Marcotte: “Turnaways” study proves preborn only “potential” persons
It’s no doubt tempting for abortion opponents to cite the many stories of turnaway mothers [women denied abortions] who grew to embrace motherhood as a way to make their case for banning abortion. But bluntly put, what other option do these women have?
Women who want abortions are not heartless or somehow incapable of forming a parental-child bond or without a moral compass. The fact that people adjust to unwanted situations such as forced parenthood or arranged marriages is not, at the end of the day, an argument for removing their right to choose against those situations.
In addition, being able to love a child who is actually here while being opposed to having the child while it’s in the womb highlights the very real difference between an actual person and a potential one, a difference the anti-choice movement tries to deny.
~ Abortion advocate Amanda Marcotte, reacting to a recent study which showed that “turnaways who keep their babies eventually come around to accepting and even embracing their status as mothers. (Only 9 percent give their children up for adoption),” Slate, June 12
[Photo via Slate]
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.
Amanda, the term is pro-life, not anti-choice. I don’t see why i should take your views seriously if you can’t even basic terminology right.
I know the probability that she is reading this is barely above zero, but whatever I still love correcting people on that point.
Ms. Marcotte supposedly wrote, “Being opposed to having the child while it’s in the womb highlights the very real difference between an actual person and a potential one.”
So some children are not persons? Does Ms. Marcotte think Slate readers really are that stupid? Or are they? Being opposed to the child while it’s in the womb is the very real difference between a pro-abort, who only cares for the baby after it’s born, and a pro-lifer, who cares for the baby both before and after it’s born.
Loving a child who is born while being opposed to it while it’s in the womb is the very real difference between a feminist mother and a feminine one, a difference the pro-abortion movement tries to deny.
So a person’s feelings are evidence of biological facts?
We’re well aware of the cultural schizophrenia that allows people to destroy unborn children and love newborns, but it doesn’t highlight anything “real.”
Its persons with potential Amanda.
“the very real difference between an actual person and a potential one, a difference the anti-choice movement tries to deny”
Miss Marcotte is the one who is reality-challenged.
The child in the womb is quite a real, human person — Biological science demands that human parents conceive human children, and no one has suggested what other sort of thing the child in the womb might be if she were not human.
Reality does not go away, even if a woman in a desperate situation is tempted to imagine that the child is “only potential.”
“Choice” is not the difference between loving a person who is “real” and avoiding a person who is “potential.”
Abortion is the difference between loving a child who is alive, and loving (or trying desperately to forget) a child who is dead.
And the emotional state of the mother toward her child is merely a measure of how much the mother has bonded with the child — it is not a measure of the child’s reality.
In addition, being able to think logically while being opposed to logic highlights the very real difference between Amanda Marcotte and Jill Stanek, a difference the pro-abort movement tries to deny.
Ms. Marcotte wrote, “Women who want abortions… are not without a moral compass.”
Then either it’s defective or they’re not using it.
I wonder what it was in Marcotte’s life that so embittered her towards the opposite sex and babies of all kinds. She twists herself in pretzels to defend abortion at every turn, and I wonder if she honestly believes people like Jill Stanek are just slut-shaming handmaidens of the evil patriarchy.
Pray for Amanda.
Ms. Marcotte asked, “What other option do these women have?”
Giving the baby up for adoption? It’s better than killing the baby, and it is a real alternative to embracing long-term motherhood.
Ah, the Velveteen Rabbit. I loved that one.
It was never real until it was loved. Each stuffed animal is just a blob of fluff, a potential animal, until loved.
I always thought the book was child’s fiction.
Interesting to learn that it was actually a science textbook on when life begins.
Chris,
Better that than pregnancy-shaming-worshippers-of-themselves…
Of course, there is the matter of killing your child because you love the child – this is where we liberals are headed…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-river-grove-stabbing-0613-20130613,0,5786633.story
Mommy issues.
Anyone who can actually believe that a woman’s feelings are so important they can change the very nature of reality to suit them definitely has mommy issues, probably coupled with sociopathic tendencies. Maybe sociopathy was handed down to her from her mother.
Ms. Marcotte spoke of “unwanted situations such as forced parenthood.”
Is she speaking of women who are raped? Or has she never read about “what makes a baby”? Yesterday’s quote of the day might be informative for her (although the “sex educator” quoted there did sound muddled himself).
*can’t even GET
Ugh, I should not be typing while sleep deprived.
I also missed the capitalization on the word “I”. Double ugh.
“In addition, being able to love a child who is actually here while being opposed to having the child while it’s in the womb highlights the very real difference between an actual person and a potential one, a difference the anti-choice movement tries to deny.”
For the life of me I can’t make any sense out of this paragraph. This paragraph seems to have lost touch with reality. Does anyone understand what she is trying to say?
She is saying that, because the same woman can love the born child and not even want the unborn child, it proves that the unborn child is not the “same” as the born child, and is an inherently and intrinsically different thing. She is saying that the difference in the woman’s feelings proves a difference in the person/”potential person” those feelings are about.
Which is absurd. I have a friend whose ex-boyfriend wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with their child until the little boy was a toddler, when he suddenly realized what a cool little dude his son was and lobbied for visitation rights. He loves his son now and they have a wonderful relationship. Just because the dad felt differently towards his son at different times doesn’t mean that there is an inherent difference in what his son was as an infant versus a toddler.
JDC says:
June 13, 2013 at 1:34 am
Amanda, the term is pro-life, not anti-choice. I don’t see why i should take your views seriously if you can’t even basic terminology right.
– See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/06/qod/#comments
(Denise) The term is anti-legal abortion or abortion criminalizer. Using “pro-life” inevitably gets people bogged down in issues such as the death penalty which many who want to criminalize support including Jill Stanek. It can also get bogged down in gun control, military issues, blah blah blah.
And OF COURSE the term isn’t “anti-choice.” It is anti-legal abortion. We might as well state what we are talking about.
Holy cow! I am SO GLAD I read this Amanda! Thank you! Thank you! It is so embarrassing to me that for 7 years I lived under the delusion that I was carrying my actual sons in my womb during pregnancy. Had I known that what I was carrying was a placebo person I wouldn’t have wasted all those nights talking to the potential babies and stroking my stomach. Is my face red!!!!!
I guess I was so busy trying to breathe through the earth shattering contractions I completely MISSED the stork fly quietly through the hospital window and gently lay my ACTUAL sons in the bassinet.
It feels really freeing to know the truth now Amanda. Rock on!
The pro-life enthusiasm, with regards to abortion, is much larger than simply restoring the legal protections to human life in the womb. We are concerned with providing a safe and wholesome environment for women, children, and families. We are concerned with helping women and children and their needs, especially in desperate situations. And we are concerned with helping women to heal from the aftermath of abortion.
The brand “Pro-Life” properly applies to the abortion issue. Opponents of pro-lifer have tried to muddy the concept by wrapping the label around just about every other social issue — such as capital punishment, military actions, environmental concerns, and even homosexual politics.
Pro-Life means “anti-abortion and all of the problems that are caused by abortion, as well as the cultural environment that tempts women to turn to abortion.”
I was reading,today that Jillian Barbari Reynolds and Terry Bradshaw …nutri system commercial are both conservative …no surprises that the people trashing them are calling them stupid. Why is a conservative automatically stupid..lol!
I figured they might be liberal and was pleasantly surprised to see they weren’t.
Sydney, lol!!! :D Thanks for the tip-off. I suppose I’m just a crazy person talking to the baby (I mean, *potential* baby) every morning while listening to something resembling a heartbeat (but it can’t be, of course, because only living beings have heartbeats). Maybe I should see someone about my absurd delusions. (:
“The fact that people adjust to unwanted situations such as forced parenthood or arranged marriages is not, at the end of the day, an argument for removing their right to choose against those situations.”
I completely agree. Abortion isn’t wrong because mothers might end up liking their babies. Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being. But that’s a point you abortion proponents never seem to want to talk about.
So here’s my question: if my grandmother, who suffers from alzheimers. gets so bad that she forgets who my mother is, and becomes ambivalent to her existence, or even sees her as an inconvenience and a problem for restricting her driving privileges and other such things, would that make my mother suddenly not a person??
Abortion is evil, Amanda, not because a mother hasn’t bonded to the baby (that’s ludicrous, some mothers struggle to form a bond for months -years even), but because the baby is a human being, with as much of a right to that life as you yourself have.
You’re right about one thing, though. These “turnabout” mothers aren’t really a case against abortion; they are simply a hopeful message for women in difficult situations. The case against abortion is the case for every other civil rights issue in the history of mankind: it is not right to deny this basic and fundamental right to any of us, even if they’re different.
At least 725,000 abortions take place annually, and 9% of those would result in adoptions if ‘choice,’ had not been, by a lack of otptions, forced on these women.
I wonder if I will ever be considered a real human by these people? Lol. I didn’t know that mothers could change reality with their feelings.
I wonder if they know or care how offensive their views are to people who’s mothers were never able to love them?
Though we disagree we still like you Jack. Thank goodness we always think of you as a person. This base-line stuff has merit. Perhaps, this will help you understand the line “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
“Perhaps, this will help you understand the line “love the sinner, hate the sin.” ”
I really don’t see what you mean. How is this conversation relevant to that line?
The only “real” difference is that human beings have an easier time rationalizing what they don’t see. That’s why pro-abortion folk are so terrified of ultrasound laws.
Many people die with no human bonds – no one to shed tears over their passing – no one who even realizes they are gone. But they’re still people.
Making a distinction between the person inherent value and 1) how one feels about that person (in the case of Marcotte) or 2) how we feel about the person’s behaviour (the Catholic Church). Situation 1 is self-contradictory – i.e. it is not possible to have negative feelings about a person while still recognizing their inherent value. While situation 2 is completely possible. (Situation 2 is encountered and practiced by parents every day when their six and half year-old purposefully but perhaps ignorantly punches them in the gut just to see what happens because they have imagined that you are wearing Iron Man armour!)
In short, loving the sinner and hating the sin requires one to make a distinction between the person’s inherent value and their actions, just as loving a preborn child requires one to make distinction between a person’s inherent value and their inaction/dependency/location/age.
“Being opposed to having the child while it’s in the womb highlights the very real difference between an actual person and a potential one.” Sooo, basically the cliche “out of sight, out of mind” pretty much sums up the pro-choice argument of this woman! Peek-a-boo must be riveting for pro-choicers–I mean, when they see someone, they are an actual person, and then when they cover their eyes with their hands, the person becomes merely potential–not ‘actual’! In the womb, out of the womb, in the womb, out of the womb–actual person, potential person, actual person, potential person. As if location had any bearing on personhood–irrational.
Meghan, outstanding analogy, I’m going to use that!
“And OF COURSE the term isn’t “anti-choice.” It is anti-legal abortion.”
ummm, NO. It is ANTI-abortion (both legal and illegal), ANTI-embryo research, ANTI-euthanasia, ANTI-death penalty (at least for me), ANTI-assisted suicide, ANTI-unnecessary wars (for me), ANTI-murder, so to put it short – PRO-LIFE.
I vote that Meghan wins the internet today! I want to find a pro-choicer to play peek a boo with now :>).
Agreed. Meghan wins the internet for today!
“Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being.” – abortion terminates a gestating human fetus.
Some time back one of your anti-choicers stated that it is perfectly fine to kill animals because they can’t possess the attributes of guilt or innocence. Neither does a human fetus.
The ‘status’ given to a fetus is, always has been and always will be, determined by the woman carrying it. Some of you have what you think may be conceptive sex and immediately name what you believe you’ve created while others don’t. They don’t wish to be pregnant so they don’t endow subjective attributes. That’s just the way it is.
Congratulations to Meghan. Very well done.
” Some time back one of your anti-choicers stated that it is perfectly fine to kill animals because they can’t possess the attributes of guilt or innocence. Neither does a human fetus.”
It’s not perfectly fine to kill animals.
” The ‘status’ given to a fetus is, always has been and always will be, determined by the woman carrying it.”
Some people apply the same reason to newborns and young infants, that their mothers get to decide whether they have any worth. It’s all about the same bad logic.
Meghan, it’s like Shrodinger’s baby! :)
I find Meghan’s comment to be cute in a very naive way. Not at all incisive.
It is not visibility that endows the human species with personhood. It is a suite of attributes. Ones which don’t exist at conception but, usually, do exist some time after birth.
So Marcotte is correct, there is a very real difference between an actual person and a potential one. And it’s got nothing to do with peek-a-boo.
“It’s not perfectly fine to kill animals.” – given this, and if my memory serves me correctly you are against the death penalty – you are probably the most ‘pro-life’ person here Jack!
A human fetus is a human being. That’s not an opinion; that’s a scientific statement. Human mothers only conceive human children.
Human beings enjoy many stages of development. All of these are equally human. No one has suggested what else we might be, if we are not human.
The word “potential” comes from philosophy, and it is bandied about incorrectly by persons who seek to abuse it.
Reality is this: Every living person possesses a potential to develop. This is equally true for a fetus in the womb as it is for a 35-year-old feminist like Amanda Marcotte. Both hope to enjoy being 36 years old soon enough, and both possess that potential — if neither is not robbed of her life by some violence or illness.
The pro-aborts desire to rob the child of all of her potential choices. She’ll never be able to choose anything, ever. Pro-aborts are the anti-choice extremists.
“A human fetus is a human being. That’s not an opinion; that’s a scientific statement. Human mothers only conceive humans’ – don’t have much of an argument with you there Del.
“Human beings enjoy many stages of development. All of these are equally human. No one has suggested what else we might be, if we are not human.” – can’t really gripe too much about this either.
“The word “potential” comes from philosophy,” – really? How do you come to that conclusion?
“and it is bandied about incorrectly by persons who seek to abuse it” – in what way Del?
“Every living person possesses a potential to develop.” – yes. But don’t forget about fetuses, they do too.
“This is equally true for a fetus in the womb as it is for a 35-year-old feminist like Amanda Marcotte.” - ok.
“Both hope to enjoy being 36 years old soon enough,” – ah see, now I can’t agree with you. ‘hope’ is an attribute a developing fetus doesn’t possess.
The anti-choicers desire to rob women of all of their potential choices. They’ll never be able to have true freedom, ever. Anti-choicers are the extremists.
“The anti-choicers desire to rob women of all of their potential choices. ”
This is only true if you believe that abortion is the only potential choice ever, because that’s all we want taken away. Or you’re just being hyperbolic on purpose, can’t tell which.
Broader scale Jack. Choices in life, including choices on reproductive rights.
Well, if you conflate “anti-abortion” with “extreme right social conservative”, you might have somewhat of a point (not just restrictions on women’s choices either). But it’s not a 100% correlation, at all.
Plus “all” is inaccurate, anyway, even with the most righty of the right.
Ah, I see what you mean Jack. Allow me to clarify…
The anti-choicers desire to rob women from having all of their potential choices.
rather than
The anti-choicers desire to rob women of every one of their potential choices.
Oh, lol, that makes much more sense. Then, yes, us “anti-choicers” want to prevent women from having that one choice. And that’s okay. No one has complete freedom, all of us know it has to be curtailed somewhat when it comes up against someone else’s rights. I don’t have a moral compunction with limiting freedom a bit by criminalizing abortion.
“the most righty of the right’ – heh heh, I like that.
Just think about it. The more extreme someone on the right becomes the closer they get to falling off the edge of the flat earth they believe in whereas the worst thing that can happen to those on the left – who know that the planet is indeed spherical – is that they’ll go around and come back to where they were :-)
“Just think about it. The more extreme someone on the right becomes the closer they get to falling off the edge of the flat earth they believe in”
Way to use an ad hominem attack but then that is all abortion is.
“It is not visibility that endows the human species with personhood. It is a suite of attributes. ”
Who gets to decide? A Creator who gives us an inalienable right to life or seven justices who were afraid to apply the 14th Amendment to children in the womb?
“Way to use an ad hominem attack but then that is all abortion is.” – abortion is an ad hominem attack?
It was humor see the smily face?
“Who gets to decide?” – well since the second option is the only one that exists the question seems rather moot.
That’s funny. The only person I’ve ever known who believed in a flat earth voted straight-down-the-line Democrat, every election.
“Every living person possesses a potential to develop.” – yes. But don’t forget about fetuses, they do too.
“Human”/”human being” = literally synonymous with “person”. If you agreed with the former, you have to accept the latter.
They’ll never be able to have true freedom, ever.
As an anti-abortion woman, I beg to differ. As the mother of a female child (now a young woman herself) who had her life weighed in the balance of abortion, I think abortion takes more choices away from more women than opposing abortion does. Killing young women in utero is extremely anti-choice.
I had this thought: Did Reality and Amanada attend the same school? I also imagined that the school was called: STUPIDITY HIGH! [ then I wondered “Who is more stupid – Reality and Amanda for saying such bs or people who ‘like’ what they say?
This site is about one thing “The right to Life’ and that is about the HUMAN …. inside a pregnant woman. So when a young-one/fetus(Latin term) … {all-HUMAN} … is killed via abortion, his/her rights are userpted.
There is little doubt that a pregnant woman has some strong feelings about her child, but it is as if these feelings determine the nature of the child – they do not. What feelings/desires/choices do determine is the kind of death/life she will choose for her offspring.
Then if-death is chosen: is it a free-choice … free of exploitation, coersion, depression, … a host of intangibles Reality never addresses in his perfect-mind-world? A choice made in favor of life is the ultimate in COERSION/INTERFERENCE by PL. Why is this so?
Reality sez:
“The ‘status’ given to a fetus is, always has been and always will be, determined by the woman carrying it.”
Ahh, The Velveteen Rabbit.
I love that one.
It was not real until the boy loved it. Then it became real.
And I thought that it was a work of fiction. It was actually a biology lesson.
“Human”/”human being” = literally synonymous with “person”. If you agreed with the former, you have to accept the latter.” – sez who? Sez you? Obviously I, and many other folks, disagree with you.
“I think abortion takes more choices away from more women than opposing abortion does.” – that fails objectively and logically.
“Did Reality and Amanada attend the same school?” – nup. And I’m 20 years older than her anyway.
“I also imagined that the school was called: STUPIDITY HIGH!” – no, it wasn’t John. It wasn’t called ‘Creationist High’ either.
“a host of intangibles Reality never addresses in his perfect-mind-world?” – there are a host of intangibles, that’s the point. There is no ‘perfect-mind’ world.
The ‘status’ given to a fetus is, always has been and always will be, determined by the woman carrying it. – you might not like it. You may not agree with it. But that is the way it is, has been and will be. Rabbits or no.
that fails objectively and logically.
How so? I even explained it to you in the context of a young woman I know personally who would’ve been robbed of every choice she’s ever made had abortion been applied to her. Your insistence that it fails is not proof of failure, sir.
sez who? Sez you? Obviously I, and many other folks, disagree with you.
“Sez” the dictionary and basic established facts. “I, and many other folks,” being in denial will never change reality. Nor will the feelings of our mothers ever change our status as persons, just as the slavery supporters’ opinions of slaves did not change their status as persons. And just as this fact was recognized and laws changed to reflect this reality as applied to slavery, so too will it be in the case of abortion. Slowly but surely.
“How so?” – women having the choice to gestate and keep, gestate and adopt out or to terminate have more choices than women who can gestate and keep or gestate and adopt out. Pro-choice offers women more options than anti-choice does.
There are a number of definitions of ‘person’. Pick and choose. It’s subjective. The majority stated their viewpoint, and it wasn’t yours.
” There are a number of definitions of ‘person’. Pick and choose. It’s subjective. The majority stated their viewpoint, and it wasn’t yours.”
The majority has never, ever changed their mind about a moral issue. Nope.
“Reality,”
Haven’t you been on this blog long enough to know better than to claim that “the majority” defined personhood? Ever? Abortion was established as a “right” by Supreme Court Justices, without the input of the general public.
Furthermore, the facts of life are not subjective, no matter how far into your ears you shove your fingers, or how loudly you holler “lalalalalala!”
Are more choices for some better for all? Legal abortion wipes out ALL choices for over 1 million human beings every year in the States, and it denies the choice of fatherhood to every father-to-be. It denies the choice to keep the baby for many women who are bullied, pushed, coerced, and even forced into abortion. Is ONE choice for the mother to be valued above EVERY choice for her child? (Spoiler Warning: the answer is absolutely NOT). More choices for some is not necessarily better for all, for example, if I give my son the option of having ice cream or chicken for dinner, his choices will be expanded but his health will be negatively affected. Acting like increasing choices also improves life is foolish and a weak argument.
“the majority” defined personhood? – there were some votes remember.
“the facts of life are not subjective” – agreed. The facts aren’t, but there’s much else that is.
“(Spoiler Warning: the answer is absolutely NOT)” – it is self evident that the majority disagree with you.
“More choices for some is not necessarily better for all” – I agree, ‘not necessarily’.
“if I give my son the option of having ice cream or chicken for dinner, his choices will be expanded but his health will be negatively affected.” – I agree. The same doesn’t apply to abortion however.
“Acting like increasing choices also improves life is foolish and a weak argument” – are you sure? Always? In all circumstances? Women didn’t used to have a political choice, now they have. Did that not improve life?
it is self evident that the majority disagree with you. Actually, the abortion debate is very clearly about 50/50, and the pro-life generation is here. Keep hoping that you can keep us quiet, but it won’t work. We have seen the fruits of abortion and they are bad. Regardless, however, even if everyone in the world disagreed with me, it would not prohibit truth from being so. Even if both of my children voted that ice cream for dinner is good and healthy, it would still be sugary, fattening, and unhealthy as a dinner option.
are you sure? Always? In all circumstances? Women didn’t used to have a political choice, now they have. Did that not improve life?
Come now, you are intentionally taking my words out of context to misrepresent them. I was saying that the argument that simply because the choices are more the quality of life is better is a weak one, not that it’s always bad to have choices. Now, don’t let’s be silly!
I swear my eyes glaze over reading all this. Seriously. We’ve BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD. Good grief! Fetuses are biologically human. We shouldn’t have to jump through hoops and prove certain attributes to be persons. If we must then our personhood can be taken from any one of us just as it was given.
I just prefer to be in the pro-human, anti-killing others camp. You know the camp that says EVERY human is a PERSON. The other camp has nazis and slave owners in it. Have fun roasting marshmallows with them Reality.
“Actually, the abortion debate is very clearly about 50/50,” – not from what I’ve seen statistically, on this very site.
“and the pro-life generation is here.” – I keep seeing this. I think you’ll find you’re in for a bit of a shock a liitle bit into the future.
“you are intentionally taking my words out of context to misrepresent them” – come now MaryRose, that’s not something that would ever happen on this site!
Indeed they do Jack, as we have seen many times.
Person:
1.a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2.a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4.Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5.the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
Slavery ended because society recognised that those subject to slavery met all the above.
Women were given the vote because, in part, society recognised they met all of the above.
Women were given (to various extents) control of their reproductive choices because it was recognised that they meet all of the above.
A developing fetus? Not so much.
So maybe not on this occasion.
Choices, choices, choices!
Havoc? Mayhem? Hedonism?
Nah, a bit of television and some sleep I think.
Night all.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx
No, Reality, you are wrong. Here is my proof. Show me yours.
Words taken out of context for intentional misrepresentation is not something I support, regardless of the site. If you catch me doing it, call me on it, and I will do (have done) the same for you.
Slavery ended because it was no longer feasible to argue that black people were less than people, but the mere existence of the argument, as well as the 3/5 compromise, prove to us that it is possible to deny the very real, very obvious scientific fact of life before us.
A world in which the popular opinion defines the truth is a defunct one. Whether or not a pre-born human is valuable and should justly be protected is not dependent on the popular vote — even though that pre-born individual’s protections are. Again, you can ignore this all day, and argue that “the majority” disagrees. I could care less. Not only have I shown that the majority does not disagree over the value of life, but I have also given you the courtesy of responding to the argument if the majority did disagree.
“Who gets to decide?” – well since the second option is the only one that exists the question seems rather moot.
The first option exists or none of us would have been conceived.
The Founders recognized that a Creator endowed us with an inalienable right to life and enshried it a legal document. All of our rights do not come to us via the government.
In fact, MoJoanne, the original rights were meant to protect us from the civil government. It’s necessary but dangerous.
“It is not visibility that endows the human species with personhood. It is a suite of attributes. Ones which don’t exist at conception but, usually, do exist some time after birth.”
So humans aren’t even people right after birth, and some might NEVER be people! Intellectual consistency comes at high moral price.
” So humans aren’t even people right after birth, and some might NEVER be people! Intellectual consistency comes at high moral price.”
It’s just the natural progression of that line of thinking. Thankfully, I believe that most people find the killing of newborns and other “non-persons” intolerable, and when they see that kind of reasoning it might shock them into re-evaluating their position on abortion.
Sooooo…. what I’m saying is, keep talking Reality! ;)
Jack…it is the natural and logical result and it should shock people. Reality, however, has expressed perfect comfort with this view in the past. I’ve said before that the most intellectually consistent abortion proponents are the most morally monstrous. I’m not saying they cant change but you should be worried when they’ve already addressed the logical enpoint of abortion support and decided they’re content rather than shocked.
Lol I was agreeing with you, really. Some people, like Peter Singer and maybe Reality, have already found the endpoint and agreed with it. They may be unable to be reached. But the majority of pro-choicers (and humans in general), find infanticide and the other disturbing implications of their concept of personhood abhorrent. So, Reality should keep talking. Singer should keep talking. The “personally pro-life” and “abortion before twenty weeks/viability/as long as I don’t think about it” crowd should hear it. Some of them might re-evaluate.
I do not think that the turnways story should be used as an argument against abortion. It’s use however, is in dismantling the typical pro-abort line of argument of ”if you make abortion illegal, all you are going to do is kill women, because they will all die from unsafe illegal abortions (like abortions are safe now anyway) or commit suicide …”.
Oh haha. Yes. I get what you’re saying now. And agreed. He should keep talking so people realize what they’re supporting.
Some people might re-evaulate because they find the murder of infants abhorrent. But our culture is quickly becoming a culture of death. People see the severed hands and feet of tiny unborn humans killed by abortion and say “I don’t care! It isn’t a person yet.” They are closed to any truth. Their hearts are dark. They have a reprobate mind.
We may very well see in our own lifetime the legalization of infanticide. It may be a stretch now but will not always be a stretch. The day is coming when people will see the tiny hands and feet of a newborn and say “Yes, but this baby isn’t a person like you and I. kill it.”
40 years of legalized abortion has deadened our consciences and cheapened the sanctity of human life especially the vulnerable like children and the elderly.
You see it all over. Mothers who stab their autistic sons to death, mothers who throw their newborns down garbage shoots, Fathers who toss their infants into rivers, children who murder their parents so they can throw a party, adult children stepping over their elderly mother who fell and broke her hip as she starves slowly and agonizingly on the floor…I could go on and on. These are all things I’ve read in the news. Can you believe we live among people so monstrous and calloused?
I saw a photo yesterday of a woman and her friend in front of the Orlando Women’s Center (when it was still open). They were both going in for abortions, smiling and posing in front of the camera. The one woman was at least 5 months pregnant. They both aborted…smiling and laughing like they were going to an amusement park for the day. Baby killing…fun times, fun times. Women used to abort in shame…now it is an exciting and proud moment. This is the natural progression of a culture that kills.
“Show me yours.” – as I said, it’s not ‘my’ proof, this site has shown it a number of times. Same as the results you’ve cited. Where people state that they ‘consider themselves to be…’ – that’s be a bit what we call qualitative. The same results that tell us that 77% believe abortion should be available in any or certain circumstances. And 20% say never.
“Slavery ended because it was no longer feasible to argue that black people were less than people” – indeed. That was good.
“but the mere existence of the argument, as well as the 3/5 compromise, prove to us that it is possible to deny the very real, very obvious scientific fact of life before us.” – so now all the science, the biology, is an inconvenient truth? Now you’re switching from ‘person’ to ‘life’ as a decider? That opens things up a bit doesn’t it?
“A world in which the popular opinion defines the truth is a defunct one.” – then I guess the world has been ‘defunct’ since the emergence of humans. Because what you describe is the history of the world.
“Whether or not a pre-born human is valuable and should justly be protected is not dependent on the popular vote” – apparently it is.
“even though that pre-born individual’s protections are.” – on what basis do you claim that?
“Again, you can ignore this all day, and argue that “the majority” disagrees. I could care less. Not only have I shown that the majority does not disagree over the value of life,” – the ‘life’ the majority apportion ‘value’ to is life which consitutes a person.
“but I have also given you the courtesy of responding to the argument if the majority did disagree.” – and?
“The first option exists or none of us would have been conceived.” – that is a belief held by some of the people of the world, not a fact.
“The Founders recognized that a Creator endowed us with an inalienable right to life and enshried it a legal document” – who that ‘creator’ may be is considered different by different people, in my case it’s my mother and father.
“Intellectual consistency comes at high moral price.” – you said it! So who’s the guilty party on that front!
Yes Jack, the more certain people here have argued using science in support of the anti-choice position the more I see that very same science supporting Singer’s postulation.
As you so sagely say however – “I believe that most people find the killing of newborns and other “non-persons” intolerable” – and the reasons why it is so are ridiculed here regularly even though it’s real.
– so now all the science, the biology, is an inconvenient truth? Now you’re switching from ‘person’ to ‘life’ as a decider? That opens things up a bit doesn’t it?
Let me re-phrase, as you misunderstood (totally reasonable, considering the subject matter). I meant “facts of life” to be the commonly used phrase. I did not mean to say, “the fact that life exists” although it is applicable, it is exceedingly broad, as you pointed out. I will however rephrase that it was plainly evident that a person, a human being deserving of our protections, was being denied those protections.
– then I guess the world has been ‘defunct’ since the emergence of humans. Because what you describe is the history of the world.
Yes, in some ways the world has indeed been defunct since mankind’s fall from Grace. However, the truth never has been nor ever will be reliant on our laws. We have been, and as a whole, we will be, but that does not define truth, which was my point. Just because you get 10 people to say a whale is coldblooded and only 3 to say it is warmblooded does not a coldblooded whale make.
“Whether or not a pre-born human is valuable and should justly be protected is not dependent on the popular vote” – apparently it is.
“even though that pre-born individual’s protections are.” – on what basis do you claim that?
Obviously I was not perfectly clear, or else you were intentionally obtuse. Although the legal protections afforded to human life in the womb are dependent upon the popular vote, the actual rights which my pre-born son or daughter deserves are not dependent on anyone’s say-so. Although you and others claim that the popular vote defines one’s rights, it does not. It defines one’s legal protections. Some rights simply are and cannot be removed by any man or group of men.
And for the record, I do not concur that you must believe that life is sacred from conception in order to be pro-life. If you believe that abortion should be restricted except in extreme cases (rape or incest being the most common), you are a pro-life proponent who, usually speaking, simply has not fully grasped the realization that a unique human being is formed at conception. Coming to this understanding is nearly always only a matter of time. In other words, they’re a lot closer to my argument than they are to yours, making me, by your own requirements, more right. (More commonality of opinions with more people).
Sydney,
I hate to “like” your comment, simply for its subject matter, but I had the same thought when reading comments on this thread. The fact that Singer has an audience at all is proof that we can trick ourselves into believing all sorts of lies. Have we forgotten that the Germans were just ordinary people, for the most part? Have we fooled ourselves into believing that a force as large as the Nazi party can only occur in a society of “bad guys”? We humans are a society of bad guys. If we forget that we are susceptible to lies, we open ourselves up to accepting more and more of them.
“it was plainly evident that a person, a human being deserving of our protections, was being denied those protections.” – for slaves yes, for developing fetuses no.
“mankind’s fall from Grace.” – no such thing occured.
“but that does not define truth” – in some cases nothing really does, does it.
“the actual rights which my pre-born son or daughter deserves are not dependent on anyone’s say-so” – ok, on what basis do you claim that then?
“Some rights simply are and cannot be removed by any man or group of men.” – history tells us otherwise.
“In other words, they’re a lot closer to my argument than they are to yours” Remember this bit? - “Where people state that they ‘consider themselves to be…’ – that’s be a bit what we call qualitative.” – which includes that fact that people will respond ‘not in those circumstances’ until they are faced with those circumstances.
“In other words, they’re a lot closer to my argument than they are to yours” Remember this bit? - “Where people state that they ‘consider themselves to be…’ – that’s be a bit what we call qualitative.” – which includes that fact that people will respond ‘not in those circumstances’ until they are faced with those circumstances.
First, your grammar stinks. Second, yes they will claim, and will vote as such. And they will make abortion less accessible and less legal and will bring themselves to a place where they are less likely to obtain said abortions. You can argue that they will seek out that abortion in such a case, and perhaps they will, but whether or not they should is something they have already made definitive statements about, and something which they know, innately. If someone raped my child and got away with it, I might kill him. I would still vote to make vigilante justice illegal, and I know that murder on my part would be wrong and in-congruent with my morality.
Whether or not I can kill you does not define whether or not I can remove you actual right to live. Even if I kill you legally, there is a difference between basic rights and legal protections. And as I stated before, truth (including some basic rights which are deserved simply for being) is not dependent on the common vote.
Reality, as a big Peter Singer fan, what do you think of his writings on moral relativism? I’m just curious.
“First, your grammar stinks” – mmm, “in-congruent’.
“Second, yes they will claim, and will vote as such.” – apparently not MaryRose.
“And they will make abortion less accessible and less legal” – some extremist wing-nut politicians who like the idea of women not controlling their own bodies pander to an excessively noisy bunch of activists. How are their votes going?
“and will bring themselves to a place where they are less likely to obtain said abortions.” – maybe, until they realise what they’ve done and push back.
“whether or not they should is something they have already made definitive statements about” – or lied about.
“And as I stated before, truth (including some basic rights which are deserved simply for being) is not dependent on the common vote” – and you also know that that is false.
I note you have chosen not to respond to some of my responses and questions, is that why you alleged my grammar was lacking?
I alleged your grammar was lacking because I had to read it 3x to understand it. “In-congruent” was a risk, I admit, I shouldn’t have taken, but my meaning was clear. I didn’t respond to some of your comments because I’ve responded to them over & over, and because some of them are simply a disagreement in faith that can be overlooked without a large effect on the debate.
For example, I commented that this world has been defunct since our fall from Grace and you reacted with the argument that this never happened. Okay, but the significance, the argument that mankind is innately self-serving and not necessarily trustworthy as a group stands, with or without religion.
We have believed that Jews, women, conjoined twins, Japanese people, slaves, immigrants of many different nationalities, and children were lesser beings at one time or another, despite the scientific evidence that they are all human beings with as much right to their lives as we have ourselves. When we rose above our base desires to be superior, and acknowledged their rights, it came with some blow-back but overall, it held. I have faith it will do so again, but you can argue otherwise.
BTW, saying “for slaves yes, for developing fetuses no.” doesn’t actually address the argument. You *can* make a one-liner jab without substance, and you *can* be offended by my lack of response on comments like this, but it doesn’t make much of an argument.
OK, I have to say it at this point. Don’t feed the troll.
“We have believed that Jews, women, conjoined twins, Japanese people, slaves, immigrants of many different nationalities, and children were lesser beings at one time or another,” – indeed, that has taken place. But science has provided us with the knowledge to know better.
“despite the scientific evidence that they are all human beings with as much right to their lives as we have ourselves.” – what scientific evidence is that?
“BTW, saying “for slaves yes, for developing fetuses no.” doesn’t actually address the argument” – the argument has already been addressed. The scientific definition of ‘person’ remember.
“You *can* make a one-liner jab without substance, and you *can* be offended by my lack of response on comments like this, but it doesn’t make much of an argument.” – oh I wasn’t offended by your lack of response, just wondered why you didn’t want to explain stuff like on what basis you can claim “the actual rights which my pre-born son or daughter deserves are not dependent on anyone’s say-so ”or that “Some rights simply are and cannot be removed by any man or group of men.” when in both cases it is so obviously not the case.
JDC.
Thanks. Needed that :)
“for slaves yes, for developing fetuses no.”
“ok, on what basis do you claim that then?”
-Reality can debate himself.
“JDC.Thanks. Needed that ”
No problem. But seriously, what happened to Paladin? As far as I’m concerned, he’s still the king of instructing people not to feed trolls.
Ah, the old ‘you’re just a troll’ card when you run out of argument.
The fact I have provided is that a developing fetus is not a ‘person’. I provided scientific evidence for this. There is no debate to be had on this.
You claimed “the actual rights which my pre-born son or daughter deserves are not dependent on anyone’s say-so ” and refuse to explain why you say so.
Reality says:
The fact I have provided is that a developing fetus is not a ‘person’. I provided scientific evidence for this. There is no debate to be had on this.
Hahahahahaha! Oh, Rebecca, you’re funny.
Oops. I mean “Reality”.
So now you’re laughing at the science, the biology? The stuff that you anti-choicers cite all the time in defense of your position?
And when it goes against you, you dismiss it.
Now that’s the real joke.
You assert that “person” is a term of science, of biology? And that the scientific definition excludes the fetus? Hahahahahahaha!
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Person
Yes, quite clearly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
Just like the one you cited.
Here’s an interesting one:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm
Yes, all this definition checking shows that person = human being. So now you only need to provide the scientific evidence that a fetus isn’t a human being. Good luck.
“Yes, all this definition checking shows that person = human being.” – no it doesn’t.
When a dictionary is providing the definition of something, it is necessary to read beyond the first three words of each element of explanation so as to obtain an accurate understanding.
Yes, it is helpful to read fully, isn’t it.
From biology-online:
Person
8. (Science: biology) an individual, in the narrowest sense, among the higher animals.
Individual
(1) Any distinct person, object, or concept within a collection.
(2) A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind.
But scientific evidence doesn’t come from dictionaries. So, where is this scientific evidence you have that shows that a fetus isn’t a human being? Or, are you arguing that some human beings aren’t persons?
To anyone reading that needs this info: You don’t have to de-humanize the unborn in order to live with a past abortion. There is hope and healing.
http://hopeafterabortion.com/
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/
Now what did I say about reading more than a few words? From the same citation –
‘8. (Science: biology) A shoot or bud of a plant; a polyp or zooid of the compound hydrozoa anthozoa, etc.’
??????
Hm, ‘an individual, in the narrowest sense, among the higher animals.” – not just human beings, higher animals. I guess the vegetarians have it right!
“So, where is this scientific evidence you have that shows that a fetus isn’t a human being?” – come now, you know I didn’t say that.
Maybe the fetuses of other species aren’t human beings though, what do you think?
“Or, are you arguing that some human beings aren’t persons?” – that’s what the science says.
And for ‘human being’, the site you cites says ‘A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.’ – huh? I wonder what it means by ‘especially’.
Oh look, I found this on the site you cited too –
‘Child
a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool.’
and that’s the complete entry for ‘child’, not just a selection.
Please provide a link to the scientific evidence that proves some humans, including developing fetuses, are not persons.
I already have.
What this all shows Lrning, is that there is even less black and white than many of us like to think.
That even dictionaries and science and biology textbooks are open to subjective interpretation and selective application.
Real world:
If I ask someone what sort of person their five year old child is they give me clear answers. Bright, dextrous, inquisitive, quiet etc. etc.
If I were to ask someone what sort of person their six or ten week fetus is, …..
“I already have.”
i hope you’re not referring to your dictionary references. Please link, again, to the scientific evidence. After all, you are the one claiming to have provided scientific evidence that a developing fetus is not a person.
I refuse to debate why or why not all human beings are people. The fact of the matter is, our nation refuses to acknowledge that all human beings are persons, and this is unfortunate. It is a poverty upon us. And it is a self-serving, hateful, nasty idea to dehumanize another for your personal benefit.
“I refuse to debate why or why not all human beings are people.” – some people want to debate that animals possess attributes which mean they are a person!
The information I have supplied has all come from dictionaries of medical science, that is the term that I searched under.
So unless you have a scientific reference which says otherwise…
“our nation refuses to acknowledge that all human beings are persons” – it’s not refusing to acknowledge. The science says that a developing fetus is not a person.
Excellent! Scientific evidence of God, according to Reality:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/God
No, it explains what a ‘god’ is considered to be.
‘A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power,’
A couple of biblical quotes about god.
‘A or thing deified and honored as the chief good’
etc. etc.
It does not offer a scintilla of evidence for any god/s.
Too late. Check out definition #2. Scientific reference defining God as the supreme being. Offers just as much scientific evidence for God as it offered for a fetus not being a person. So glad you explained all this “science” to us tonight.
You are getting seriously desperate now. It is a statement of descriptors of what a ‘god’ is, ending with a biblical quote. No evidence of existence.
“Scientific reference defining God as the supreme being.” – the operative words being ‘reference’ and defining’. It doesn’t say which god either. Again, no evidence of existence.
“Offers just as much scientific evidence for God as it offered for a fetus not being a person. So glad you explained all this “science” to us tonight.” – I’m glad you’ve said that actually. If you really insist that the information I supplied is not evidence that a fetus is not a person, then your statement should reflect the whole situation –
“Offers just as much scientific evidence for God as it offered for a fetus being or not being a person.”
It could be said that the information I have provided is a statement of descriptors of what a ‘person’ is, not evidence of the existence of one.
Still haven’t seen any scientific evidence that a fetus is a person, just denials of the scientific evidence which says they aren’t.
I’m not the one saying “person” is a scientific term. That was you. And I agree the dictionary definitions don’t offer scientific evidence of personhood or non-personhood. Did you miss where I said “scientific evidence doesn’t come from dictionaries”? Other than dictionary references, have you supplied any evidence that proves a fetus is not a person? You just referenced again “scientific evidence which says” that a fetus is not a person. So where is it?
“I’m not the one saying “person” is a scientific term.” – then on what basis are you claiming that a fetus is a person?
“I agree the dictionary definitions don’t offer scientific evidence of personhood or non-personhood” – so why try to claim personhood for a fetus?
Did you miss where I said “has all come from dictionaries of medical science,”
And since the reference source that you supplied clearly identified a child as “a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool’ – you’ll stop referring to developing fetuses as children?
Hahahaha! The definition of God came from a “dictionary of medical science” too. And since when is dictionary.com a science reference? You linked to that source.
My claim that a fetus is a person has a philosphical basis, informed by science. Science proves that the fetus is human. IMO, there are no qualifiers (consciousness, rationality, independence, etc) that can be attached to human that don’t result in ridiculous denials of personhood to people that common sense and convention admit are persons. Therefore, the fetus is a person. I never claimed that the personhood debate is settled matter (unlike you: “there is no debate to be had on this”).
“Hahahaha! The definition of God came from a “dictionary of medical science” too.” – correction. It was the definition of ‘a god’. Not ‘the god’ or any particular’ god’. Nor was it in any way evidence for the actual existence of any god. You seem to keep missing that.
Where did I link to dictionary.com?
“My claim that a fetus is a person has a philosphical basis, informed by science.” – yes, I’ve looked at it from the same perspective and come to the opposite conclusion.
“Science proves that the fetus is human.” – well a human fetus is.
“IMO, there are no qualifiers…..that can be attached to human that don’t result in ridiculous denials of personhood to people that common sense and convention admit are persons.” – in your opinion, yes. And ‘common sense and convention’ don’t mean ‘what Lrning thinks’.
“Therefore, the fetus is a person.” – in your opinion.
“I never claimed that the personhood debate is settled matter (unlike you: “there is no debate to be had on this”).” – there is zero scientific evidence that a fetus is a person. There is scientific evidence that a fetus does not possess the attributes required to identify it as a person.
Looking at it from the perspective of philosophy and other similar fields, what I said earlier is relevant:
If I ask someone what sort of person their five year old child is they give me clear answers. Bright, dextrous, inquisitive, quiet etc. etc.
If I were to ask someone what sort of person their six or ten week fetus is, …..
“attributes required” by you. In your opinion. That is not scientific evidence that the fetus is not a person. You might believe that the presence of the XY chromosome is required for personhood, that doesn’t qualify as scientific evidence that women are not persons.
Btw, you linked to dictionary.com at 8:01. Same time you linked to that other well known scientific source, newadvent.org.
Time for me to get to sleep. You seem to be a night owl, so I hope to see a link tomorrow to a non-dictionary actual scientific source that supposedly proves that a human fetus is not a person.
It’s dictionary.reference.com actually. It’s one that came up when I typed ‘dictionary of medical science’ into google.
I pretty much split 24 hours into two ‘days’ and ‘nights’.
They are dictionaries of medical science. I know it’s convenient for you to ignore that but medical science is scientific.
I hope to see anything scientific, anything at all, which proves that a gestating fetus possesses the attributes which constitute being a person.
They are dictionaries of medical science. I know it’s convenient for you to ignore that but medical science is scientific.
There are dictionaries of medical science, but dictionary.reference.com/dictionary.com (same site) isn’t one of them. It’s on par with Websters. That’s why it has definitions of non-scientific, non-medical things like God, unicorns, hobbits, and fairy dust.
Don’t rely on dictionaries to make your “scientific” case. Please. Yes, pro-lifers refer to dictionaries to show that common definitions of words like “child” and “person” include the unborn. But as you stated somewhere earlier in this thread, those words are subjective. And that’s our point as well. You can’t claim the authority to declare that “child” doesn’t include the unborn any more than you can claim the authority to declare that “person” doesn’t include the unborn either. The Personhood activists are seeking a change in a legal definition.