Pro-choice lite
The UK’s Guardian Unlimited story yesterday began with this intriguing teaser:
Broadcaster and critic Miranda Sawyer was confident in her liberal, feminist, pro-choice views. Then she had a baby, and watched her beloved grandmother die. On a remarkable journey across America, she had to question her beliefs.
Sawyer made a documentary about abortion in the U.S. that will air April 11 in Britain. Bottom line: Sawyer is still pro-abortion. But clearly conflicted, she has dialed down what she considers acceptable. Given that, she had interesting observations….
From abstract to reality
… I discovered I was pregnant in February 2005…
I spent some time thinking about the precise point when our baby came into existence. Was he there before I did the test? Something was, or the test couldn’t have come up positive. But what? A person? A potential person? Life? What was life exactly?….
Like most women – at least most British women – I have always been firmly in the pro-choice camp because I’ve spent nearly all of my sexually active life trying not to get pregnant. Throughout my twenties and the better part of my thirties, I did everything that was required for me not to have a child (other than, you know, not having sex). I wasn’t always safe – I’ve necked morning-after pills like vitamin tablets – but I was lucky enough not to end up in a situation where I was pregnant and didn’t want to be. I’ve never had an abortion, though I am mighty glad that legal abortion exists….
My mind kept returning to the pregnancy test. If my reaction to those fateful double lines that said ‘baby ahead’ had been horror instead of hurrah – and, to be honest, it wasn’t unalloyed joy that I felt when I saw them; I was scared, too – then I would have had little hesitation in having an abortion. But it was that very fact that was confusing me. I was calling the life inside me a baby because I wanted it. Yet if I hadn’t, I would think of it just as a group of cells that it was OK to kill. It was the same entity. It was merely my response to it that determined whether it would live or die. That seemed irrational to me. Maybe even immoral.
But I couldn’t be an anti-abortionist! I’m not religious. I have ethics, but they’re nice squishy ones: I’m humanist, liberal, anti-establishment. And I’m a feminist. I have more than one Andrea Dworkin book and I’m not ashamed of that. I certainly don’t want to shackle women to their wombs. A civilised society should allow us to have children if and when we desire them.
On late-term abortions
When I went for the 12-week scan, I was given a picture of our baby, in profile. He seemed to be waving, but that’s just the way the limbs move, isn’t it? At about 18 weeks into my pregnancy, I felt a kick. It’s a strange sensation, like an internal giggle….
Recently, in the US, Amillia Taylor survived after being born at just under 22 weeks into her mother’s pregnancy. Science is moving viability closer and closer to conception. So it seems to me… [legal abortion prior to viability is] a loose argument. Why should abortion only be moral when science says it is? Either abortion is right, or it isn’t….
On “personal autonomy” and “parasites”
The most recent pro-choice argument likens being pregnant to waking up one day with a gifted violinist attached to your vital organs. If you remove him, he dies. But obviously no one should be made to wander about with a stranger suckered to them, so – ta-da! – it’s OK to throw him off and kill him, just as it’s OK to remove a foetus from your womb.
To which I say: phooey. Pregnancy is pretty common. Waking up to find Yehudi Menuhin is your Siamese twin is not. They’re not the same thing….
On embryos
I met a New Orleans couple whose second baby came from an embryo that had been rescued during Hurricane Katrina: during the storm, the fertility clinic flooded and the electricity was cut off, meaning that thousands of frozen embryos had to be rescued, by armed National Guard….
And I came across the Snowflake scheme – a favourite of George W Bush – through which, if you’re infertile, you can adopt someone else’s frozen embryos and have them inserted in your womb…. I met a Snowflake family whose three children were created from other people’s embryos….
Lord, this was confusing. If an embryo can survive being artificially created, being frozen, being FedExed hundreds of miles and then implanted into someone else’s womb, then surely the anti-abortionists were right? Life does begin at conception. So, I agreed with two conflicting arguments. Life begins when a sperm hits an egg, but women should have the right to abortions. I appeared to believe that women should be allowed to kill….
The counterpoints
I don’t want to be the kind of person who changes her beliefs according to her circumstances…. But when you see women’s abortion rights whittled away as they have been in the US, you can’t help but get angry. And when you’ve experienced the out-and-out weirdness of pregnancy and birth and the fantastic beauty of the resulting child, it’s hard not to question what a termination does, or is….
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 just read the entire article.
I’m dizzy now.
I didn’t know it was possible to be for and against somehting all at the same time.
Whew. My brain is on overload now. I think I need to watch Elmo.
I was reading a similar article about some former abortion clinic nurses. One nurse said that she heard many women crying out after their procedures “I’ve just killed my baby.” “I’ve just murdered my child.” She claims that even though, at that time she was pro-choice, she thought to herself,hey maybe they’re right.The nurses say that these events took place on a daily basis,and it eventually got to be too much.They all quit and became pro-life.
I think the position of the majority of people mirrors the conflicting emotions Miranda describes. It’s very difficult to be staunchly pro-choice; there are usually some caveats, but the labels available are all-or-nothing pigeonholes.
“The most recent pro-choice argument likens being pregnant to waking up one day with a gifted violinist attached to your vital organs. If you remove him, he dies. But obviously no one should be made to wander about with a stranger suckered to them, so – ta-da! – it’s OK to throw him off and kill him, just as it’s OK to remove a foetus from your womb.
To which I say: phooey. Pregnancy is pretty common. Waking up to find Yehudi Menuhin is your Siamese twin is not. They’re not the same thing….”
“Phooey”? I’m in complete awe of her terribly persuasive philosophical response. She should seriously come give a talk at my philosophy department and present this argument to a room full of bioethicists and philosophers of law and rights. I’m soooo sure that these highly educated individuals would lap this right up. Sheesh.
Of course they’re not the same thing! The only thing that is the same as pregnancy is pregnancy! That doesn’t mean that they aren’t *analogous*, and that’s what you have to demonstrate in order to explain away our intuitions that your right to bodily autonomy overrides the violinist’s right to life. Of course, the response of “phooey” will sure seem convincing if you’re completely uneducated.
Of course, the response of “phooey” will sure seem convincing if you’re completely uneducated.
Double Phooey !
Triple Phooey!
Phooey phooey phooey! :D
I feel like what the above girl is describing is what a lot of pro-abortion people believe, but don’t have the guts to admit outloud. At least she had the ability to admit it. I hope that one day she’ll allow herself to accept that what her conscience is saying is right.
That’s exactly what I thought Bethany.Maybe one day she’ll have a total change of heart and mind.
Was she for abortion before she was against it?
Or,
Was she against abortion before she was for it?
Or,
Was she for abortion before she was for it?
Or,
Was she against abortion before she was against it?…..
Hey Charlie Brown, the definition of doublemindedness and self-preoccupation is playing on Jill’s blog tonight. Want to go…..
Diana,
Yeah, you’d crucify Him.
Bethany,
I dont’ want to feel like a stalker. When I’m bored I click on those links and look around.
Anyway, how did you break your toe?! My friend broke her rib sledding earlier this year. She’s about 2 years older than I am, about to graduate college, we had an ice storm and she slipped and broke her rib!
I haven’t broken anythign but I’ve been a victim of some pretty nasty bruises (esp. toenail, I used to dance ballet pretty heavily in high school, my toes constantly hurt), so I can imagine.
Phooey, pepe, doodoo, caca, mama, shithead.
Svecnurdian appletoe fracniplain.
Hootodi veriadia, smecphersonoian groputape lombbasian.
Diana, can an unborn baby in the womb say, “Phooey”. No? Let’s kill ’em all.
Itink abo rteons ets haveltle cra niums.
I’m critical of everyone calling themselves “pro-abortion” or “abortionist” because my point of view is – and always will be – that of a pro-choicer, not pro-abortion or anti-life.
Bethany,
I dont’ want to feel like a stalker. When I’m bored I click on those links and look around.
Anyway, how did you break your toe?! My friend broke her rib sledding earlier this year. She’s about 2 years older than I am, about to graduate college, we had an ice storm and she slipped and broke her rib!
I haven’t broken anythign but I’ve been a victim of some pretty nasty bruises (esp. toenail, I used to dance ballet pretty heavily in high school, my toes constantly hurt), so I can imagine.
Oh no, don’t worry, you’re more than welcome to visit my blog anytime. :) I haven’t been posting on it much lately due to being here debating …lol
I really need to work more on that mural, but I keep putting it off. :)
As for my toe, I was helping my hubby work on build his canoe, and he was asking me to hold a board so he could hammer it with his 9 lb metal hammer. While he was using it, the head of the hammer came off and dropped right on my toe. It hurt soooooo bad. I didn’t feel it at first, but then wham the feeling was intense. The extreme part of the pain lasted about 2 hours…I was surprised that part lasted as long as it did (wasn’t sure if it was broken at the time), because I am used to the pain of a bump or something going away after a few minutes. But I guess it’s different when you break something.
It’s feeling better now but when I’m driving or putting pressure on it, it kind of hurts.
Ive never actually broken a bone before either so this was a first for me. I cant even imagine what it might feel like to have a rib broken! Ouch!
momof3, do you have a cite that says that the nurse that talked about “Maybe they’re right” quit? Last I’d read she was stil working in the abortion business. I’d love to have it verified otherwise!
Ingrid, 4/10, 5:13a, said: “my point of view is – and always will be – that of a pro-choicer, not pro-abortion or anti-life.”
Ingrid, you came to this site as an abortion apologist. You spend 100% of your time on that topic defending it. You’re pro-abortion. And why is that so bad? You should be bragging that one of your major purposes in life at this time is to promote that constitutional right.
Bethany, poor thing! When did that happen? It had to have been when you were away from this site. There’s a lesson there… :)
I’m critical of everyone calling themselves “pro-abortion” or “abortionist” because my point of view is – and always will be – that of a pro-choicer, not pro-abortion or anti-life.
Please clariify, Ingrid…what choice do you support?
The choice to own bunnies for pets?
The choice to eat a snickers candy bar?
What choice?
Bethany, poor thing! When did that happen? It had to have been when you were away from this site. There’s a lesson there… :)
LOL Jill, so true…I’ve learned my lesson! haha
…it happened about 2 weeks ago. :)
You’re pro-abortion. And why is that so bad? You should be bragging that one of your major purposes in life at this time is to promote that constitutional right.
Exactly! You act like its a bad thing or something!
Ugh, Bethany, hope it gets better very very soon. My brother broke one of the bones in his foot and it heeled (funny funny ha ha) quite quickly and he was back to playing football and baseball in next to no time. :) You’re obviously quite young, you’ll bounce back pretty quickly. I’d hope so, you have a few young’uns to be chasing around. :)
Yeah they keep me on my toes all the time! :)
In fact, my littlest one right now has brought me a jug of milk and a cup and is saying “meow” (which is how he says milk). He is such a little piggy..he just finished a cup of milk. :)
hehe
Hahah, that’s so cute. I used to not be able to say “squirrel”…and instead I said “squirtle”. And my brother couldn’t say “girls” for the life of him…it was “geels”.
Speaking of little ones talking…my second or third word consisted of “somanabee” (son of a bee) because my sweet old Italian grammy took a good-natured crack at her son while I was in the room and I overheard. It took a while to break me of that. :)
“Squirtle”…I bet that made your parents laugh! haha
Somanabee is hilarious too. :D
Here you go!
By the way, Bethany, your art is fabulous. My father is an artist and I admire people with talents like yours and his to the utmost degree. Absolutely stunning. I really think you’d be able to do something with your art…my dad was able to make a decent living when he lived in Florida off of his talents. (He decorated walls and did murals for tourist sites). You’re obviously more than talented enough to do that. :)
Although with your kids it would be quite difficult to do that…heck, it could always be a job opportunity after they grow up and move out. :)
Does he happen to have a website? :)
I actually do offer murals, and will travel to paint them. My husband said anytime I get an order, he’ll be more than happy to drive me there and he’ll watch the kids while I paint. So it works out that way. :)
I’m hoping to have many more kids so it’d probably be a loooooooooooooooong time before I could go at something like that alone. lol But maybe one day my kids will be painting murals alongside me!
Christina,let me look around for that info.I see you have posted something above.I’ll look at that also.The site I visited was all about former abortionists,clinic nurses,counselors,and receptionists.They all admit that they were a bunch of liars while working in the abortion industry.They have also turned their lives around.
Bethany,
She couldn’t really move for quite a while and I think that it’s still a little sore and she broke her rib in January!!
Hope you feel better soon. I can’t even imagine! I knew someone who broke her finger helping moving cinderblocks…and not moving her finger in time! Yowch!! Hopefully your toe will heal quickly!
Well I have to go exercise. Then I’ll be studying for a test. I lead a gripping life ;)
“You’re pro-abortion.”
No, I’m not. If I were pro-abortion, I’d have told every pregnant woman I ever met that she shouldn’t have a baby. I didn’t do that because I am pro-choice.
Which (as I explained more than once and it’s starting to get old now) means that I believe that the decision to have a baby or not is up to the mother, since it’s her body and health put at risk trough a pregnancy.
No, I’m not. If I were pro-abortion, I’d have told every pregnant woman I ever met that she shouldn’t have a baby. I didn’t do that because I am pro-choice.
In order to be in support of abortion, it is not necessary to order each woman to have one. It’s only necessary to support a woman choosing to have one.
If I did not agree with rape, however I supported the “choice” for a man to rape a woman, would I not be pro-rape?
As I said several times, it’s not about what decision I’d make personally. It’s about a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. If she wants to abort – it’s her choice. If she wants to carry the fetus – it’s her choice. I’m okay with both, because the decision is not up me. It’s not up to you or the government either. The only person who has a right to make said decision is the woman concerned.
And your example of rape makes me want to throw up. Rape is one of the worst crimes on the planet; an abortion is neither a crime nor should it be one.
I wasn’t going to say anything, but I just can’t help myself. I noted that this woman’s response of “phooey” to a philosophical argument from analogy was weak and uneducated. These were the responses I received:
MK: “Double phooey”
Momof3: “Triple phooey”
Bethany: “Phooey phooey phooey! :D”
HisMan: “Diana,Yeah, you’d crucify Him.”
“Diana, can an unborn baby in the womb say, “Phooey”. No? Let’s kill ’em all.”
MK, Momof3, Bethany and HisMan, don’t you realize that you’ve made my point? Rather than addressing the issue, rather than engaging in rational debate, you have sunk to silly taunts (and in HisMan’s case, ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals). Why? Is it because you cannot address the actual argument? Or is it because you, like Jill, have recognized that so many of the masses need to be “persuaded” rather than coming to the truth through reason and science? Not only does this indicate to me that you are unable to respond to the argument presented, but that you are part and parcel of a crumbling society – one based on fear, dogma, and spin rather than reason and and the search for truth. ::Sigh::
Jill, I continue to work on paring the full argument down, but I’m not sure I want to do this anymore, especially if the only response that anti-choicers will have is a childish “phooey” rather than a mature argument.
Oh, and HisMan, I am all for dissenters and new ideas, so I would not have crucified Jesus. He had some good things to say. But thanks for assuming as much, especially since those who did crucify Jesus, according to your own faith, were a crucial part of god’s plan to send his son to die for you sins. They were crucial to your salvation. Are you sure you want to attribute that to me?
Diana said: “Jill, I continue to work on paring the full argument down, but I’m not sure I want to do this anymore, especially if the only response that anti-choicers will have is a childish “phooey” rather than a mature argument.”
Lighten up, Diana. Joking and sarcasm are allowed. The debate on this site, on our end anyway, is provocative, educated, and documented. But if you’re getting cold feet, I understand.
As I said several times, it’s not about what decision I’d make personally. It’s about a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. If she wants to abort – it’s her choice. If she wants to carry the fetus – it’s her choice. I’m okay with both, because the decision is not up me. It’s not up to you or the government either. The only person who has a right to make said decision is the woman concerned.
And your example of rape makes me want to throw up. Rape is one of the worst crimes on the planet; an abortion is neither a crime nor should it be one.
Just imagine that feeling you have when you think of rape and imagine that feeling multiplied by 10 when we think of abortion. That’s how we feel when we think about abortion. (I also feel quite disgusted with rape, but that’s not the issue here).
What if, despite my own personal objections to rape, I thought it would be ok if a man wanted to CHOOSE to do so?
Would I be pro-rape or anti-rape, in that situation?
It’s really not difficult. Do you really not see my point, or are you just pretending you don’t because it shows how silly your argument that you are simply “pro-choice” sounds?
And if abortion isn’t a crime and should never be, then why do you personally oppose abortion? Just curious.
MK, Momof3, Bethany and HisMan, don’t you realize that you’ve made my point? Rather than addressing the issue, rather than engaging in rational debate, you have sunk to silly taunts (and in HisMan’s case, ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals). Why? Is it because you cannot address the actual argument?
What? The argument that you’re so much more intelligent than someone else just because they said, “Phooey”?
To that, I say…
Phooey.
=)
Jill, you said: “Lighten up, Diana. Joking and sarcasm are allowed. The debate on this site, on our end anyway, is provocative, educated, and documented. But if you’re getting cold feet, I understand.”
I’ve been following the threads for a while now, when I get the chance (which is rare) and I have to disagree. The debate on *both* sides has, for the most part, been uneducated and irrational. It has involved people talking past each other, slinging insults, and quoting scripture. And if you think that HisMan’s responses (which weren’t even responses) were rational, I’m afraid you and I have completely different ideas of what is rational and what constitutes a debate.
I’m not “getting cold feet”. Rather, it is that I don’t know if it is worth my time to provide a cogent argument to people who cannot take it seriously and actually respond reasonably.
Bethany, you said: “What? The argument that you’re so much more intelligent than someone else just because they said, “Phooey”?”
Bethany, I never said that I was more intelligent than you because you or anyone else said “phooey”. I said that this was an uneducated response. And if you want to take that as my implying that I am more educated than you are, well take it that way. It’s not what I meant.
The argument that I was referring to was not mine. I merely noted that the woman’s response to that argument was horribly inadequate and childish. The argument I was referring to is the argument from analogy briefly presented in Jill’s original post – that of being plugged in (so to speak) to a violinist. No one responded to it. No one attempted to defend the woman’s response of “phooey” as a good one. Can you not respond to it in an educated rational way?
Ah well, I’m off to go teach.
It was a logical response to such a ridiculous argument, Diana. Saying pregnancy could be equated to a violinist being plugged into you is ridiculous and definitely deserves a big phooey. Sorry, I just don’t see a need for anything else in response to that kind of argument.
Diana, 1:54p, said: “The argument that I was referring to was not mine. I merely noted that the woman’s response to that argument was horribly inadequate and childish. The argument I was referring to is the argument from analogy briefly presented in Jill’s original post – that of being plugged in (so to speak) to a violinist. No one responded to it. No one attempted to defend the woman’s response of “phooey” as a good one. Can you not respond to it in an educated rational way?”
Diana, why would we? The original “phooey” flinger was a pro-abort. She was one of you.
“And if abortion isn’t a crime and should never be, then why do you personally oppose abortion? Just curious.”
WTF? When did I say that?! If anything, I indicated that another woman’s decision is none of my business and not about what I’d do if I were pregnant: “As I said several times, it’s not about what decision I’d make personally.”
I never said I oppose abortion. I oppose being called “pro-death” and “pro-abort” because both are not true. You refuse to accept that there’s a difference between promoting abortion and promoting the right to have an abortion.
The rape analogy (comparing being “pro-choice” to being “pro-rape”) only works if you think of abortion as an action that involves two people — and not everyone will agree that the developing person is a person.
So let`s try it with another less loaded example, shall we?
“What if, despite my own personal objections to sexual intercourse, I thought it would be ok if other people wanted to CHOOSE to do so? Would I be pro-sex or anti-sex, in that situation?”
I would argue that it`s possible to be personally anti-sex, and still support the right of others to do it, and this would not necessarily make someone pro-sex. I believe abortion is the same.
Try this Diana:
Aborted babies: 40,000,000
Violinists in
my bed needing
a kidney: 0
I believe this is why we all said:
Phooey.
mk
I never said I oppose abortion. I oppose being called “pro-death” and “pro-abort” because both are not true. You refuse to accept that there’s a difference between promoting abortion and promoting the right to have an abortion.
What is so hurtful about being called pro-abort if there’s nothing wrong with abortion?
I don’t mind being called “anti-choice”, by you guys, because I know what choice you describe.
And you mean the choice to have an abortion.
I know in my heart, without your confirmation, that I do love and care about women, regardless of how you feel about it. I don’t get all worked up about you guys calling me anti-choice.
However, you really, really seriously can’t stand being called pro-abortion, when you obviously don’t oppose it.
Is it because of the stigma attached to the word “abortion”?
You obviously don’t hate abortion- or at least you claim not to. You don’t think it’s immoral or wrong. You obviously want the right to have an abortion to remain an option, am I or am I not right?
IF I truly believed that abortion was the right choice for SOME women, then I would proclaim it to the world, “I am proudly pro-abortion! I believe women should be able to have abortions, because that’s their right!” (just as I proclaim to the world that I am pro-life and I think that abortion is murder!), but you can’t do that. You cant be honest like we can. You have to guise your support as “choice”.
You can’t even be honest about what the choice is that you support.
The choice that you’re working so hard to protect is NOT the choice to have babies. It is NOT the choice to give babies up for adoption. That’s not what’s at stake, is it, Ingrid?
The issue is abortion, the thing you want to remain available is abortion. The right you want to keep is the right to have an abortion, if you should ever “need” one.
What else could there be to call you, rightfully?
You should wear the title as a badge of honor for your cause, not be ashamed of it…unless there’s something wrong with it, of course.
You’re not anti-abortion, Ingrid. You’re not even “neutral-abortion”. You are pro-abortion.
You are defending abortion with all your heart on this very site, plain as day for us to all see….you’re not fooling us with the talk about reproductive rights, autonomy, the right to choose, etc. What do reproductive rights and all those other great terms really mean? (hint: abortion)
Are they referring to protecting a woman’s right to have a baby? No, that’s not at stake. Neither is adoption. Or surrogacy.
What’s at stake is abortion. Abortion, abortion, abortion.
You get irate at the very thought of us trying to talk a woman out of an abortion.
Certainly not anti-abortion.
I can’t think of a more fitting term for someone who is actively involved in fighting for the right to have abortions, than “pro-abortion”.
I am proudly pro-abortion rights. You can call me “pro-abortion” if you like, and I`ll just correct you. I`ve been called worse.
“Pro-abortion rights” is different from being pro-abortion. If I were simply pro-abortion, I would not have chosen to gestate most of my embryos.
It`s possible to hate abortion, thoroughly comprehend that it ends a human life, never hope to have one, try to talk friends out of having one, and yet still believe that the procedure should remain legal for informed women who seek it.
Jill you said:”Diana, why would we? The original “phooey” flinger was a pro-abort. She was one of you.”
Oh. I get it. So a pro-choicer levels a bad response to a philosophical argument and that lets you off the hook? Does that mean that when you say: “An embryo is a person, and killing a person is murder, therefore abortion is murder” that if a fellow pro-lifer says “Phooey, of course a group of replicating cells isn’t a person. That’s not the issue” the pro-choice community doesn’t then have to respond. Well, in that case, I’ll go hunt down a pro-lifer who makes stupid statements like that and we can end this right now.
Bethany you said: “It was a logical response to such a ridiculous argument, Diana. Saying pregnancy could be equated to a violinist being plugged into you is ridiculous and definitely deserves a big phooey. Sorry, I just don’t see a need for anything else in response to that kind of argument.”
This statement right here, Jill, is why I don’t think it’s worth my time to finish working up that piece for you. Bethany, you obviously think that the cases aren’t analogous. Okay, now I’ll tell you what I would tell any of my Intro Ethics or Intro Logic students – you can’t just tell me that “it’s ridiculous” you have to tell me why. What makes the cases disanalogous? And remember that not just any difference will do, it has to be a difference that is relevant to the conclusion. That’s what is required in order to give what I (and any other philosophically trained academic) consider a logical response to an argument of this form.
MK, you said: “Aborted babies: 40,000,000
Violinists in
my bed needing
a kidney: 0”
The fact that pregnancy is commonplace and violinists plugged into people isn’t is not relevant. The fact that a situation is rare, or extremely improbable, or even impossible, has no bearing on what your rights *would* be if you *were* in that situation. The analogy is meant to draw out our intuitions about what rights supercede which in a situation analogous to pregnancy. The two ways to get around this is to say either 1) that you are in fact obligated to donate your body to the violinist (but I’d be careful there – that’s a slippery slope toward forced organ donations) or 2) that the cases are not relevantly analogous.
Bethany + MK – I just re-read my post and realized it was really pedantic. I apologize for that. I’m really frustrated with people right now, but that doesn’t give me the right to take it out on you two. Sorry.
Diana,
With all due respect, I am not one of your students.
To take a completely natural situation that came about due to the actions of the person in that situation and compare it to a non-natural situation that came about through no actions of the person in the situation is silly.
She’s pregnant because she had sex.
Some violin guy is in her bed because…?
Did she get pregnant by being in the bed with this violin guy?
To the whole analogy I again say “Phooey”.
Apples and Oranges and Lemmings!
mk
But how about this?
Does she have the right to kill the violin guy because he is in her bed asking for a kidney?
That’s more analogous. Because we’re talking about killing someone, and you’re talking about not helping a complete stranger live.
Diana, 9:30p, said: “Oh. I get it. So a pro-choicer levels a bad response to a philosophical argument and that lets you off the hook? Does that mean that when you say: ‘An embryo is a person, and killing a person is murder, therefore abortion is murder’ that if a fellow pro-lifer says ‘Phooey, of course a group of replicating cells isn’t a person. That’s not the issue’ the pro-choice community doesn’t then have to respond. Well, in that case, I’ll go hunt down a pro-lifer who makes stupid statements like that and we can end this right now.”
Diana, honestly, what is it you teach? Your argument about phooey is chop suey.
Ooooh, you are so clever Jill.
Why, thank you, Rae, even though I know you’re full of hooey.
uh, Jill, that’s “Phooey”.
Oh, MK, don’t be screwy.
You sound like my uncle louie.
I’m drownin’ here…throw me a bouy!
Jill,
I teach various intro philosophy courses, including general intro, intro ethics and intro logic. I will be teaching philosophy of language this summer, and I am qualified to teach (and hope to before I finish my Ph.D. here) philosophy of mind, epistemology and metaphysics. And worse yet (for some here, anyway) I teach at a Catholic university.
I find it interesting that you questioned my argument about “phooey”, which merely noted that this is not even close to an adequate response to an argument from analogy, after having quoted a completely different comment that I made to you. My comment to you was in regard to your implied claim that because a pro-choicer had responded with “phooey” there was no need for pro-lifers to address the analogical argument she was responding to. If you’re going to hold to that, then, I say again that I will drum up some idiot that happens to be pro-life to make childish responses to your arguments. Then, by your logic, we won’t have to respond to them.
MK,
I meant no disrespect, and I again apologize if I came off that way. I’m having a bad day with regard to people, and I’m very sorry that I took that out on you.
As to your claims about apparent disanalogies with the cases:
1) I think you are correct that in the case of the violinist being plugged into you and dependent on your body for his survival this was not the result of your action, whereas in the case of pregnancy it is. And this is an important difference – one that necessitates a second step in the overall argument. That second step is showing that consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. I’m now of the opinion, however, that even if we grant that a woman who consents to sex has consented to pregnancy(that is, even if by engaging in sexual intercourse, a woman has consented to allow another person (the fetus) to use her body) such consent can be withdrawn at a later time. With regard to the sexual act, for example, an individual may consent at first, and then mid-coitus withdraw that consent. If their partner continues the act after consent has been withdrawn, that’s rape – a violation of bodily autonomy.
2) You’re second claim about killing vs resulting in death is also important, and, I think, partially correct. In the philosophical case with the violinist, the idea is that you have to disconnect him from you, which kills him. In first trimester abortions, this is much like what happens. The embryo/fetus is disconnected from the uterine wall via suction. The result is, unfortunately, its death. Of course, suction seems a lot more gruesome than disconnecting a violinist from you, but I don’t think levels of gruesomeness have any bearing on what rights are possessed.
In the case of late term abortions, however, it would appear that the procedure involves actively killing the fetus. To return to the analogy, then, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea that you are within your rights to turn around and kill the violinist. But, unsurprisingly, I’m also pretty unhappy about late term abortions. I am sure, however, that you have every right to turn around and kill the violinist if remaining plugged to him threatens your life. And in the same way, then, I’m pretty sure that late term abortions are justified in order to save the life of the mother.
Diana, which university, if you don’t mind answering?
“I am proudly pro-abortion rights.”
I like that. Summarizes my point of view just as good as pro-choice.
“Are they referring to protecting a woman’s right to have a baby?”
Neither are you, Bethany. You want to force every pregnant woman to carry her fetus to term. You’re not protecting anyone’s rights.
“You get irate at the very thought of us trying to talk a woman out of an abortion.”
No, I don’t. I get irate at the very thought that a woman has to go trough a pregnancy against her will, which is what you promote.
Diana,
The Catholic church agrees that you may unplug the violinist if keeping him plugged in threatens your life, provided the intent is to save your life and not to kill the violinist.
The violinists death is an unfortunate effect of unplugging him.
And it is true that occasionally a woman will find herself pregnant through circumstances that were not her choice.
In these instances, it would be a matter of charity and prudence to accept the circumstances and allow the child to develop enough so that it can exist outside of the mother’s body.
Of course, no one can force a woman to carry her baby to term, and making abortion illegal will not accomplish this. She can still obtain an illegal abortion.
The point is, our government will have come down on the side of the most morally right choice. Abortion is a grave evil. I am extremely uncomfortable with my government sanctioning it.
I cannot force a man not to steal, but I can make it clear that I do not approve by using the law.
I, as a parent, cannot not stop my children from doing things which displease me (especially the older ones) but it is known, well known I might add, that I disapprove of certain actions. I am on the record as being anti drug, anti pre marital sex, etc. Ultimately the decision is theirs, but the fact remains that while under my roof, such actions will result in consequences.
mk
“I am proudly pro-abortion rights.”
I like that. Summarizes my point of view just as good as pro-choice.
Good. Then we shouldn’t have any more problems when you’re called a pro-abort from now on. In your mind, just add the word “rights” and it’ll make you feel all better.
“Are they referring to protecting a woman’s right to have a baby?”
Neither are you, Bethany. You want to force every pregnant woman to carry her fetus to term. You’re not protecting anyone’s rights.
I am protecting the rights of the baby in question, as you already knew I would answer. I realize you do not accept the reality that what is inside a pregnant woman is bilogically proven to be a distinct human being, a separate entity from the mother from the moment of conception… but I do. It’s pointless to try to argue with me otherwise.
And not only do we pro-lifers protect the rights of the baby, we also help the women who do choose not to abort, by giving them love, support, information, help, clothes, diapers, counseling, and other such care…and if a woman decides to have an abortion anyway, but later feels sad and needs someone to talk to, we comfort them and give them counsel- all for FREE. That is something the pro-abortion side can’t claim they do…unless maybe they get paid for the counseling…and as long as the woman doesn’t admit she has sad feelings for having had an abortion. Any other reason is fine, just don’t say that you’re post abortive, because that’s “anti-choice propaganda”, and any woman who claims she’s depressed after having an abortion is clearly just “hormonal”.
No, I don’t. I get irate at the very thought that a woman has to go trough a pregnancy against her will, which is what you promote.
Call it what you wish.