as you think you are. If the contention being made by pro-lifers is that only some humans are afforded equal rights, whereas all humans are entitled to equal rights, and that the only humans which are afforded equal rights are those who are born, then saying that we’re treating women “equally” with other born persons therefore abortion is okay is a meaningless statement, since it operates under the assumption that the unborn are “nothing” and/or do not exist within the equation. But you see, Doug. I don’t want to alter anything because she’s pregnant; I want to alter things because the unborn are humans. No one should be killed solely because another wants to kill them. Why, exactly, is this so hard for you to understand?
“But 99.999% of the time, you will never be affected by a woman having an abortion, or not having one. Doesn’t matter whether she has an abortion, or a miscarriage, or doesn’t get pregnant in the first place.”
I’ll be frank, Doug. Your “arguments” are getting more and more ridiculous as time passes. I happen to live in Central Florida. As a result, there are many things which will never affect me in any way shape or form, mainly because I am thoroughly unaware of them.
For example, a woman who drowns her child in Oregon doesn’t affect me. A man who kills his neighbor in New York doesn’t affect me. A group of men who viciously gang rapes some woman in the Democratic Republic of Congo doesn’t affect me. A woman being forced into an abortion in China doesn’t affect me. And so on and so forth with many other examples.
But so what? Just because I’m not personally affected by any of these activities doesn’t mean they are morally permissible and should be allowed. If I were to viciously rip your appendages from your body, bash your skull in and inject you with some drug in order to stop your heart, the fact that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the human population would be unaffected by me engaging in such an action does not somehow make it “okay”.
Some Guy, you nailed it.
Consider yourself lucky; you’re getting more attention than you deserve.
Your arguments are weak enough that you tend toward the ad hominem stuff?
You might want to learn what an ad hominem is. If I were to call you a lying piece of crap who relies on verbal word play to try to confuse the issue, that would be an ad hominem.
Of course we have the right to bodily autonomy.
Prove it.
It’s not absolute, and it’s not magical – it’s status attributed by society.
What society? It’s most certainly untrue within the U.S., and I dare you to prove me wrong. In fact, I invite you to do so. You could search the text of Roe v. Wade, or look at any law and not find mention of this supposed right. But go ahead, Doug. Humor me.
It means we can exercise our will as far as what to do with our body, to an extent
First and foremost, there is no such thing as the right to bodily autonomy. With that being said, for the sake of the “argument”, let’s assume that there is such a thing as the right to bodily autonomy. Explain to me the “extent” of the right to bodily autonomy, since not only does it not extend to harming someone else, it extends to someone bringing harm to themselves.
…all along the concept of “one person’s rights end where another’s begin” applies.
Except in the case of abortion, where you define the unborn as a non-person for reasons you consider self-evident without explaining why they are meaningful.
With the unborn, there is not any conscious will, period (to a point in gestation).
What does this have to do with anything? Doug, I direct you back to my ICU example (or any of the other innumerable examples you were given regarding people who had no “conscious will”). Whether or not one has “conscious will” does not dictate whether or not they have rights. People in a coma do not lose their rights because they have no “conscious will”. People asleep do not lose their rights because they have no “conscious will”. People in a vegetative state do not lose their rights because they have no “conscious will”. People who under the influence of anesthesia do not lose their rights because they have no “conscious will”. You’re basically—and excuse the language—just making shit up.
The abortion debate is not about the will of would-be slavemasters versus the will of would-be slaves, nor about the will of Nazis versus the will of Jews. It’s about the will of the woman versus others, others at a comparitively great remove, who want to restrict her exercise of her will.
The abortion debate is about the status of the individual who would otherwise be acted against versus the status someone else wants to attribute to him or her. You state that Individual C should be able to define the moral worth of Individual Z, whereas I state that no one should have their moral worth decided by another individual and that everyone has the same value. Whether or not one is “removed” from the situation, or even “greatly removed” from the situation, is irrelevant (see my last post for why).
If we were to attribute rights to the unborn, it would most certainly affect the pregnant woman. You don’t seriously contest that, do you? I’m not saying it’s impossible that we would do so, but the “one’s rights end where another’s rights begin,” would apply there too.
Following the same logic, emancipating the slaves was the wrong thing to do, since it affected the slaveowner by taking away his liberty and ability to own slaves.
The location, as far as being inside the body of the woman, most certainly matters.
Why?
As far as my “burden of explaining why the woman’s right to bodily autonomy” should not be limited in this instance, hang on a minute – first and foremost, you are the one that wants things changed. You want rights to be attributed to the unborn, and that’s a different thing than restricting or taking away rights already attributed.
Human rights are afforded to all humans. The unborn are humans? Therefore, the unborn are entitled to human rights. You are the one arguing that humans rights should not be afforded to all individuals. That requires an explanation on your part.
Why I don’t want abortion to be illegal (more than it is now) is that I don’t see a good enough reason for restricting the woman’s liberty.
So liberty trumps life?
(Only in the case of abortion!)
“There’s nothing “objective” involved there in the first place. It’s *all* opinion.”
Some Guy: It’s funny you say this and then less than five minutes later say:
“X and Y care about things, and have desires.”
And…? That doesn’t explain why they’re more important than any criteria Individual A or B can come up with. If it’s “all opinion”, then why should Individual C’s opinion be considered valid while the opinions of Individual A and B are considered invalid? Again, as I usually point out, this is nothing more than a case of you liking your criteria better than the criteria Individual A and B use.
Why is it “funny” to say that? It’s true, and the relative importance we place on differing criteria doesn’t change that.
A given person or other entity may agree with A or B or C, or any mix of the three.
Yes, I do go with C, since it’s not going against the will of a sentient person as A and B are. A and B will cause suffering, while C will not.
____
“It’s a question of the desires of A and B versus them.”
Says who…? Individual A and B don’t agree. So why should they be held to your standard of deciding what they can and cannot do to?
I say so. X and Y have desires. Do you dispute that? If I don’t see a good enough reason for the desires of A and B to trump those of X and Y, then that’s how I feel. As far as I know, you feel the same way.
____
“Z has no desires, and is inside the body of a person, a much different thing.”
Sure it’s different, but the issue isn’t whether it’s different. The issue is whether or not it’s a meaningful difference. You think it is, yet you cannot explain why it is (without begging the question) or why it’s a more meaningful difference than is any distinction Individual A or B can come up with.
Sure I can explain it. A and B are going against the desires of X and Y, and I (as well as society) don’t see a good enough reason to trump X and Y’s desires. It’s a case of A and B’s rights stopping at the rights of X and Y. Doesn’t “have” to be that way, but currently it is that way and it’s the way I’d have it. We are a society, of individuals. Being a different color or culture isn’t a deal-breaker, as I see it. It’s part of the collective “we” and we tend to legislate against that which we fear, i.e. being killed, having our stuff stolen, etc. We don’t tend to legislatively mandate (to the same extent) things we desire on a positive basis, like food, wealth, freedom, etc. There, we leave it to the individual, i.e. we can pursue wealth, food, do what we want – not because they are mandated by the state, but because there is not a good enough reason seen to prohibit those actions. We’re allowed to exercise our desire, but not compelled to.
If the person, whether another color or culture or not, was inside my or your body, then things would be a good bit different. If they had no desires, were not part of the collective “we” in that way, that also would make a difference.
What, beyond the sense of being a legally-protected human being, is a “person,” exactly? If the brain is removed while the body is kept alive, there will still be a “living human being” there. But I say the person is long gone. The “they” that they were isn’t there any more. My opinion, but there obviously is application of this – there comes a point when “pulling the plug” is considered for those with reduced consciousness or no consciousness at all.
____
“Here it’s not “C versus Z,” it’s Some Guy versus the pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy.”
Nice try at trying to shift the proverbial goalposts. It’s between “me and the woman with an unwanted pregnancy” as much as it is “you between the slave owner and the slave” or “you between the Nazi and the Jew”. When you assert that only some humans are entitled to human rights, instead of all of them, you are then burdened with trying to explain who gets to decide which humans are deserving of those rights and which humans aren’t, and why the distinctions any one individual can come up with to deny one group of humans the same basic rights as all other humans are more meaningful than the distinctions any other individual can come up with.
It’s not shifting the goalposts. A and B will affect conscious, sentient individuals with desires of their own. C will not. Do I say we should let the desire of X and Y be trumped, there? No. Neither do I say we should trump the desire of the pregnant woman.
____
This is precisely where you falter because, as most everyone here knows, you cannot do it. And why would you be able to do it? As you already stated, you’ve got nothing short of your opinion, and you opinion can be no more or less valid than the opinion of another.
That’s not true. “Who decides” is us – participants in society. X and Y are in society like you and I are, and have desires as we do. There is no “absolute” reason that my position has to be held or adopted by society – of course not – that’s true for us all. Society itself will have an opinion, on the whole, and maybe you or I agree with it, or not. What I have said is that I don’t see a good enough reason for taking away the freedom of the pregnant woman, the same as I don’t see a good enough reason for taking away the freedom of your X and Y. Perhaps you will agree on the “meaningful” of that or not. Obviously, with respect to the pregnant woman, you do see a good enough reason.
____
“I don’t say my opinion is the de facto standard.”
Yes, you do.
No I don’t. Why would you even assert that? What have I said that would support your claim?
___
“I do say that I don’t think your opinion should trump the opinion of the pregnant woman.”
Case and point. It was literally the next sentence.
Do you perhaps mean “case in point”? ;) And how does that involve me saying my opinion is the de facto standard? It’s not about any “de facto standard,” it’s that I don’t think you should be able to tell the pregnant woman what to do, here. Let her make her own choice – I don’t think you should be able to prohibit her from continuing the pregnancy if she wants to, or from having an abortion if she wants to.
____
“Sure, A and B (and for that matter, C and X and Y) can say *anything,* but even though you don’t accept that being inside the woman’s body is enough justification for abortion, I don’t think you’d agree that opinions about the race or origin of other people and their ancestors has the same immediacy and impact that being pregnant has upon the woman.”
Perhaps you need to take a fairly short trip over the Guttmacher and examine the reason women have abortions, after which you can come back and try this argument again. Of course, it’s not really the crux of the issue, so there’s really no need to.
What do women’s reasons for choosing abortion have to do with it? The situations are a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, and A thinking that rights should be altered on the basis of skin color and B thinking they should be altered on the basis of culture.
I’m aware there are people of different colors and enthnoreligious backgrounds in society. That’s nothing like the impact being pregnant would have on me. I think that’s true for most of us.
What if I wanted to be a slaveowner or mess somebody up because they were a different religion? What’s society going to say to me? Not the same as if I had an unwanted pregnancy.
____
“The question is whether to attribute rights or not. It’s not only the criteria we apply to Z. A and B, again, can say anything, but their claims are much different than the woman’s, i.e. they are talking about other sentient individuals that are not inside the body of a person, especially not inside *their* bodies.”
I’m going to let you in on a little secret here, Doug. Repeating that which you are burdened with showing to be a meaningful distinction does not mean you’ve shown it to be a meaningful distinction. It means that you’re content to BEG THE QUESTION and treat the criteria you come up with differentiate different humans as being “right” while all other criteria are “wrong”. That’s it. I know it. You know. Every pro-lifer here knows. And, truth be told, any honest pro-choicer here knows it, too.
Oh please. My point is that A and B’s claims are not going to be seen as meaningful, overall, to the extent that the pregnant woman’s claims are (regardless of whether one thinks abortion should be legal or not). If you are looking for any “magical” reason or any “absolute” then you’re not going to get it. Nothing such applies here. It’s all opinion. There is no “burden” beyond being factually correct, and the whole deal comes down to our desires, valuations, and feelings.
____
“And, in reality, “A” and “B” do exist – there are people who feel that way.”
The unborn don’t exist? If they don’t, then how can abortion be an issue, for you can’t abort that which doesn’t exist?
:) No, man, I didn’t say the unborn don’t exist. Good grief…. ;)
I meant that in the world at the present time there really are some people who are in favor of slavery, for example. I figure they picture themselves as the owners, rather than the slaves. Whaddayathink?
____
“But society sees X and Y as “one of us” – they too have desires, caring, emotion, etc., all the things that go into morality in the first place.”
I should play the lottery, as I saw this response coming on January 20, 2012 at 4:09 am.
Formula 409. “Nothing can catch her, nothing can touch my 409… 4409….”
Anyway, society (at the present time, anyway) and I are not for taking the pregnant woman’s freedom away. You bring up X and Y, but society isn’t going to feel the same way there. Society is going to say there is not a good enough reason to let them exercise their desires. The more far-fetched your examples, the faster society will say it.
Some Guy says:
January 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm
“Who are these people who keep liking Doug’s posts? I would really like to know.”
****
Doug’s giving you calm, straightforward answers. You seem unwilling to accept anything which goes against your beliefs.
Oh please. Yes, I do think the woman should have first choice – to a point in gestation – but I’ve never said anything to the effect that this is any “absolute” nor do I ascribe it to anything that cannot be proven to be more than imaginary. My opinion does not “have” to be the status quo, but of course I have my own “shoulds” and “should nots,” just as everybody does.
It’s silly of you to say, “that’s a lie.” I have my own feelings of when the unborn are becoming persons and when most fetuses would get to that stage, but that’s not the same thing as where I’d have society draw the line as far as legal abortion or not. Do you not understand that we may feel a certain way about a certain thing, but not wish the presence of a law mandating that? I don’t want to get tattoos, but I also don’t want them to be illegal.
Yeah, right Doug. How is it that you don’t seem to remember what you’ve said in this thread? Here are two exacts quotes by you in this thread alone:
“In the case of abortion, to a point in gestation, I don’t think the pregnant woman’s rights should be lessened because of how you feel.”
“Why I don’t want abortion to be illegal (more than it is now) is that I don’t see a good enough reason for restricting the woman’s liberty. I don’t see society needing every single pregnancy to be continued, any more than a miscarriage is the “end of the world” for society, any more than we need to force women to get pregnant. “
But I suppose you really didn’t mean to say that because you believe <X> then <X> should be the status quo, right? I just can’t read, right?
We all believe this or that, and as far as pro-lifers and pro-choicers, we all want the legal status quo to be a certain way. The only “weaseling” that goes on is when somebody pretends their opinion has to have some external or absolute truth to it.
This is ironic. Doug, you’ve spent the better part of the “discussion” with me refusing to explain why your criteria for defining some segment of the human population out of rights held by every other segment of the human population is more meaning than the criteria anyone else could come up with, instead claiming that your criteria are meaningful because they’re meaningful. And before that, you tried arguing that you really didn’t “believe” anything except to say that your beliefs were that the woman should dictate the moral status of her unborn child, as if that in itself is not a belief in regards to the abortion debate. So let’s not talk about “weaseling”.
The entire abortion debate is different people caring about things in varying amounts. Within the abortion debate, I don’t say that consciousness is the only thing that society should consider – wouldn’t you agree?
It matters not what different people care about, for if it did, slavery would still be legal.
That’s not a situation where “nobody cares.
Doug, I didn’t say “nobody cares”. I said “the individual you unplugged wouldn’t care”. They’re not conscious, so how could they care? And since they can’t care then, as per your logic, there there should be nothing wrong with you casually walking into the ICU, unplugging them and watching them die. No consciousness, no desire, no reason, no problem. Right?
Again, as always, the question is whether or not there’s a good enough reason for it, and you know darn well that society isn’t going to think there’s a good enough reason for pulling the plug – in the case of somebody walking in off the street and doing it, as you have me doing, there. Said another way, society feels there’s a good enough reason for legally prohibiting a “stranger” pulling the plug, there.
So your argument as to whether or not something should be allowed is whether or not there’s a “societal consensus” in regards to that action? I highly doubt this very much, especially as it relates to abortion. If, hypothetically speaking, “societal consensus” was that where abortion would only be allowed in instances of rape, incest, issues of maternal health and severe fetal defects while all others would be barred, I would bet everything I own that neither you, nor CC nor Reality—all individuals I’ve seen make some form of the “societal consensus” argument—would not come out and argue that abortion should be barred save specific instances because that is “societal consensus”. You would probably argue as you are. That is, going on about “bodily autonomy”, “sentience”, “consciousness”, “the ability to feel pain”, “awareness”, “feelings” and all that other crap. So why are you trying to change up your argument? Keep it consistent.
So going back to my ICU example, why wouldn’t be okay, as per your logic, to walk into an ICU and unplug someone on life-support. They wouldn’t care.
As far as “testing my theory,” then obviously – if nobody did care, there’d be no prohibition against pulling the plug.
Again, I didn’t say “nobody cares”. I said the person you unplugged wouldn’t care.
In reality, comatose patient or not, that individual was attributed full rights and personhood at birth, and the desire of a third-party isn’t going to be seen as sufficient reason for the plug being pulled.
What does past status have to do with present status? Should someone who is dead be treated the same as someone who is in a coma based on past status? Or would you treat them differently based on expected future status? I have a sneaky suspicion it would be the second, but I will wait until you respond with an answer.
No, a given individual would not have to be aware of the status for it to be attributed by another entity (of course not).
So why have you been going on about awareness/sentience then?
Dear Some Guy,
I applaud your intestinal fortitude to TRY and get Doug to give any kind of answer that is straightforward. I admire your willingness to ride the Doug Go Round.
I do believe that Meg is responsible for 1 of Doug’s “likes.”
btw
I have been here for 4 1/2 years and Doug has always sung the same ol tune.
I often wonder if he is paid to be here.
Doug Go Round! Hilarious.
I’ve wondered that too, Carla. He (I’ve also often thought Doug might be a she) has his own little following of proaborts that ‘like’ him.
Where do you work, Doug?
Well sure – it all goes to desire. As individuals we desire to be free, and we tend to legislate in accordance with that, unless we see a good enough reason for restricting freedom, case-by-case. We desire that government leave us alone, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
False. Desire means nothing. I cannot “desire” for the government to leave me alone while I kill you, or “desire” for the government to leave me alone while I rob a bank or “desire” for the government to leave me alone while I do wrong. Of course, this is the argument you’re trying to put forth in relation to abortion, though it doesn’t work. If it “all went to desire”, we’d live in an anarchy. Something you, apparently, believe we live in already.
Heh – I understand just fine, and am willing to clear up any lack of understanding on your part.
I feel confident in saying you don’t understand a word anyone on this blog has said to you, since you continue to engage in the same specious logic/arguments over and over again, no matter how many times people point out to you how and why you’re wrong.
Apparently I know a good bit more than you about them. They are attributed status. What you *want* as far as the unborn is for society to attribute a different status to them.
Anyone who talks about attributing moral status to someone is a deeply confused individual. Everyone has moral status, whether you want them to or not. That is what human rights are. The issue is whether or not you’re going to recognize that status. When you talk about attributing moral status to someone, you end up with an issue where someone only has moral status so long as society wants them to have moral status, which is how you end up with such institutions such as slavery or Nazi Germany.
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Just what I said.
I really don’t see us as a means to an end.
Yes, you do. Perhaps you need to read some of your responses in not only this thread, but every thread you post in.
I don’t ignore the unborn. I’m saying that with an unwanted pregnancy society does not need the unborn life enough that we restrict the freedom of the pregnant woman. Same as if she has a miscarriage – what real “harm” is done to society, there? Same as if she had never gotten pregnant. We don’t need every single pregnancy to be continued.
To answer a question with a question; what harm is done to society if I were to kill a homeless man who has no friends or family? Why is he so important as to restrict my liberty?
Nobody told you that “unlimited freedom” or “more net freedom” in a given case will necessarily be a good thing. It depends on the situation.
You might want to reread what I said, which was “more freedom for the individual choosing”. “More freedom for the individual choosing” does not mean “unlimited freedom” nor does it mean “more net freedom”. If you can’t get what I said right, then I’m going to stop debating with you, which I should have already.
As always, the question is whether or not there’s a good enough reason. Should the desire of the slaveowners trump the desire of the slaves? I say no. Others should not be allowed to restrict their freedom like that, in my opinion, same as I don’t think you or pro-lifers in general should be allowed to restrict the freedom of the pregnant woman.
You pump your fist in the air and continuously repeat “Freedom for the pregnant woman! Freedom for the pregnant woman!” while ignoring that said “freedom” involves the forfeiture of the life of another. Apparently, you deem liberty to trump life, which is odd, considering the fact that life is the one which trumps liberty. If I were to try to kill someone else, you would show up and argue that the life of the individual I want to kill trumps my right to kill them which is odd, considering the fact that you argue the exact opposite in the case of abortion. But I’ve long since given up hoping for any kind of consistency in your logic or sense from you.
Doug’s giving you calm, straightforward answers. You seem unwilling to accept anything which goes against your beliefs.
Doug’s responses are convoluted BS. And that’s putting it nicely. Seriously. Dealing with me alone, Doug has argued that:
(1) Human rights are not universal.
(2) People only have rights if they’re aware of those rights and if others want them to have rights.
(3) We shouldn’t care about things which don’t personally affect us.
The very fact that you think those are “calm and straight forward” answers perfectly demonstrates one of the reasons the pro-life movement is kicking the crap out of the pro-choice movement and the latter is growing older while the former is growing younger. When you speak nonsense, people tend to pass you off as the lunatic on the street corner.
“I don’t think that would actually be invoking Godwin’s Law.”
Some Guy: And you think wrong.
Godwin’s Law is that the probability of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis increases as the length of online discussions grow. Invoking it is saying, “You lose” to the person who first makes the comparison.
“there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin’s law will be unsuccessful.”
____
“Also don’t think that’s really more succinct. In the case of abortion, to a point in gestation, I don’t think the pregnant woman’s rights should be lessened because of how you feel. That’s really where we are at on this. As far as Nazis, they were as anti-choice as any pro-lifer, wanting abortions mandated for some women and prohibited for other women.”
And again, you think wrong, for that is what the issue boils down to. I say “human rights for all humans” while you say “human rights for some humans”. I say “Jim-Bob can’t define me out of rights, I can’t define you out of rights and you can’t define anyone else out of rights” while you say “Jim-Bob can’t define me out of rights, I can’t define you out of rights yet you can define someone else out of rights”. It is what it is and there is no use in sugar-coating it.
No, the issue is whether we have it to be legal to get an abortion or not. Somewhat as an ancillary thing, there is the question of personhood for the unborn. There is no agreement that the unborn, especially the insensate, not-conscious, not-able-to-suffer unborn, are part of the same “we” in society that includes you and I, and Jim-Bob.
___
“In the case of abortion, to a point in gestation, I don’t think the pregnant woman’s rights should be lessened because of how you feel.”
Yet after a certain point in gestation, you have no problem “lessening” the woman’s rights based on how you feel? What happened to you trying to tell me that you don’t want your opinion to affect public policy.
What happened is that you are not remembering correctly. What I said was: ““I do make the distinction between what I personally feel, and what I’d have society do – they are not always exactly the same.”
In no way does would that mean I never want my opinion reflected in public policy. There certainly are times that I do. For the most part, I’m happy with our laws as we have them now. I do see personhood developing later in gestation, and I’m fine with the restrictions on abortion that we have then.
____
“That’s really where we are at on this.”
Yes. We’re at the part where you’re content to treat your criteria as the de facto standard (1) by which abortion should be legal and (2) by which we decide what human is entitled to the same basic rights as all other humans. I said this in my last post, yet you ignored it. What are the chances you ignore this again?
That’s just not true. I haven’t ignored it. My criteria (sentience, personality, emotion, desire, ability to suffer, etc.) are not behind the law as we have it, and I’m fine with the way it is now. I’m not saying my criteria “have” to have anything to do with why abortion is legal. I’ve never presented my opinion as the de facto standard nor implied that it “has to be.” It doesn’t. It’s my opinion, and I’ve identified that all along.
Likewise, my opinion doesn’t have to be the de facto standard for getting tattoos or not. I don’t want them, myself, but don’t want society to prohibit or mandate them.
Some of the reasons why I’m okay with legal abortion as we have it do involve those criteria, sure – and again, there’s never been any “secret” about that. As to how society decides the abortion issue, and personhood or not for the unborn, it will come down to whether there is a sufficient opinion to change the laws or not. Maybe things will change, maybe not. My opinions may or may not be shared by enough other people to matter, there. Same for you.
We all have our opinions. With some of mine, I don’t want society to mandate or prohibit things. With others, I do. I think this is true for all of us.
____
“As far as Nazis, they were as anti-choice as any pro-lifer, wanting abortions mandated for some women and prohibited for other women.”
And they were also willing to define some segment of the population as non-persons to meet an end, much like you are content to do here.
No, because the early-gestation unborn are not part of the population, not part of the “we” in society the same way that born people are. The Nazi state removed some rights from born people that previously had been accorded them. That’s much different from never having had rights attributed.
____
“You may not think the differences are all that meaningful, but you’re comparing conscious, aware, feeling, emotional people with “human beings” that are not, and people that do not have the entity in question inside them, with those who do. Well, it’s a big deal, and that’s why we have abortion as such a large issue.”
So, in essence, your justification for why things such as location, consciousness, awareness, feelings and/or emotions more meaningful distinctions than are distinctions based on race, gender, ethnicity or even national origin is “because they are”. Is that right? Because if so, it leaves A LOT to be desired, since it’s not a justification at all as it puts forth no reason as to why the aforementioned criteria are more meaningful distinctions than the ones someone else could come up with. Just because you say they are, or want to believe they are, don’t mean that they are.
I’m saying it’s my opinion. I feel that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is facing a lot more than the presence of other people in society that are a different color, religion, etc.
The degree to which a thing is meaningful in this regard is a matter of opinion. There are no absolutes, no “magical” answers. It’s how we feel. There is no one blanket answer – even with the examples you brought up – though they are not really at issue. Abortion *is* at issue precisely because so many people have different opinions about what is most important.
Anyway, I’m going to take a break, because otherwise I’m going to throw my computer at the wall :(
Some Guy, jump off while you can. It’s semantics; again, that’s ALL HE HAS.
He can kill, we can’t. Who took his heart, I wonder?
“There is no real “treating humans equally,” without qualification.”
Some Guy: Absolutely false. If you have to qualify the statement, then you’re not treating *all* humans equally; you’re holding those humans who make the cut above those who do not. I’m sure I’m not the first person to tell you this and I won’t be the last, but the old saying from Animal Farm holds true here as it pertains to your rationale; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
It’s not false. You have to qualify it in the first place. There is no absolute right to life nor any other right. There are situations when it’s seen that there’s a good enough reason for treading on what would otherwise be seen as a right. What does “Animal Farm” have to do with it? In reality, there are varying degrees of privilege in society, but that’s not the disagreement between you and me. Here, we can say “we treat humans equally…. *as long as*….”
____
“If you had a claim with the same weight as a Jew tortured by the Nazis, that would be one thing. If you had the claim of one enslaved against their will, same deal.”
How about one being killed often out of convenience for another?
Stating it like that neglects that while the Nazis and Jews were sentient, born people, the unborn are not. If the unborn were not inside the body of a person, then things would be different – the abortion debate would be non-existent.
I could as well ask you what about having someone’s freedom curtailed for the “convenience of pro-lifers.”
_____
“There is no “absolute right to life,” even for born people.”
Could you show me who ever claimed this?
You had said: “The underlying rationale– that only some humans deserve to be treated equally– is exactly the same.”
My point is that we don’t treat them all equally in the first place. Even the right to life (for born people) is not absolute.
____
“It matters whether we’re talking about a born person or not.”
Even within the abortion debate, no it doesn’t, because there is only one jurisdiction I know of (Canada) where abortion is legal up until birth.
Not the same thing, man. :) No society anywhere on earth, at any time, has attributed full rights and personhood to the unborn. Abortion being illegal isn’t necessarily the same as having the right to life. It only took one or two doctors to say that an abortion was called for, to okay the abortion. Obviously, this could not have been had rights been attributed to the unborn. It was the action of abortion itself that was generally prohibited, that’s all.
____
“It matters if somebody breaks into your house, or is an enemy combatant, of if one’s actions are in self-defense, or accidental, etc.”
(1) If someone breaks into your house and you kill them, unless you can show that they were posing an immediate threat to your health or life, you could end up in jail for murder.
(2) If an enemy combatant is unarmed, surrendering or otherwise not posing a threat to you and you kill them, that is considered an illegal act.
(3) If someone kicks you in the shin and you snap their necks, that is murder.
Yeah, indeed – it matters if it’s seen that there is a good enough reason for the action or not. I was saying that the right to life isn’t absolute and that is true, but that applies situation-by-situation, certainly.
_____
In every single one of these cases, one’s right to life is only able to be violated when they are trying to take the life of another, as the individual who is being acted against has the right to protect his or her own life with equal force. But you see, Doug. Let’s just cut past all the BS. Everyone here knows that the overwhelming majority of abortions are NOT done to preserve the mother’s life. They are usually done “as expressions of her liberty”– in other words, because she can have one. Essentially, your argument boils down to liberty trumping life, where one’s right to act is greater than another’s right to not be killed or, as it relates to abortion, the woman’s right to have an abortion (or even act in a way which could be construed as harmful) is greater than the unborn’s right to not be killed.
On the first part there – no, it doesn’t have to be if one person is trying to take the life of another. Joe Blow breaks into your house, in some states you can fill him full of lead whether there is any real case to be made that he was demonstrably trying to kill you. There, it’s more how you felt – if you felt threatened, then blast away.
Totally agree – very few abortions are done to preserve the mother’s life. The vast majority are done because the pregnancy is unwanted – for whatever reasons.
The right to life isn’t attributed to the unborn. If it were, the abortion debate would be massively changed or wiped-out entirely. It’s not a question of the mother’s liberty versus the unborns’ right to life. A change you desire is that right to life be accorded to the unborn, but this is not how things are now. I am saying that the woman’s liberty trumps your desire for the unborn life to continue.
Directly comparing the woman’s freedom and the life of the unborn, I don’t see that society has a compelling need to deny the woman an abortion. Again, it’s not like we need every pregnancy continued.
___
…Well, at least it does in the case of abortion, as if I were to try to apply the whole “liberty trumps life” logic elsewhere, you would stomp your foot and cry foul. What are the chances you’d agree with the following statement?– “Well, my right to kill Doug is greater than Doug’s right to not be killed!”
Not all that large. ;) Indeed – I don’t see your claim as being reason enough for your proposal, there, as stated. The situation could change that, however, i.e. at times I do see justification for one person killing another.
Again, “Is there a good enough reason for it or not?”
Courtnay: Some Guy, jump off while you can. It’s semantics; again, that’s ALL HE HAS.
He can kill, we can’t. Who took his heart, I wonder?
Pfft…. The “semantics” game is your court, Courtnay, i.e. “abortion is wrong because it’s a baby,” etc.
I’m not the one wanting to kill. Yeah, if you’re pregnant, you can have an abortion, or not.
Who took your heart, that you would have a pregnant woman suffer, for the sake of your beliefs about the unborn?
Doug, you can have it. I don’t want it.
I have been here for 4 1/2 years and Doug has always sung the same ol tune.
I often wonder if he is paid to be here.
Carla, SHOW ME THE MONEY! :)
No pay for me here, but yes – the “tune” was the same all along. Some people more value the freedom of the pregnant woman, and some more value the unborn life.
Praxedes: Where do you work, Doug?
I really am a guy, and I work on electrical transformers. All over the 48 states, although in 1985 I got to go to Alaska and two of our people went to Hawaii last year.
Currently in northwestern Mississippi, the flat delta of the big ‘ol river.
I value preborn human beings male and female and regard them with the dignity they deserve. They are denied the right to life at the whim of the mother. Without informed consent before my abortion I denied my Aubrey the right to live.
I value women enough to tell them the TRUTH about abortion. That it kills their unborn child, that it will hurt them physically, emotionally and spiritually. That they can NEVER go back and undo the death of their child.
This weekend a young lady will be speaking at my church. A couple of years ago I told my abortion story and she was there. When she got pregnant the summer before her senior year of high school she remembered my story and chose life for her little girl and put her up for adoption.
And that Doug is why I do what I do and one day I hope you “get it”.
No need to answer this comment.
Yeah… It’s funny how you (Doug) continue to blatantly engage in the same logical fallacies no matter how many times one points out to you that it’s a fallacy (petitio principii, for example, means absolutely nothing to you), the same specious arguments and as many conflations as you want. So I’ll gladly let you consider yourself to have “won” the argument, even though you haven’t really.
“I do make the distinction between what I personally feel, and what I’d have society do – they are not always exactly the same.”
Some Guy: I can only speak of abortion, but that’s a lie. I’ve been in enough arguments and have watched you post enough to note that most of your arguments boil down to you believing <X> and that <X> should be the status quo. You usually try to weasel your way out by asserting that you’re really not claiming anything, but rather are claiming that the woman should be the sole arbitrator of whether or not to obtain an abortion (up to a certain point), as if that’s not really a claim.
“Oh please. Yes, I do think the woman should have first choice – to a point in gestation – but I’ve never said anything to the effect that this is any “absolute” nor do I ascribe it to anything that cannot be proven to be more than imaginary. My opinion does not “have” to be the status quo, but of course I have my own “shoulds” and “should nots,” just as everybody does.
It’s silly of you to say, “that’s a lie.” I have my own feelings of when the unborn are becoming persons and when most fetuses would get to that stage, but that’s not the same thing as where I’d have society draw the line as far as legal abortion or not. Do you not understand that we may feel a certain way about a certain thing, but not wish the presence of a law mandating that? I don’t want to get tattoos, but I also don’t want them to be illegal.”
Yeah, right Doug. How is it that you don’t seem to remember what you’ve said in this thread? Here are two exacts quotes by you in this thread alone:
“In the case of abortion, to a point in gestation, I don’t think the pregnant woman’s rights should be lessened because of how you feel.”
“Why I don’t want abortion to be illegal (more than it is now) is that I don’t see a good enough reason for restricting the woman’s liberty. I don’t see society needing every single pregnancy to be continued, any more than a miscarriage is the “end of the world” for society, any more than we need to force women to get pregnant. “
But I suppose you really didn’t mean to say that because you believe <X> then <X> should be the status quo, right? I just can’t read, right?
No, not saying you can’t read, but how does what you quoted refute what I’ve said, or contradict it?
Indeed, I don’t think the pregnant woman’s rights should be lessened because of what you think, or, for that matter, what any pro-lifer thinks. How in the world does that go against anything else I said? In no way does that mean I present my opinion as any de facto standard nor that I always want my opinion enshrined in law. Holy Crow – it depends on what we are talking about, and yet again – is this not true for all of us?
I haven’t said that I want all my opinions enshrined into law, or none of them. Going back to what I first said – “I do make the distinction between what I personally feel, and what I’d have society do – they are not always exactly the same.” – there *is* a difference. With personhood and the unborn, I see it developing in the weeks in the 20s. It will be different, fetus by fetus, but most will have some awareness and sensation at a given point. I’m not saying that my opinion is where the line for legal abortion has to be drawn. The line could be drawn somewhat earlier, to err “on the side of caution,” if you will, and I’d be okay with that.
Somg Guy: Yeah… It’s funny how you (Doug) continue to blatantly engage in the same logical fallacies no matter how many times one points out to you that it’s a fallacy (petitio principii, for example, means absolutely nothing to you), the same specious arguments and as many conflations as you want. So I’ll gladly let you consider yourself to have “won” the argument, even though you haven’t really.
Whoa – if there is petitio principii here, it’s on your part – you assuming your opinions and conclusions are somehow magically and externally correct. I am saying, “this is my opinion,” and never pretending it’s anything but.
Who took your heart, that you would have a pregnant woman suffer, for the sake of your beliefs about the unborn?
Who took your heart, that you would have another human being die, permanently taking away their entire life from them, for the sake of a woman’s preference? A woman who will be no worse off for letting her child continue to live, who is only temporarily impacted by him/her. Who took YOUR heart?
Who took your heart, that you would have another human being die, permanently taking away their entire life from them, for the sake of a woman’s preference? A woman who will be no worse off for letting her child continue to live, who is only temporarily impacted by him/her. Who took YOUR heart?
Zzzzing!
Maybe he never had one. He just had a dictionary where the heart should be.
“As things are now, we are treating the pregnant woman “equally” with other born people – we accept the concept of bodily autonomy, to an extent. You want to change this, alter it because she is pregnant.”
Doug, you’re not nearly as sly as you think you are. If the contention being made by pro-lifers is that only some humans are afforded equal rights, whereas all humans are entitled to equal rights, and that the only humans which are afforded equal rights are those who are born, then saying that we’re treating women “equally” with other born persons therefore abortion is okay is a meaningless statement, since it operates under the assumption that the unborn are “nothing” and/or do not exist within the equation. But you see, Doug. I don’t want to alter anything because she’s pregnant; I want to alter things because the unborn are humans. No one should be killed solely because another wants to kill them. Why, exactly, is this so hard for you to understand?
Wasn’t trying to be sly. Regardless of the extent to which you agree with its application, there *is* the concept of bodily autonomy and freedom for people. Without regard to one’s opinion on whether abortion should be legal or not, one has to agree with that. Okay, you want to alter things because there is an unborn life inside the pregnant woman – I accept that. I’m not saying the unborn are “nothing,” I’m weighing them and the situation.
I do understand how you feel, but don’t agree with you that the unborn are “another” in the same way that you and I are.
____
“But 99.999% of the time, you will never be affected by a woman having an abortion, or not having one. Doesn’t matter whether she has an abortion, or a miscarriage, or doesn’t get pregnant in the first place.”
I’ll be frank, Doug. Your “arguments” are getting more and more ridiculous as time passes. I happen to live in Central Florida. As a result, there are many things which will never affect me in any way shape or form, mainly because I am thoroughly unaware of them.
For example, a woman who drowns her child in Oregon doesn’t affect me. A man who kills his neighbor in New York doesn’t affect me. A group of men who viciously gang rapes some woman in the Democratic Republic of Congo doesn’t affect me. A woman being forced into an abortion in China doesn’t affect me. And so on and so forth with many other examples.
And three drug-crazed guys in their 20’s will break into an old lady’s house and start beating on her. There too, we aren’t usually aware of it. Maybe we are against it – as with the examples you mentioned. Maybe we are okay with it – if the old lady shoots and wounds the guys very painfully, it’s okay by me, anyway.
How is what I said “ridiculous”? It comes down to whether we see a good enough reason or not. If there is no suffering, or if one’s suffering or desire outweighs another’s, then it makes a heck of a difference to me. If the unborn are not going to suffer, and the pregnant woman is suffering, and/or will suffer if she doesn’t get an abortion, that too makes a difference to me. I don’t see society as having a good enough reason to deny her an abortion.
Even when there *is* suffering, like the break-in guys getting shot, we might say there was a good enough reason for it.
____
But so what? Just because I’m not personally affected by any of these activities doesn’t mean they are morally permissible and should be allowed. If I were to viciously rip your appendages from your body, bash your skull in and inject you with some drug in order to stop your heart, the fact that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the human population would be unaffected by me engaging in such an action does not somehow make it “okay”.
True, but again – your claim to do so would not be seen as a good enough reason by just about everybody, unless there was a situation that you certainly didn’t describe, above. There is the effect, if any, that a thing has on us, and then there is the motivation behind those involved with that thing. I’m not saying that just us “not knowing” is the end-all of it being justified or not. I’m saying that abortion almost never affects you personally, and that the unborn don’t suffer and are not aware of anything in the abortions I’m talking about. Who is left is the woman, who most certainly can suffer if denied an abortion. I see her claim as the best, as she is the one who’s pregnant. Those taking the other side – that she should not be allowed to have an abortion – are people like you who really aren’t directly involved at all.
Likewise, I’m not involved with the old lady and the break-in druggies, and I see her claim as the best, i.e. shooting is justified.
“Who took your heart, that you would have a pregnant woman suffer, for the sake of your beliefs about the unborn?”
X: Who took your heart, that you would have another human being die, permanently taking away their entire life from them, for the sake of a woman’s preference?
That woman cares, the unborn do not. This is you putting your preference above that of the pregnant woman.
____
A woman who will be no worse off for letting her child continue to live, who is only temporarily impacted by him/her. Who took YOUR heart?
X, that’s your opinion. It’s not up to you to deem her being “no worse off.” I’d leave that up to her.
Carla: This weekend a young lady will be speaking at my church. A couple of years ago I told my abortion story and she was there. When she got pregnant the summer before her senior year of high school she remembered my story and chose life for her little girl and put her up for adoption.
And that Doug is why I do what I do and one day I hope you “get it”. No need to answer this comment.
Maybe, maybe not. Carla, you made some blanket statements about abortion that are not true.
However, if the woman you describe is happy, overall, with having the baby and then having it adopted – and it sounds like she is – then I think she did the right thing. And for you, having an abortion was the wrong thing.
Y’all, please let Doug go. He’s obviously full, and now he’s just throwing up.
We all believe this or that, and as far as pro-lifers and pro-choicers, we all want the legal status quo to be a certain way. The only “weaseling” that goes on is when somebody pretends their opinion has to have some external or absolute truth to it.
Some Guy: This is ironic. Doug, you’ve spent the better part of the “discussion” with me refusing to explain why your criteria for defining some segment of the human population out of rights held by every other segment of the human population is more meaning than the criteria anyone else could come up with, instead claiming that your criteria are meaningful because they’re meaningful.
That’s not it. I’m not “defining anything out of rights.” The unborn are not part of the population, and have not yet been attributed rights. There are some reasons why I don’t think full rights and personhood should be attributed to the unborn, but that’s not the same deal. That would be also changing the status of the pregnant woman, and I don’t see enough reason for doing so.
It’s not me “taking away the rights” of the unborn. You’re the one that wants the change, here, and I’m saying I don’t see a good enough reason for it, since it would impact the pregnant woman.
On criteria “being meaningful because they are meaningful,” where do you think the meaning arises? What do you think morality is, if not a concept of the mind?
If nobody cared, there would be no debate. If everybody was on one side of the issue, then no argument. Does something have meaning, in this regard, or not? It depends on the observers – it depends on there being “somebody” to say so.
____
And before that, you tried arguing that you really didn’t “believe” anything except to say that your beliefs were that the woman should dictate the moral status of her unborn child, as if that in itself is not a belief in regards to the abortion debate.
No, I did not say that. I believe plenty of things, including that – all other things being equal – freedom is good, and that there needs to be a compelling reason for society to restrict freedom. Is there a good enough reason to restrict the freedom of the pregnant woman? You say yes, I say no.
____
The entire abortion debate is different people caring about things in varying amounts. Within the abortion debate, I don’t say that consciousness is the only thing that society should consider – wouldn’t you agree?
It matters not what different people care about, for if it did, slavery would still be legal.
Again, no, that is not the deal. If enough people had not cared about banning slavery, it would still be legal. It indeed *does* matter what people care about. You, for example, want different status to be accorded to the unborn. If nobody felt as you do, the abortion debate as we now have it would not exist.
____
“Rights are a mental construct, and without desire, there’s no such concept, no reason for the concept. Rights go to allowing or not allowing things, on the part of the individual and on the part of others with respect to them. There have to be desires, for and/or against things, for it to matter. Or, “if nobody cared,” then there would be no morality, no “rights,” no such conceptions.”
All right, Doug. Let’s put this theory of yours to the test. What do you think would happen if you walked into your local hospital, found their ICU (assuming they have one), found a comatose patient on life support, unplugged them and watch them die. Do you think you’d get off because the individual you unplugged “wouldn’t care”? Or had no “desires”? No “reason”? Or would you be shipped off to jail for murder?
“That’s not a situation where “nobody cares.”
Doug, I didn’t say “nobody cares”. I said “the individual you unplugged wouldn’t care”. They’re not conscious, so how could they care? And since they can’t care then, as per your logic, there there should be nothing wrong with you casually walking into the ICU, unplugging them and watching them die. No consciousness, no desire, no reason, no problem. Right?
Well, I did say, “if nobody cared,” above. You then say, “let’s test the theory.” But your example has plenty of caring involved. There are plenty of desires involved (including the family of the coma patient, if any) and it certainly matters to them, the medical staff, our current laws, etc. Thus, pulling the plug, just like that, isn’t allowed.
____
“Again, as always, the question is whether or not there’s a good enough reason for it, and you know darn well that society isn’t going to think there’s a good enough reason for pulling the plug – in the case of somebody walking in off the street and doing it, as you have me doing, there. Said another way, society feels there’s a good enough reason for legally prohibiting a “stranger” pulling the plug, there.”
So your argument as to whether or not something should be allowed is whether or not there’s a “societal consensus” in regards to that action? I highly doubt this very much, especially as it relates to abortion.
No, that’s not my argument. You’re not saying whose opinion we are talking about, as far as “should be allowed.” Maybe a given individual or group will agree with a given societal consensus, maybe not.
As individuals, groups, and societies as a whole, we do have opinions on whether there is a good enough reason or not for many things. In the case of society, per your example, there’s not a good enough reason.
____
If, hypothetically speaking, “societal consensus” was that where abortion would only be allowed in instances of rape, incest, issues of maternal health and severe fetal defects while all others would be barred, I would bet everything I own that neither you, nor CC nor Reality—all individuals I’ve seen make some form of the “societal consensus” argument—would not come out and argue that abortion should be barred save specific instances because that is “societal consensus”. You would probably argue as you are. That is, going on about “bodily autonomy”, “sentience”, “consciousness”, “the ability to feel pain”, “awareness”, “feelings” and all that other crap. So why are you trying to change up your argument? Keep it consistent.
So going back to my ICU example, why wouldn’t be okay, as per your logic, to walk into an ICU and unplug someone on life-support. They wouldn’t care.
Some Guy, I’ve never maintained that a thing was necessarily or “absolutely” good just because society felt one way or another. If you ask “why can’t the plug be pulled,” it’s because society is saying it can’t legally be done like that. That’s without me saying whether I think it should be, or not. I really have not made the “societal consensus” argument with respect to abortion. I don’t think society was right in having it so much more illegal in the past, and yeah – I wouldn’t agree with the restrictions you describe either.
____
As far as “testing my theory,” then obviously – if nobody did care, there’d be no prohibition against pulling the plug.
Again, I didn’t say “nobody cares”. I said the person you unplugged wouldn’t care. Ahem. My theory was that ““if nobody cared,” then there would be no morality, no “rights,” no such conceptions.”
I’m not saying the coma patient is the end-all of the equation. Let’s say they have a spouse, to pick an obvious example, who hopes they recover. If somebody’s opinion is that “the plug should be pulled,” how is that going to outweigh what the spouse feels? I sure don’t think it does. Likewise, whose opinion should trump that of the pregnant woman, when it comes to abortion? I say nobody, since she is the one pregnant. Nobody has any caring more closely related than that, like the coma patient and the spouse.
____
In reality, comatose patient or not, that individual was attributed full rights and personhood at birth, and the desire of a third-party isn’t going to be seen as sufficient reason for the plug being pulled.
What does past status have to do with present status? It *is* the present status of the coma patient that the right-to-life (generally, unless after a time there’s no reasonable hope of recovery) is there. Society doesn’t change its position due to us going to sleep or going into a coma, at least for a while.
____ Should someone who is dead be treated the same as someone who is in a coma based on past status? No, but again, it’s not “past status” that is operative. It’s the present status, and the coma patient hasn’t “lost rights” as you are describing things. The dead person, however, is dead.
___ Or would you treat them differently based on expected future status? I have a sneaky suspicion it would be the second, but I will wait until you respond with an answer. It depends on the situation. Past a point, I wouldn’t want my body to be kept alive if “I” was gone, as far as mind, personality, memory, emotion, etc. Let’s say my wife was the coma patient – this is the hardest thing for me that I can think of, there. When would I say, “It’s not worth it” to keep her body alive? I’ve never encountered anything like that, and don’t know how long it would take. 5 years? 15 years?
____
No, a given individual would not have to be aware of the status for it to be attributed by another entity (of course not).
So why have you been going on about awareness/sentience then? What does one have to do with the other?
Prior to having any awareness, any ability to suffer, any emotion, personality, etc., the unborn are not like us in that respect. Yet that has nothing to do with the fact that society’s attribution of rights doesn’t rely on one knowing of it.
Courtnay: Y’all, please let Doug go.
<eyeroll>
I’m replying to what was said, Courtnay. Just want to get to the end.
Thank goodness it’s just one thread, eh? ;)
Well sure – it all goes to desire. As individuals we desire to be free, and we tend to legislate in accordance with that, unless we see a good enough reason for restricting freedom, case-by-case. We desire that government leave us alone, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
Some Guy: False. Desire means nothing. I cannot “desire” for the government to leave me alone while I kill you, or “desire” for the government to leave me alone while I rob a bank or “desire” for the government to leave me alone while I do wrong.
Once again, that’s not it. Yes, desire is the motivation behind it all. No, you won’t be left alone if you kill me, because there was sufficient desire for laws to be enacted, and you’d be breaking them by killing me. The individual may not go along with desire as expressed by society, and if the behavior is far enough outside the bounds set by society, then he’ll be “put out” by being killed, imprisoned, etc. Nobody is telling you that everybody agrees, all the time.
____
Of course, this is the argument you’re trying to put forth in relation to abortion, though it doesn’t work. If it “all went to desire”, we’d live in an anarchy. Something you, apparently, believe we live in already.
That’s silly. It’s not an “anarchy” – there is great commonality among people as far as what they want, and thus laws tend to be similar wherever you go. Within our own society, there’s an even greater commonality than that found among the world’s people as a whole, and most of us are quite happy with most laws. It still all goes to desire. The existence of laws. Really, any of our human motivation – from our available options we choose that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste for. You can look at *anything* in this realm and identify the desire behind it.
Given that great commonality of desire, and the resulting agreement on most things, the abortion debate stands as quite a special case, since there is not only a significant amount of sentiment on both sides, but a huge amount.
Doug, who do those arms belong to on the top of this thread?
“Apparently I know a good bit more than you about them. They are attributed status. What you *want* as far as the unborn is for society to attribute a different status to them.”
Anyone who talks about attributing moral status to someone is a deeply confused individual. Everyone has moral status, whether you want them to or not. That is what human rights are. The issue is whether or not you’re going to recognize that status. When you talk about attributing moral status to someone, you end up with an issue where someone only has moral status so long as society wants them to have moral status, which is how you end up with such institutions such as slavery or Nazi Germany.
You are positing something which cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary.
“Moral status” is in the eye of the beholder. As I said, what you *want* as far as the unborn is for society to attribute a different status to them. They are not currently accorded the right to life. Presumably, you want that to happen. Otherwise, you certainly want the status to go from “okay to be aborted” to “not okay” in general.
____
“I don’t ignore the unborn. I’m saying that with an unwanted pregnancy society does not need the unborn life enough that we restrict the freedom of the pregnant woman. Same as if she has a miscarriage – what real “harm” is done to society, there? Same as if she had never gotten pregnant. We don’t need every single pregnancy to be continued.”
To answer a question with a question; what harm is done to society if I were to kill a homeless man who has no friends or family? Why is he so important as to restrict my liberty?
No problem on answering with a question, and that’s a good one. One part of it is that the homeless guy is presumed to want to live. What claim on his life, above his own desire, do you really have?
The homeless man was attributed full rights and personhood at birth (whether or not you think that’s the way it should be). As society considers him to have the right to life – at least in the situation you describe – your desire isn’t seen as enough of a good reason to trump his desire and his rights. In a different situation, if he didn’t desire to live, and you helped him suicide, then you would be treated differently, or even not charged with any crime at all, depending on the state laws.
Society is saying that the homeless guy is “one of us.”
____
“Oh, but you’ll cry foul, specifically because you don’t like those choices – even though those choices result is more net freedoms for the individual who engages in them.”
Nobody told you that “unlimited freedom” or “more net freedom” in a given case will necessarily be a good thing. It depends on the situation.
You might want to reread what I said, which was “more freedom for the individual choosing”. “More freedom for the individual choosing” does not mean “unlimited freedom” nor does it mean “more net freedom”. If you can’t get what I said right, then I’m going to stop debating with you, which I should have already.
You said what I quoted, in bold, above, at 2:55 p.m. January 20. (Assuming the time shows on your computer as it does on mine.) You said it right after talking about people’s choices to own slaves, steal, rape, and kill. That’s what I replied to.
So, what can I say? You did speak of “more net freedoms,” and my point is that those, per se, won’t be desired. It depends on the situation, and the examples you brought up are not seen as good enough reasons for people to have the legal freedom to do them.
_____
“As always, the question is whether or not there’s a good enough reason. Should the desire of the slaveowners trump the desire of the slaves? I say no. Others should not be allowed to restrict their freedom like that, in my opinion, same as I don’t think you or pro-lifers in general should be allowed to restrict the freedom of the pregnant woman.”
You pump your fist in the air and continuously repeat “Freedom for the pregnant woman! Freedom for the pregnant woman!” while ignoring that said “freedom” involves the forfeiture of the life of another. Apparently, you deem liberty to trump life, which is odd, considering the fact that life is the one which trumps liberty. If I were to try to kill someone else, you would show up and argue that the life of the individual I want to kill trumps my right to kill them which is odd, considering the fact that you argue the exact opposite in the case of abortion. But I’ve long since given up hoping for any kind of consistency in your logic or sense from you.
No I don’t. I’ve agreed numerous times that the unborn die in an abortion. There’s no “ignoring” going on. And yeah, I’d argue against your desire, alone, being justification for killing Joe Blow on the street. I’m saying that the unborn are different enough from us that the situation is different, that the pregnant woman’s freedom is more important, and that her desire should trump yours.
____
“Doug’s giving you calm, straightforward answers. You seem unwilling to accept anything which goes against your beliefs.” ( :) Meg )
Doug’s responses are convoluted BS. And that’s putting it nicely. Seriously. Dealing with me alone, Doug has argued that:
(1) Human rights are not universal.
(2) People only have rights if they’re aware of those rights and if others want them to have rights.
(3) We shouldn’t care about things which don’t personally affect us.
You’re only correct about the first one, so if there is “BS” here, it’s on your part. #2 — no, didn’t say that, and I agreed with you that the individual being aware is not required for rights to be attributed. #3 – never said that or anything to that effect, either. There is no “should” or “should not” care about it. You are free to do so, or not, as am I and everybody else. If you do, you do – feelings can’t be argued, they just *are.* My point about the degree to which we are personally affected is the other part of the equation – what is our motivation and what is our relation to the deal? You might want the plug pulled on a coma patient, or not want it pulled, for example. Well hey, if that patient’s spouse wants something different, then I’d sure go with their opinion versus yours.
On #1 – yes, rights are not universal nor absolute. Even where generally accorded, they may be overruled by other considerations. And they’re not accorded to all “living human beings,” i.e. they’re certainly not “universal.” Heck, it’s your knowledge of that which has you dissatisfied with the way things are.
Praxedes: Doug, who do those arms belong to on the top of this thread?
On top I see 7 arms in with the ‘National Prolife Youth Rally.”
Farther down, 2 arms from a 10 week fetus.
Farther down, 2 arms from a 10 week fetus. ___________________
Yes, a human being. I will never understand how someone can see this, understand this and still support this. Those arms belonged to a fellow HUMAN and you supported and argued hour after hour for his death. Ultimate arrogance.
You have less heart than the slave owners did and are as equally arrogant and evil as the nazis.
Put a photo of these human arms on a bumper sticker saying, “I am proud to have supported his death!” Own who you really are. A hateful bully.
Puke.
Praxedes, that’s like saying you are a hateful bully for wanting your preference to overrule that of the pregnant woman.
You’re assuming that “heart” is personifying the unborn when there is really nobody there as far as emotion, awareness, nor caring about anything. Meanwhile, you’re not having as much empathy for the pregnant woman – where it *is* possible to empathize with her.
Doug,
You’ve been displaying a typical pro-choice lack of emotion, awareness, or caring throughout this thread. You’re not measuring up very well with those pre-born babies you dismiss. At least in a few months they will have those qualities to match your lofty criteria for humanity.
I wish I could say the same for you and your little posse of trolls.
Hans: You’ve been displaying a typical pro-choice lack of emotion, awareness, or caring throughout this thread.
Oh Hans, come on…. ;)
You’re not measuring up very well with those pre-born babies you dismiss. At least in a few months they will have those qualities to match your lofty criteria for humanity.
Well, just what is “humanity”? If you just mean “living human organism,” then the zygote qualifies.
Anyway, seems to me you are personifying the unborn, and “feeling sorry” for them, when there is no awareness, no caring there, in the first place. Meanwhile, you comparatively ignore the pregnant woman, who most certainly has emotions, cares, can suffer, etc.
I don’t forget about these mothers. I would tell them life is tough. And its being tough is not enough reason to deny their child to have their crack at it.
Name me another organism that is programmed to be on the road toward your aware and caring criteria. Which will occur at an impossible-to-identify time, by the way. Which invalidates their relevance.
Until that time they will be like any other creature, reacting to stimuli for their survival. Your real threshold won’t really occur till months after birth.
Thus, personhood for a human begins when that person is conceived.
I don’t forget about these mothers. I would tell them life is tough. And its being tough is not enough reason to deny their child to have their crack at it.
Okay, Hans, so it’s your opinion against that of the pregnant woman if she wants to have an abortion.
____
Name me another organism that is programmed to be on the road toward your aware and caring criteria. Which will occur at an impossible-to-identify time, by the way. Which invalidates their relevance.
Some other species get to awareness, emotion, etc. – dolphins, chimps (and some other primates), elephants. “Invalidates their relevance”? Again, your opinion, and it’s a given that not everybody agrees with you from the get-go.
____
Until that time they will be like any other creature, reacting to stimuli for their survival. Your real threshold won’t really occur till months after birth.
No – most fetuses get to what I’m talking about late in the 2nd trimester or in the 3rd.
____
Thus, personhood for a human begins when that person is conceived.
:: laughing :: How do you figure that? ;) :)
Personhood is attributed status. You, yourself, can say that you think it’s a person at conception, but that’s a far different thing from society making it as policy.