Stanek wkend question: Is it fair to compare viability of space astronaut to that of preborn baby?
Click to enlarge…
Astronaut and American hero Neil Armstrong passed away August 25 at the age of 82.
Andy Moore of AbortionWiki.com made an interesting point in the above graphic, adding in a Facebook post:
If while on the Moon Neil Armstrong were forcibly removed from the life-support system: his space suit, he would not have been “viable.” This would not make it right to forcibly remove him from his space suit. Can we please just accept that the “viability” argument is childish and completely irrelevant to the acceptability of abortion?
Whenever Armstrong left earth he became nonviable, according to the working definition used by abortion proponents. Whether he was in a spaceship or spacesuit, Armstrong was dependent on the cocoon surrounding him for survival. In fact, whenever any of us fly, we are nonviable. The plane becomes our womb.
Weekend questions: Is this comparison fair? And is it okay for pro-lifers to use the occasion of Armstrong’s death to make the comparison?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think it’s a fair (and quite good) argument. As far as “using” the occasion, if I recall correctly, I first saw the graphic on Facebook several days before Armstrong’s death. The timing is just a coincidence that’s brought the graphic more publicity.
Any comparison is fair as long as it’s made respectfully. Feticide opponents have to fight the media as well, unfortunately. And like using abortion procedure photos, there is a time and place.
I think Andy makes a great analogy and his poster makes an execellent point. Thanks for sharing.
Yes on both accounts.
The passing of Mr. Armstrong and his inability to respond emphasizes the silence and death that is forced upon the preborn through abortion, often justified because the preborn were not viable.
Everyday a preborn child is aborted – we need to honor them as well.
I’ve used this, and I think the slightly more accurate ‘adult under water’ comparision, for many years. It’s completely valid, and I think should be used as needed. I would find it very crass, however, to bring it up specifically in reference to such an illustrious man’s death. There isn’t a need to bring any recently deceased person, famous or otherwise, into such a debate.
Btw, I find the adult under water comparision more valid because a person left in space unprotected will die very rapidly from the cold and vaccum of space. While an adult shoved underwater will flail and attempt to escape until they die of suffocation/drowing in (most circumstances) 3-5 minutes. If you remove an unborn baby from the uterus it will flail and attempt to breath before dying of suffocation in (most circumstances) 3-5 minutes. (Of course being torn limb from limb by a shark feeding frenzy is more analogous to an actual abortion, but that’s rather immaterial to the viability=protection arguement.)
Embroys, fetuses, and prenatal humans are perfectly viable, in their natural environment. It’s wildly innacurate and unfair to judge someone’s ‘viability’ by their ability to survive in an unnatural environment. Other than sea monkeys there aren’t very many things, much less people, who would pass that test! I know *I* am not viable at the bottom of a lake, in space, a mile in the atmosphere, in the middle of a volcano, etc, etc, etc, that certainly don’t have anything to do with my right to not be killed while I’m sitting in my livingroom.
The analogy is fair, but I’m not going to use Neil Armstrong as an example right after his death when I don’t have to. Just use the general term “astronaut”.
President Obama focuses on viability as if it is such a magical moment. President Obama fails to recognize that it is still the same human being on either side of this magical “viability” line in the sand. The concept of “viability” is the reason President Obama has no idea what to call a baby outside of the womb, and fails to recognize that the label truly does not matter, and that it is just that a label. President Obama fails to understand that words are signifiers and not the thing signified. Viability is just the word to describe the ability of a preborn child to live in a different environment. President Obama wants unviability to mean the period in time bio-Mom is free of all moral responsibility for her child; therefore, President Obama is willing to this period of time as long as possible so that as many preborn babies can be killed. He is truly a sick man.
“And is it okay for pro-lifers to use the occasion of Armstrong’s death to make the comparison?”
This assumes that “pro-lifers” are capable of exercising the slightest bit of discretion or tact. Unfortunately, their imprudence is well-documented. If the Holocaust and slavery are fair game, certainly Neil Armstrong’s passing is as well.
I’ve heard this comparison made long before Armstrong died, so I don’t think he really enters into the discussion. Even if he is crazy awesome and an American Hero and had probably the coolest job in the history of ever. ;)
That being said, the astronaut analogy is of limited usefulness, I feel. It helps to point out the ridiculousness of “viability” as a measure of personhood, but beyond that, I don’t think there’s much call to use it.
Even assuming arguendo that Armostrong did not have an inherent right to use the spacesuit, and NASA had no pre-existing duty to give hima spacesuit, NASA clearly and unequivocally acquiesced to Armstrong’s use of a spacesuit.
Viability is relevant in so far that some babies are born as a result of a botched abortion. As Jerrold Nadler stated.
Obviously, before viability, babies being born alive as a result of an abortion attempt is not a serious practical problem.
What is key here is whether a pregnant woman should be considered to have acquiesced to the use of her womb. NASA clearly acquiesced to Armstrong’s use of its space suit, as described above. Is there any positive or negative action by the pregnant woman that would mean acquiescence to the pregnancy?
@SHOESTHROWER: People who want abortion outlawed don’t believe the pregnant girl or woman’s consent or lack of consent is relevant. They view the value of the preservation of embryonic and fetal human life as important enough to “draft” pregnant girls and women — much as boys and men are subject to the military draft — into carrying to term and giving birth. Their belief is that the horror and ordeal of the pregnant girl or woman is outweighed by the value of the life she must carry and to which she is required to give birth.
What is key here is whether a pregnant woman should be considered to have acquiesced to the use of her womb.
Wrong. What is key is the parent/child relationship shared between the gestating child and pregnant mother. A pregnant woman’s wishes are secondary to the legal obligation inherent in a parent-child relationship. OBJECTION OVERRULED!
Viability is such a lame, hollow argument. I’ve always thought of the easy comebacks of scuba divers and astronauts. Heck, a three-year-old wouldn’t last a week alone in a fully stocked grocery store.
This graphic has been around for about a week now, well before the passing of Neil Armstrong. Just in case those throwing around accusations of this graphic being “tactless” want to check their facts.
Poor Joan.
“What is key here is whether a pregnant woman should be considered to have acquiesced to the use of her womb. NASA clearly acquiesced to Armstrong’s use of its space suit, as described above. Is there any positive or negative action by the pregnant woman that would mean acquiescence to the pregnancy?”
Wow, shoes thrower. I’ve heard the intruder case before, but you have a particular knack for making it sound almost as creepy as it is (here and in other threads).
Sorry, babies … Better learn how to ask permission to use your mom’s womb next time before you just go on in and expect to go on living.
Makes me seriousy wanna hurl.
ShoesThrower (aka BabyBooty Tosser) said: What is key here is whether a pregnant woman should be considered to have acquiesced to the use of her womb.
Acquiesced? Did the child acquiesce?
Oh wait – I get it – the child didn’t sign a womb lease!
ShoesThrower – perhaps you have a working womb lease you’d like to share with us?
Something along the lines of:
– the space to be occupied is known as MOTHERS WOMB (A WOMB with a VIEW)
– I hereby promise to pay for MOTHERS WOMB over the terms of the agreement (nine-months) and the 18 years afterwards if she doesn’t shred me to bits.
– I hereby grant and agree that kicking, punching and rolling around inside my mothers womb should only be done during waking hours.
-I will leave the womb clean and intact and ready for another kid, and take my own placenta with me when I go.
…
I have a question – how do you get the pen to the kid?
Does the lease have to be notarized? (That might be awkward!)
Does anyone have experience with how womb leases hold up in court? I’m not positive it’s a valid legal agreement, because the child’s not of legal age – meaning the parent would have to sign for him, and there appears to be a conflict, because the parent’s interest might run counter to the child’s.
Then again, if the child acquiesced, then it might not be a good legal agreement, because it would be signed under duress. (Sign the lease or I’ll kill you…)
Does anyone know the number of an experienced baby lawyer I can contact with these questions?
Is part of the reason so few women have babies and place for adoption that completing the pregnancy requires developing a big belly?
Of course, we don’t want to really encourage adoption since it is associated with such anti-life things as serial murder and parricide. However, at least ONE reason it is rare might be the belly. When people see a woman with an expanded waistline, they expect her to have a baby afterwards rather than hear, “I placed that one for adoption.”
Those who DO wish to encourage adoption might make it a practice to ask, “Are you planning to keep this one or place for adoption?”
Leaving adoption aside, is there a connection between the big belly and abortion?
Surviving outside the womb is another NON ISSUE…No infant can survive outside the womb!!! You cannot survive without assistance until you are at least 5 years old…And most cannot survive until adulthood!
Great poster idea, and repositioning of a good point. Don’t sell it though. Neil Armstrong didn’t like having his autographs or memorabilia being sold.
“Is this comparison fair?”
I believe this comparison is indeed valid, but I would word it differently:
<engage cold-hard-facts mode>
Human beings cannot naturally survive unassisted for more than a few minutes anywhere in the currently known universe except on the bottom surface of the thin membrane that is the air-filled portion of Earth’s biosphere, and even then only the solid portion of that surface allows for long-term survival.
Thus, when astronauts leave this planet, they are completely dependent on their space craft and suit for their survival, neither of which are natural phenomena.
To a slightly lesser degree, the crew of a submarine or an airliner face the same situation.
However, this in no way whatsoever changes the fact that ejecting anyone in that environment from the protection of his or her craft or suit results in the death of a person.
The viability of any being – in said being’s current environment or otherwise – is fundamentally and utterly irrelevant to the personhood of that being.
<disengage cold-hard-facts mode>
Next question? :-)
Maestro said:
The viability of any being – in said being’s current environment or otherwise – is fundamentally and utterly irrelevant to the personhood of that being.
Oh, so you’re an “all bodies are just containers” philosopher – eh?
Either your cold-hard facts mode is absurdly broken, or my snark detection meter needs to be recalibrated.
@Chris Arsenault: Wait, what? What’s wrong with what Maestro said? I’m not seeing a problem with it, or how it equates to what you said it does. Could you unpack your thoughts a bit? I’m very confused.
(…Also not seeing what the problem is with bodies being just physical vessels for the soul, but that is a separate debate to be engaged in at another time, I think.)
There may be circumstances where the pregnant woman by implication acquiesced to the use of her womb.
Even if NASA did not sign an explicit agreement detailing Armstrong’s use of a spacesuit, its other actions, such as assigning him to the mission, giving him the spacesuit, would constitute implicit acquiescence.
A similar question: Is it fair to describe pro-choice assertions as “Magical” when they have utterly nothing in common with any scientific observation?
For example: A few weeks ago the Canadian Medical Association voted in favor of a statement saying that life begins when a baby emerges from its mother’s womb.
http://www.prowomanprolife.ca/2012/08/15/when-doctors-get-political/
Is it fair to say that this type of idea is “creepy”, “voodooish”, “magical thinking” or is a “belief based in superstition”?
“There may be circumstances where the pregnant woman by implication acquiesced to the use of her womb.”
This is perhaps the most bizarre remark I’ve read in months. And that would be without the “by implication” in there…
Hi Alice – when I read and responded to Maestro I might have been thinking about how many pro-choicers isolate the personhood from the body and understood it entirely wrong. Viability to me does have a lot to do with environment, and it’s an integral part of that being’s personhood. Still, a change of environment doesn’t change the personhood of the human being, and I think that’s what Maestro was saying. Blackmun’s whole Roe argument is bogus in terms of viability calls. Blackmun’s opinion obfuscated the issue. A child is viable within a womb and only needs on-going nutrition and security.
When people claim another being is non-viable (I’ve been listening to B.O.’s Illinois Senate discussion on Senate Bill 1663 a lot lately) then it gets into a more nuanced discussion of viability. The problem generally centers around a living child who is in severe trouble and a dead child. Removing a dead child is not an issue. But a lot of people waffle on a declining life expectancy and choose an abortion to “end the suffering”.
Okay. I see where you’re coming from now. Thanks. :D