Rescued embryo
I was just a guest on the Rob Schilling Show. Pro-abort caller Mike said he had proof no one believes embryos are human because if given the choice, firefighters would save people in a burning fertility clinic and not the frozen embryos.
I said it’s not true we do not consider frozen embryos human in emergency situations and told the story of the rescued embryos of Hurricane Katrina. I said I would post a YouTube video relaying the story. Love the baby’s name, Noah. How appropriate! Here ’tis:
After the show I also remembered the folllowing exact anological response to Mike’s contention. This is an ad that ran during the CO Personhood Amendment campaign…
Dec.16, 2008 1:25 pm |
Stem cell |
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.
People rescue cats and dogs too.
The rescue argument is a poor one either way, for or against personhood.
Humanity, throughout history and across cultures, intuitively knows that the early fetus, at least, is not a person. The miscarried fetus can be flushed down a toilet with no fan fare. Nobody celebrates conceptions instead of birthdays. No state registers an embryo upon conception. Nobody calls CSI to investigate every menstrual discharge for wrongful death…. etc…
Throughout history, and across every culture, every theologian and philosopher will readily tell you that nobody knows exactly when a fetus becomes a person.
You all can stop pretending you know.
Noah or Moses would have been perfect, but Noah fits a little better. What a beautiful story.
That personhood ad was great. :)
Cameron: “The miscarried fetus can be flushed down a toilet with no fan fare.”
Spoken like a true ignorant fool.
Tell that to my cousins who have had miscarriages. Tell that to my wife. Tell that to me.
“Humanity, throughout history and across cultures, intuitively knows that the early fetus, at least, is not a person.”
What a poor argument.
Humanity also has “intuitively known” that war is justified, that slavery is justified, that women had no rights etc etc etc. Hell, for a LONG while humanity “intuitively knew” that the earth was flat.
Shows a lot what intuition gets us doesnt it Cameron? Maybe we should use REASON instead and analyze why exactly we do not grant personhood to a preborn, yet we grant personhood to a newborn. There is no reason. Newborns are not self aware. They dont have the power to impact society or to discern emotions. They are basically animals, no different than many other mammals out there. Why do we give them personhood?
If all that is much too hard to think about, you can just say “uhm….my body my right! Its not a human its a clump of cells!” or one of the millions of bullsh*t platitudes the typical pro-choicer throws around.
Oh geeze, the “burning building” scenario. Either choice is morally acceptable. First of all, it is a work of supererogation. It proves absolutely nothing if one decides to choose a more developed person than several embryos. Next time you hear this question, pose the following question: you are trapped in a burning building and you only have time to save a three year old little girl or 100 one-hundred-year olds. If they choose the three year old girl, tell them that they don’t really believe 100 year olds are people. If they choose the 100 one-hundred year olds, tell them that they are sick for letting a little girl die.
Not only that, but saving the embryos would be perfectly valid. Suppose the embyos you save are implanted and are born. 20 years later, they throw a party for you in honor of you saving them. Are they not correct? When you rescued those embryos, were they not the same beings as those who are throwing you the party? Are they not justified in believing that you did save them, and not just potentially them? The fact is that we were all once an embryo. We all began our lives as embryos, which is exactly what nascent human life should look like.
The problem is that we get all these emotional and non-scientific arguments about how we “do things” as in Cameron’s post. I’m not sure what syllogisms if any he has in mind, but let me see if I can come up with just one that he seems to be implying.
1. If you can can be flushed down a toilet with no fan fare, then you are not a person.
2. The fetus can be flushed down the toilet with no fan fare.
Thus, the fetus is not a person.
I’m going to go ahead and say that the above is not a valid argument. Of course, it is also not true that every philosopher and theologian (not sure what theologians have to do with the issue; what happened to separation of church and state?) will take such an agnostic view as Cameron says. But suppose that was true. Shouldn’t we err on the side of life? If a hunter sees something moving in the bushes and shoots it without knowing what it is and it turns out to be a man, is he not responsible? So even if one takes an agnostic approach, we must err on the side of life.
“Spoken like a true ignorant fool”
Name calling now?
What a poor argument.
“Humanity also has “intuitively known” that war is justified,”
If they’re attempting to “justify it”… it’s apparently not intuitively known is it?
Do you have anymore association fallacies you’d like to share?
“Something moving in the bushes and shoots it without knowing what it is and it turns out to be a man, is he not responsible?”
So the firemen should be held culpable for negligent homicide if they don’t save embryos from a burning clinic?
Or are trying to say that embryo is a person because it can move around in the bushes?
I so love you all’s association fallacies.
“So the firemen should be held culpable for negligent homicide if they don’t save embryos from a burning clinic?”
If they willfully chose to not save them and could have, just like anyone else, yes of course.
“I so love you all’s association fallacies. ”
Thanks Cameron!
Cameron: “Spoken like a true ignorant fool”
Name calling now?
What a poor argument.”
Wasnt a part of the argument buddy. I just cant help but point out stupidity when I see it.
Cameron :”Humanity also has “intuitively known” that war is justified,”
If they’re attempting to “justify it”… it’s apparently not intuitively known is it?”
O…..kay. I guess that means that preborns arent intuitively known as non-persons because you are justifying it. Are you arguing against yourself?
(Besides, who said anything about “attempting to justify?” I said it was justified. No attempt involved. By the way Cameron, go look it up on Wikipedia, that actually is the definition of a “strawman” argument, not that I would be caught dead using a bullsh*t term like that on someone. Just FYI)
Cameron: “Do you have anymore association fallacies you’d like to share? ”
Association fallacy? Is that like a strawman argument too eh Cameron? And by that of course, I mean you just say a cool philosophy-ish phrase in response someone without knowing what it means.
There is no fallacy. You claimed that because society has “intuitively known” that a fetus is not a person, that it is fact either not true that the fetus is a person or at the very minimum, impossible for us to “know” that a fetus is a person. This train of thought, if applied to past societies, would mean that at different times, it would be impossible to know that Africans were people, that women deserved rights and that the earth was indeed round. The similarity in that regard is perfect. Keep in mind before you craft another gem of a post Cameron, that analogies need not relate two items as alike in EVERY respect, only in the respect that is pertinent to the topic at hand.
“If they willfully chose to not save them and could have, just like anyone else, yes of course. ”
Then misscarriages should be investigated to make sure the women was taking her vitamins and such.
Bobby… Olivers calling me names
“I guess that means that preborns arent intuitively known as non-persons because you are justifying it.”
I’m not justifying anything by pointing out the self-evident. I don’t have to. I’m not the one with a prescription here. You guys are.
Blanket of love everyone, blanket of love.
I have had people give me that argument before. I retort with this example. Say a house is on fire and there is an 89 year old grandpa at one end in a wheelchair and an 8 month old baby in a crib at the other end. Time is running out. Which one do you save? You see there are two human beings and they differ in size, age, dependency and level of development. I would want to save both but if I had to choose I would go for the baby since the grandpa had the opportunity to live life for a number of years.
If firefighters do not save embryos it is because they haven’t a clue as to where they are and what they are.
“The similarity in that regard is perfect.”
It’s not perfect. Slavery, women’s rights or lack there of, and what ever other inhumane transgression you’d like to invoke are not and have not been universally shared throughout history and across every culture.
Apparently you don’t know what analogy is so allow me to explain it to you.
An analogy is when you map two or more terms, a set X, to an equal number of terms in another set Y, in order to illustrate that there is a shared concept.
It’s ussually a dead give away that it’s an association fallacy when the goal is to say that X is wrong because Y is wrong and they have one term/word in common.
So should firefighters risk their lives to save sperm from a sperm bank?
Bingo, Maria.
Jess, yes.
“An analogy is when you map two or more terms, a set X, to an equal number of terms in another set Y, in order to illustrate that there is a shared concept.”
I see you’ve studied some mathematics, Cameron…
Bobby, risk their lives to save sperm?
Oh geeze, you’re right. Sorry, I was way too hasty in reading what Jess wrote. Too busy trying to do several things at once. No, they should not risk their lives to save sperm. Thanks Hal.
This goes back to contraception, state laws, and Catholic hospitals. Thought you all would find this interesting.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/16/in_survey_caritas_hospitals_gave_illegal_answer/
“This goes back to contraception”
If that ain’t the understatement of the century…
(yes, I know I’m taking Dan’s quote out of context… let me have my moment)
Cameron: “I’m not justifying anything by pointing out the self-evident. I don’t have to. I’m not the one with a prescription here. You guys are.”
Man….I am going to have to define TWO words for you.
“Merriam Webster
Justify
1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable ”
If you use any premise to support a conclusion, you are making an argument and are attempting to prove or show yourself to be right. You are saying that based on what you claim to be self evident you can conclude that the pro-lifers are wrong to claim that they know a certain belief. You are trying to justify that claim by “pointing” at what is self-evident.
You should take a logic class at the local community college. It would help you understand better what you are talking about.
Cameron: It’s not perfect. Slavery, women’s rights or lack there of, and what ever other inhumane transgression you’d like to invoke are not and have not been universally shared throughout history and across every culture.
Apparently you don’t know what analogy is so allow me to explain it to you.
An analogy is when you map two or more terms, a set X, to an equal number of terms in another set Y, in order to illustrate that there is a shared concept.
It’s ussually a dead give away that it’s an association fallacy when the goal is to say that X is wrong because Y is wrong and they have one term/word in common. ”
You have no idea what an analogy is. I suppose that is the problem. Let me define it for you as well.
“Merriam Webster
Analogy
2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b: comparison based on such resemblance”
There is no need for an exact quantitative comparison. Im not sure where you got that from, or what made you make it up exactly.
I am not trying to say X is wrong based on Y. I am trying to show you how your justification for personhood being unknowable is foolish by taking the exact criteria and expanding it to other overturned issues in history.
Now you are claiming that the criteria must also include a “universal” acceptance. If this is the case, then your own “self evident” notion fails the criteria. The idea that a fetus is not a person is not universally accepted across all cultures. If you just take the majority of church going Christians, you would see that their culture does not accept that notion. You can also continue to see that it is not “universal” if you consider that Ireland has abortion outlawed. So either my examples meet the criteria, or else they dont and neither does yours.
Jess: “So should firefighters risk their lives to save sperm from a sperm bank?”
No Jess, for the same reasons that they do not need to rescue Carbon or Nitrogen.
A fertilized egg is a human, right then and there. If you want to argue personhood, go ahead, but it is a human, with human DNA. A sperm is only potential.
BTW Cameron, I want to apologize. My tone was somewhat arrogant and condescending in my first post in this thread towards you (not even to you). Sorry bout that. Heat of the moment, you know how it is, ehh?
Oliver
“Justify 1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable ”
“You are saying that based on what you claim to be self evident you can conclude that the pro-lifers are wrong…”
By your own definition of justify, I’m not justifying anything if I’m saying you’re *wrong.*
It’s amusing how quickly you all can redherring these arguments into a semantics games, fighting about the very meaning of words themselves so you can dismiss and deny, no matter how pathetically divorced from reality you all are.
“There is no need for an exact quantitative comparison.”
Nice strawman argument. I never said as much. Does your dishonesty come naturally or do you go out of your way to misrepresent?
An analogy needs at least two terms in each set however.
Since this is so conceptually enigmatic for you such that you’d think it’s a quantitative thing, I’ll give you an example.
Leg is to dog as fin is to fish; shared concept is propulsion or limb. You need at least two terms in each set which map to each other.
“Now you are claiming that the criteria must also include a “universal” acceptance.”
Yes. That’s what I meant when I said, “…throughout history, across all cultures…”
Please try to keep up Oliver.
“If you just take the majority of church going Christians, you would see that their culture does not accept that notion.”
I’m not talking about notions and lipservice. I’m talking about how they treat the fetus (not like a person). Universally, nobody treats the early fetus, at least, like a person.
If you wish to refute my facts like an actual adult would, rather than indulging in semantics, name calling, and your various obsfucations to avoid your own humility, then you need to give me an exception such that my universal claim is at least qualified.
Best of luck with that.
Bobby,
You don’t really need to apologize, but thank you.
Cameron: ““Justify 1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable ”
“You are saying that based on what you claim to be self evident you can conclude that the pro-lifers are wrong…”
By your own definition of justify, I’m not justifying anything if I’m saying you’re *wrong.*”
By claiming ANYTHING, you are implicitly stating that you are right or reasonable. You are claiming that we are wrong, based on assumed evidence. You are therefore trying to establish that you are right, in that we are wrong, hence the term “justify.”
Which is all BS anyways, because I never claimed in my original examples that there was an attempt to justify, it was simply something that they did consider justified, in the same sense that they considered wearing clothes justified; a right, even if self evident, thing.
Cameron: “It’s amusing how quickly you all can redherring these arguments into a semantics games, fighting about the very meaning of words themselves so you can dismiss and deny, no matter how pathetically divorced from reality you all are.”
Do you honestly not remember that you started the semantic debate? You must be doing this as a joke. You cannot truly be this dense.
I called you on the outlandish criteria for your argument by expanding it to other examples, and you came back with the issue over word choice.
I said: ““There is no need for an exact quantitative comparison.””
Cameron: “Nice strawman argument. I never said as much. Does your dishonesty come naturally or do you go out of your way to misrepresent?”
Cameron from earlier (capitalization for emphasis of course): “An analogy is when you map two or more terms, a set X, to an EQUAL NUMBER of terms in another set Y”
I really dont think you know what a strawman argument is Cameron. You did say “Equal number,” which is synonomous for “exact quantitative.” You may now try to come back and change what you said into something that you may have legitimately MEANT to say, but as it is, I am not putting words in your mouth. Trust me, there is no need for it, you are doing enough to harm yourself as it is.
Cameron: “An analogy needs at least two terms in each set however.
Since this is so conceptually enigmatic for you such that you’d think it’s a quantitative thing, I’ll give you an example.”
At least is different than “EQUAL NUMBER,” again quoting your words of course.
By the way, you may only be used to using analogies as seen on the SAT, but you do not have to phrase them as “This is to that, as this other thing is to that other thing,” as you seem to erroneously think so.
Cameron: “Leg is to dog as fin is to fish; shared concept is propulsion or limb. You need at least two terms in each set which map to each other.”
An apple is analogous to an orange because they are both fruits. Wow, only one term. Pretty cool.
To take it back into relevance….
The belief that the earth is flat is analogous to the denial of personhood to preborns because they were both at some time widely held beliefs.
Cameron: ““Now you are claiming that the criteria must also include a “universal” acceptance.”
Yes. That’s what I meant when I said, “…throughout history, across all cultures…”
Please try to keep up Oliver.”
Sure.
Cameron: “If you just take the majority of church going Christians, you would see that their culture does not accept that notion.”
I’m not talking about notions and lipservice. I’m talking about how they treat the fetus (not like a person). Universally, nobody treats the early fetus, at least, like a person.”
I do. I guess there goes your universal idea, oh rats!
Cameron: “If you wish to refute my facts like an actual adult would, rather than indulging in semantics, name calling, and your various obsfucations to avoid your own humility, then you need to give me an exception such that my universal claim is at least qualified.
Best of luck with that.”
I gave you evidence and you simply said “Oh well thats lipservice.” Obviously you cannot accept any rejection of your ideas. There are thousands, if not millions of people across the world who treat their unborn children as real children, who mourn their miscarriages as they mourn their stillbirths. If you flatly reject that belief, I can at the minimum provide 15 or so examples from my personal family. It is not a universal belief.
BUT, whats cool about all this, is that the belief that the world was flat WAS a universal belief held by cultures across the world. They made their beliefs based on intuition, however as it turns out, they were mistaken. So either way, your idea is flawed. I notice how in the previous posts you neatly avoided addressing this issue.
Man, I know he was an ass, but its times like these that make me miss SoMG. He at least used logic to create his posts.
What a strange thread. It starts off as yet another semantic debate about what a person is, and then Oliver quotes dictionary definitions of other things, but not “person”.
All through history, up until 1973, every single human being was always considered a person. No exceptions, we don’t even have a word for a human being who is not a person. Only with the “Blackmun Edict” (Roe) was there ever any question about that word. Even now, his edict only affects legalese, not the vernacular.
Look it up. I’m tired of posting definitions to people who think they know more than dictionaries, are smarter than encyclopedias, and are better looking than movie stars, and then having my post held because of the links.
Human being = Person.
Oliver,
“By claiming ANYTHING, you are implicitly stating that you are right or reasonable.”
LOL
That has got to be the longest and most vacuous substance less post I’ve yet seen from you. I can’t help but notice that your post are getting progressively longer and saying less and less, beyond your insults. We call this argument type of fallacious style argument Proof by Verbosity.
I’m not going to humor this asinine onion of semantics and redherrings any further. If you wish to continue to obfuscate further and put some distance between the stupid things you’ve said with more stupidity… that’s your prerogative.
In the mean time, I’m waiting for that culture or society which hands out social security numbers upon conception, if you can ever provide as much.
“The belief that the earth is flat…”
Was not, is not, universally shared throughout humanity.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with the concept of universal.
“There are thousands, if not millions of people across the world who treat their unborn children as real children, who mourn their miscarriages as they mourn their stillbirths.”
The early fetus? Whatever. Some do, some don’t. But the state doesn’t. No state does. Try to remember we’re talking about legal stuff and rights.
Very touching pieces, especially the fire one. Whether you believe the embryo is a person or not, we can all agree on the protential the embryo has and what it might mean to the parents or the rescuers.
Oliver,
“By claiming ANYTHING, you are implicitly stating that you are right or reasonable.”
Cameron: “LOL”
So you are LOL because you claim things when you do not think you are right? Maybe that explains how your reasoning is working.
Cameron: “That has got to be the longest and most vacuous substance less post I’ve yet seen from you. I can’t help but notice that your post are getting progressively longer and saying less and less, beyond your insults. We call this argument type of fallacious style argument Proof by Verbosity.”
Translation: “I do not have anything to say to that, so I will just say it is stupid.”
Cameron: “I’m not going to humor this asinine onion of semantics and redherrings any further. If you wish to continue to obfuscate further and put some distance between the stupid things you’ve said with more stupidity… that’s your prerogative.”
Translation: “I started a debate on semantics that I cannot continue, so I will again say it is stupid.”
Cameron: “In the mean time, I’m waiting for that culture or society which hands out social security numbers upon conception, if you can ever provide as much.”
Who are you to make up completely random criteria for personhood? That isnt necessary for a society or culture to believe and uphold the belief. Besides, in our own culture, the rights of the unborn were upheld in all states at some time before Roe v Wade.
Cameron: ““The belief that the earth is flat…”
Was not, is not, universally shared throughout humanity.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with the concept of universal.”
I am going to need you to cite that it was not at some point in time universally shared throughout humanity. Oh an additionally cite a reference showing that every culture in the world holds the belief that preborns do not have rights.
Cameron: ““There are thousands, if not millions of people across the world who treat their unborn children as real children, who mourn their miscarriages as they mourn their stillbirths.”
The early fetus? Whatever. Some do, some don’t. But the state doesn’t. No state does. Try to remember we’re talking about legal stuff and rights.”
Wrong again. Consider Ireland. Besides, when did this become a legal thing? See Dredd Scott. Does legality mean jack? Of course not. If we were here to argue what the law is, we would be seriously wasted our time. We are here to argue what the law SHOULD be. You are arguing that universally across ALL cultures, a preborn is not treated as a human. This is simply not true, regardless of the law. Stop skirting the issue.
“Who are you to make up completely random criteria for personhood?”
Who are you to make up completely random criteria for personhood? Conception is supposedly more meaningful than birth???
“Besides, in our own culture, the rights of the unborn were upheld in all states at some time before Roe v Wade.”
If you knew anything about history, you’d know that laws banning abortion are the novelty, starting with Pope Gregory, I think, in the 19th century.
“I am going to need you to cite that it was not at some point in time universally shared throughout humanity.”
In addition to being breath taking inanity, this is a negative proof fallacy.
“Consider Ireland.”
They make you register your unborn with the state upon conception?
“Does legality mean jack?”
LMAO
Are you even thinking before you start blithering anymore?
Cameron,since Oliver had to leave for the night, I’ll answer your questions.
Life is a continuum. From Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology 7th edition, Frediric H. Martini:
“A single cell ultimately forms a 2-4 kg infant, who in postnantal development will grow through adolescence and maturity toward old age and eventual death. One of the most fascinating aspects of development is its apparent order. Continuity exists at all levels and at all times.”
Amphimixis is the fusion of the ale and female pronuclei, this is the “moment of conception.” At this point the zygote contains the normal complement of 46 chromosomes and is a human being. Defining personhood at any other point is arbuitrary. There is no personhood fairy. Again, according Fundamentals of A&P: “Nothing “leaps into existence”
Cameron, if you knew anything about history you would know that in his dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist pointed out that:
“To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[1] ”
From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, “There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter”
It is laughable that you continue to refuse to provide any information regarding your “universal” claims while demanding proof from Oliver. Even more laughable, is that you deride any proof given while complaining that none has been offered. You are unwilling to accept any proof that counters your opinions, so you pretend that none exists.
Irish law states that “3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
Missouri law stated “In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), the Supreme Court declared in a 5:4 decision that a Missouri law was constitutional. It stated that: Human life began at conception [among other things]”
So yes, there are states that recognize the humanity of the unborn, from conception. There goes your “universal” theory.
Now, as for legality. Again, I suggest you look to Dred Scott. Do you support that legal ruling?
Dangit, I signed Oliver off but it didn’t work. Oliver at 6:05 was me.
“risk their lives to save sperm?” LOLOL! That made my day!
Hi Lauren…
is any of this cut-n-paste crap supposed to illustrate that there is a society which registers the fetus upon conception?
“It is laughable that you continue to refuse to provide any information regarding your “universal” claims while demanding proof from Oliver.”
Please review burden of proof and negative proof fallacy.
“Even more laughable, is that you deride any proof given while complaining that none has been offered.”
No proof of society treating the early fetus like a member of society has been provided. No funerals or death certificates (at least for early fetus), not CSI for miscarriages, nobody celebrates conception day instead of birthday.
“So yes, there are states that recognize the humanity of the unborn, from conception. There goes your “universal” theory.”
Legislative lip service and pandering to prolifers does not illustrate that the state treats a fetus like a person.
You don’t seem to even know what my theory is if you think you’ve illustrated that you’ve refuted it.
Dredd Scott illustrates that the fetus should be registered with the state upon conception? Why are you arguing that society does in fact treat a fetus like a person while simultaneously insinuating that they’ve been wrong about stuff in the past??
::giggling::
Frack sake, try to stay a message!!
Cameron, I’m giving you historical precedent. You are asking for proof of certain items, but then dismiss said proof as “cut and paste.”
There are laws that prosecute individuals who cause a woman to miscarry, even if the miscarriage occurred early in pregnancy.
The older form of counting is the ‘man’ system. In Japan one’s age is counted from the day you were supposed to be conceived – hence in Japan they say that a pregnancy is ‘10 months long’, since in the west they usually start counting pregnancy from the first missed period.
Are the Japanese excluded from universal?
Lauren,
How many more times are you going to pawn off laws regarding fetus as evidence that the fetus is supposedly treated like other members of society?
For the third or fourth time, I’ll reiterate the factual reality for you since you have no clue what you’re supposedly refuting.
Throughout history, in every society, nobody treats the early fetus, at least, as they treat an extant person. There are no funerals, and CSI is not called when the early fetus, at least, is misscarried. Nobody registers it with the state upon conception. Nobody celibrates conception instead of birthdays.
If you wish to refute any of this, then provided evidence otherwise.
Best,
Cameron
Cameron, Dred Scott illustrates a constitutional interpretation that resulted in fault law. The point was that legality does confer universal legitimacy.
Cameron, I’ve already shown that Japanese culture dates ages from conception and I’ve shown that Missouri laws states that human life starts at conception, I’ve shown that people are prosecuted if they kill even the earliest embryo. You keep ignoring these facts and pretending that I haven’t said them.
Hi Lauren,
I dismissed your Japanese evidence because I can’t seem to confirm it for myself. If it is so, then it is not a common practice, although it qualifies the universal nature of the facts I’ve provided as something slightly less than universal.
Can you source/cite this?
“The point was that legality does confer universal legitimacy.”
Dredd Scott decision reflects that everyone on the planet thinks that black people don’t have rights?
Can you seriously not find any information on how the Japanese count ages?
Try this:
http://japanqna.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/japanese-birthdays/
I’m glad to see that you realize that your “universal” claim was flawed.
I was addressing legal thought with the Dred Scott case, because you at one point demanded that laws be the standard for judgment. Dred Scott illustrates that flawed common thought can lead to flawed laws.
Cameron, I think that just because you have decided that some human lives are not worthy of rights or dignity doesn’t justify you trying to stop us from changing public perception.
I doubt you actually need us to cite source to help you understand that society has a natural inclination to restrict it’s definition of human to those “more like us”. And you’re certainly not going to convince us that someone is less human simply because we cannot form an emotional bond with him or her.
If society as a whole respected human dignity, and felt inclined to mourn the loss of any human life, regardless of race, age, gender, creed or usefulness, we wouldn’t be here in the first place.
I don’t have citation to back up what I’m saying… sorry.
What bothers me about the fire ad is that a happy outcome (like Noah) is so rare. And the risks that a rescue worker might take to save fertilized eggs could be very high.
Combine that with the chancy odds of any rescued egg implanting and eventually resulting in the birth of a viable child, and I just don’t see how actually risking one’s life (as opposed to saving fertilized eggs when it poses no risk of death) would be a good thing.
People who are already here have networks of people who care about them. And they often have people who rely on them for all sorts of support, including financial.
Would a rescue worker who seriously endangers his/her existing obligations to family be considered a hero if risking their life to save fertilized eggs, with their much bleaker chance for attaining life?
Thank you for the effort Lauren.
The answer regarding this age question is however “yes and no”
“But birthdays are still celebrated on the same calendar day.”
This is not evidence that they celibrate conception instead of birth.
I will grant you that it does challenge my assertion of universal human intuition though, although it falls short of qualifying it if the Japanese don’t actually celibrate conception instead of birthdays.
When it comes to the fetus and society, the Japanese do in fact stand out in more ways than one
Good effort!!
Thank you for the effort Lauren.
The answer regarding this age question is however “yes and no”
“But birthdays are still celebrated on the same calendar day.”
This is not evidence that they celibrate conception instead of birth.
I will grant you that it does challenge my assertion of universal human intuition though, although it falls short of qualifying it if the Japanese don’t actually celibrate conception instead of birthdays.
When it comes to the fetus and society, the Japanese do in fact stand out in more ways than one
Good effort!!
Thank you for the effort Lauren.
The answer regarding this age question is however “yes and no”
“But birthdays are still celebrated on the same calendar day.”
This is not evidence that they celibrate conception instead of birth.
I will grant you that it does challenge my assertion of universal human intuition though, although it falls short of qualifying it if the Japanese don’t actually celibrate conception instead of birthdays.
When it comes to the fetus and society, the Japanese do in fact stand out in more ways than one
Good effort!!
Weighing your own chance of survival against the chance of saving a life is one thing. That’s perfectly legitimate. I don’t know the facts about life expectancy of frozen embryos.
Worth, or involvement in a network of care and support, however, shouldn’t be on our list of concerns when deciding to save a life, I think.
In the hospital, would the doctor be remiss if running back in to save a man on a ventilator, or someone with only a few months to live? Would we think she’s stupid for doing that? Or how about someone who is not involved in a network (lives alone, perhaps).
I understand what you’re saying, Terezia. But honestly, our MO here is hardly to argue semantics, though we often do. It can all be summed up with “Life is sacred. Protect it.”
Alex, I don’t know if it’s so much arguing semantics in this case (and any dictionary posts here I immediately skip).
I just mean that 20-50% of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman even knows she’s pregnant (do your own research and see if the numbers match what I thought was credible).
What I’m saying is that if you’re a rescue worker with an already-here family to support, I hope you’re not taking any stupid risks to save some pretty dicey eggs.
Alex,
“… just because you have decided that some human lives are not worthy of rights or dignity doesn’t justify you trying to stop us from changing public perception.”
I have not decided as much. A fetus does not have a “life.”
“…that society has a natural inclination to restrict it’s definition…”
Industrialized society, at least, is moving towards more egalitarian notions. This happens to include the fact that women have rights when it comes to what others would insist they endure bodily. Society is gradually becoming more tolerant of abortion not because they don’t think a fetus has rights, but because they think a woman is a person too.
Cameron: ” Who are you to make up completely random criteria for personhood? Conception is supposedly more meaningful than birth???”
Birth is supposedly more meaningful than conception???
See I can do that trick too.
Cameron: “If you knew anything about history, you’d know that laws banning abortion are the novelty, starting with Pope Gregory, I think, in the 19th century.”
I think Lauren did more than an adequate job disproving your claim here.
I said: “I am going to need you to cite that it was not at some point in time universally shared throughout humanity.”
Cameron: “In addition to being breath taking inanity, this is a negative proof fallacy.”
No it is not. You dont know the meaning of strawman, or at the very least have issues detecting when it is or is not in use, so I guess it would not be unreasonable that you are not aware of what is or is not an “absence of evidence” flaw.
What you are confused about here is the notion of proving and disproving. It is just as possible to disprove as it is to prove. Both require evidence however. When you claim that you CANNOT prove, or that you CANNOT disprove, in either case because there is a lack of evidence, this is an absence of evidence flaw, or as you term it “negative proof falacy.”
What you have confused, as many people do of course, is the distinction between disproving a notion based on evidence and proving something through the absence of evidence. The first is fine, but the second is not fine.
You have attempted to disprove the idea that the Earth was universally held to be flat across all cultures at one point in time. You said, to quote you, ““The belief that the earth is flat…”
Was not, is not, universally shared throughout humanity.”
This requires proof Cameron. I asked you to cite any, and instead you claimed I made a flaw in my reasoning. As someone who in a sense makes a career out of identifying flaws in reasoning, I can assure you that it did not happen. I challenged you to provide evidence for your claim that I was wrong. If you want to turn around and require me to provide evidence for my statement as well, feel free to do so, as you do over and over again to everyone else.
Cameron: “They make you register your unborn with the state upon conception?”
Again, Lauren addressed this well already.
I said: “Does legality mean jack?”
Cameron: “LMAO
Are you even thinking before you start blithering anymore?”
Brilliant response. Why dont you actually address the question?
By the way, are you going to respond to this yet and apologize for (again) incorrectly calling an argument strawman?
I said: ““There is no need for an exact quantitative comparison.””
Cameron: “Nice strawman argument. I never said as much. Does your dishonesty come naturally or do you go out of your way to misrepresent?”
Cameron from earlier (capitalization for emphasis of course): “An analogy is when you map two or more terms, a set X, to an EQUAL NUMBER of terms in another set Y”
equal = exact
number = quantitative
analogy = comparison
Care to take your words back please?
Hi Terezia,
“I hope you’re not taking any stupid risks to save some pretty dicey eggs.”
Were you once a “dicey egg”? Didn’t we all begin our existences as “dicey eggs”?
Nobody celibrates conception instead of birthdays.
Posted by: Cameron at December 16, 2008 7:32 PM
Actually some Asian cultures do. The first birthday is celebrated 3 months after birth.
Posted by: Terezia at December 16, 2008 9:01 PM
Terezia – there is no such thing as a fertilized egg once fertilization has completed.
It becomes a zygote – a one celled human being. Both the egg and the sperm have ceased to be individual cells. In effect, their sole functional purpose has been fulfilled. That they are called “embryos” and not “eggs” is a strong indicator of their form, although embryo describes a stage of development, but not the kind of thing they are – which is homo-sapien. If there is any doubt, don’t we refer to them as “human embryos”?
We can discuss the various physiological changes which occur during the whole gestational process, but if you want to make your case regarding implantation and other developments in the pregnancy, we should base it on proper terminology and scientific facts.
From a philosophical point of view, human beings don’t always survive to old age. Often a hostile environment takes their lives at what we believe to be premature points in time. That some pre-born humans don’t make it out of the womb alive doesn’t change what they are any more than our inability to survive in a harsh environment diminishes what we are: human beings.
Addressing your point – risk potential in saving embryos as opposed to other human beings. Only by assuming they are not human beings do you set the stage for discriminating against them.
Remove time and would you be able to say to Noah he was worth “less” than someone else?
Why risk our lives for children – they are smaller and less developed than teens and adults.
We don’t discriminate on the basis of Size, Level of development, Environment and Degree of Dependency for any other human beings, why discriminate against the pre-born on these factors?
Hi Bobby,
You’re right. We did. I also know being here right now doesn’t guarantee I’ll be here tomorrow.
If, as a fertilized embryo with not a very good chance to even make it to birth, I were given the choice of endangering the life of a rescue worker to save me, I don’t think I’d be selfish enough to choose potential life for myself over life for someone who’s already here.
And if I were taking stupid risks to rescue my cat during a fire and a rescue worker then died trying to save me, I think that would haunt me every minute for the rest of my life.
Terezia,
If you were trapped in a burning building right now, would you call 911 and ask them to send a fire truck? Would you hope a fireman would come and try to save you?
If I was in a burning building today, I know I would absolutely would be selfish enough to hope a rescue worker would be there to protect me. That’s what their job is.
Why would it be wrong of someone to expect it if they were smaller and more helpless?
That some pre-born humans don’t make it out of the womb alive doesn’t change what they are any more than our inability to survive in a harsh environment diminishes what we are: human beings.
I don’t dispute that they’re human (and you’re right about my lazy terminology); I just don’t accord them personhood in the way I would to an older person, a disabled person or a pre-born human who is viable outside the womb.
Potential is how we all start out, but I personally don’t see, given the odds for embryos, that risking one’s life to save potential is necessarily a great thing, especially if one already has a family here who depends on you.
Hi Terezia,
Thanks for the response. Ya know, thinking about it a little bit more, there may be an argument to be made that a firefighter should not risk their life. This is, I think, fundamentally different then saying that the embryo is going to die anyway so we should experiment on them. The firefighter case is a supererogatory work, and obviously when one is engaging in a life-saving, above and beyond the call of duty activity, some sort of prudence must be measured. How great a risk should one take to save another’s life? If there is a 90% chance that they will die trying to save another and only a 5% chance they’ll save that person, should they do it? That’s tricky. Factor in that though fully persons, a frozen embryo has very little chance of survival… however, I believe someone above mentioned risking one’s life to save an elderly person. I do see no reason to not do it just because they are elderly, so I would have a hard time justifying not risking one’s life to save embryos.
I’ve done a wonderful job of rambling a nice stream of consciousness, but I think in the end I still say that it is noble and praiseworthy to risk one’s life to save an embryo, though above and beyond the call of duty. Of course, the real problem is that a living embryo should not be anywhere except in it’s mother’s womb. This “scenario” really shouldn’t even exist.
Thanks for your thoughts, Terezia. Definitely thought-provoking. God love you.
Bethany, again, for me, it’s the odds against implantation. I expect rescue workers to do their jobs but not to take unnecessary risks.
If my husband and I were in the middle of IVF and those were our embryos, I’d still feel the same way.
I realize there are many, many people who see it differently, but the odds are what do it for me in this scenario.
I’ve done a wonderful job of rambling a nice stream of consciousness, but I think in the end I still say that it is noble and praiseworthy to risk one’s life to save an embryo, though above and beyond the call of duty.
I agree it can be, and I’m always amazed by stories of extreme bravery on the part of rescue workers. Don’t worry about the rambling. Your point came across clearly. I understand most of the Catholic world view and respect those who believe and implement it (which rules out most of the Catholics I know IRL), so definitely understand your points.
My dad was atheist, and my mother is nominally Christian (although she understands very little of what it’s about, apparently), so we grew up with very little religion. My views are probably shaped a lot by my father’s attitudes in helping others and really taking care of his family.
In this case, I feel very strongly about honouring your responsibilities to the living first.
Bobby, God love you.
I’ve got to get some work done.
I’m innocent, I tell you.
Kristen,
Like the Japanese Shinto which Lauren pointed out, the Buddhists of Asia don’t actually celibrate the conception day. They say a child is one year old, as in the first year of his life, and after the new years celebration, the child is in it’s second year. Regular birthdays, and the new year, are in fact celebrated, but not the day of conception.
Posted by: Terezia at December 17, 2008 9:11 AM
Thanks for your response.
I’m in agreement with Bobby about the supererogatory circumstances posed by life risking circumstances.
You acknowledge discriminating against the pre-born based on your idea of what constitutes moral personhood, however you raise a point which really undercuts your argument: You describe the pre-born as only “potential” – but clearly you can’t mean potential human beings, because you’re calling them human and they exist (as in “being”), or am I mistaken? You must mean the potential history of their lives and relationships besides mother and father. The pre-born are alive and growing – even abortion procedures are based upon gestational age…but then there is this:
Living pre-born human beings are not dead, non-existent, or even potential. If you truly feel very strongly about honoring one’s responsibilities to the living, then you should seriously consider just what you base your assumptions on, because you indicate human life is not intrinsically valuable and can be discriminated against on a scale of your own choosing. It comes across in your writing.
Why you do so is something for you to think about.
Terezia: “I just don’t accord them personhood in the way I would to an older person, a disabled person or a pre-born human who is viable outside the womb.”
By what authority do you “accord them personhood” (or not) in any manner that conflicts with standard definitions of “person”? Do you claim the right to make up your own definitions to replace those published by legitimate dictionaries? Or do you simply not recognize the academic authority of a standard dictionary?
omg, not the dictionary again.
Doyle, I claim no authority over anything except my own opinions. I don’t write dictionaries (or make laws, for that matter).
We do use dictionaries, however, on a daily basis at work, and I’m well aware of their strengths and limitations. I don’t know how quickly changes get into online editions, but they take a pretty long time to get into the print editions.
But using dictionary definitions for concepts as complex as get discussed here is like trying to find your street on a world atlas. I get enough nit-picking about words at work, so my attention wanders quickly when I see it here.
Hal – heh.
Chris, I’ll have to give it some thought and get back to you after I make my hot-and-sour wonton soup.
I realize what you’re saying, but I honestly don’t know if I have a logical argument in return. A lot of my opinions are formed more on intuition and feeling. But I’ve never claimed anything else.
Cameron: “The early fetus? Whatever. Some do, some don’t. But the state doesn’t. No state does. Try to remember we’re talking about legal stuff and rights.”
No law trumps scientific fact, Cameron. Science textbooks correctly identify fertilization as the beginning of a human being’s life, regardless of whether or not we celebrate “conceptiondays” or what you would do if a building were burning to the ground. (By the way, Ramesh Ponnuru did a rather good job of refuting the old “burning fertility clinic” argument in his book, PARTY OF DEATH. Why don’t you go check it out?)
Bri,
Science identifies the sperm and the egg as both living and human too.
Cameron, don’t be dense. Science says that the egg and sperm are living human cells, the blastocyst is a living human being.
Lauren,
Science does not find that a fetus/embryo/zygote is a being. A being has the ability to act or function independently.
Try using a dictionary some time.
You certainly say your nonsense with certainty! Unfortunately for you, if someone actually follows your advice and uses a dictionary, this is what is found.
From Merriam-Webster-3: a living thing ; especially : person
Hmm, nothing about independent function or actions. Oh well, Cameron, can’t win ’em all. Or in your case, any of them.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, the definion for “human being” is:
hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings)
noun
Definition:
1. member of human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens.
-Encarta
Let’s change the subject. Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Didn’t see that coming.
Hal, I think Rick Warren is trying to position himself as this generation’s Billy Graham.
I’m not surprised Warren’s doing it. I’m surprised Obama asked him.
I’m not. I mean he obviously can’t ask Rev. Wright.
Warren is big on AIDS outreach, and the two obviously have some sort of relationship. He is probably also trying to mend the bridges that were burned after that “above my pay grade” comment.
I’m sure there are some liberal pastors that he could have chosen instead, but Warren is a high-profile, relatively low controversy, pastor.
Cameron: “Try using a dictionary some time.”
You mean, like for example, to define “analogy?” It may be helpful for you take your own advice there buddy. It may also be helpful for you to enroll in a Logic Intro course next semester. It’ll help I promise. You really cant trust that short story on fallacies you read in your 10th grade highschool class. It obviously isnt working.
Chris, I think a lot of it is my shoddy choice of words.
You describe the pre-born as only “potential” – but clearly you can’t mean potential human beings, because you’re calling them human and they exist (as in “being”), or am I mistaken?
I was speaking of zygotes and the fact that they do contain human DNA (as opposed to some other kind). Given the fact that they have to at least implant in order to continue growing, I do consider them potential at that point, especially since the odds aren’t really that great for implantation.
And by honouring one’s responsibilites to “the living,” I should have said those who are already born. In the context of the firefighters we were talking about, I still think it would be irresponsible for a rescue worker to take extraordinary risks to save zygotes if, say, he’s already got kids at home.
Very ammusing Lauren,
Were you scared what you’d find if you looked up the word “being”
being (plural beings)
1)a living creature.
2) the state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3) (philosophy) that which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4) (philosophy) one’s basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/being
It’s a potential being, just like it’s a potential person.
Yeah, there are different states of being, or of “beingness.” Leads to a lot of misunderstandings….
I forgot to mention…
Living
1) A state of having life.
If it can’t live outside of the womb….
Cameron: “Science identifies the sperm and the egg as both living and human too.”
Living and human, yes. A human being, no. Science textbooks reserve that status only until the sperm FERTILIZES the ovum.
“Science does not find that a fetus/embryo/zygote is a being.”
Cameron, I have a long list of textbooks/encyclopedia entries/quotations from scientists and doctors who do exactly that. Should I cite them here?
“Try using a dictionary some time.”
We do, but then Hal gets all mad at us and stuff.
Um, Cameron, I did look u the “word being.”
None of your definitions prove anything you claimed.
Especially 1)A state of having life.
Err buddy, the fetus is alive. I can’t live under water, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m alive as long as I stay on dry land. If someone kills me it doesn’t cancel out the fact that I was alive. You don’t have a leg to stand on here, Cameron. Just admit that you spoke without verifying your claimed and move on.
Bri,
Let’s cut to the chase… you think there is no meaningful difference between an acorn and a tree.
The fact that you think the value of life is ultimately based on the most basal criteria (being), which only has value because you cannot place value on not being, appualingly devalues what is more genuinely life.
Let’s try a thought experiment.
If I accidentally destroy a bag of seeds a farmer just bought and was going to plant, am I liable for his future yield or just the price of that bag of seeds?
Don’t be an idiot and answer the way you’d *like* it to be. See if you can muster some honesty
Oliver @10:10 was me.
Er… Lauren I’m guessing.
“Err buddy, the fetus is alive.”
So is sperm and egg. So is a tumor. A fetus however does not have a life.
This is the problem with you dishonest prolifers.
You equivocate. You brandish the biological terms, metabolism/species, in order to make a case for the philosophical. Then when you’re rebuked with the science, e.g. sperm is a alive and human, then you brandish the philosophical.
You people are not only the most dishonest crud that ever walked the face of this planet, but it’s incredibly asinine to insist you can define a person on the most arbitrary of criteria when every philosopher and theologian will admit that it is a difficult thing to define.
Like I said before, you can stop pretending you can define what everyone admits can’t be defined.
Most importantly if you want to insist that conception, is somehow more meaningful than viability, when it comes to what is life, you look like a complete moron.
Your antics here illustrate one think and one thing only; that you don’t really care about saving babies. You care only about your own moral self-promotion.
Cameron,
“If I accidentally destroy a bag of seeds a farmer just bought and was going to plant, am I liable for his future yield or just the price of that bag of seeds?”
No you are not liable for his future yield. The reason that this does not apply the way you’re implying is because we do not value crops the way we value human life. When it comes to crops or trees or almost anything other than human life, the value we put on it is based on “what it can do for us.” Nothing else has any value in and of itself. This can be witnessed by considering something like wine. Suppose I have a brand new bottle of wine. You and I both agree it’s a bottle of wine, and since it is new, it is most likely sold for a cheap price. But suppose I have that same bottle of wine 50 years later (or however long it takes for wine to become “really good.”) This same bottle of wine will be worth much, much more because it has valued and matured according to a collector’s or wine taster’s needs.
The difference between things like old wine and young wine is accidental (in the Aristotelian sense of the word). That is, what-it-is-to-be wine does not change as it ages, but the substance, the essence of what it is is wine, always. But we place our worth of wine based on these ACCIDENTAL differences.
This is in STARK contrast to the human. We do NOT place value on humans due to accidental differences. A human, unlike a bottle of wine which gains more value with age, has intrinsic moral value and worth simply because it is human. It does not need to do something, invent something, or anything of that nature. Once there is a being that is a human, it has dignity and value and hence should not be discarded, which of course is how we treat the “leftover” IVF embryos; like seeds that a farmer plants.
If crops had the highest dignity and moral worth simply in light of the fact that they are crops, then the answer to your question would be yes. But they do not, so the answer is no. That is the real difference. The accidents of almost anything non-human determine that things value. The accidents of a human do not determine their value.
Cameron: “If it can’t live outside of the womb….”
What does this prove?
Cameron: “You people are not only the most dishonest crud that ever walked the face of this planet”
You are the one who called my argument a “strawman” when it was a direct paraphrasing of your argument.
You are the one who said you had “ample” evidence of conjoined twins who could live healthily together, but legally separate to kill on of the twins.
Cameron: “So is sperm and egg. So is a tumor. A fetus however does not have a life. ”
Let me explain what you did here.
Lauren looked up in the dictionary the definition of a human being, not a being, because it isnt what you asked her to define. The definition included preborns.
You then decided that it wasnt good enough for you, so you posted the defintion of what is NECESSARY to be a being, which is to be alive. You then implied that if something needs life support (the womb), that it is not alive. This of course is completely ridiculous, but where you made your big logic mistake is when Lauren called you on it. You then said that “well a tumor is alive and so is sperm, but they arent beings.”
Here you are confusing the NECESSARY factor of a being, life, as a SUFFICIENT factor to make something a being.
A preborn is not a being because it is alive, look at the definition. A preborn is a being because it is a living creature.
The great part of course is that we are not concerned about what a “being” is. If you remember of course, we were concerned with the defintion of “human being,” something that a sperm, an egg, and a tumor cannot qualify as. They are not beings in the first place, even if they are human cells. A prebon is a human being, in that it is not only human but also a living creature. (And no, the ability to live independent of any other system is not a requirement to be alive. We all require food, water, and shelter. Try living in the void of space and you will easily see that you are not independent of a system either.)
Now you will notice that I didnt call you one little name in this post. How are you going to avoid it now?
By the way I am still looking for the apology.
Bobby, off-topic I know, but it’s fascinating how different wines can either go downhill, even go “bad” in some years, while others mature and get better almost indefinitely.
Terezia: “But using dictionary definitions for concepts as complex as get discussed here is like trying to find your street on a world atlas. I get enough nit-picking about words at work, so my attention wanders quickly when I see it here.
Actually, there is nothing “complex” about the meaning of common terms of the vernacular. They are clearly defined, in all their shades of meaning, in common dictonaries. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, none of us here on this forum are qualified, to the best of my knowledge, to substitute OUR judgement for that of the professionals at the dictionary publishers. (If given a choice between accepting the OPINION of an anonymous poster here, or a legitimate dictionary, I’ll take the dictionary every time.)
So, to sum up, if the posting of real, valid definitions causes your mind to wander, then may I suggest that you refrain from making incorrect statements about semantic matters to begin with?
Terezia: “Given the fact that they have to at least implant in order to continue growing, I do consider them potential at that point, especially since the odds aren’t really that great for implantation.”
Given the fact that children must eat and breathe air in order to continue growing, why don’t you consider a born child potential at that point, especially since the odds of them living to 100 are very slim?
What gives you the right to discriminate?
Good point Doyle.
Cameron, in between name calling, insults, and LOL’s, said: “So is sperm and egg. So is a tumor. A fetus however does not have a life.
What in blazes is “a life”? Do you mean that a fetus does not have a social life, or what?
Cameron, in between name calling, insults, and LOL’s, said: to insist you can define a person on the most arbitrary of criteria when every philosopher and theologian will admit that it is a difficult thing to define.
Cameron, we don’t give a rat’s patoot about what gives philosophers knots in their shorts. We are talking about the ORDINARY definition of ORDINARY terms of the vernacular…. which is OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION of the whole field of philosophy!
Cameron, in between name calling, insults, and LOL’s, said:1) A state of having life. If it can’t live outside of the womb….
Born humans can’t live outside the atmosphere, either, Cameron….. so….. are they alive?
Oliver: “The great part of course is that we are not concerned about what a “being” is. If you remember of course, we were concerned with the defintion of “human being,” “
Precisely, Oliver. Having been down this semantic road many times, I know all the little sideroads.
“Being” is such a broad term that it actually can be used to describe just about anything, so it is of no use in this debate.
“Human being” is a very precise term, and it is simply the vernacular equivilent of the scientific term “Homo sapiens sapiens”, the name of our species. Therefore it simiply denotes our species classification. It is NOT a stage of development, nor a merit badge that we can earn, nor an exclusive club that the proaborts control membership in. It is who we are, period.
Watch it Doyle. You are making TOO good of points now. Cameron may come back and point out that you are making a “successful argument fallacy,” where you prove someone wrong with well-reasoned logic. You cannot do that you know, its a fallacy.
I have given up on expecting anything rational or even civil from Cameron. That seems beyond his capicity.
I post in the hope that those whose eyes are still open may read what I have to say in defense of the unborn.
Thanks.
Bobby,
“The reason that this does not apply the way you’re implying is because we do not value crops the way we value human life.”
This is an analogy in which the shared concept is that potential vs. actual. *How* we evaluate the difference, monetary or otherwise, does not qualify the shared concept; potential and actual are two different things.
“A human, unlike a bottle of wine which gains more value with age, has intrinsic moral value and worth simply because it is human.”
Then why isn’t anyone doing anything for all the embryos which are spontaneously aborted or fail to implant. Why isn’t anyone having funerals for early fetuses when they miscarry? Where are the conception certificates issued by the state? How come CSI isn’t checking every menstruation for little pre-persons?
And around and around we go… like you can’t remember what I’ve said from one post to the next.
Lip service to the value of life aside, there certainly seems to be some valuation going on here, and humanity seems to think there’s a meaningful difference between the early fetus, at least, and an actual person.
“Born humans can’t live outside the atmosphere, either, Cameron….. so….. are they alive?”
So woman is now an inanimate object?
Why is viability such an enigmatic concept to you?
Cameron: “Then why isn’t anyone doing anything for all the embryos which are spontaneously aborted or fail to implant. Why isn’t anyone having funerals for early fetuses when they miscarry?”
You are so extreme Cameron. My wife has had two miscarriages and you better belief that we had a service to mourn both their passings. We did not have a funeral because it is not socially acceptable to do such a thing, largely because our culture is one of death. However, it still does not change the fact that we WANTED a funeral with everyone involved. As it is, we just did a personal one in our own home. You dont know what you are talking about.
Cameron: “Where are the conception certificates issued by the state?”
Where are the birth certificates for the Mayans and Aztecs? Does this mean that they did not value their own lives? Where are the birth certificates for the Inuit or the Zulu tribesmen from 200 years ago?
You are making a huge ASSUMPTION. You are assuming that because we recognize birth with a certificate and because we recognize the death of a born human with a social funeral and certificate that it MUST be representative of where we believe life starts. The truth is that there a number of other explanations. This is what we call a “language shift.” You have taken concept A and assumed it supports concept B without any connective tissue so to speak. Trust me, I do this for a living, successfully.
Cameron: “How come CSI isn’t checking every menstruation for little pre-persons?”
CSI doesnt investigate every death, but attempts at forced mircarriage ARE investigated. I recall a case where a man tried to slip his girlfriend an abortion drug. He was investigated not only for the mother but also for the fetus, as he was charged with assault to both.
Ah, very well said, Oliver.
Cameron: “”Born humans can’t live outside the atmosphere, either, Cameron….. so….. are they alive?”
So woman is now an inanimate object?
Why is viability such an enigmatic concept to you?”
Where did he imply that a woman is an inanimate object? He said that all humans require a support system. It does not change whether they are alive or not. You implied that a preborn is not alive because it could not survive outside of its support system. This makes no sense. Coma victims cannot survive without life support, but some are very much alive. If you expand the EXACT criteria to all humans, we all would not be alive because we cannot provide for ourselves if removed from the support system of the Earth.
By the way….isnt this article about firefighters saving human embryos? Would they have saved eggs or sperm? Maybe, but they certainly went out of their way to rescue these “non-living inanimate objects.”
Ha Ha,
Cameroon wins the loon contest for lacking social skills.
And some of you thought no one could top me.
Welcome to the club, bub.
Finally I can put down my mitre and hand it over to Cameroon, the greatest logical loon at Stanek’s.
First, Cameroon, you have to understand that Doug is on your side. He and you know that no one has a good argument against you, they just think they do.
You’ve won every argument soo far, but don’t push it Camerloon.
“And some of you thought no one could top me. Welcome to the club, bub. Finally I can put down my mitre and hand it over…”
LOL
What the heck? What are you Yllas anyways?
I think what some of the confusion/frustration here is that the ‘dictionary defense’ isn’t exactly moving the conversation forward, on either side. When it’s used to try to argue an opinion, it often falls on deaf ears. (or eyes?)
At the end of the day, I think most of us have concluded how we feel about abortion based on gut, personal belief system or experience. The medical jargon, science, Webster’s definitions, etc, assist from a legal/legislative standpoint, but honestly…how many ‘hearts and minds’ does it really change?
I know what cells and sperms and mitosis, et al do. I know how babies are made. I know what they look like as a 6 week zygote and a 40 week fetus. I know that they are alive. I know that they are human, hiccup in utero, etc. All of us here do, and yet, we (and the rest of the country) still come to glaringly different conclusions as to what this means, signifies and give us the right to do.
I conclude that this a much more (if not 100%) emotional belief set than virtually anything else we argue – and a lesson on word definition or restating the sub article in reform bill #1,29247293 is not going to change things (at least for me).
Cameron: “Let’s cut to the chase… you think there is no meaningful difference between an acorn and a tree.”
Botanically speaking, yes, an acorn is a very small, albeit undeveloped, oak tree. Assigning more value to the latter than the former merely reflects a judgment on our part, not a changing of biological fact. (Then there’s the little matter of trying to base whether or not to protect a human being on how she may be analogous to an acorn or a bag of seeds, but that’s another story.)
I believe Bobby Bambino crafted a fine response to your “seeds” question. The value that some people may PLACE on something doesn’t alter biological fact. The sole survivor of a plane crash finds himself on an otherwise uninhabited area, with more silver than he would know what to do with if he were in Manhattan. Unfortunately, he can’t find any food there. Which do you think would be more valuable to HIM, 100 pounds of silver or 100 pounds of bread?
Danielle,
You say this, yet Ive personally seen people change their minds when they have seriously thought and reasoned out the ramifications.
It may be an intuition based thing, but we have to learn that STRICT intuition based ethics often lead us to unreasonable conclusions. These intuition based appeals have led us as a society to at times support slavery, subjugate women, put children to work in death factories, supported animal abuses, kill twins because their souls are split, etc etc.
There is nothing wrong with using intuition as a guideline, but you need to explore the ultimate results. If you personally remain unswayed, so be it, but many people have changed their minds. My wife is one of them.
The biggest evidence of the failure for intuition to solve all ethical quagmires is when intuition derived ethics run contrary to each other.
One of my favorite, non-abortion based, conundrums is the duty to help one another. Would we argue that we have a duty to help each other? Well, consider this example.
If a child is drowning in a small pool, would you not feel the responsibility to rescue the child? If a stranger stands by and does nothing to help the child, he is considered a monster. However, if the man rescues the child he is considered a hero. How can it be that a refusal to do an action is a sin, but an acceptance to do an action is a virtue? It is either a duty, which requires no praise, or it is a voluntary service, which requires no admonishment if not done. The problem is that our intuition wants us to praise the man when he saves the child, whereas we should probably think “anyone would do the same thing, and in fact, would certainly be DUTY bound to do the same thing.”
This of course is not applicable to everyone. This is just something I personally noticed when I was a little kid and was always confused about. There are MANY such examples of where intuition leads to an ethical paradox. The thing is, we cannot just trust intuition, we have to follow it back with reason and ensure that our ethics are consistent. If they are not, then what the hell is the point? We might as well just act as we think we “should” and stop discussing morals.
Its the same as the “well its currently the law, so it should always be the law” argument. If you think the way things are determine the way things should be, then why ever advocate change of any sort? Change need not be arbitrary. The purpose of change in a society is to better align the current systems with a certain purpose. Why would it be any different for ethics and law? Certainly we should do our best to better align our morals with each other and our general philosophy or purpose as we should better align our laws. Just because our heart may say “But it doesnt SEEM to be right to take away a woman’s right to her domain” it doesnt mean it is consistent with our other morals.
Its a lot like grammar. A lot of my students want to choose the correction that SEEMS like the right wording. The truth is that a lot of grammar is based on what SEEMS to be the case. But when what SEEMS to be the case conflicts with other rules that SEEM to be the case, we need to consult the reasoning. My favorite misuse is the word “each.” Each is a singular noun, no matter what it is “of.”
Each of the dogs is licking its tail.
It SEEMS weird because we see is conflicting with dogs, which is plural. The truth is though that when we use each we should be using singularity.
Obviously it isnt an exact analogy, but it still demonstrates how it is easy to perceive something incorrectly, only to reason out what the proper, and seemingly counter-intuitive correct response is.
This same phenomenon can be seen in abstract physics. Einstein’s theories run against our senses and therefore are frequently refuted by many pseudo-scientists. Its hard to accept that matter can convert into energy so that it can even shrink and expand. It seems even more counter-intuitive to consider that there is a “speed limit” to the universe. Yet, if we REASON the science out, it seems much more acceptable.
This is the same for ethics….we cannot rely SOLELY on intuition. We need to reason our beliefs, even if intuition is a guide, in much the same way as Einstein developed his theories.
“This is the problem with you dishonest prolifers…You equivocate. You brandish the biological terms, metabolism/species, in order to make a case for the philosophical. Then when you’re rebuked with the science, e.g. sperm is a alive and human, then you brandish the philosophical.”
You have yet to “rebuke” (do you mean to say “refute”?) us with science. You asked for science and for us to open a dictionary. When the dictionary supported us moreso than you, you asked hypothetical questions about acorns, trees, seeds, and yields of grain. That is what YOUR side does, Cameron: you ignore scientific fact with a bunch of “oh-come-on” arguments that have nothing to with scientific fact. Will you next argue that an embryo is “smaller than the period at the end of this…”, because I feel that one coming up.
“Why isn’t anyone having funerals for early fetuses when they miscarry?”
Many people, as you have seen here (my condolences, Oliver), DO have ceremonies or observances after a miscarriage. Others don’t. But what WE do doesn’t alter biological fact.
“Where are the conception certificates issued by the state?”
Again, cultural observances (like birthdays, which we have since it’s usually hard to pinpoint when a child was actually conceived, especially when a couple is trying hard to have a baby) and government systems (like conception/birth certificates and social security numbers) don’t trump biological fact. Ever see the movie NELL? Jodie Foster played a woman who lived the first part of her life completely in the woods. Didn’t speak English or know how to read or drive a car. The government didn’t know she existed, so she never had a birth certificate or a social security number. So…was she not a human being? Sure, because the lack of a birth certificate or SS# doesn’t alter the fact that you’re a person.
“You people are not only the most dishonest crud that ever walked the face of this planet…”
WE LOVE YOU, TOO. Happy solstice!
“Your antics here illustrate one think and one thing only; that you don’t really care about saving babies. You care only about your own moral self-promotion.”
There are much more efficacious ways I could promote myself, dude.
Better watch it Bri…Cameron is going to now claim you are divorced from reality and not respond to you.
Oliver: “It’s a lot like grammar. A lot of my students want to choose the correction that SEEMS like the right wording. The truth is that a lot of grammar is based on what SEEMS to be the case. But when what SEEMS to be the case conflicts with other rules that SEEM to be the case, we need to consult the reasoning. My favorite misuse is the word ‘each.’ Each is a singular noun, no matter what it is ‘of.’:
‘Each of the dogs is licking its tail.’
That’s true, although the rule I “break” on purpose from that sentence is I use “he” or “she” to describe any animal even though the rule is to use “it.” I don’t like referring to any animal as an inanimate object, no matter what the species. When I let a bug land on a piece of paper, I say I temporarily trap HIM or HER under a paper cup, and take HIM or HER outside, so that I can harmlessly release HIM or HER. We might treat all animals more humanely if we didn’t refer to them as a bunch of “its.”
Me: “Born humans can’t live outside the atmosphere, either, Cameron….. so….. are they alive?”
Cameron: “So woman is now an inanimate object?”
Does anyone reading this have any idea what Cameron is trying to say?
I must admit I don’t.
Cameron: “Why is viability such an enigmatic concept to you?”
What IS “enigmatic” about viability, and why do you think it’s enigmatic to me? What’s so “special” about it to you? Does it confer species classification on our unborn, in your belief system, or what?
As I said a post or two back, I don’t expect rationality or even civility from you any more, and I’m certainly not getting rationality.
Danielle: “I think what some of the confusion/frustration here is that the ‘dictionary defense’ isn’t exactly moving the conversation forward, on either side. When it’s used to try to argue an opinion, it often falls on deaf ears. (or eyes?)
These semantic discussions would never happen if YOU proaborts would refrain from starting them.
You constantly challenge our terminology with your “It isn’t a (fill in the blank)” objections, rooted in nothing but your personal preference that we not use those words. Stop making those ridiculous “negative semantic claims” and we will see the end of the dictionary quotes, which you seem to hate so much because of their disagreement with your silly claims.
Danielle: “At the end of the day, I think most of us have concluded how we feel about abortion based on gut, personal belief system or experience. The medical jargon, science, Webster’s definitions, etc, assist from a legal/legislative standpoint, but honestly…how many ‘hearts and minds’ does it really change?”
There is a lot of truth in what you are saying, so why don’t you stop stirring up those things?
As you infer, most debaters start with a conclusion, and look for support for that conclusion. We just happen to have a lot better sources of support than you do, so I’m not surprised that you don’t like to see our documentation.
“This is the same for ethics….we cannot rely SOLELY on intuition. We need to reason our beliefs, even if intuition is a guide, in much the same way as Einstein developed his theories.”
Posted by: Oliver at December 18, 2008 2:25 PM
-Oliver, I understand that a lot of theory and philosophy and critical thinking goes into crafting ethics. Frankly, I think my inuition is what guides me most, above and beyond the law. If the law told me that I wasn’t obligated to save someone’s life who was endangered in front of me, would the stop me? No. If it was against the law to do something I believe strongly enough in, I think I would risk that as well (can’t think of a good one). So, the rationale is not based on ‘its the law, therefore its right’. It is simply was I believe to be the right thing. The church didn’t teach me that; my parents, my surroundings, my insides taught that.
Which is why I can understand the science and morality behind pregnancy and childbirth but still believe in providing access to abortion. It is simply what I believe is right. If this were 1962, before abortion was legal, it wouldn’t have changed my view whether or not a woman should be able to have one.
Danielle,
I wasnt saying that YOU used the “it is legal, therefore it should always be legal” argument, but I was saying that by referencing ONLY your intuition you are using a similar approach. You may feel a certain way, but does it truly sync up with your other beliefs?
For example, you think that abortion is fine. However, do you not believe that a parent has an obligation to their child until they can find an alternative? Is a mother allowed to dump her newborn in a dumpster to cover up her pregnancy and subsequent birth? If this mother has a responsibility to her child, why not a pregnant mother? Conversely, do you not think it is child abuse if a mother refuses to breastfeed her child even if her child cannot stomach formula? Or how about this….do you not think a newborn has personhood? Well a newborn is not much different cognitively from a plethora of other mammals. A newborn is not self aware. What makes the newborn special? Do coma victims not have rights because they require a life support system? If a human is essentially brain dead and needs 9 months of rehabilitation to regain mental awareness, is nobody responsible to care for this indigent?
By supporting or refuting the right to abortion you are in either case establishing a lot of other complicated morals. It is up to us to make sure the ramifications make sense for us. If two intuition based ethics run in conflict with each other, certainly you can agree that we need to reconcile them either with another premise OR by altering or ultimately dropping one or the other.
“These semantic discussions would never happen if YOU proaborts would refrain from starting them. You constantly challenge our terminology with your “It isn’t a (fill in the blank)” objections, rooted in nothing but your personal preference that we not use those words. Stop making those ridiculous “negative semantic claims” and we will see the end of the dictionary quotes, which you seem to hate so much because of their disagreement with your silly claims.”
A. I have never gotten into a semantics game with anyone here, so please stop lumping me in with a group and generalizing. I can literally see your finger pointing at me as you typed that. I’m simply telling you what I believe as a person and woman, not as a scientist, judge or professor.
“There is a lot of truth in what you are saying, so why don’t you stop stirring up those things?”
B. What exactly did I stir up with my apparently inflammatory comment? Or are you just generally offended that ppl who are not pro-life debate on this board?
“As you infer, most debaters start with a conclusion, and look for support for that conclusion. We just happen to have a lot better sources of support than you do, so I’m not surprised that you don’t like to see our documentation.”
C. Again, I’m not a fan of the ‘let me show you the legal defintion of ___” method, on either side. It just gives ammunition to the same side your already on and turns off the other you’re attempting to convince. Which is why I don’t use it. My original response was to clarify why all of these types of threads always end up melting down into endless virtual ear plugging and cutting and pasting of links. My point is that the majority of your support of or protest against abortion stems from the inside – not the dictionary.
Trust me, I’m not intimiated by the apparent volumes of data one can produce in arguments like this. I’m just not moved by it.
“By supporting or refuting the right to abortion you are in either case establishing a lot of other complicated morals. It is up to us to make sure the ramifications make sense for us. If two intuition based ethics run in conflict with each other, certainly you can agree that we need to reconcile them either with another premise OR by altering or ultimately dropping one or the other.”
Posted by: Oliver at December 18, 2008 3:14 PM
-You brought up a lot of scrupulous scenarios there, I won’t address each one (unless you want me to), but yes, I agree with you that to have or voice your opinion on one controversy therefore opens a pandora’s box of other issues. You hope that they make sense and are rational, although sometimes I don’t think they are. Those are the times when you’re given food for thought…so maybe that’s the point! Encouragement of critical thinking is never a bad thing.
Danielle: “You hope that they make sense and are rational, although sometimes I don’t think they are.”
You hope? We are talking about life and death and the possibility, on either side, of violating millions of human’s rights. You cant just pick a side and hope it works out. You have to address your reasoning, to ENSURE you are not supporting the rampant violation of human rights.
I find it funny that you are not “moved” by reason or information, but that you are only “moved” by what you feel is right. A lot of pro-choicers complain that pro-lifers advance a believe based solely on our feelings, yet the current agenda on abortion is apparently based on personal feelings instead of reason. You are killing human beings because it “feels” right. You may think it is the case, but in our country we make laws to defend those who desrerve rights based on our reason. I dont care if you suddenly “feel” that homosexuals do not have the right to be alive, it doesnt gel with out other beliefs. Abortion cannot be a “feeling” because it is much too complex. Our personal morals are not sufficient to determine such a thing.
Danielle: “You brought up a lot of scrupulous scenarios there, I won’t address each one ”
Why not? Many of them are direct derivations of the beliefs associated with the abortion movement. I am not saying that all of them come from one specific belief in abortion, but the all come from one or another.
Ill take you up on your offer, explain how those things can be or not be the case and yet abortion is still justified.
“You may think it is the case, but in our country we make laws to defend those who desrerve rights based on our reason. I dont care if you suddenly “feel” that homosexuals do not have the right to be alive, it doesnt gel with out other beliefs. Abortion cannot be a “feeling” because it is much too complex. Our personal morals are not sufficient to determine such a thing.”
Posted by: Oliver at December 18, 2008 3:42 PM
-Well I’ve certainly displeased you, haven’t I. Just when I thought it was going so well. Here’s a scruples question for you: a. allow the opponent the stage and let sleeping dogs lie, or b. continue (somewhat) futile attempt towards understanding, at the risk of appearing as the lady who ‘protest too much’.
What more can I say, Oliver, except that I am able to see a difference between the born and unborn and override their pending birth with the needs of the mother, and yet, call for the prosecution of anyone who harms a newborn child. Or any other born person, for that matter.
I’ve got lots of conflicting and complicated opinions on issues, because we are complicated creatures with many layers. I don’t participate in things that are morally offensive to me. Luckily, the law backs most of what I believe in protecting, but if that were not the case, I could understand the ire.
I realize this doesn’t make sense to you and offends your sensibilities, but hey, what can you do.
Danielle, Oliver’s gone to work but if I may I’m going to speak for him a bit.
I think you’re reading frustration and anger into his words that aren’t there. He is explaining to you his positions based on logic. He’s not trying to inflame you and he’s not ranting and raving. As much as he disagrees with you, he isn’t frustrated with you. You aren’t trying to skew words and ignore points. He was just trying to explain his position in as clearly logical terms as possible.
You brought up the concept of a gut feeling guiding your abortion beliefs, and he is simply trying to explain that we can not always “go with our gut” on such issues.
Danielle: “You brought up a lot of scrupulous scenarios there, I won’t address each one ”
Why not? Many of them are direct derivations of the beliefs associated with the abortion movement. I am not saying that all of them come from one specific belief in abortion, but the all come from one or another. Ill take you up on your offer, explain how those things can be or not be the case and yet abortion is still justified.”
Posted by: Oliver at December 18, 2008 3:45 PM
-Honestly there were so many I thought you were just using them as examples, but…ok. Here we go.
1. You think that abortion is fine. However, do you not believe that a parent has an obligation to their child until they can find an alternative?
Abortion IS the alternative.
2. Is a mother allowed to dump her newborn in a dumpster to cover up her pregnancy and subsequent birth?
No, but it signifies a tremendous crisis in this family’s lives. Trauma issues may be involved. This is not to say I think these women are above prosecution. I hope that Safe Haven laws are helping to reduce these incidents.
3. If this mother has a responsibility to her child, why not a pregnant mother?
Because she has dominion over her own body.
4. Do you not think it is child abuse if a mother refuses to breastfeed her child even if her child cannot stomach formula?
It is the mother’s obligation to supply food for her baby, however its received. If you’re asking if mother’s should be allowed to starve their children, the answer is no.
5. Do you not think a newborn has personhood?
Yes, a newborn is a person.
6. A newborn is not self aware. What makes the newborn special? Do coma victims not have rights because they require a life support system? If a human is essentially brain dead and needs 9 months of rehabilitation to regain mental awareness, is nobody responsible to care for this indigent?
A newborn has begun the journey to self awareness as soon as its born. A fetus (or pre-born) has begun the journey to…birth. It’s a finite state. Babies can’t languish in the womb for an infinite period and survive, grow into toddlers, etc…they would die. Because, in order to keep living, they must be born. Newborns are essentially human vegetables, yes, but from the moment of birth they are exposed to the ways of the human experience that will garner them gradual self awareness. That is why they are more similar to a brain injury patient on the road to recovery (and with the same rights to life, care and support) than they are to a pre-born baby (or fetus whatev).
“I think you’re reading frustration and anger into his words that aren’t there. He is explaining to you his positions based on logic. He’s not trying to inflame you and he’s not ranting and raving. As much as he disagrees with you, he isn’t frustrated with you. You aren’t trying to skew words and ignore points. He was just trying to explain his position in as clearly logical terms as possible.”
Posted by: Lauren at December 18, 2008 4:23 PM
-Thank you, Lauren. He certainly did seem quite frustrated. Which is completely understandable and acceptable. I don’t expect my views to be very popular around here.
Danielle: “I can literally see your finger pointing at me as you typed that.
Ah, a vidid imagination. No, that was a collective “you proaborts”, not you personally. But I’m glad you have such an imagination, that must keep you entertained at very low cost!
Danielle: “I’m simply telling you what I believe as a person and woman, not as a scientist, judge or professor.”
AS “a person and a woman”, do you feel that anomymous posters here on this forum ought to substitute their judgement for that of professionals in academic fields? In other words, should we accept anonymous opinion over that of people trained and educated to know these things? (Not pointing my finger at you, btw!)
Danielle: “Or are you just generally offended that ppl who are not pro-life debate on this board?
No, without them how could we make the truth so interesting?
Danielle: “My point is that the majority of your support of or protest against abortion stems from the inside – not the dictionary.
While I can’t say about the “majority”, I can say that I think it is very helpful to counter the semantic lies used by certain proaborts (not you) to try to justify abortion. It helps because it shows how empty and desperate their arguments really are.
Danielle: “Trust me, I’m not intimiated by the apparent volumes of data one can produce in arguments like this.
That’s fine, because it’s not meant to be “intimidating”, it’s meant to be “illuminating”. It shines the light of truth on some pretty dark lies.
Danielle: “Abortion IS the alternative.”
Murder is also an “alternative” that many people choose. Does that make it right?
“Murder is also an “alternative” that many people choose. Does that make it right?”
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at December 18, 2008 4:45 PM
-Nope. I see where you’re going…abortion = murder. But, not to me. I can’t make the same inference.
PS – I’m glad we’re back on track!
Danielle: “-Nope. I see where you’re going…abortion = murder. But, not to me. I can’t make the same inference.
No, Danielle, I wasn’t going there. I was simply stating that simply because a lot of people choose something, it isn’t necessarily a good or moral thing, or something that we ought to consider an “alternative”.
Murder and abortion differ legally, but not morally, IMHO.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, none of us here on this forum are qualified, to the best of my knowledge, to substitute OUR judgement for that of the professionals at the dictionary publishers. (If given a choice between accepting the OPINION of an anonymous poster here, or a legitimate dictionary, I’ll take the dictionary every time.)
Doyle, as I already stated, I’m not making laws or writing dictionary definitions. We’re all just posting opinions in a combox, after all. And to me, hearing why people hold the opinions they do is what’s interesting here, not intricate debates on semantics. My brain doesn’t work that way unless I push it, and when I come home from work, I’m tired because I’ve already been dealing with language all day, more detail-oriented than creative.
Danielle already explained, much better than I could, why some people do better with intuition and are “broad picture” people. I’m a big fan of the Myers-Briggs and Kiersey personality theories as an explanation for how people tend to process information.
I’m really not here to change anyone else’s opinions, more to fine-tune my own. I’m happy to exchange thoughts with anyone here, hopefully civilly. Chris and I hold pretty different views and have squabbled on another board, but I do appreciate his ability to “listen” and ask thought-provoking questions.
Doyle, lexicographers are human. And I know this not just from common sense but because I’ve partied extensively with some (and had some pretty interesting conversations into the bargain). But as I also pointed out earlier, changes in language usage take an awfully long time to show up in the print editions.
It’s conversations of the sort that take place here that get the ball rolling on how real people add layers onto words which the professionals then put into their reference materials.
Short version: Doyle, I certainly don’t expect you to automatically take the words of an anonymous poster in a combox as the truth. Who would?
Abortion ends an INNOCENT LIFE.
Murder ends Innocent Life(Ves)
Looks the same to me!
Danielle: “Abortion IS the alternative.”
Abortion kills the child in question. It is not an alternative to care. That is the same as saying that a mother who cannot care for her child has the right to alternative care by leaving him outside during a snow storm.
Danielle: “No, but it signifies a tremendous crisis in this family’s lives. Trauma issues may be involved. This is not to say I think these women are above prosecution. I hope that Safe Haven laws are helping to reduce these incidents.”
If a mother is not allowed to dump her child in the dumpster, then you agree that she is responsible for the child, regardless of consent. Why is it then that a pregnant mother is not responsible for her child? It is the same scenario.
Danielle: “Because she has dominion over her own body.”
This doesnt explain anything. I have dominion over my pocketbook, but I still owe my child in part some of my money. I have dominion over my household, yet I owe in part to my child my property.
Why is it that when it is the dominion of the body, the right is more important?
Danielle: “It is the mother’s obligation to supply food for her baby, however its received. If you’re asking if mother’s should be allowed to starve their children, the answer is no.”
Abortion is starvation. If you believe that a mother owes her child breastmilk if there is no other alternative, then why does a mother not owe her preborn child nutrients if there is no alternative?
Danielle: “Yes, a newborn is a person.”
What makes it different from a preborn?
Danielle: “A newborn has begun the journey to self awareness as soon as its born. A fetus (or pre-born) has begun the journey to…birth.”
That distinction is 100% arbitrary and not supported. You say that a newborn is on its way to self awareness yet a fetus is not. They are both heading the same pathway Danielle. Think about it. You claim that a fetus is only on its way to “birth” as if the two paths exclude one another. In this regard the fetus is EXACTLY the same thing. Besides, I thought the pro-choicers didnt swallow the whole “potential” argument.
Danielle: “It’s a finite state. Babies can’t languish in the womb for an infinite period and survive, grow into toddlers, etc…they would die. Because, in order to keep living, they must be born.”
I truly in no way mean this to be mean, but what are you talking about? A fetus grows until it needs to be born yes, but what the heck does this have to do with anything? A baby is outside the womb, but it has no special characteristic. How is “outside the womb” anything special? I really dont understand what you are saying here….
Danielle: “Newborns are essentially human vegetables, yes, but from the moment of birth they are exposed to the ways of the human experience that will garner them gradual self awareness. ”
Actually, from the moment of conception, preborns are exposed to the ways of human experience that will garner them gradual self awareness. Your point of distinction is completely arbitrary. You are just putting a start point at birth for really no explainable reason. What about the fetal experience to you says that the preborn is not on a path towards self awareness? It is heading along the same vector of life that a newborn is.
The difference you have selected has no special characteristic. It would be the same as saying “A newborn who is 2 days old is only heading towards being 3 days old. However a 3 day old is heading towards self awareness.”
Danielle: “That is why they are more similar to a brain injury patient on the road to recovery (and with the same rights to life, care and support) than they are to a pre-born baby (or fetus whatev). ”
There really is no difference though. Your point was that the point at birth is the distinction line because the point at birth is the distinction line. You did not explain how a fetus is not on the same “growth vector” that a newborn is on.
It is easy to LOOK at a newborn and think “wow this really is a human.” The preborns dont have this distinction early on partially because we have a hard time accurately depicting them, and partially because they look strange. However, we cannot use our intuition. The same intuition that tells us that newborns are humans because they SEEM human, is the intuition that told us that Africans were NOT human because they didnt SEEM to be what we thought humans were.
Again, anyone can make the arbitrary point of distinction. There has to be reason. You claimed that a preborn is headed towards birth, but a newborn is headed towards self awareness. This is implying that a preborn turns into a different creature at birth. The truth is that a preborn only changes in location. Birth is as arbitrary a point in a baby’s life as coming home from the hospital. You could apply the same logic there.
“A newborn in the hospital is only heading towards leaving the hospital….a newborn at home is heading towards self awareness.”
Danielle: “”Murder is also an “alternative” that many people choose. Does that make it right?”
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at December 18, 2008 4:45 PM
-Nope. I see where you’re going…abortion = murder. But, not to me. I can’t make the same inference. ”
We are not saying abortion = murder, but that just because something is an alternative, it doesnt make it right.
You are using circular reasoning if you say “abortion is right, because it is a good alternative, seeing that it is right.”
You have to explain WHY abortion is a suitable alternative.
The problem is of course that abortion is NOT an alternative to care. A mother cannot relinquish responsibility to her child until she finds a SUITABLE alternative. In other words, a teen cannot dump her baby in the dumpster behind the gym on prom night, even if she did not consent. She is repsonsible for that child until she finds a SUITABLE alternative to her care. Abortion is not a SUITABLE alternative to the mother’s care, it is the REMOVAL of the mother’s care.
What the heck? What are you Yllas anyways?
Posted by: Oliver at December 18, 2008 1:48 PM
Humbled, I’m humbled by Camerloon being the champeen of looniness, and taking my title as the most agitational person with no social skills at this board.
So, stay calm Ollie, someone will be here to help soon, God is with us all this day.
Remember Ollie, Camerloon knows no one has a good argument against him, they just think they do.
I’m encouraging Camerloon to progress into that invincible closed mind of a propagandist who actually believes his own propaganda is truthful.
Terezia: “We’re all just posting opinions in a combox, after all. And to me, hearing why people hold the opinions they do is what’s interesting here, not intricate debates on semantics.”
Honestly, that’s what I find curiouser and courioser. Why express “opinions” without comparing them to established professional standards? Isn’t that like holding a discussion about our understanding of relativity, and totally ignoring what Einstein said?
Sure, everyone is human, but what does that have to do with the quality of one’s opinion? Do we just disregard all academic standards and invite linguistic anarchy?
It serves only one purpose, IMO, to take that approach: it encourages us to ignore reality and substitute what we wish was reality, in order to support our incorrect POV.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’
Danielle: I conclude that this a much more (if not 100%) emotional belief set than virtually anything else we argue – and a lesson on word definition or restating the sub article in reform bill #1,29247293 is not going to change things (at least for me).
Right on, Danielle.
“Abortion kills the child in question. It is not an alternative to care. That is the same as saying that a mother who cannot care for her child has the right to alternative care by leaving him outside during a snow storm.”
-To put it bluntly, there is no child to care for if there is an abortion. This is why I said it’s an alternative.
“If a mother is not allowed to dump her child in the dumpster, then you agree that she is responsible for the child, regardless of consent. Why is it then that a pregnant mother is not responsible for her child? It is the same scenario.”
-If you’re having a baby, then yes, its your responsibility to care for it. If you’re not, you’re having an abortion. That’s it. I’m not trying to be difficult, I just don’t know how else to explain it. There’s only a responsibilty if there’s a baby involved…if you choose an abortion then there IS no baby.
“I have dominion over my pocketbook, but I still owe my child in part some of my money. I have dominion over my household, yet I owe in part to my child my property. Why is it that when it is the dominion of the body, the right is more important?”
-That’s hard to articulate in a succinct way, but if you do not have control over your own body, your own BEING…you have control over nothing! It is the most sacred thing you own. It’s yours. You must have freedom over your own being and not relinquish ownership of it to anything or anyone without your consent. You’re not seriously comparing the objectivity of your self and body with your bag. If you choose to sacrifice your body to another cause, such as pregnancy, then fine. But it must be YOUR CHOICE to relinquish control.
“Abortion is starvation. If you believe that a mother owes her child breastmilk if there is no other alternative, then why does a mother not owe her preborn child nutrients if there is no alternative?”
-No, it’s not starvation. Its the end. To answer your question, doesn’t the mother owe her preborn nutrients…yes, she does, if she’s having it.
“What makes (newborn) different from a preborn?”
-Another response you won’t get or approve of: I believe you’re a person when you’re born. A person with a soul and a future. Before that, you have the potential to become a person. Period.
“A newborn has begun the journey to self awareness as soon as its born. A fetus (or pre-born) has begun the journey to…birth: That distinction is 100% arbitrary and not supported.”
-So let me say again…I’m talking you about what I believe. I’m not a scientist or a philosopher, so the debate ends there. Yes, it’s 100% arbitrary. I didn’t have this discussion with someone else first and corraborate it before responding to you. I have no idea if other PC people believe this. I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s a subjective statement based on a PERSONAL BELIEF. It makes sense to me. There’s no way for me to explain it in a way that you will nod your head and say, ‘ok I get it.’
“It’s a finite state. Babies can’t languish in the womb for an infinite period and survive, grow into toddlers, etc…they would die. Because, in order to keep living, they must be born: I truly in no way mean this to be mean, but what are you talking about? A fetus grows until it needs to be born yes, but what the heck does this have to do with anything? A baby is outside the womb, but it has no special characteristic. How is “outside the womb” anything special? I really dont understand what you are saying here…”
-Because I make a distinction between born and unborn.
“Actually, from the moment of conception, preborns are exposed to the ways of human experience that will garner them gradual self awareness.”
-Again, not if you are not born. You can only grow to a certain point. in the womb you grow bones and flesh and cells…you’re literally being made. But you don’t learn what a family is, you don’t grow to understand language and existentialism (sp), disappointment, elation, etc. This is the type of self awareness I’m referring to.
“Your point of distinction is completely arbitrary. You are just putting a start point at birth for really no explainable reason.”
-Again…see above.
“It is easy to LOOK at a newborn and think “wow this really is a human.” The preborns dont have this distinction early on partially because we have a hard time accurately depicting them, and partially because they look strange. However, we cannot use our intuition. The same intuition that tells us that newborns are humans because they SEEM human”
-Whether or not pre-born babies are human are not an issue for me, I know that they are human.
“You claimed that a preborn is headed towards birth, but a newborn is headed towards self awareness. This is implying that a preborn turns into a different creature at birth.”
-From my perspective, you’re right, I do think they are two distinct beings. I explained this above.
“We are not saying abortion = murder, but that just because something is an alternative, it doesnt make it right.”
-That sounds exactly like what you’re saying. If you believe that pre-born babies are the same thing as newborns with the same rights and needs, then elective abortion is essentially, the murder of a human being…right? Isn’t that the whole crux of the PL movement?
“You have to explain WHY abortion is a suitable alternative.”
-I just did.
Well, Doug, no one ever claimed that being honest about a word definition would “change things” regarding one’s stance on elective abortion.
It simply removes one more roadblock, makes it a little bit harder to continue to engate in denial, a little bit harder to dodge and make excuses for dishonesty.
Honesty is always the best policy, don’t you think?
Well, Doug, no one ever claimed that being honest about a word definition would “change things” regarding one’s stance on elective abortion.
Doyle, agreed. Though I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
….
It simply removes one more roadblock, makes it a little bit harder to continue to engate in denial, a little bit harder to dodge and make excuses for dishonesty.
Certainly works both ways. As I’ve said many times, terminology is not the abortion debate.
…..
Honesty is always the best policy, don’t you think?
Right on, Big D.
Danielle,
I dont mean this to be rude, but you are basically justifying your support of abortion based on the fact that you support abortion. This is essentially circular reasoning, which in essence goes back to your idea that your beliefs are arbitrary with no real support. Its okay that you feel this way, but keep in mind that this kind of intuition based ethical system allowed for support of slavery and the subjugation of women by otherwise good people. I dont believe you are a bad person for supporting this belief, but I do question your reason for adopting an ethical system that clearly runs contrary to itself and to basic logic. Hopefully one day you will realize that this issue is too weighty to decide arbitrarily.
One last thing though….
Danielle :”To put it bluntly, there is no child to care for if there is an abortion. ”
This is the same as saying “I shot my child in the face, so there is no child to care for, I have an alternative.”
By removing the child you are not providing an alternative to care, you are providing an alternative to having a child.
Also a mother that gives birth is not consenting to pregnancy. Maybe she couldnt afford an abortion or didnt know abortion existed? She does not consent, yet she is STILL responsible.
“you are basically justifying your support of abortion based on the fact that you support abortion. This is essentially circular reasoning, which in essence goes back to your idea that your beliefs are arbitrary with no real support. Its okay that you feel this way, but keep in mind that this kind of intuition based ethical system allowed for support of slavery and the subjugation of women by otherwise good people.”
Posted by: Oliver at December 19, 2008 1:34 PM
-Oliver, as suspected, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I didn’t expect you to like or agree with my answers but I answered them as honestly and plainly as I could.
In the spirit of not walking away from an argument with arms crossed, I will try to re-articulate my bottom line: Until there comes a day where baby can be spawned outside of the womb, start to finish, I will continue to support the choice to have an abortion. So long as a woman’s body is at the center of this argument, she must be the ultimate decision maker as to whether or not she sees a pregnancy through to the birth of a child. Hope this helps to clarify.
If a zygote is not a person, why would that mean anything differently if it can grow outside the womb?
Does a mother have to breastfeed when there is NO OTHER OPTION besides starvation or death for her child?
Doug: “As I’ve said many times, terminology is not the abortion debate.”
It shouldn’t be, but sometimes it is. I’ve offered (on other forums) to cease and desist my use of dictionary quotes if those on the proabort side would stop challenging how we prolifers use terms to describe unborn humans. That offer has never been accepted. It’s almost always the “other side” that brings up word usage, not prolifers.
He is right Doug. Look at how many times for example that Cameron said “look it up in a dictionary.” Ive heard you yourself say things like “but thats not the real definition of the word,” or “that word does not apply here based on what it means.”
Danielle: “-Another response you won’t get or approve of: I believe you’re a person when you’re born. A person with a soul and a future. Before that, you have the potential to become a person. Period.”
If you categorize your “belief” as stated above, you can only come to the conclusion that you have a personal belief that rises to the level of a religion, about birth. There is obviously no scientific basis for your belief, so all that is left is a “religious attitude”.
So what your personal religious belief amounts to is a justification for a “deadly discrimination”. To arbitrarily impose a moral distinction between two developmental stages of the same creature amounts to nothing more or less than personal bigotry, of a deadly nature.
That’s the really sad part here, I always hope that a religious attitude will involve somehow elevating the consciousness of mankind, not supporting the elective killing of innocent human beings.
Main Entry: re·li·gion Function: noun
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion
Doug: “If a zygote is not a person, why would that mean anything differently if it can grow outside the womb?”
That’s exactly why viability is a totally arbitrary (and constantly changing) dividing line. It’s only positive aspect (for proaborts) is that it is “convenient” for them to have a line beyond which it’s “okay” to kill babies.
Doug: “Does a mother have to breastfeed when there is NO OTHER OPTION besides starvation or death for her child?”
I’ve tried repeatedly to get an answer to that question on other forums. Most proaborts will not respond to it, and a few say “No, she is justified to let it starve if she doesn’t want to be bothered”.
Danielle :”To put it bluntly, there is no child to care for if there is an abortion.”
Oliver: “This is the same as saying “I shot my child in the face, so there is no child to care for, I have an alternative.”
At the risk of being guilty of speaking for someone else, I will venture a guess that she meant that an unborn human was not a “child”.
Which, of course, it is:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person
MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/
American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. IDIOMS: with child Pregnant.
(Links available on request.)
Note: Only one sense of a word is needed to validate that usage, and senses do not “cancel” each other out.
“If a zygote is not a person, why would that mean anything differently if it can grow outside the womb?”
-Its incredibly meaningful, bc even if you conclude that pre-born are people you still have the very very impassable fact that it requires a uterus to grow in, inside someone else. Even for me, if this impasse was removed (and that would be really creepy/weird) it would cause a significant shift in my consideration of abortion, bc I said – it is ultimately the woman’s decision bc she is the one most impacted.
“Does a mother have to breastfeed when there is NO OTHER OPTION besides starvation or death for her child?”
Posted by: Oliver at December 19, 2008 2:40 PM
-Doyle complained no one answers this question. The answer is, yes. Without her milk the newborn would die and she is therefore responsible. I need to preface that I realize not all women are capable of breastfeeding, or to an amount that’s nutritious.
Danielle: “Its incredibly meaningful, bc even if you conclude that pre-born are people you still have the very very impassable fact that it requires a uterus to grow in, inside someone else.”
Thats why I said “If a zygote is not a person.”
You are arguing that a preborn is not a person because it has an imaginary dividing line at birth, or basically that you “feel” that a preborn is not a person. My question to you then is, if a preborn is NOT a person, why would it mean anything if it could grow outside of the womb?
Danielle: “Doyle complained no one answers this question. The answer is, yes. Without her milk the newborn would die and she is therefore responsible. I need to preface that I realize not all women are capable of breastfeeding, or to an amount that’s nutritious.”
So what you are saying here is that a woman owes to her child in part her body. If this is the case, why is pregnancy any different? Without her uterus the preborn would die. Of course, not all women are capable of nourishing a preborn through pregnancy. How is this ANY different?
Doug: “Does a mother have to breastfeed when there is NO OTHER OPTION besides starvation or death for her child?”
I’ve tried repeatedly to get an answer to that question on other forums. Most proaborts will not respond to it, and a few say “No, she is justified to let it starve if she doesn’t want to be bothered”.
Doyle, good grief, of course not. She can give the baby up. There is always another option. She didn’t even have to take it home from the hospital.
Now then, when the born baby is in the care of people, whoever they are, the you know darn well that society expects certain things of them. At that point it’s a citizen, has had rights attributed, etc.
So, if one willingly accepts the responsibility in society’s eyes, then you bet things are expected.
Doug, women who give birth and then immediately dump their child in the trash are prosecuted for murder. The law views birth as an act that confers responsibility. If, as many pro-choicer’s have claimed, actions can not confer consent, why are these women prosecuted? They don’t sign any papers or take even verbal responsibility.
Oliver, again, “if they willingly accepted the responsibility.”
No argument, then.
Oliver at 8:55 was me. Doug, but they don’t willingly accept responsibility, obviously. They put the baby in the dumpster. If that’s not saying “I don’t take responsibility for this baby” I don’t know what is.
Even so, they are charged with the abandonment.
Doug,
What if she cannot give the baby up? You have to remember that abortion does not have a “give the baby up” option. What if the mother is on a cruise and she gives birth on the cruise? Is she still obligated to breastfeed until the cruise hits a port where she can adopt the child out?
Frack sake Oliver!!!
Get a life!
Now the truly eloquent posts are coming out.
Also you would say “frack.” Gotta love BattleStar Galactica or whichever other Sci-Fi show it is. They have to make up cuss words to accommodate their standard cable audience.
“In the future we will say ‘space poo’ instead of ‘sh*t'”
Oliver: “”Does a mother have to breastfeed when there is NO OTHER OPTION besides starvation or death for her child?”
Danielle: The answer is, yes. Without her milk the newborn would die and she is therefore responsible.
AND… without the nurture of the womb, all pre-viable embryos and fetuses will die, and the mother is responsible for that death.
There is NO moral distinction between those two types of fatal abandonments.
Absolutely Doyle, yet the problem is that intuition does not SOLELY lead us all to those same conclusions. When we address the idea, it is APPARENT that our intuition is in conflict. Obviously one is wrong. I think it is hard to TRULY address our intuition when it comes to things that we cannot see. Its always easier to empathize with something or someone that is closer to our reality. This, to me anyways, seems to be the root of many well-meaning pro-choicers confusion. You cant really see the fetus, and even then, it appears weird and distorted and mutated.
You know, one cannot be guided by one’s intuition if one is in denial and/or supressing their own conscience and/or intituition, for purely selfish reasons.
I think that’s the reality of the situation.
Doug: “As I’ve said many times, terminology is not the abortion debate.”
It shouldn’t be, but sometimes it is. I’ve offered (on other forums) to cease and desist my use of dictionary quotes if those on the proabort side would stop challenging how we prolifers use terms to describe unborn humans. That offer has never been accepted. It’s almost always the “other side” that brings up word usage, not prolifers.
Doyle, if you find somebody that is actually “pro-abortion,” then that is one thing. But between you and Pro-Choicers the argument is not really about terminology. People can disagree all day and night long over which subjective term is used, since they’ll often have different preferences, but that really is not the debate over abortion.
Oliver: Look at how many times for example that Cameron said “look it up in a dictionary.” Ive heard you yourself say things like “but thats not the real definition of the word,” or “that word does not apply here based on what it means.”
Oliver, is Cameron really adressing the abortion debate? I’ve been tremendously busy and haven’t been reading all that many posts.
There are indeed usages of words that aren’t applicable to a given situation, etc.
As for the last, then yeah, it’s like saying that I’ll always be my parents’ child, but I am no longer a child. Two different things.
Doug: “If a zygote is not a person, why would that mean anything differently if it can grow outside the womb?”
Doyle: That’s exactly why viability is a totally arbitrary (and constantly changing) dividing line. It’s only positive aspect (for proaborts) is that it is “convenient” for them to have a line beyond which it’s “okay” to kill babies.
Doyle, that’s like saying that so-and-so is for you “woman-slavers,” rather than Pro-Lifers. Anyway, viability is not “totally arbitrary,” since then the pregnancy can be ended without the death of the unborn, a thing which is not true earlier.
And anyway, that was Oliver that asked the question, not me.
On the “growing outside the womb,” however, since we attribute personhood after birth, then I’d certainly imagine it would mean something, same as it does for preemies.
…..
Doug: “Does a mother have to breastfeed when there is NO OTHER OPTION besides starvation or death for her child?”
Doyle: I’ve tried repeatedly to get an answer to that question on other forums. Most proaborts will not respond to it, and a few say “No, she is justified to let it starve if she doesn’t want to be bothered”.
Doyle, again, that wasn’t me that asked that, but if you were directing my attention to it, then cool, and same for the first one too.
I think there would always be options, but if we’re just talking hypothetically then yes, in a given situation where the born baby is in the mother’s care, then yes, I’d say so.
It’s not true that she’s justified in letting it starve. There’s not going to be any significant amount of sentiment for that. Now, of course she wouldn’t even have had to take the baby home from the hospital, so overall she’s really not forced to breastfeed if she doesn’t want to.
AND… without the nurture of the womb, all pre-viable embryos and fetuses will die, and the mother is responsible for that death.
There is NO moral distinction between those two types of fatal abandonments.
Doyle, that the unborn are inside the body of a person makes a big difference, whether you agree to it or not. That difference is reflected not only in the feelings of billions of people but in law and custom the world over. Even when abortion was illegal in the US, the unborn were not treated the same, i.e. and abortion was okay if two doctors said it was needed.
Doug, women who give birth and then immediately dump their child in the trash are prosecuted for murder. The law views birth as an act that confers responsibility. If, as many pro-choicer’s have claimed, actions can not confer consent, why are these women prosecuted? They don’t sign any papers or take even verbal responsibility
Oliver, if the baby is in their care then that’s the deal. The baby doesn’t have to be in their care – they can give it up for adoption, not take it from the hospital, etc. It’s not “birth” per se that confers responsibility, it’s being the guardian/having the baby in one’s care.
Papers don’t have to be signed. If I’m babysitting for one of my nieces of nephews, there are things I can’t do and things I’d be expected to do.
Oliver: What if she cannot give the baby up? You have to remember that abortion does not have a “give the baby up” option. What if the mother is on a cruise and she gives birth on the cruise? Is she still obligated to breastfeed until the cruise hits a port where she can adopt the child out?
Well, if the baby is in her care to start with, as with birth on the cruise ship – and there are no other options for feeding, then yeah, I’d say she’d be expected to breastfeed.
Oliver: When we address the idea, it is APPARENT that our intuition is in conflict. Obviously one is wrong. I think it is hard to TRULY address our intuition when it comes to things that we cannot see. Its always easier to empathize with something or someone that is closer to our reality.
Right, Oliver, there are differences in valuation – some people putting more value on the unborn life and some putting more on the woman’s freedom/her being able to choose.
You’re right about the empathizing, too. That the woman is a person with feelings, versus the unborn (and I know there’s plenty of argument there too) makes a big difference to many people.
If we accept the notion that a human embryo isn’t a human being because someone doesn’t “feel” that the embryo isn’t a human being, then it opens the door to similar arguments. A raving homophobe can try to argue that gays and lesbians aren’t really human beings because he just doesn’t “feel” that they are.