Human life begins with personhood?
I mentioned a couple weeks ago an abortion clinic escort had asked to interview me, to which I agreed, and I asked her to reciprocate.
Jessica posted all my responses on May 27. But I thought I’d break up her responses here in order to flesh them out (although if you’d like to read ahead, and per our agreement, here is her complete interview).
Frankly, I thought Jessica dodged throughout the interview, as evidenced by her very 1st answer. This disappointed me. I expected by Jessica’s emails that her responses would be more forthright. That said, and to be fair, I think Jessica thought the same of my responses, which I have let her know I’m happy to elaborate.
I invite Jessica and her readers to further dialogue about the following 2 interview questions in my comments section.
1. When does human life begin?
I think your question is when does personhood begin? That answer is birth. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm
2. Do you believe an embryo or fetus is a separate member of the species homo sapiens or just a part of a woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix?
No, they are a member of the species homo sapiens. However, they are not born and have not achieved personhood yet. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when6.htm
No, I did not mean to ask when personhood begins. I indeed meant to ask when human life begins. The link Jessica provided to the pro-abortion website ReligiousTolerance.org tried to separate the terms “human life” from “personhood,” and gave possible definitions to both, so the answers are out there. Thus, I’d still like Jessica to answer my original question.
As to “personhood,” Jessica’s link seemed to indicate that even abortion proponents disagree on when that begins:
Most pro-choicers say that personhood happens later in pregnancy. Some say that it happens:
When the embryo loses its tail and looks vaguely human; When the fetus’ face begins to look fully human; After 21 weeks gestation, a limit imposed by many state & provincial medical associated [sic]; When the fetus is viable – able to survive outside its mother’s body with current medical technology; At about 26 weeks, when the fetal brain’s higher functions are first activated and the fetus attains consciousness; When the fetus half-emerges from is/her mother’s body. This is a Jewish teaching. At birth, when the fetus becomes apart from her/his mother – a newborn. When the newborn’s umbilical cord is cut and she or he is breathing as an independent, separate person… As noted above, Peter Singer believes that personhood is only established weeks after birth.
By Jessica’s answer to my 2nd question, I gather she believes personhood begins somewhere between the 2 bullet points I highlighted. I’d like to know specifically if Jessica believes the baby must be completely born before becoming a person? What if a leg is still inside the mother but all else is out? Can the baby be still be legally killed at that point in Jessica’s opinion? Must the umbilical cord be cut (the baby separated from his/her mother) and the baby to have taken his/her 1st breath – or not – to be considered a “person”?
The website’s list of possible points “personhood” can be bestowed indicated the pro-choice community believes any or all of the following give human beings the right to life: distinct human features, size, degree of intelligence, degree of independence.
Is that correct, Jessica?
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.
These ‘free radicals’ can justify killing anyone, at anytime.
All they have to do is convince themselves their intended victim is beyond some imaginary boundary between ‘human’ and ‘less’ than human according to their vague and ambiguous and everchanging sliding scale of relativism.
I believe personhood doesn’t begin until being born in Christ. ;-)
Semantics – defining personhood, is subjective – not objective. Everyone can play the game!
It’s amazing how many love to build on false foundations until they are confronted with the reality in which they exist.
We can conduct a simple experiment to demonstrate if personhood is intrinsic. Abortion-choicers should throw themselves into wood chippers, and on the other side tell us how your personhood was not destroyed.
If you can’t do that – then you are artificially (and illogically) separating your human flesh from what you consider to be your essential self. If abortion-choicers can withstand that test, then I’ll join their ranks.
“Personhood” is intrinsic to “human life”. A distinct, individual, unrepeatable entity that is both a “being” and “human” (how can anything other than a human come from the reproductive efforts of two beings who are, themselves, human?) is created at the moment of conception, i.e. when the sperm fertilizes the ovum and NOT, as some would argue, at the implantation of the zygote into the mother’s womb. It is at this very moment of fertilization that the newly created human being is also a person.
I’ve debated personhood for a long time, but honestly, I am beginning to think that there is little point to debating the issue. It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm. It’s not a logical debate, it’s a way to justify homicide.
There was a time in US history that black people were not considered to be persons. This was done to justify the incredible injustices that were done to these people. Now, we are doing the same thing to the unborn. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Until science tells us, with 100% assurance, that life does not begin with conception, we need to defend that life. Of course, that will never happen, because God has already defined life as beginning at conception.
Oh, the “personhood” debates drive me nuts. It’s subjective, and always based on someone else’s personhood (how convenient). Lauren nailed it when she said this:
“It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm.”
Exactly!
I have debated this on my blog so many time. Never have I gotten a logical answer. And never once has a pro-“choicer” agreed that we should always err on the side of life. Terribly sad.
that website ‘religious tolerance’ is a piece of work! thanks for the heads-up
This question is what it always boils down to for the prochoice position:
“How late can we solve our problems by destroying this group of human beings?”
That is the subjective pro-choice core question that is debated up and down to the point of total ridiculousness, as shown above by Jill’s list.
The prolife position asks:
“Why cant we love and defend the little in utero human being AND his or her mother?”. The prolife starting point is love and respect for both people in every situation.
Mm-hmm. It’s as I always suspected: in the abortion-tolerant camp, life begins at convenience (or “at personal taste”, if you prefer). “Life begins when I want it to begin! Me, me, me!” As Lauren and others already pointed out, “personhood” is only challenged for those whom one wants to kill.
(And Joe: spot on! I’ve looked at “Religious Tolerance” a few times; it’s a favourite reference for relativists who want to hold to a vague spirituality, and yet not be held to any sane objective standard of morality–such as refraining from killing children, etc. The site is quite pleasant to those who think religion/faith “is all well and good, as a hobby, so long as one doesn’t get carried away with it”.)
in her defense, I think it’s weird that Jill answered N/A on questions about gay marriage and abortion when she has in the past advocated against both.
Please read the book UNPLANNED……I have 7 children, and one ‘angel.’ Abby Johnson worked at planned parenthood for 8 years, and even got recognized as an outstanding performer. She has had 2 aboritons, and had to ‘assist’ in a ULTRASOUND ABORTION,….and she SAW with her Eyes, the baby…’move AWAY’,….she saw the baby DIE. D E A D…….DefundPLANNEDPARENTHOOD.COM….
LILA ROSE, A young 22 year old invegister reported has it DOCUMENTED, that Planned PARENTHOOD, aids and abets Human Trafficting….some girls NOT even form America…..its WRONG…..CHECK OUT THE web site…$63MIllion OF OUR TAX$ GO TO planned parenthood.
life action news.com
Gay marriage is not applicable to the abortion issue. Thus, N/A is a valid answer. What does gay marriage have to do with the taking of innocent unborn life?
I thought her answers to your questions were a bit “dancey,” and without real thoroughness. And yes, the personhood question is simply ridiculous. Lauren makes great points. And it just sounds silly. “You’re not a real person until you exit the womb completely.” All I hear is excuse after excuse why it’s ok to kill a child that is still developing and growing. What if the baby’s shoulder gets stuck in an awkward position in the vaginal tract? (This happens often just because it’s a complicated thing squeezing out of there, haha!) Can I still kill it then?
Also, on the cancer stuff, I am at risk for cancer as it runs like crazy in my family. I’m turning 23 in June, and am already having suspicious changes in the cells of my cervix. I’ve also had highly, and dangerously, irregular periods since I got mine at age 10. My previous Ob/Gyn often commented that if I had a baby, it would help my body to balance out in more ways than just my periods. Of course, I was unmarried and under the age of 20 at that time, so that was not an option. Like nature intended, pregnancy is a healthy circumstance for a woman. It’s one of the ways to know your body’s working properly. :)
I’m trying to understand, and it just isn’t clicking. So she admits that a fetus is a homo sapien, thus human in every way. But it’s okay to kill unborn humans? I would also like to know her views on a baby born most of the way with one leg still inside or something like that. But this sounds like the stereotypical age old argument — the rights of a woman over her own body vs. the rights of the unborn woman. The issue isn’t that nuanced. Women need to behave responsibly. They can’t say, “I’m pregnant, but I think I’ll wait until I’m five months along before I tell anyone or go to a clinic and get an abortion.” Doing so means causing grave pain to a living human being, your very own flesh and blood child. I get that that child is living inside your body at the moment, but wow, it takes gall to kill a perfectly formed innocent child.
The bottom line for me and, I believe, for humanity is that women, like it or not, are custodians of the race. You can look at that job as either a divine calling or a horrifying burden, but it’s the truth. Men can’t give birth to babies. Is it fair that we have to be pregnant and they don’t? Nope. It’s not. But it’s a universal truth that can’t be denied. If you have been born a woman, you are going to have to be vigilant regarding your sexuality because you may end up pregnant. That’s the way our bodies work! Even if we “excepted” for rape and incest, the pro-choice contingency would shriek foul. I don’t understand why women who are pro-choice continually take the view that carrying a child, perpetuating the species to which they’ve been born, is a bad thing. I try to look at it as a privilege. Without our willingness to do so, the entire species would die out forever. THAT is true power. We GET to bear children. It’s an honor bestowed on us. I think that’s cool.
Could it be that a certain amount of brainwashing has occurred? I’m having real trouble seeing how the basic truths of the actual pain inflicted on tiny babies is not coming through to them…
:) Megan, that was inspiring! Preach it, sister!
Okay, I read her answers, and yes, she is hedging on many of them. Not only that, she’s quite arrogant and a little rude. The truth she’s unwilling to accept is that a baby that has been irresponsibly created and allowed to gestate for nine months and has not yet been born can feel with great intensity the pain being inflicted while he/she is being brutally aborted. Every inch of that child’s skin would feel the burning of a saline abortion. Every child who was victim of a partial birth abortion felt the blade slice into his or her neck as evidenced by the insane amount of thrusting and wriggling of the poor infant’s arms and legs until death came. It was a heinous practice which has now been, thankfully, banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act If it wasn’t heinous, why ban it? This Jessica lacks empathy. If she is a prime example of who the pro-choice community is made up of, I am ashamed of how meager my previous pro-life efforts have been. This woman, and others like her, my own family members included, need therapy. The kind that improves empathy. I believe in later generations we will look back on this tragic time as somewhat neanderthal, backward. We will prevail, but history will not be kind to abortion proponents. Their “aha” moment hasn’t yet arrived, so we must be vigilant in our efforts to educate, inform, and support young women in crisis — before those who lack empathy get to them with jargon and propaganda and manipulation.
Read both interviews and…. I can only say “what a quack!!!”
Not only she managed to avoid giving straight answers to pretty much ALL of Jill’s questions, she also couldn’t stop herself from leaving vile comments after each of Jill’s answers. HOW very professional and nice of her…. Quack! (don’t blame me, she calls herself that)
In order to make abortion fit into her worldview, she has to take the sting out of it to the point of ridiculosity by saying it’s a woman’s right/choice to commit murder through the ninth month solely based on location. I realize they hate it when we bring up the holocaust or the civil rights movement, but location isn’t any different (if anything, worse) than skin color as a BAD reason to want someone dead. Case closed.
Reading the interview over at Quack’s place is irritating because she interjects after each paragraph.
Also, on her comment about the Bible in Numbers 5:11-31 – This was not a chemical abortion in any fashion. It was a process by which to determine if a woman had been unfaithful to her husband. If a man of that culture and time believed his wife to have been unfaithful, there was a fear that he’d become angry and/or violent towards her (remember, the culture was completely different, and women were property). Thus, this was a method of testing her faithfulness so that she might be protected from any violence.
They used bitter water, which verse 17 specifically states is simply dust from the tabernacle floor put into water (so, basically, dirty water), and it was a symbol of the bitterness she would suffer because of her (supposed) sin. If she was guilty of adultery, she would become barren and miscarry (which was the ultimate disgrace for women of her people as she could not carry the family line). Remember, God ordained these things as methods of cleansing for His people, for Christ had not yet come to redeem us. If she was found guiltless, she would remain able to bear children and her husband’s mind would be eased and her name cleared.
Hope that clears some of that up for you Jill!
The most disappointing thing, for me, about the interviews was that I really think Jessica was trying to make a genuine effort to understand the pro-life point of view. But she failed so miserably in a few places that I have to wonder if she even can.
Her response to Jill’s response to question 16 on her blog is a great example. She lays out a thing about Sharia law and asks for Jill’s thoughts on the subject. Jill gives her thoughts on the subject, pointing out that opposition to abortion is not a purely religious position and has nothing to do with imposing Christianity, fundamental or otherwise, on anybody, which Jessica then claims dodges the question. You asked what Jill thought and she told you. How is that a dodge?
And her response to the answer to question 17 is arguably even worse. Jessica asked about sidewalk counseling and Jill points out that that is the last chance to save a child from being killed. Jessica takes issue with this, saying “This is not about life and death as you would like it to be, but about a woman’s right to privacy, which is the entire reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe in Roe v Wade.”
If you want to disagree with someone, fine. But if you ask someone what they think, they tell you, and then you tell them, “No, you actually think this, which is wrong!” then I have to wonder if the person saying this even has the capacity to see outside their own echo chamber. I think she really did try, I also feel, reading her comments on the interview, that she never really did manage to understand that the fundamental point the pro-life movement has been making from day one is that the unborn are people. Just like born people.
On a slightly unrelated note, I think it’s absolutely hilarious that the article she links to that convinced her not to use the term “pro-life” actually advocates using the term pro-life to refer to pro-lifers and calls “anti-choice,” which she has now said is her preferred mode when speaking, a “derogatory term that implies to some people that the main aim of the pro-life movement is to regulate women’s lives and reduce their options” and advocates against its use.
Wow, you really pulled out the slavery card? I didn’t think you could be more repulsive, but you’ve succeeded! Way to go! Wanna talk about how the Bible was used to justify slavery?
Honestly, I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone who is so against Women’s rights. Bring on the ‘what about the baby’s rights?!?!?!?’ garbage, dudes and dudettes!
Theresa- Are you joking about the Lila Rose thing? How many times does something have to be shown to be a hoax/ the product of editing before you’ll admit it? Seriously?
If she was guilty of adultery, she would become barren and miscarry (which was the ultimate disgrace for women of her people as she could not carry the family line).
Just to clarify, this verse does not imply that the woman would be pregnant at the time she would be given the bitter water. It speaks of making her abdomen swell. Nowhere in the passage does it say anything about the woman in question being pregnant.
Ashtar, is it not true that both the current pro-choice movement and the historical pro-slavery movement claimed that there are certain human beings are not persons?
Yes or no?
Going by her complete answers, Duck/Jessica’s new handle should be The Artful Dodger! She does not give straight answers to anything, or simply repeats the same canned verbiage. And she has the nerve to complain that Jill dodges her answers?
I would love to hear from Jessica her reason for choosing “being completely out of the birth canal” as her definition of personhood rather than any of the eight other options given. Tell her to be specific and not dodge the question. I doubt she will be able to give any kind of a rational reply. (I presume she actually chose it because it fits her already-existing position on abortion, which is apparently to allow it for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy).
@Kel:
Very good point! Thanks for clarifying! Indeed, there was no assurance that she was pregnant at all.
@Megan
Gay marriage has everything to do with killing of innocent children in a couple of ways:
1. It says it is alright to get married for pleasure only with no possibility of recreating
2. It dulls the society’s moral sense because it makes it possible to discuss anything as right due to it convenience. I promise u very soon killers will claim that they where born with that instinct(this has featured a several times on discovery) and hence they should not be held accountable for it. Also the man-boy love has sprung up in recent times…
Megan if u don’t see the link between them, then I am sorry you will be fighting for a very very very long time. Why? Because you are only fighting the symptoms of a disease it self not the cause….
I have on several occasion pointed out to life action and co who are campaigning marvelously to stop abortion that they are putting so much effort in to just the leaves that if they should cut it at the root you solve it. Isn’t it alarming when you hear the thousands and millions of aborted babies given by research that there are out there that many women who can kill their own child/children? Look Megan this will never go away and even more perversion is yet to come. If you allow all this permissiveness then you should not be shocked when people kill their children for convenience and it is only natural. And if we say gay marriages are ok and aborting children is wrong then we have a double standard going because they both attack the structure and purpose of family and sex. also Because the proponents of abortion r doing so to solve a need of the mother and in their sick way the child by not bring it into poverty. To stop this Megan, is to call a spade a spade cause cherry picking what is right from what is wrong will never solve anything because it is subjective. My advise to all, focus on the lifestyles that make women turn to this abortion of a thing and you will cut the flow of people having abortion. Target a failed moral system, target a system that has highly sexualized media contents and girls that dress revealing with this gusto you use to preach about abortions and I promise you won’t even need to make or ban laws, pp will have no more customers to sustain them. Even if u ban them people will access them illegally! Target the mindset. But if u allow things like Gay marriages and the likes as norms then where or how will one begin to talk about morality? Do u know that we are not suppose to even be sexual outside marriage? But now it is so common that when we talk abortions I almost never hear what necessitated it; as though it just came upon the mother like an unfortunate illness. To have real sustainable change U must talk about the issues that brought about this situation whole: institutionalized sin complicates everything…
cheers
Peace and Goodness
Abortion-choicers should throw themselves into wood chippers, and on the other side tell us how your personhood was not destroyed.
I retain the right to medical privacy (HIPAA still applies), my debts are still valid, my employer still owes me my last paycheck, and my body cannot be appropriated for someone else’s use (i.e., organ donation) unless I have given my consent.
Ashtar, you seem to have “morphed” from “civil, reasonable contributor” to “knee-jerk, flame-throwing troll” in just a few days. Now: did you just have a bad day when you wrote this, or is this your new M.O.?
Ashtar says: May 30, 2011 at 1:47 pm
1. ”Wanna talk about how the Bible was used to justify slavery?”
2. “Honestly, I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone who is so against Women’s rights.”
===================================================================
1. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.
The ‘white democrats’, some of whom were ‘christians’, were the slave holders and they were the ones who used the ‘book’ in a pathetic attempt to justify slavery, robbery, rape and murder.
How does a ‘christian’ reconcile that behavior with the ‘golden rule’?
[Hint, ask a liberal.]
The abolitionist used the same ‘book’ to argue against slavery and the vast majority of these people were christians.
2. Many of these same christian abolitiionists were also ‘suffragettes’ and ‘suffragents’.
Which group more closely reflected the spirit of the golden rule, the white democrats or the abolitionists/suffragettes?
Please reconcile a woman’s ‘choice’ to kill her pre-natal child with the ‘golden rule’, from the pre-natal childs perspective.
Here is the liberal christian democrat understanding of the ’golden rule’:
Greater love has no woman than this, that she sacrifice her child’s life for her own convenience.
The liberal’s chatter about love and compassion is nothing more than a ‘noisy gong and a clanging cymbal’, because it almost alway involves someone else’s sacrifice and someone else’s wealth.
Lauren, great point. People wrote entire essays and books on why blacks or Jews or whatever group were not really people. They has no interest in advancing or debating science or philosophy. They just wanted to kill humans and justify it. Same with abortion supporters.
Ashtar, you are being evasive. Yes, I do believe those who are aggressively pro-choice believe in treating unborn babies, especially second and third trimester ones, the same way slave owners treated African American human beings. Actually, they are treated much worse — death is always the result. But that’s splitting hairs. Both were/are abominable practices. Leave religion out of it. If you are going to call the unborn child “property” and advance a woman’s right to destroy it because it happens to rest comfortably within her jurisdiction, I will continue to correlate that with slavery. I am Jewish, and I am appalled that anyone would have considered for a moment killing me simply because of my race. I am only safe because my family changed location — immigrated to the U.S. from Poland in the nick of time. The baby of a pro-choice woman who chooses abortion does not have the option of changing location. Shame on you for evading the real issue and pretending this is about Christian slave owners. It’s not helpful to come on here and rant. If you have a legitimate argument that will compel me to change my mind and believe in this abhorrent practice, bring it. But please stop sidestepping with sound bytes.
As to the whole gay marriage thing, I am not sure what the commenter above was trying to say. I never said I was pro or con gay marriage. I think Jessica was baiting Jill, trying to change the subject and make her views appear somehow less legitimate to her liberal readers by showing that Jill is also conservative on other moral issues besides abortion. I think it was wise of Jill to stay on topic in this instance.
I do wish this was not a leftist issue. Abortion kills people. We should all be on the same side against it and FOR children. Imagine the good we could accomplish. Maybe one day!
I have a friend who read biography on Margaret Sanger. I think Jessica needs to, she doesn’t seem to realize what Sanger was doing.
Regarding Jessica’s answer about Partial Birth Abortion: D&E’s are done in other abortions, not just partial birth. Also, she mentions the BRAIN is extracted. She answers all matter-of-factly like it’s no big deal. Well, I guess if you don’t view said being as a life it isn’t, but if said being isn’t a life then why would it have a brain? Non-living things generally don’t have real organic matter brains.
“..not have to donate her uterus as an organ to a potential person if she does not wish to…” Our actions have NOTHING to do with it? (I’m not talking about rape, that is not consenual sexual activity–I’m talking about when a woman and man CONSENT to each other to engage in sexual activity). Although..since non-profit donations are usually tax-deductible and since you can get some tax deductions with having dependents and children are dependents, I guess it makes sense…in a roundabout way.
Jessica’s answer about assisting with an abortion: “No, I am not a licensed medical professional, why would I help with a medical procedure?” Some NON-licensed people have assisted with abortions or been told to deal with recovery. Case in point: http://prolifeaction.org/providers/davis.php
I am not going to read the interview because I have already talked with “Duck,” who is an utter moron. There is no point reading her drivel and simply inflaming my irritation with her type. Hopefully, the next pro-choicer to mosey on down the lane will have a head on his/her shoulders. (How many times have I said this before to no avail?)
On the question of personhood: how exactly do we define personhood? I do not mean “when does it start” or “what are the necessary characteristics of it.” I mean what is it exactly that we are defining. Do we mean a rational being? Do we mean a being with rights?
The reason I ask is that I am starting to think personhood is not necessary to have basic human rights. So, if we concede that a large group of humans (preborns to 1 year old infants for example) are not persons, I don’t see that we are conceding that these same humans don’t deserve nurture and protection. Animals have some rights but they are not persons, for example. So, it could be that a mother is STILL obligated to care for her child, whether it is a preborn or an infant, even if that preborn or infant is not a true “person.”
In other words, maybe the whole personhood argument is irrelevant. Thoughts?
Oliver – Jessica is working off of legal documentation, which is where many abortion-choicers go. In our current culture, arguments about legality are not arguments about morality. Laws have ceased to have a rational moral basis.
There’s a paradox in their approach – because they rely upon a state/culture to define themselves. In all seriousness – progressives have become unhinged from reality in their thinking.
Abortion-choicers greatest fear is a state/culture that declares them non-persons. Wasn’t that the whole idea behind feminism – that a woman was a full person? There’s a reason why the two issues, abortion and feminism are inextricably linked.
Whoever controls the terms, controls the debate.
The only acceptable terms for human rights are based on objective reality. Lauren is right – every semantic play on what constitutes a “person” when it comes to humans is for evil purposes.
Chris, I don’t mean “duck’s” definition on the subject. I mean how do we define the concept? How do we define personhood from a strictly ethical/moral ground. I am not sure whether it is a necessary component of the philosophical argument against abortion. I am mainly curious how everyone views the idea.
In logic, and in the United States of America in particular (innocent until proven guilty), the affirmative position has the burden of proof. In this case the burden of proof to be met is that abortion is murder. The affirmative position is referred to as “pro life (by the way pro life is a terrible term).”
If anti abortion people wish to be taken seriously they need to put away their bibles, quit raving about murder, and start going about defining criteria and doing research.
I seriously doubt any of the latter will happen. There’s far too much interest in black and white, or good and evil thinking in that crowd.
Please, think of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux’s proverb, “L’enfer est plein de bonnes volontes et desirs.” Which loosely translated means, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
As an addendum, There will never be legislation banning abortion (unless the anti abortion crowd gets serious, and by serious I mean rational) for two reasons. First, the public, at large is against it. Second, the Republican party would actually have to work for all the votes they’re getting for free right now.
Oliver – I’m actually saying: “Don’t go there.”
Personhood is an abstract idea as opposed to one that is objective/tangible or can be experienced with the 5 senses.
Even if you’re defining personhood, you’re simply doing the defining instead of someone else. The problem is, every human can define personhood.
I personally think it’s not a very useful exercise for pro-lifers.
My 2 cents.
Lauren
Just because after you’ve presented your argument the individual doesn’t acknowledge that you’ve helped them to see clearer does not mean that you didn’t. A lot of times pro-choicers are repeating what they’ve heard and for fear of rejection or even emotional abuse from people close to them will not say, ” I know your right” Because you make your points so well some are probably relieved that the conclusions they had reached in their own mind could be substantiated by good logic. Happy Memorial Day.
Michael Sanner: If anti abortion people wish to be taken seriously they need to put away their bibles, quit raving about murder, and start going about defining criteria and doing research.
I seriously doubt any of the latter will happen. There’s far too much interest in black and white, or good and evil thinking in that crowd.
Right. Especially considering that no one on this entire site uses the Bible as the sole authority on abortion.
Please, tell me, how does it feel to live in a world where you just make things up about whole swathes of people? I mean, you literally just said to yourself
“Well, pro-life people tend to be Christian, and sometimes they argue their points based on Christianity, so obviously the entire movement is driven by the Bible! So much so, in fact, that it is hopeless to imagine them giving it up. Oh well, sigh, I guess I, the great academian intellectual that I am, must go inform them about their inability to do research and argue philosophically about the issue. Well, someone has to be the great objective historian! I guess that’s me!”
It is funny, because almost every pro-choice type that I have argued with has at some time claimed that a fetus is “not alive” or “not a human.” Who is it that doesn’t research again? Hmmmm…
Oliver, I tend to think like you. There are already 9 different definitions of “person” given above – and it’s by no means an exhaustive list. Pro-aborts can’t even agree on what they mean by personhood. The definitions are mostly ludricrous and don’t have any convincing criteria associated with them.
Yet traditional philosophical definitions of “person” by Chrisitans may not help us as much as we would like. The traditional definition, that a person is “an individual substance of a rational nature” (sixth-century philsopher Boethius through Thomas Aquinas) gives us an idea but how to understand the terms has given enormous trouble. Does “rational” mean that only those members of a rational species that right this minute are capable of reason are persons, or does it apply to all members of the species, because they are rational by nature, by reason of the species they belong to, even if they haven’t yet developed the capacity to reaason?
Keep in mind that the Cathoic Church has pretty much always considered that human beings don’t arrive at the “age of reason” until they are seven years old or so. Yet the Church has ALWAYS consdered abortion a mortal sin at every stage of development, and homicide once the uborn began to look human. Clearly something else rather than the present ability to reason was being used as a criteria here.
On the other hand “human being” as a clear and unambiguous definition – “an individual mmember of the human species,” which the unborn clearly are. Most pro-aborts understand what a human being is, and many will admit the fetus /embryo is one.
Yet there is some historical basis for attributing “rights” to “persons”. I don’t know enough bout the subject to comment much on it. I do think there is a case that “person” naturally extends to the unborn. But insisting on according “human rights” to all human beings is the path I would want to go with.
Lori,
I agree that personhood implies rights (Personhood —> rights), but I don’t think it is necessary for rights.
So, although rights could also be attained by some other characteristic, namely universal empathy (we were all a fetus at some point and we are glad that we were afforded rights, and would wish that we had rights if we were again put in that same position even if we were unable to cognize that desire in the state of a fetus.)
I guess my point is that personhood as the sole criterion of human rights excludes millions of born humans if we mean personhood as current rationality. So, then there is some other reason that a large group of humans have rights. Possibly that reason is implied by personhood and it is actually not personhood that is ever responsible, at least directly, for human rights. (personhood —> ?????? —-> human rights.)
Oliver – most of what you write sounds OK to me. Universal empathy though, seems to be something pro-aborts lack. Seriously suggested by their arguments (which I’ve heard) that they don’t care if their mothers killed them before birth, since they weren’t conscious of anything, etc. So good luck on getting them to agree to it.
Naturally not absolutely everyone has to agree to any definition or criteria for rights, but it helps to have one that most people can agree to. We’ll see how it plays out. But I’m beginning to think the personhood movement isn’t going to make it.
Oliver,
I want to handle a few things here so I’ll just start going. I hope everyone will forgive the disorganization of this post.
I was more making a point about the abortion argument in general, not a reply to any specific posts. That’s why I didn’t reference anyone that posted on the site.
I’ve personally spoken to a number of Christians (which isn’t hard to do since it’s most of the country) who think abortion is murder. It could be that they aren’t up on the definition of murder (the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought-Merriam-Webster), but I believe they’re implicitly stating that a fetus is a human being. It’s also all over radio, television, the internet, and bumper stickers.
Also the quote you gave from “me” wasn’t from my post, so I guess you meant “seriously” instead of “literally.” That’s fine though. It’s a common mistake.
Also you called me an academian intellectual. First, I suppose you meant academic intellectual, but I do like the way yours sounds. Second, I’m not very well educated. I’m just an intellectual. I’m not much of a historian though, so I’m not really sure where you’re pulling that one from.
Back to the point at hand though. The philosophical banter is just as useless as the bible thumping. For example, “I guess my point is that personhood as the sole criterion of human rights excludes millions of born humans if we mean personhood as current rationality. So, then there is some other reason that a large group of humans have rights. Possibly that reason is implied by personhood and it is actually not personhood that is ever responsible, at least directly, for human rights. (personhood —> ?????? —-> human rights.)”
Beyond being an idea in need of revision, These kinds of ideas distract from the issue. There is but one issue, with parenthetical notions, that matters: When is a fetus become a person.
Everything else is intellectual masturbation.
Oliver
I think that the moment the unborn are granted personhood that of course they will be safer and that’s the goal but at the same time ignorant people will use this as an excuse to be oppressive towards women. Women will just have to realize that they are equal citizens and expect to be treated as such. I think as long as the courts make it clear that granting personhood to the unborn in no way is to decrease the rights of women but should add to their rights as mother and guardian of their unborn child. It’s a very delicate balance and hopefully the courts will have the wisdom to write the law and communities will have the wisdom to see this as an opportunity to be more supportive towards mothers and their unborn children. Not that motherhood makes a woman more of a women it just doesn’t make her any less. Which in my opinion is what ardent pro-choicers believe that somehow motherhood diminishes a woman. I don’t believe that. The evidence for me is the ease at which they advocate for the killing of the unborn.
Well, the tone of Michael’s post is irritating, but let’s analyze what he said for a minute. Michael says the burden of proof is on us because the burden of proof is upon the affirmative position. When it comes to abortion rights, what IS the affirmative position? Jane Roe sued to prove that the right to privacy extends to the womb. Wasn’t the burden of proof, then, upon Jane Roe? She had to prove how far her privacy rights should extend. That had absolutely nothing to do with whether or when a fetus is a person, viable, or deserves rights of any kind. The lawsuit was solely about privacy rights and the extension thereof.
I listened to the entire audio recording of the court case Roe v. Wade over the weekend. It’s available on youtube in several parts. Five, I think. In the first segment, I was surprised to discover that viability never came up. The rights of the baby never came up either. It was all about the vague restrictions being placed on Texas physicians that were hindering them from determining appropriately whether or not it was legal for them to provide abortion to their patients. The case was about changing vague laws. Which I have to say was brilliant of them. They knew the precedent would be set for abortion on demand.
I suggest, Michael, that you go listen to it and use some of that great logic of yours to come up with something besides disdain to share with us. Contrary to your opinion, many of us here have graduate degrees in medical fields, philosophy, theology, etc., and have studied the nuances of this debate at potentially greater length than you have. After you listen to the court case, I suggest you retrace your steps and consider who you have been listening to and whether they are to be the final trusted authority or not. Have you considered where pro-choice liberals have gotten their information? What their source documents are — not talking about medical information here but philosophical and political information. There are, in fact, religious aspects to the liberal political agenda. Many left-leaning ideologues are determined to govern themselves, their communities, and our nation at large via the dogma of secular humanism. Here it is defined. As you read, keep in mind that there is no designation within secular humanism regarding who gets to decide what the correct ethics and justice ARE or who sets the standards for them. These things seem to be set arbitrarily by whoever is in charge at the moment or whatever group shouts the loudest. What seems reasonable to us may not seem so to future generations. Remember what life was like before women had “the vote?” For generations no one even fought for it. Cultures change over time. That’s why a standard is necessary, a position one’s government will not let anyone past — child molestation, rape, murder. At some point, a moral standard was erected around these.
Secular Humanism — A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. This interpretation may be attributed to Secular Humanism as a specific humanistic life stance. Modern meanings of the word have therefore come to be associated with a rejection of appeals to the supernatural or to some higher authority. This interpretation may be directly contrasted with other prominent uses of the term in traditional religious circles. Humanism of this strand arose from a trajectory extending from the deism and anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment, the various secular movements of the 19th century (such as positivism), and the overarching expansion of the scientific project.
What appears to be happening with the pro-choice views expressed by Jessica is not the proper use of logic to determine justice but a strange dependence on semantics that precludes certain accepted realities. We all generally accept that a child who is full-term but still within the womb should not be aborted. This child will feel excruciating pain. This child could be born and given up for adoption. This child has consciousness. Brain waves can be documented, etc. To demand the right to abort based solely on the location of the child (i.e. womb of another living human being — all ages and stages) would be morally abhorrent to the populace at large, yet Jessica continues to state that this morally corrupt practice (late-term abortion) should be allowed. This is a huge leap even from the secular humanist stance that relies on reason, ethics, and justice and rejects supernatural and religious dogma. Jessica and her associates overstep secular humanist standards by insisting that abortion is not morally wrong at any stage. I think even Michael Sanner can admit that. I am going to choose to believe Myrtle. They know they’re wrong. They just can’t admit it without risking rejection by their peers. At some point, however, the accusations will have to cease. We are not religious bigots or Bible-thumping zealots. I suspect that’s why they’ve been running scared lately.
Another thought just occurred to me, although I hate to judge the inclinations of another human being’s heart and I rarely use any sort of religious rhetoric in an abortion debate. But could it be that the regenerated soul (Christian term) is more sensitized to the existence of sin, more inclined to hold themselves and others to established moral standards, and therefore, more Christians than other groups are committed to pro-life causes? I say this because I am continually shocked at what I hear pro-choice people say. The hardness of heart is so evident. Once, someone said this on my blog:
If something is inside my body, I’m entitled to have it killed no matter what it is. If all the human beings on Planet Earth–innocent and guilty, unborn and already-born, great and small, young and old, rich and poor, smart and stupid–were assembled somewhere inside my body, along with Baby Jesus, Almighty God, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I’d be entitled to holocaust ’em. That’s part of the meaning of the word “my” in the phrase “my body”.
Michael: I was more making a point about the abortion argument in general, not a reply to any specific posts. That’s why I didn’t reference anyone that posted on the site.
Exactly. Instead of responding to specific individuals, you made stuff up about everyone in the movement. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just posting what “seems” to be the case.
Michael: I’ve personally spoken to a number of Christians (which isn’t hard to do since it’s most of the country) who think abortion is murder. It could be that they aren’t up on the definition of murder (the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought-Merriam-Webster), but I believe they’re implicitly stating that a fetus is a human being. It’s also all over radio, television, the internet, and bumper stickers.
And? Your point wasn’t that Christians believe abortion is murder, your point was that Christians use only their Bible to make this argument. I have actually never ran into a pro-life supporter that only uses the Bible as authority. Your “response” above is unrelated to both your original point and my criticism.
Also the quote you gave from “me” wasn’t from my post, so I guess you meant “seriously” instead of “literally.” That’s fine though. It’s a common mistake.
I actually meant literally, as I was quoting your thought process. Obviously it was sarcastic, but probably a pretty close quote in all honestly.
Michael: Also you called me an academian intellectual. First, I suppose you meant academic intellectual, but I do like the way yours sounds.
No I meant intellectual academian. I flipped the words. Thanks for the grammar lesson, though. It was very important to the argument.
Michael: Second, I’m not very well educated. I’m just an intellectual. I’m not much of a historian though, so I’m not really sure where you’re pulling that one from.
You self-identify as an intellectual, yet you are incapable of picking up on either satire or sarcasm? I guess that makes sense.
Michael: Back to the point at hand though. The philosophical banter is just as useless as the bible thumping….Beyond being an idea in need of revision, These kinds of ideas distract from the issue. There is but one issue, with parenthetical notions, that matters: When is a fetus become a person.
Everything else is intellectual masturbation.
I am sorry, but I think I got confused here. How does the second bolded phrase not contradict the first bolded phrase? I mean, you just said that philosophical banter is useless, and then asked a philosophical question. Your tactic seems obvious, though. You don’t like that I am trying to shift the conversation away from personhood to the more direct issue of human rights. So, you say that what I am doing is philosophical mumbo jumbo, but what you are doing is steely-eyed pragmatism. Of course, that is utterly ridiculous. What was that about being an intellectual again?
Is it possible to get the complete interview in a format other than docx? I can’t open that format with my version of Word.
Megan. I couldn’t have said it better if worked all night on my post. Awesome job.
Megan,
I appreciate the civility of your tone. Thank you for approaching my reasoning with such a kind style. However, you have made some assumptions, and I still disagree with you.
First, I am not a secular humanist. Nor do I fit into a particular political affiliation.
As for degrees and such, just don’t bother trying to humble me with them. I steered away from institutions of higher learning, because they aren’t built for people like me. Mathematics is just about the only exploratory discipline that has everything useful figured out. Everyone else is still wading around in varying depths of mud. But I digress.
Let’s talk about the affirmative position since you brought it up. The question of the affirmative position isn’t based on stare decisis, but upon the question which an anti abortion law decision would be based on.
The question again is: is abortion murder?
The yes is the affirmative position.
If anyone is interested to know, I hate abortion personally. I would never condone it in my own life (given the choice, because men have so very little rights when it comes to reproduction), but just like I protected and respected the Second Amendment when I served, I protect and respect a woman’s right to chose now.
I hope the tone of my responses doesn’t offend too much. This is just how I am. I use my last name online, because I don’t say anything I wouldn’t say in person.
“I believe personhood doesn’t begin until being born in Christ” – so that would exclude buddhists, hindus, rastafarians and um…atheists?
There have been, and still are, societies where women do not have the same value as men. Anti-choice returns us to that state of mind. It is often said that if men menstruated sanitary products would be free. If men could get pregnant abortion would be freely available on every corner.
“There are, in fact, religious aspects to the liberal political agenda. Many left-leaning ideologues are determined to govern themselves, their communities, and our nation at large via the dogma of secular humanism”
So am I to assume that you include the liberal, pro-choice Protestant churches and the Reformed Jewish community as “secular humanist?” The inconvenient truth for the anti-choice movment is that despite their certitude in their belief system, there are other belief systems that disagree with them. ”Personhood” at conception is hardly a universal creed. But while I, as an advocate of women’s choice wouldn’t claim that the Catholic and evangelical position, re the fetus, is wrong (it’s their belief), the anti-choice movement designates pro-choice religious views as ranging from misguided to evil. While there is agreement on the treatment of those who exit the womb, there is NO consensus on the “personhood” of the fetus.
I’m still not sure exactly what you’re saying, but I’ll take a stab at it. Despite the whole Roe v. Wade case which in essence is what legalized abortion on demand by precedent, you are saying that the real issue is “Is abortion murder?”
We don’t need to prove that. We already know that it is. By the time a woman realizes she is pregnant, the fetal heart is beating. We measure death by the cessation of the heartbeat, so yes, women are murdering their unborn fetuses. I think the question goes deeper than that, though. What is really being asked is “Is it ever justifiable to murder your fetus?” and if so, “At what point does it become morally inappropriate to do so?” This is where people differ. There are those who, like Jessica, turn off their moral compasses to determine the answers to those difficult questions, and there are those whose moral compasses shriek out at them that it’s horrifyingly wrong.
Let’s take on another topic here since it leads in so nicely. Suppose we just simply leave the decision to the woman? After all, our president has said that he believes such decisions are best left between a woman and her doctor. There are difficulties with that. Many women are too ashamed to go to a doctor. They’re young, poor, struggling. Or they’re college students with obsessive helicopter parents who would throw them out if they knew. So they quietly go to a Planned Parenthood clinic where they are met with open arms, compassion, “love” of a certain type. Certainly understanding and no judgment for what they did that got them into the mess they’re in. (Excluding rape victims for the purpose of argument) Planned Parenthood and every abortion clinic, really, has a vested monetary interest in the woman going ahead with the abortion. We now know — and don’t say we don’t because I know Lila Rose personally and she has not edited or doctored her hidden camera videos in any way — that women have been told anything from “That’s not a heartbeat. It’s just heart tones. That’s not the same thing. The baby’s heart isn’t beating yet. That’s not till later, like 16 weeks.” to “Oh, it’s okay that your boyfriend’s 30 years old and you’re only 14, but just lie about it on the form and say he’s 16.” We are not talking about women making tragic decisions in consultation with their doctors. And until abortion clinics are forced to be regulated and held to standards similar to ambulatory clinics (they don’t want to because it’s more expensive), there will continue to be tragedies. Check out http://realchoice.blogspot.com for a gruesome reality check going all the way back to the 1920s. There is really no abortion law that forces clinics to maintain safe standards that has not been brushed aside or winked and nodded at by pro-choice inspectors. This is easily available over the internet. Yes, you have to weed through some propaganda to get at the truth, but it’s there.
Overall, the picture is grim. We entrust our desperate poor to unsanitary clinics, all in the name of compassion, while pro-life women are standing there out front offering business cards from obstetricians who will treat them for free and walk them through the adoption process if need be. For those who believe in abortion as a safe, medical procedure, I would like to know how they plan to remedy this problem. And for those who so firmly believe in a woman’s right to choose, why are you so adamantly opposed to informed choice? Parental consent for minors? Your kid can’t go to a dentist without your consent, but she can get an abortion, have it botched, and die before you even know what’s happened. Too tragic for me.
CC: While there is agreement on the treatment of those who exit the womb, there is NO consensus on the “personhood” of the fetus.
The thing is, CC, is that there is consensus on the rights of a fetus. Even if you adopt a totally contingent moral system, you support the rights of a preborn implicitly by the other rights you support. Unless your system in contradictory, and therefore not a system but just random beliefs selected out of convenience, you must support that a preborn has equal human rights. Otherwise, is to have a paradoxical belief structure. This is the argument on the pro-life side. We aren’t arguing that you adopt beliefs that you do not have, we are arguing that you maintain a consistency in your beliefs by accepting abortion as immoral.
“Which in my opinion is what ardent pro-choicers believe that somehow motherhood diminishes a woman. I don’t believe that. The evidence for me is the ease at which they advocate for the killing of the unborn”
Nice “projection” but pro-choicers don’t believe that motherhood “diminshes” a woman. What diminishes a woman is to take away her right to make a decision as to if and when she wants to become a mother. It’s all about choice. Without choice a woman is merely a brood sow and that really diminishes a woman because she no longer has control over her body.
Wow, CC, that is really off base. With the exception of rape or incest, the choice that may potentially cause pregnancy is made beforehand. Choosing to have sex means accepting that you may become pregnant. Stinks to be us, but that’s the way it is. Denying that truth and offering the convenience of abortion eases the need to take firm control of our reproductive acts. If we are not vigilant, whether poor and uneducated or drunk at a frat party, we are being irresponsible. An ounce of prevention, you know? Also, the whole brood sow thing is just despicable. Where did you get that? You state it as truth, but really it’s your opinion when you say “Without choice a woman is merely a brood cow.” I had two surprise pregnancies and I am not a brood cow. What you’re leaving out is the maternal instinct that leaps into play once a woman sees her child, holds him in her arms for the first time. I’ve never met a woman who wished she’d aborted, but I’ve met plenty who wished they hadn’t.
I am not Protestant or Evangelical or Catholic, nor am I of the reformed Jewish faith. I presumed the Christian view on abortion was pro-life based on what Michael said. Is it not? Are you saying certain churches — I’m imagining the Episcopal church for one — are pro-choice according to stated doctrine or that certain churches have an unspoken liberal slant? What are their stated reasons? Is there some sort of statement of beliefs I could find online for these churches? I like to base my decisions on factual information. Do they, like Jessica, believe that anything inside a woman is hers to destroy for as long as it’s there or are they attempting to stay out of it like our president does? We may be talking about two separate issues.
“The thing is, CC, is that there is consensus on the rights of a fetus”
The law does not recognize the ”rights” of a fetus. The law, however, respects the right of privacy.
“I presumed the Christian view on abortion was pro-life based on what Michael said. Is it not? Are you saying certain churches — I’m imagining the Episcopal church for one — are pro-choice according to stated doctrine”
Their doctrines are readily accessible on the internet. The Episcopal Church became Pro-choice at a General Convention in the 90’s. The UCC, some Methodists, and some Lutherans are also pro-choice. Dr. Tiller was a practicing Lutheran. The Reformed Jews base their belief on the Talmud.
“Planned Parenthood and every abortion clinic, really, has a vested monetary interest in the woman going ahead with the abortion”
What part of non-profit don’t you understand?
Megan,
Maybe I wasn’t explicit enough in my last post. Without quoting the dictionary again, Murder is killing a person. So the parenthetical thought is when does a fetus become a person.
I thought you were actually reading my posts, so I didn’t include that bit. Apparently I was wrong.
BTW, when a woman has a period, there could be some fertilized eggs that are flushed out. By the “logic” of the pro-life movment these are “babies.” I guess that women should mourn when they get their periods because a)they’re not pregnant and b)they are expelling dead babies.
“I guess that women should mourn when they get their periods because a)they’re not pregnant”
Nice. Way to show sensitivity towards the women who have fertility troubles and are really trying to get pregnant – you know some of them do mourn when their period comes around again as a reminder that they still aren’t pregnant?
CC: The law does not recognize the ”rights” of a fetus. The law, however, respects the right of privacy.
If you want to argue what the law says, why don’t you just say “hey abortion is legal, *blrrrppttt*”
That shows me that you have no response. You didn’t even read the post, or you were too stupid to understand it. Maybe both? Who knows. Besides, even the law already recognizes the rights of a preborn. It just doesn’t realize it. Your opinion, and really the law, says “A –> B, and B –> C, but A –> ~C” So, you, and the law, may say that a preborn does not have rights, ~C, but the rest of the law indicates that it does, C.
I guess that women should mourn when they get their periods because a)they’re not pregnant and b)they are expelling dead babies.
Well, most women do mourn miscarriages. If you are talking about a period that flushes out unfertilized eggs, then no there should be no mourning. Seems reasonable to me.
CC:
“Planned Parenthood and every abortion clinic, really, has a vested monetary interest in the woman going ahead with the abortion”
What part of non-profit don’t you understand?
CC, seriously?!!? Planned Parenthood makes their millions and millions of dollars every year by doing what exactly? Cecile’s six-figure salary is generated by, what? Pap smears? Breast exams? Condoms? Abortion is their cash cow. They exist to perform as many abortions as possible because that’s where the money is.
CC: What part of non-profit don’t you understand?
I am afraid that you do not understand what “non-profit” means. It is a common misconception that “non-profit” equates to “charity,” which also doesn’t mean the same thing exactly that people think. I’ll some of the more business-y types come in to explain, as I am sure will happen, but the notion that a non-profit ignores monetary gain is absurd. This is another classic case of someone acting on what “seems” to be the case, and not thinking carefully about what is “actually” the case.
When one individual purports to confer “personhood” on another human individual, it involves an assumption of the moral authority to do so.
One who assumes such authority should be able to provide a cogent, self consistent definition of “personhood”
We see no such thing coming from the lefties who have asserted this authority.
Let’s talk about the affirmative position since you brought it up. The question of the affirmative position isn’t based on stare decisis, but upon the question which an anti abortion law decision would be based on.
The question again is: is abortion murder?
The yes is the affirmative position.
:|
The question we’re really dealing with here is, “Are there human beings who do not deserve human rights?” Indeed, this is the crux of the abortion/life debate. The pro-life side claims that there are not, and therefore the unborn must be protected by law. The pro-abortion side claims that there are (note the affirmative), and therefore the unborn are irrelevant to the discussion.
Under your paradigm, any challenge to the rights of any given group of humanity must be automatically assumed valid until that group–or their advocates–can prove that those people deserve the rights being denied them. Which is, quite frankly, an even more dangerous position to take than simply claiming a particular group may be denied personhood in the first place. At least, in that case, you are not taking a position that “unpersons” every human being on the planet, since everyone is a member of some group or other that is or has been supposed not to have rights!
Support for abortion has always been the “affirmative position.” It tries to make the case that certain human beings may be killed without moral repercussions. But, even if it were not, there are any number of excellent arguments why the unborn should not be killed. I recommend you begin here and follow their whole argument through to the end. And regardless of whatever might be required in a debate, in order to successfully criminalize abortion, pro-life advocates would have to–and, indeed, for some time now have been engaged in work to–enumerate the reasons why abortion is morally wrong and must be made illegal to the public at large.
Lastly, and perhaps most saliently to your “affirmative position” argument, you have come to a pro-life website and you are asking pro-lifers to change. We didn’t seek you out or hunt you down, you came to us. If you want us to change our minds on this issue, then the burden of proof, in this case, is most definitely on you. Whatever argument you might make with regards to the culture at large, on this thread, in this situation, if you don’t provide any support for your own position, people are going to start being justifiably upset. If you want someone to change, you must offer them a reason to do so. Telling them they have to prove to you why they should be allowed to think as they do is not an argument; it is an excuse for not having one of your own.
“So the parenthetical thought is when does a fetus become a person.”
And the answer from the pro-choice side about this generally involves whatever is most convenient to them and others like them wanting to avoid responsibility for their lifestyle choices.
Don’t feed the trolls, y’all… if CC leaves her troll suit at home, then it should be safe to go and play. (He says, as he potentially feeds another one!)
One caution, Michael: the choice of some erudite words, along with the talismanic use of the word “logic” (to say nothing of trying to co-opt St. Bernard of Clairvaux–the Bard of Our Lady, of all people–as an erstwhile ally of your abortion-tolerant position… really, are you serious?), does not a logically valid argument make. One of the first principles of logic is to question your starting assumptions.
Case in point: you assert that the positive claim has the burden of proof. That’s true, if rightly understood… but quite wrong (and almost completely absurd) if misunderstood. Any statement can be expressed positively (e.g. “the answer is yes”, “the answer is no”) or negatively (e.g. “the answer is not yes”, “the answer is not no”); so I’m afraid you can’t simply “declare” your example (i.e. “abortion is murder”) to be the primary “positive starting point”, throw it into the fray, and dodge any efforts to show that your starting assumption is, in fact, both correct and foundational. For example: the statement, “abortion is the mere expulsion/evacuation of non-personal tissue from a woman’s body” is also a positive statement… but diametrically opposed (i.e. contradictory to) your own. Would that imply that you have the burden of proof for *it*? For someone who claimed to eschew “philosophical banter”, you seem to have embraced it in practice, at least.
Re: your references to mathematics: I am a mathematician, as is my esteemed colleague, Bobby Bambino (who appears here from time to time), and we are both quite firmly pro-life–and we are both convinced that the pro-life position is the only logically coherent one; our own mathematical studies have not “shown us the folly of our ways”, as it were… and as you seem to suggest that it did, in your case. Surely you see that you and we cannot both be right at the same time?
I think my favorite criterion for humanity is “it looks like a human.” By that argument, I create a person every time I draw a picture of myself for my kids! Or, every sculpture/Japanese robot, mannequin, etc….
I mean really, how stupid are these people?
The question we’re really dealing with here is, “Are there human beings who do not deserve human rights?” Indeed, this is the crux of the abortion/life debate. The pro-life side claims that there are not, and therefore the unborn must be protected by law. The pro-abortion side claims that there are (note the affirmative), and therefore the unborn are irrelevant to the discussion.
Under your paradigm, any challenge to the rights of any given group of humanity must be automatically assumed valid until that group–or their advocates–can prove that those people deserve the rights being denied them. Which is, quite frankly, an even more dangerous position to take than simply claiming a particular group may be denied personhood in the first place. At least, in that case, you are not taking a position that “unpersons” every human being on the planet, since everyone is a member of some group or other that is or has been supposed not to have rights!
Bravo, Alice! Excellently argued. Let’s see if Mr. “I’m the greatest intellectual in the world but am too lazy to get a degree in anything” can answer it!
I try not to look at it that way. They are not stupid. They’re ignorant and susceptible to well-formed propaganda. At the risk of bringing up the Holocaust again, Hitler did a bang up job of using propaganda, too. That didn’t make it right. When we try to use logic or Constitutional law or legal precedent to dictate morality to our nation’s citizens, we can, indeed, find ourselves in a muddled mess. And we are in one. It’s a quagmire for those who have no standard or key set of morals to go by. It’s sort of like a boy scout attempting to be a good guy without adhering to the tenets listed in the boy scout law. You either agree to them and do your best to follow them or you disavow them and choose to make your own rule of law for yourself. Every man judges by his own conscience what is right and wrong.
Within that framework, though, there ARE certain things we all agree are wrong. These are ingrained in us, etched on our souls, if you will, by our evolved consciences (if not Christian) or our Creator (Christian). Every man has a conscience. We all know that. But certain people who are pro-choice (closer to pro-abortion) have seared their consciences. Closed off any moral standards. Or have they? Does Jessica believe rape is wrong? If so, by what moral standard did she come to that conclusion? Was it common sense? Conscience? Why is ANY violence wrong? Is it wrong to torture and kill a kitten? But a kitten isn’t a person. So why not? Jessica thinks it’s not only morally acceptable to kill the unborn, but that it remains that way through the ninth month and until the last tiny toe feels the brush of fresh air after delivery. When Jill rocked that tiny baby in her arms until he perished, she experienced something few of us have. Sometimes life experience changes us. Maybe if Jessica had that job, she might feel differently about abortion, especially late-term. I’d like to think so.
Megan: I try not to look at it that way. They are not stupid. They’re ignorant and susceptible to well-formed propaganda.
I guess when I say “stupid” I really mean intellectually lazy. I don’t really believe there is much deviance from the norm on actual mental capacity. People like Lana, CC, and the like are simply lazy thinkers. They are the people who ride in the fast lane on the highway or wait until the checker asks for payment to bring out the checkbook. I am sure there are plenty of pro-lifers who are the same way. We have the benefit of being correct, though. Pro-choicers stubbornly believe what they believe without any true introspection. I call this stupidity.
“our own mathematical studies have not “shown us the folly of our ways” – yes and the discovery institute, biologos and uncommon descent have some people with real scientific qualifications working for them! (albeit probably from places like biola)
Did somebody hear a fruit fly buzzing around? Maybe it is just my imagination…
CC says: May 30, 2011 at 7:06 pm
“What part of non-profit don’t you understand?”
=====================================================================
ChannelCatfish,
It is you who choose not to understand the term ‘non-profit’ as used by the IRS for tax purpose.
One more stunning example of where your free education is worth exactly what you paid for it.
“Non-profit does NOT mean unprofitable or charitable. Non-profit means dividends cannot be paid to the owners. Non-profit organizations are often very profitable.”
In the case of pp it serves as one giant money laundering operation for federal tax dollars which are then redistributed to all kind of partisan political puposes including hiring lobbyists and greasing the palms of pp patrons and benefactors.
pp trafficks in human flesh. pp exploits vulnerable females, many of them minor children for political profit and financial gain.
pp views pregnant women as cash cows to be milked until they are bled dry.
Re: Oliver: :)
Fruit-fly trolls. Hm. Nope, sorry… I have no category for them, as yet. Let me work on it…
Seriously, though. You have to laugh at CC’s “non-profit” line. I wonder what it is like to say things based on so many assumptions?
I hardly ever post about anything other than the philosophical side of abortion because I always wonder “what if I am assuming something about this and I don’t really understand some of the underlying points?” Is it so bad to educate yourself before you open your mouth?
here you go Paladin –
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=fruit+fly&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Siu&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=A0_kTajpMon-vQOF5c2LBw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=577
It’s McAfee safe.
“
Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
”
—Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, citing the National Labor Relations Act, section 2(1).
I’ve been away doing things in the real world, so I’m not going to take the time to respond to everything in turn, but I do want to make a few points.
First, I don’t care if this is a pro life website. I aim to challenge your views. Circle jerking is pretty pointless.
Second, being on the affirmative side isn’t a guaranteed loss. You just have to be able to fully justify your argument.
Third, Plan Parenthood is a great organization, regardless of how many abortions they perform.
Fourth, just stop with the “pro life” label. Unless you’re against the death penalty, against every war since 1945, for treatment of drug use as opposed to incarceration, and so many more policies that are liberal and left of liberal, then you’re just full of $#().
I doubt I’ll be back to this particular blog. However, if you really feel the need to jab at me again, or you actually want to have a civil correspondence email me at mikesblogresponse@yahoo.com
And for Paladin, here’s a few from old Al Einstein:
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
“If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.”
“It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”
God be with you all,
Michael Sanner
So, your first point is you explaining how you have no intention of actually making any arguments that challenge our views on anything.
Second, you go a step beyond that and give the only people in the room who are actually making arguments for anything a pat on the head (honestly, could you be more groundlessly arrogant?!?).
Third, you make a bald assertion that clearly fails to grasp the severity of the charges the pro-life movement lays at Planned Parenthood’s door.
Fourth, you claim that it’s only okay for us to use our chosen label if we use it in ways that our opponents approve of. (Apparently, you can be more groundlessly arrogant. Who knew?)
…Yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that, if you do leave (flounce HARDER!), you’re not going to break anyone’s heart as you go. For someone who didn’t even bother to make a case for legalized abortion, you certainly took up a lot of space not doing it.
“Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.”
—Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, citing the National Labor Relations Act, section 2(1).</cite>
Glad to see that debate where it should be: Personhood. Working on the Personhood Campaign in CO, we’d often hear philosopical and legal types rattle on about various definitions of personhood.
Since abortion is legal, guess there’s wiggle room for us to define it – just as the abolitionists had to advance a new definition. We always asked the question, “Is there such thing as a human being that’s not a person?” I used to joke about dopplegangers and zombies.
Blackmun argued that if personhood had been defined (the Texas law had exceptions, so it couldn’t be based on personhood), then Roe couldn’t stand. I know that Clarke Forsythe, of AUL thinks he was being ironic or something. But, I don’t read it that way.
As the fulfullment of the Civil Rights movement, it is time for us to assert a pure definition of personhood that includes all human beings. Yes, you can debate to your heart’s content, but the fact is that we need to move the law to recognize that we can’t separate the terms person and human. They are one. More than the issue of abortion is addressed by personhood. All the goulish “scientific research” which need to use embryos to yield vaccines, life extension, gene therapy etc…our society become more dependent day by day on experimenting on the unborn.
Yes, the definiton has spiritual connotations. Body/soul unity until death, etc. We are allowed to speak a language that is not all legalistic and mechanical and philosophically adjudicated. We are free.
Our Declaration of Independence talked about people’s rights having a spiritual origin. Recognizing the personhood of all human beings recognizes the sacredness of our identity. That simply being human, even without the ability to perceive, we are different from the rest of creation.
Wow Hiawatha, so when my partner extinguished one corporation and established a new one, my partner was…. extinguishing a person?
Reality – The law has a couple of uses of the term person. One of them applies to all human beings.
And now the posts that were put up at quack’s citing biology texts and sworn testimony from harvard biology professors was taken down, as was the response from the pro-choicers which was essentially them sticking their fingers in their ears and hurling accusations of lies. Against textbooks and biology professors. Wonder how THAT happened? 9_9
Ah, I see. So a person can be a human being or it can be something else Hiawatha. Interesting.
The folks at Answers in Genesis use scientists and text books too xalisae.
One thing you learn over the years – you can never ever expect pro-aborts to be forthright or honest when it comes to even demonstrable facts of biology and science.
Michael Sanner,
You tell pro-lifers to “put away [your] bibles in order to be taken seriously” and then turn around and quote a Catholic Saint, who would oppose the pro-choice/pro-abort position. That strikes me as morbidly ironic. Especially since I’m sure you know the Catholic Church opposes abortion.
Dr Tiller was NOT a practicing Lutheran. He and confessional Lutheran denom LCMS split from each other over his abortions so he went to ECLA which is not only liberal on moral issues but on theological issues it has compromised on many Lutheran views not to mention outreject them. It is Lutheran in name only. Its views of law, communion, Scriptures, etc, are NOT Lutheran.
Aborts make me laugh on thus thread. Same old line when they don’t have valid responses they play the card of if men get pregnant there would not be opposition to abortion and it would be readily available. And they wonder why they are seen as both men hating and baby hating feminists?
Michael Sanner. Another pro-choicer with nothing to say in the face of logical argumentation. Yawn.
Fourth, just stop with the “pro life” label. Unless you’re against the death penalty, against every war since 1945, for treatment of drug use as opposed to incarceration, and so many more policies that are liberal and left of liberal, then you’re just full of $#().
Why are you letting us off so easy? You forget “you must adopt every unwanted child on the face of the earth before you can call yourself pro-life!”
Seriously, this is the silliest, most incoherent post any “intellectual” has ever written here.
Lauren’s 5/30, 10:50a, comment was so exceptional, it bears repeating:
It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm. It’s not a logical debate, it’s a way to justify homicide.
Oliver, I think there are two different definitions of “personhood” at work:
A legal one, which defines things like corporations as persons for the purposes of the law, and does not cover fetal and embryonic humans.
Unless one argues that a corporation deserves all the same things as a human–to be prevented from ceasing to exist, to have the resources it needs to grow and develop and become more than it is now–this is not the definition to use. (How many democrats want to put businesses on welfare when times are tough? Well, businesses other than “Planned Parenthood.”)
The second definition is equally useless for moral purposes, because it’s essentially religious–based on unprovable beliefs–and is just an expression of what people already think, not a carefully reasoned position that leads to new conclusions. For pro-choicers, it’s usually about some level of development or awareness or usefulness, until they are pressed enough about other cases, when it generally comes to “Persons are human beings not in a uterus.” And as Lauren said, it’s all about killing those “nonpersons.” So while the legal definition does not and cannot inform morality or moral duties, the religious definition is completely useless. Defining unborn human beings as legal persons, however, would grant them rights, and so this actually does something.
What on earth did you expect to happen, Michael? That you would show up, say “You have to prove abortion is murder,” and we would all realize that we couldn’t, we hadn’t thought this through, and thank you for our mass conversion to pro-dismemberment?
Michael, you are missing something. Jesus loves you. He died on the cross for you. He was innocent–He never did anything wrong–but He died because you have done things wrong. It was your sin He was punished for; yours and mine. And if you trust in Him, He can make sure you are right with God, and bring you to Heaven at the end of time. See you there.
That’s what I argue from the Bible, and if you accept that, sooner or later you will come to know the truth.
If, however, you want to argue about abortion, I don’t see the point of arguing based on the Bible when you don’t believe the Bible. The unborn human being is unquestionably alive, unquestionably human, unquestionably the offspring of his or her mother and father. It’s been centuries since scientists proved life does not come from nonlife, and the zygote at fertilization undeniably undergoes every process that makes a thing (or person) alive. The child, starting at the zygote stage, is unquestionably a human being; it has a complete genetic code and is not genetically identical to either parent, nor only a little different and a result of a mutation. A zygote can be created outside the mother’s and father’s bodies and moved to a completely different woman. How then can he or she be a part of his or her mother? Even once he or she is attached in the womb, reimplantation is theoretically possible; it happens very occasionally after ruptured ectopic pregnancy. While the child requires support, all children do; for months after birth children are healthiest being sustained entirely by their mother’s bodies. All young children are dependent, and while reasonable people disagree about the degree to which children should be protected and the way they should be nurtured, it is universally required of parents that they contribute to the shelter and feeding of their children, unless their rights and responsibilities have been terminated. Most people agree with this, and there are laws in place to make sure these responsibilities are fulfilled, even if the parent decides he or she no longer wants the child–even if he or she never wanted the child. Even if a person does not agree such a responsibility should exist, that does not condone harming the child. Our society brooks no sympathy for noncustodial parents who no longer love their children and kill them to avoid child support statements. I respectfully submit that aborting one’s child does not merely deny them food and shelter but also involves their violent and brutal dismemberment. It is the worst form of child abuse.
Remember the word “person” comes from Trinitarian debates, and it isn’t about a developmental stage. It is about who we are for all our lives, our individuality, our importance, our need for community. Guarding this word matters to each of us, even those who try to change it and do not realize the danger in doing so. That’s a compassionate case that must be repeated over and over and over.
Consider this: In history no law has ever dealt with the word “person” except for one reason and one reason only, to decide whose God-given natural rights are protected and whose are not.
The high-jacking of that word is being indoctrinated at the university level:
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/2011/05/defending-personhood-better-living.html
Circle jerking??? Really? How classy.
Alice –
To view .docx files – download Word Viewer
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=3657ce88-7cfa-457a-9aec-f4f827f20cac&displaylang=en
and Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displaylang=en
“That’s what I argue from the Bible, and if you accept that, sooner or later you will come to know the truth”
For the umpteenth time – Reformed Judaism bases it’s pro-choice teachings on its Scriptures and its Torah. I’m not saying that they’re right or they’re wrong. But you folks, clearly, believe that any religious scholar that bases a pro-choice view on Scripture is inherently wrong because you possess “the truth.” And this shows that arguing abortion from a religious view is fraught with problems becase ”personhood” is a religious view that is not universally held by all religions which do agree on issues of morality regarding those who exit the birth canal and exist apart from the fetus carrier. (Which, in your worship of the fetus, is how you see women). The best comment here was the accusation that Tiller wasn’t really a Lutheran. That would be news to his pastor, I’m sure. But I’m sure the Reformation Popes were saying that those Protestant “heretics” couldn’t be Christians!
But good luck on those “personhood” ammendments cuz so far they haven’t fared too well. And BTW, if the Deistic ”Founders” included fetuses as “persons” they sure didn’t show it in their laws because abortion didn’t become illegal until well into the 19th century.
And regarding that slavey/fetus thing – do fetuses, like slaves, yearn to be free? Do they even have a fully developed capacity to think? Seriously, the whole argument that compares fully grown enslaved people to fetuses is absurd and offensive to those whose ancestors were enslaved.
I think this interview shows exactly how the abortion rights movement has changed so much over the years.
Initially, the baby was not a baby but a blob of cells that could be scraped out any time during pregnancy.
Then when prolifers demonstrated that in fact, science, the god of our age proves a baby is a living human organism (duh!) and proaborts realized they had lost that argument they have now framed the question into one of rights and personhood.
Yes the baby is alive (all but the most extreme proaborts concede this point) but it isn’t a person and has no rights is the fall back position.
This argument won’t work either because no matter what criteria they choose personhood, there will always be a segment of the “born” population that will have one of these “characteristics”. It is also a very dangerous argument to put forth because it will lead us once again down the path of eugenics, euthanasia, murder and a Nazi-mentality.
Pope Benedict has said it best: all human beings are persons with the right to life, simply because of the fact that they are human.
It is so clear that someone only questions the personhood of a human she wishes to harm. It’s not a logical debate, it’s a way to justify homicide.
Jill you are so right! I believe you should put this as a quote at the top of your blog somewhere. It is awesome! :D
Third, Plan Parenthood is a great organization, regardless of how many abortions they perform.
This is like saying Genghis Khan was a great guy cuz he unified all of Asia. Doesn’t matter that he massacred millions and enslaved millions of others……
@jim sable: You are a wonderful person! :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ng2Q5tjjj8
I think the first question to ask an abortion supporter about personhood is not when it begins but rather, does it matter to you?
If that child is a person does it make abortion wrong in your view? If it does then why wouldn’t you want to lean on the side of caution? A lot of pro-choicers would argue that it is simply ‘their opinion’ that the fetus is not a person and they will hold to that opinion as if they’re just hoping they’re right, because this way they can feel less guilty about abortion. The fetus’ identity is not a matter of opinion, it’s either a person or it’s not and someone’s life shouldn’t be left up to someone else’s opinion. So if you are morally against killing a person why would you even risk killing a fetus, when you could be wrong about personhood.
To those that would say abortion is still the right thing to do if the fetus is a person, they’re admitting that they are okay with killing a person and they don’t care if they do. If establishing personhood isn’t reason enough to stop abortions then why even debate over what the fetus is? Why not just say personhood doesn’t matter?
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg
I find it very interesting that the same people who criticize the Catholic Church because of its alleged vast wealth, etc., then turn around and say, “But Planned Parenthood is a non-profit, therefore they CAN’T be trying to profit from abortions!”
Well, the Catholic Church is a non-profit too, but apparently that doesn’t stop them from accusing Her of hoarding wealth in the Secret Vatican Treasure Vault.
Really, the hypocrisy is stunning.
The folks at Answers in Genesis use scientists and text books too xalisae.
Great for them. They’re talking about religion though. I’m not. These are the very scientific principles that your side professes to espouse, and I’m seeing them refused outrightly because they don’t fall into line with YOUR “chosen religion” of women are the center of the universe. XD
Really, rule number 1 in pro-life apologetics should be “Don’t debate personhood.”
I posted about 7 times on the Quacks blog beneath the Jill Stanek interview yesterday. I had lots of links to sceinetific data and studies. Lots of questions for her. Lots of challenges to support her own beliefs, and what she calls facts.
Naturally, instead of even trying to answer even one of them, she deleted all my posts early this morning. She even deleted all posts by others even referring to mine! =o) Below is my final post, which lasted about 5 minutes before she deleted that one also. In the end, these folks always need to run to the censors and avoid debates at all costs.
“The Quack “scientist” has deleted all my questions to her from her blog, because she has no answers to any of them. She has deleted all the scientific papers and peer reviewed science I linked on her blog also, because her cause depends on …keeping women uneducated and in the dark on these topics. She has blocked my posts on her blog now.
She cannot defend her own views. She can only act as censor to what she does not want other people to become educated about. Thanks so much for showing at least a few of your blog members what you are really all about, Quack. Thanks for the white flag. Those of us who came over from Jill’s blog are laughing at your inability to do anything but delete comments that challenged you, and remove the science that you and yours are terrified at people knowing.
You can’t handle the truth. Even more pathetic? You desperately try to keep the truth away from others also. It’s not going to work in the information age. I hope for everyone’s sake that you grow a conscience someday, and also become an honest person.”
I had posted this (approximately) but it seems to have disappeared…
Joanna – factual source please? I am assuming that you know that one of the largest, if not the largest help in the world to those who need help is the Catholic Church. I am assuming that you know of Catholic Relief Services – which helps in natural disasters with housing, food, medicine etc for the poor and afflicted world-wide. Catholic Hospitals – who provide much free care for those in need and having outreach medical services also. Catholic Worker Houses – places of soup kitchen and live-in facilities for the homeless. Catholic Charities – providing referral services, counseling, foster care and post-abortive recovery, social services and other items for those in need. St. Vincent de Paul Societies – providing food, and financial support for families in need. Na-Pro Technology – providing help and understanding of female reproductive issues. Immigration support, Catholic educational institutions, chaplains for the armed forces, congress and hospitals, help for those addicted, half-way houses, and lobbying efforts on behalf of the poor, just as a partial list…
In short they feed the needy, clothe the naked, give hope for the hopeless, house the homeless and help in countless other ways. They give away billions in support and aid, all around the globe.
In short – the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.
I have yet to hear of any Planned Parenthood do any of these things for the poor and the poor in spirit.
I am sorry that you have a poor view of the Church. Hypocrisy? Hardly.
joy – I am a practicing, faithful Catholic (celebrated the eighth anniversary of my conversion this past weekend)! I think you misunderstood my post, and also missed the sarcasm.
I’m saying that it’s hypocritical of PP supporters/anti-Catholics (who are often one of the same) to say that PP, by virtue of its non-profit status, therefore does not make money but then turn around and accuse the Catholic Church (also a non-profit) of hoarding wealth and money.
(*sigh*) I tried… honestly, I did. Another troll hatches, and leaves muddy, bog-smelling footprints all over Jill’s nice, clean blog. Robert, I’ll go against your intended message and return one in sincerity: may God be with you, and lead you to Himself in the end. But until you decide to un-troll-ify yourself, don’t expect many people (myself included) to take you seriously, or to attempt any sort of conversation with you.
It took another few hours and a few more posts that neither she nor her buddies could answer to, but she just deleted all my posts on her facebook site also. Game, Set, Match. I think I might have gotten one or two of them to actually notice that she cannot defend her own beliefs scientifically. They go into complete denial mode and delete questions rather than answer them. Everything they don’t like is “fake,” simply because they say it is (Live Action tapes). Scientific studies are only acceptable if they concur with their political agenda. All others are “fake.” It’s like grade school all over again. As you know, this always happens. But in this case she ran and hid much faster than most do.
Sean, what was your point with all your postings? I’m pro-choice but will agree with you that the unborn in this discussion are human beings, are living human organisms.
Laura: Also, on her comment about the Bible in Numbers 5:11-31 – This was not a chemical abortion in any fashion. It was a process by which to determine if a woman had been unfaithful to her husband. If a man of that culture and time believed his wife to have been unfaithful, there was a fear that he’d become angry and/or violent towards her (remember, the culture was completely different, and women were property). Thus, this was a method of testing her faithfulness so that she might be protected from any violence.
They used bitter water, which verse 17 specifically states is simply dust from the tabernacle floor put into water (so, basically, dirty water), and it was a symbol of the bitterness she would suffer because of her (supposed) sin. If she was guilty of adultery, she would become barren and miscarry (which was the ultimate disgrace for women of her people as she could not carry the family line).
If she would “miscarry” after the administration of the “bitter water,” why would that not be considered an abortion? The point with them using dust from the floor was not just “dirty water” but rather bitter-tasting stuff, due to the ergot fungi that commonly are found along with grain. Ergot is known to be an abortifacient.
xalisae, qualified scientists also misrepresent their discipline in their opposition to abortion, just like those who espouse creationism.
I thought women were the center of the universe :-)
Reality,
Please give us specific examples of scientists misrepresenting their discipline in their opposition to abortion. Specifically, give the assertion of the scientist, and then give the authoritative scientific source material that has been misrepresented.
CC sez: “For the umpteenth time – Reformed Judaism bases it’s pro-choice teachings on its Scriptures and its Torah.”
This is really a dissapointing phenomenon. Moses says, “Choose Life.”
Where in the TNK is pregnancy or a baby a bad thing? Nowhere. A pregnancy or a baby is always a good thing. Always. One of God’s warnings is that he will cause women to be barren, or will put the faithless in such a position that they will choose to kill off their own children, rather than to simply listen to God and follow what he says.
When David cheats, and gets another guy’s wife knocked up, why does he scheme to have the husband get killed, rather than just go have the baby killed? He knows better cuz he knows God.
That child lived to write, wisely, that we cannot predict the weather, or detect when a life has begun in the womb. Ironically, that child’s wisdom was illustrated by an anecdote in which he – get this – suggests that a baby be killed.
Moses also said another would come like him. Oops, unless that one gets killed off prenatally for being conceived in a teen mom who was not married – like Isaiah says.
I have a very hard time understanding how Jewish people who read and believe the TNK can be so strongly pro-abortion. I have the English translation of the JPS TNK. Sure, some things are phrased/translated differently from how it is in my NIV, but all of this is there.
Sure, the Talmud might have some justifications of abortion. I don’t know. I would be interested to see how CC says that abortion might be justified by the Torah or TNK.
TheLastDemocrat,
“Sure, the Talmud might have some justifications of abortion. I don’t know. I would be interested to see how CC says that abortion might be justified by the Torah or TNK. ”
CC was never a very well-informed Catholic, so now she’s the second coming of Maimonides? (CC, dear, stick to being ignorant about Christianity before opening a branch office in Judaism).
Back to LastDem. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Talmud is far from monolithic in its teachings/interpretation, both in the schools of oral tradition, and the Rabbinic interpretations. In fact, the very essence of Talmudic study revolves around scholarly debate on the law and it’s meaning and application. So Talmudic justification for abortion is a Rabbinic interpretation, subject to being amended and not something explicitly (or even implicitly) stated in the Scriptures.
CC says: May 31, 2011 at 11:22 am
For the umpteenth time – Reformed Judaism bases it’s pro-choice teachings on its Scriptures and its Torah. I’m not saying that they’re right or they’re wrong. But you folks, clearly, believe that any religious scholar that bases a pro-choice view on Scripture is inherently wrong because you possess “the truth.”
InCapaCitated,
Suggest you find a subject you know someting about and stick with it.
Let us know you have made that determination.
That ‘free education’ would be a good starting place.