Stanek weekend question: If abortion proponents admit a baby is being killed, will the rate subside?
Abortion proponent Jeannie wrote a fascinating piece at Abortion Witness this week. The title, “Talking about the Babies: Saying ‘Things We Cannot Say.'” An excerpt:
This past year, when the reports emerged of the conditions in the Philadelphia abortion clinic run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, pro-choice activists tended to focus on Gosnell’s record….
At one point in an on-line discussion among pro-choice activists and abortion providers, one of our colleagues asked us to consider why we were not discussing the babies. In addition to the women, several infants were born alive in Gosnell’s clinic when their mothers’ abortions did not go as planned and then were killed. In at least one case, one of Gosnell’s employees reports, a baby born during an abortion-procedure-gone-wrong lay on a counter moving and breathing for almost 20 minutes before someone severed its spine and killed it. Why, our activist friend asked us, weren’t we talking about the dead babies?
The short answer is that it is hard for abortion providers and activists to talk about babies in the context of abortion. We all know that an unborn child dies in each abortion. And the majority of abortion care workers accept responsibility for our roles in these deaths. We have, for various reasons, determined for ourselves that having a part in these deaths is an important—and ethical—thing for us to do. At the same time, we realize that while our work brings us in direct contact with death on a regular basis, the majority of people (even those who identify as “pro-choice”) are uncomfortable talking about death. Add to this the way abortion-rights opponents have long invoked death to condemn abortion, and you have a perfect recipe for silencing people….
Women have always known that pregnancy means a baby and abortion means the baby will die. When women care enough about the lives of their children—born and unborn—and about their own lives to make that decision, we owe them the respect and support that honesty conveys.
I’m not sure all aborting mothers know they are killing a baby. Abortion proponents have put so much misinformation out there.
But at any rate, if in a clinic setting abortion staff and doctors agree with abortion-minded mothers who do confess aloud they think they are killing their baby, will this negatively impact the abortion rate? Will mothers walk out? Or will they just talk things through, continuing to justify what they’re doing, and carry on with the abortion? Here’s how Jeannie wrote she would respond in such an instance:
“OK. Let’s talk about how you are going to cope with knowing that you have killed your baby. What do you believe happens to us when we die?” From this point, the woman and I could have an honest conversation about how she understood her abortion decision within the context of her own life circumstances, beliefs, and ethics.
If abortion workers acknowledge the elephant in the room, will doing so diminish its signficance?
[HT: Mimi]
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.
To me, this is actually scarier than what we have now. My neighbor’s husband is from another country, which they visit every few years. She is pro-choice, but she was stunned to hear people openly talking about their abortions, married people who had the financial means to care for a child, but just didn’t want to bother. I think because of us, people don’t mention such things openly, but because of the other side, lots of lies are accepted as truth. I can’t imagine the callousness in such a society. Are we forcing them to pretend to be civil?
What? Are you asking me to be INSANE along with them as if one could step in and out of insanity at will?
Murdering your baby, knowing it is your baby, can never be an intrinsically good or genteel thing.
I guess I’m not sure I understand the question. I certainly am not willing to do the mental and moral gymnastics pro-aborts do to justify their actions.
I know one thing. Money IS the pragmatic behavior-changer even in the morally bereft. Kermit Gosnell’s shenanigans may not have made an impression. But James Pendergraft’s 18 million to support an eleven-year-old girl who was handicapped from a failed abortion, and his 18 million in punitive damages from not having an abortion doctor on site will change the *conversation*
Groovsmyth, What I meant was, we have been fighting with the other side all these years about whether that which is being aborted is a baby or not. What if the other side simply decides to agree with us? Will fretting mothers simply feel like a pimple has been popped and carry on with the abortion?
At some point society has to have the courage to do what is right. As long as we are so fascinated by deranged ramblings about how baby killing is somehow responsible, we suffer from a dangerous suspension of rational thought. Folks who are prochoice have average TFR below the minimum 2.1. The are on Darwin’s shortlist headed to extinction.
Yes..but how often do “abortion proponents” ADMIT it’s a baby that’s being killed? We’ve seen them come on this site over and over and say they don’t “consider a fetus a baby”. If they could actually ADMIT that an embryo/fetus is a baby, it would be harder to justify killing him/her. It’s getting them to actually admit there’s a BABY HUMAN involved that’s the problem.
Pamela: Yes..but how often do “abortion proponents” ADMIT it’s a baby that’s being killed?
It’s not a matter of either/or. It’s a subjective thing.
I feel quite sick after reading that article.
“I feel guilty because I am killing my baby,” she answers. “That’s why I feel guilty.”
“Oh, no,” I said to her as gently as I could. “It’s not a baby—it’s just tissue.” That was wrong.
At least there is an acknowledgment that misleading women is wrong. But isn’t the doctor just talking about another type of misleading? Under the guise of openness and honesty, she will not get to the heart of why a women that knows she’s killing her baby and feels guilty about it would still choose to do so, she’ll just help her start processing this horrific decision ahead of time?
I just don’t understand the mentality that asserts that because a woman made a decision, it was absolutely the best decision for her at that time. What about counseling the woman about all her options? What about making her aware of the help that is available regarding those options? How does convincing a conflicted woman that she’s making the right decision empower her? How is this good for women?
I feel sick.
“It’s not a matter of either/or. It’s a subjective thing.”
Nah, it is a semantic thing. The living being is what it is regardless of what it is called.
What is real is the selection effect. Those who possess whatever psychological trait it is that won’t let them kill their offspring are being selected for and those willing to kill their own are being selected against. I wouldn’t be surprised if the “Abortion Witness” is contributing zero genes to the next generation. She says she is a professor. Of what I would ask. Anyway, her influence on the next generation means that those willing to kill their kids will be even more emboldened to do so thereby hastening the diminution of the prevalence of the trait in the population.
@Lerning
The problem is, those who believe in “choice” tend to have a bias about what choice is chosen…particularly if that poro-choicer is employed by an abortion facility, is an “escort” showing their support for abortion “women’s rights” (getting brownie points with their Women’s Studies Prof/showing how feminist they really are), or are justifying their own abortion decision. To NOT choose what those with a stake in the battle for “choice” think is best for women in various situations (their definition of what would justify abortion…age, not “planned”, money, rape, incest, medical concerns with the unborn baby, etc…) is a “threat” of sorts. This is why women are often coerced & manipulated into consenting to an abortion…they NEED to convince the conflicted woman that she is making the “right” and “empowering” choice. It is really not about “choice” at all. If it was, they would be all for getting as much info about the reality of abortion, risks, fetal development, etc…out to women. Offering options…lots of info about those options. The reason this does not happen is in order to manipulate women into choosing abortion…which is, by definition, NOT pro-“choice”.
You stated, “I just don’t understand the mentality that asserts that because a woman made a decision, it was absolutely the best decision for her at that time.” Consider this: women coming to a clinic for an abortion have “made a decision”. This decision, in the minds of those who support abortion & who stand to profit from it…either financially or ideologically, support her ”choice”… is the “right choice for her” in this instance/at this time & they respect her choice. However, if the woman is encountered by ”protesters” or “sidewalk counselors”, signs & pictures, pamphlets with medically accurate fetal development, abortion procedure & risk information, options & help and that woman CHANGES HER MIND, that decision is NOT respected by the pro-choice crowd because they don’t believe she is making the “right choice”. The abortion choice is the right one (in their minds) & a change of mind (or heart) is somehow viewed as her making a mistake…and this, of course, is the fault of the pro-lifers. This is one reason they fight so hard against free-speech rights for pro-lifers…AKA RICO, Buffers/Bubbles around abortion facilities, using escorts to hurry women into clinics & blocking her view of the pro-lifers/signs, while talking loudly to drown out offers of information & help. This is why they fight notification, waiting periods, viewing ultrasounds & informed consent…all these would give women time & opportunity to “CHANGE HER MIND”…and her “decision” or inclination or knee-jerk, fear induced reaction to abort would end in a LIVE BIRTH instead of an ideological victory or CASH. For abortion supporters, the “best decision for her at the time” is the abortion decision. The “best decision” is never a changed mind…a new decision, in favor of life. They claim to “trust women”, yet they don’t trust them with the truth about abortion. And they don’t trust them to accept & evaluate the information & assistance offered outside of abortion clinics. And they don’t trust them to continue on & have the abortion once they learn that, in fact, abortion is an act of violence that kills a tiny human being…would kill their baby…and poses physical, psychological, & emotional risks to her as well. They don’t trust that a NEW decision, a mind changed to reject abortion & choose life, is the “right” or “best” decision for previously abortion minded women.
I think it is very misleading and unethical to tell a woman that she is aborting “tissue” or any other euphemism like that. They should at least be given accurate development information. Whether that will turn anyone away from having an abortion, I dunno.
If we want to talk about truth in abortion, we also need to corner them about their refusal to tell their prospective patients that pregnancy distress is normal and typically self-limiting, that the feeling that you can’t cope, the feeling that you want to bail, will subside — typically when the baby becomes real. So show her the heartbeat, the arms and legs, and give her some time to decide.
The question they ask is, “Do you want to be pregnant?” The question they need to be asking is “Do you really want this baby to die?”
We have, for various reasons, determined for ourselves that having a part in these deaths is an important—and ethical—thing for us to do.
You know, there are certain sects and groups who can repeat this same sentence concerning child marriage/rape, incestual relationships, adult-child sexual relationships, polygamy, etc. Every murderer out there has prolly gone through “determining for THEMSELVES” why their part in someone else’s death is “ethical” or ok. Why in the world do they think this is a logical thing to think or believe????
When women care enough about the lives of their children—born and unborn—and about their own lives to make that decision, we owe them the respect and support that honesty conveys.
No one who cares about the LIVES of their children born or unborn is going to decide to end those LIVES in such a violently horrific way.
That mother who drowned all her 5 children said she did it because she loved them and knew she was a bad mother. So let her out! Release her from prison! We aren’t showing her any respect or support for what her honesty conveyed! Shame on us. She obviously cared enough about the POTENTIAL lives of her children that she made “that decision”. Who are we to judge? We’re just pushing our Bibles on her autonomous body. Shame on us. Shame.
I bet Jezebel or Abortioneers has a link to the facebook group where I can sign the petition to release Andrea Yates. We should all go show our respect for women’s choices and sign it!
/sarcasm
I think the rate would subside, considering how many women are angry and crushed afterward when they find out the “procedure” to remove a “clump of cells” or “blood clot” actually dismembered and killed a BABY with a heartbeat, fingers, and toes. How many women walk in to the mill with this predetermined line in their head that they won’t cross, like, “If it has a heartbeat, that’s it, I won’t do it.” and are reassured by those “respecting her choices” that it’s just a clot at 9wks. How many stories have we heard/read from women who are heartbroken that they were lied to? The TRUTH and ACCURATE information would make a HUGE difference.
That’s not a heartbeat. Those are “heart tones”. *shudder*
I think it would lower the rate momentarily. Those women who get lied to and who wouldn’t be killing their ‘baby’ but are okay with killing a pre-baby clump of cells would likely back out and not abort. But I think the shock value of ‘oh my, it’s a baby!’ Would be readily overcome by the abortion industry. Their tactics would change and they would find new ways of manipulating unsuspecting women into killing their offspring. They would say the baby was pre-sentient or couldn’t yet feel pain, they would liken it to a mercy killing and say killing your baby was a valid parenting choice. They would trott out badly manipulated statistics on the horrors of adoption or of this or that disorder and make women believe killing their offspring before it could feel pain (emotional or physical) is the just and merciful thing to do. Abortion proponents are willing to say anything to get a woman to a state of mind where murdering her offspring is acceptable. Long term I think it would shift the age of abortions more than decrease them overall. Once you can convince a woman killing her baby is okay because of X, Y, Z it will be easier to convince them to do it in general as so many women won’t seek abortion because it’s killing their baby. But I think the arguements that could be put forth to manipulate acceptance of killing a ‘baby’ largely fails, even with lies, as the baby matures.
Jespren:
if you read a little further down in the article, that’s exactly what the woman does. She actually says:
* Third, we should acknowledge similarities between miscarriage and abortion. Doctors call miscarriage “spontaneous abortion” and a chosen abortion “elective abortion”; in other words, both are abortions. One happens whether the woman wants it to or not; the other happens at her request. Otherwise, they are remarkably similar, both emotionally and physically. When I give talks about elective abortion, I often use the phrase “when a pregnancy ends.” This draws attention to the commonalities among pregnant women and their various pregnancy experiences.
(NOTE: anyone else notice the glut of comparisons to miscarriage legal abortion supporters have been throwing out lately? I swear they coordinate this crap in meetings. “Nope, spreading ignorance about human development didn’t work. Time to move to the next tactic-comparing abortion to miscarriage it is!”)
Tactics like this are just low. Once they acknowledge killing the baby, once they own up to how terrible abortion is, expect their legitimizing of the practice to match the acknowledged barbarity.
“OK. Let’s talk about how you are going to cope with knowing that you have killed your baby.”
I think I’m going to throw up. Seriously.
Xalisae, I didn’t read the back-linked article, but it doesn’t surprise me, as I said, it’s the tactic they *must* take if they acknowledge it’s a baby. And the miscarriage thing is such a bogus arguement! I had someone a few weeks ago say that, since so many pregnancies end in miscarriage, we can’t say that ‘life’ would ever get to ‘live’ so it was okay to abort (early in the pregnancy, she wasn’t making a case for post viability abortions). I responding that conception was 100% fatal to everyone, sooner or later, so the notion that they will one day die makes it acceptable to kill them is just as absurd as saying I can kill my toddler (or husband) because no one makes it out of life alive!
From the article:
And what about death and abortion and the babies allegedly born-then-killed in Gosnell’s clinic?…while she is pregnant, her decision to have an abortion is like any other woman’s. How does this change when the unborn baby is no longer unborn—no longer inside her body?
I’ve talked with two wise people about this question. One said to me, “when the baby is inside the mother’s body, its death is birth control; after it is outside the woman’s body, its death is something else—maybe population control.” He went on to suggest that we are, as a society, a lot more comfortable with birth control than with population control and that we might even consider the latter to be immoral.
The other wise person I spoke with suggested that we think about it another way. The pregnant woman went to Dr. Gosnell to ensure that she would not have her baby. She knew the baby would die. He did exactly what she asked, although not in the way (we presume) that she expected him to do it.
Certainly, the act of deliberately killing a living, breathing person is considered wrong in our society, and neither of these people contradicts that, but both challenge us to rethink this question, to place it in broader contexts of our social mores and expectations.
The death of a baby born alive during an abortion attempt is “something else – maybe population control”!!! Try murder. This Jeannie, with her oh-so-civil discussion with two “wise” people, seems to be advocating for infanticide!
“There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state’s capitol buildings. The quote says, “Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct.” Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.
All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.”
From the testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996
I’m pretty sick of the comparison of abortion to miscarriage. Frankly, it tears my heart out. :(
Pamela,
I agree.
Abortion is not miscarriage! Miscarriage is not abortion!
I’ve had both. No comparison.
I resent the hell out of the comparison of abortion to miscarriage because there is no comparison. They are not similar animals. I would have given anything on earth to keep the baby I lost in a miscarriage but it was completely out of my hands. Paying someone to kill and suction out your baby is NOT, NOT anywhere close to the same thing.
So what would it sound like if abortion-rights advocates were to speak openly and honestly about the death of unborn babies?
Third, we should acknowledge similarities between miscarriage and abortion. Doctors call miscarriage “spontaneous abortion” and a chosen abortion “elective abortion”; in other words, both are abortions. One happens whether the woman wants it to or not; the other happens at her request. Otherwise, they are remarkably similar, both emotionally and physically.
Yep, this is just sick. How is it “open and honest” to equate the physical and emotional aspects of abortion with those of miscarriage? The same physically? How is the natural death of a baby in the womb the same as a living baby being torn apart by an abortionist? Oh, I forgot, we’re talking only about the woman’s body because that’s the only body that matters apparently. I wonder if Jeannie knows what honesty is?
Lrning, it’s not even the same on the woman’s body! The majority of miscarriages the mother’s body has a gradual subsiding of hormones and expells the baby naturaly, usually without significant bleeding (although excessive bleeding and/or retained baby *can* happen). Most woman need no outside help to resolve a miscarriage. But with an abortion a woman needs medication and forceful dilation, will lose a great deal of blood, and suffer a sudden drop in hormones, all of which can have devistating effects upon a woman’s body. Saying abortion and miscarriage are the same to a woman’s body is like comparing a radical hystorectomi to normal menopause. The end result might be a post-menopausal woman, but the effects on the body are radically different.
Very true Jespren. My miscarriage may have been similar to an abortion physically since I had a D&C, but I know that everyone’s experience is different.
Lrning, yes, then probably mostly similiary , except that your hormone levels had a natural decline from the baby dying naturally instead of being removed (along with the placenta) abruptly prior to or immediately after death. In other points, my sympathy and prayers for your lose. I’m so sorry, and I hope I’m not being too cavelar about the clinical details. It’s so sad when they try to foist abortion off as miscarriage because it lessens the natural grief and sorrow surounding a miscarriage.
They want to talk about what you think happens to people when they die. But the motive is to figure out a way to overcome the woman’s reluctance to abort. That is NOT respecting the woman’s choice. That is just selling abortions. They want to sell as many abortions as possible to make themselves rich.
Jill – one of the reasons why I’ve stopped commenting about abortion lately has a lot to do with what I’ve been learning over the last year. Way too many know it’s a baby – their baby, completely human in every way, and still will go through with the killing. Some even know it will be emotionally painful, but will do so any way. Hearts really have grown quite cold.
Even the article on Efrat – the Jewish organization, is very depressing, because even understanding the immense cultural impact of abortion still doesn’t change cold, hardened hearts.
Jesus came to save us from such insanity.
In the state I am currently living in, when you apply for a child’s birth certificate, you have to indicate how many “abortions or miscarriages” you have had – they lump them together as if they are the same. This really, really hacks me off.
As someone has already pointed out, they are NOT the same biologically OR morally. I believe that if the state is asking this question to collect some sort of data then it will automatically be skewed, but of course that’s what the “pro-choice” CDC would want anyway.
I attempted to leave that question blank when I filled out the birth cert. paperwork but they would not process the paperwork without the answer. Not looking forward to filling out the paper again for the child I am carrying now. Sigh.
They are actually using the term “miscarry” to describe what happens after a medical abortion. As in “I had a medical abortion and miscarried the fetus”. No! That was no miscarriage. It was the intentional killing of a baby! Don’t try to make it sound so innocent. I have had two miscarriages and I resent them using that terminology.
WEEKEND QUESTION: “If abortion proponents admit a baby is being killed, will the rate subside?”
I think the rate would subside to some degree. How much I will not venture to guess. Individuals and societies have always used euphemisms for sins and great moral, social and cultural evils. The more decadent a society becomes and the more it comes under the control of the enablers and promoters of sin, vice and mass evils, then increasingly both individuals and much of society will excuse and justify the most blatant perversion and evil.
We must, by all means, strive to so live our own lives and use the influence of our our lives personally and collectively to overcome, defuse and defeat by spiritual, social, intellectual and political channels the corrupt decadence that is not only being excused but in many instances actively promoted and defended as a “good”.
That is just selling abortions. They want to sell as many abortions as possible to make themselves rich.
No. This woman isn’t selling abortions to make herself rich (anymore). Now she’s selling them to try and silence the screaming blood of her own child she had killed when she was 22 years old. The mental gymnastics and absolute murder, dissection, and desicration of the conscience exhibited by those who have either had abortions themselves or been a party to one in some way (even if it was just driving a friend to the clinic) is beyond anything else I’ve ever witnessed in my life.
Sadly, I don’t think some of these secularist,humanist,atheist proabortion people care. Some will acknowledge the fetus is human yet they continue to use the personhood argument and say we aren’t persons until born. They twist words and play semantic games in order to justify the indefensible. Just the fact that they are killing a human shld be reason enough, but some are so callous they just don’t care about anyone but themselves. Abortion is truly evil and no different than denying personhood to the Jews and the blacks during slavery. They hate the comparison but continue to argue human fetus have no rights,despite being of the same species&offspring of the woman. The proaborts are heartless,cold and inhumane. When they compare abortion to the natural death of a child in miscarriage it is even more sick because they are acting as if miscarriage gives them an excuse to kill because the child might have died anyway. It’s all disgusting and sad. May God save us all!
“It’s not a matter of either/or. It’s a subjective thing.”
Hippie: Nah, it is a semantic thing. The living being is what it is regardless of what it is called.
What’s the difference, Hippie? I don’t disagree with “semantic” and indeed there are different meanings for “baby” and “child,” etc. If we go with what is not really arguable – “living human organism,” or the specific, medically-correct terms, that is one thing, but when we switch over to the words which apply or not since they are in the eye of the beholder, it’s a different deal.
___
What is real is the selection effect. Those who possess whatever psychological trait it is that won’t let them kill their offspring are being selected for and those willing to kill their own are being selected against.
Could be, if it’s really a genetic thing. However, there are obviously situational and environmental factors at work, whether or not a genetic component has influence too. A given person who doesn’t choose to have an abortion in the here and now may well have one in difference circumstances, and vice-versa too.
What’s the difference, Hippie? I don’t disagree with “semantic” and indeed there are different meanings for “baby” and “child,” etc. If we go with what is not really arguable – “living human organism,” or the specific, medically-correct terms, that is one thing, but when we switch over to the words which apply or not since they are in the eye of the beholder, it’s a different deal.
This is dead on. Is masturbation abortion? Wearing a condom or using the pill abortion? Your changing the future trajectory of the organism in each of these cases. When, how, & for what reason does it become morally & ethically unacceptable to alter the biological life is the question. If you are against “abortion” at any stage of the continuum of a human biological life, what does that entail in your mind? Energy & matter are not created or destroyed, they just change forms. A pig is a sentient being while an embryo is not, yet I’m sure most would have no problem eating bacon. People adamantly oppose abortion, yet are pro-death penalty or see the need for war. There is no way to logically hold these views together in my opinion. Calling the organism a “baby” is an attempt to play on emotions. It is no more a “baby” as it is a “eukaryote, “toddler”, “teenager”, or “corpse”.
Juror-
“It is no more a “baby” as it is a “eukaryote, “toddler”, “teenager”, or “corpse”.”
Even if you meant to say zygote instead of eukaryote this sentence just don’t make no cents.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with a rant on when and how organisms change from one species into another…
Oh, I missed that the first time, Tommy R. That is indeed an odd thing to claim…
apparently they have a glut of ill-informed individuals in Florida they keep around specifically for jury duty.
X, Florida has more than its fair share of crazies and idiots.
Is masturbation abortion?
Obviously not. You’re not forcefully ending the growth and development of a living human organism, so no.
Your changing the future trajectory of the organism in each of these cases.
No, you’re not. There is no “future trajectory” of an organism that doesn’t exist.
Oh pro-legal-abortionist mental gymnastics, I could watch you all day! You win the gold medal!!!
Juror,
Is masturbation abortion? Wearing a condom or using the pill abortion? Your changing the future trajectory of the organism in each of these cases.
In these cases there is no organism that has a trajectory to be changed. There is no zygote, embryo or fetus to be killed. Please take a biology class. There is a significant difference between a zygote and a separate ovum and sperm (both of which would die if it were not for fertilization.) (And an English grammar class. “You are” or “You’re” NOT Your.)
When, how, & for what reason does it become morally & ethically unacceptable to alter the biological life is the question.
When the biological life begins, by means of the creation of a new human with intrinsic value, because all humans have the right to a life free from attempts to alter their biological life for the worse.
If you are against “abortion” at any stage of the continuum of a human biological life, what does that entail in your mind?
It entails not killing innocent and helpless humans.
Energy & matter are not created or destroyed, they just change forms.
We can only know what something is by knowing the orders intrinsic to that thing. There are four principles of order, separated into two kinds, intrinsic and extrinsic. The intrinsic kinds of orders are material and formal. The extrinsic are the efficient and final.
The material order is the “of what it is made” or the “which” of the object. In this case, you assign all of somethings value, the zygote’s worth, to the materials of which it is made, energy and matter. If you were to be more specific, the materials used are proteins, lipids, sugars and other organic compounds, including ATP wich is the source of energy.
The formal order is the way in which the material is put together, the “what” of the object, and is that which makes a chair vastly different from a box or a wooden clock. By saying that something “just changes form” you are saying a great deal more than you realized. If you are saying that fertilization is an insignificant event because the materials that were already present were “just” rearranged, you could not be more wrong. It is because the materials were reformed that the zygote has value and is a new human person.
The sufficient and final causes of order go into another subject. If you want me to try to explain it (badly) I will. Just let me know if you need a better explaination!
Pro-choicers need to decide if abortion is really about ending a pregnancy or having a dead baby. We can end a pregnancy after post viability and have a live baby and no pregnancy. If it is about having a dead baby then they should have no problem with killing a baby that survives.
RCJC,
I wanted to thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts on some of my questions(sincerely asked), you did so pretty much snark free. I appreciate your not just resorting to personal attacks or name calling like a couple other people chose to do. I came to this site because I saw the article regarding the Pendergraft trial on a google hit and thought I could offer some insight into the facts of the case after seeing the confusion among some of the commenters. Before this trial I had never been to a prolife/prochoice site in my life. I have stayed in order to try and learn & understand a belief system that is slightly different then my own. I’m not here to troll or bait, although I’m sure others may have had that impression due to the polar subject matter of abortion.
In these cases there is no organism that has a trajectory to be changed. There is no zygote, embryo or fetus to be killed.
When speaking about trajectory for the egg/sperm I was refering to a person conciously altering it’s intended path, which is to reproduce it’s genetic information. Individually, the egg/sperm may or may not reproduce of it’s own accord naturally, but a person using either of those actions I described makes a choice to terminate that chance. You & I agree this is an acceptable choice to make, but as is evident by yesterday’s poll question about birth control some people do not.
all humans have the right to a life free from attempts to alter their biological life for the worse.
Here’s where the rub is for me. Although rhetorically that sounds great, I don’t see how it jives with reality. Everything alters your biological life for either good or bad from conception till death. Not legally allowing abortions does not magically make them stop. Even if abortion did stop what then? Is that in the best interest of our species? Other problems most certainly escalate. Instead of altering the biological life of a human that’s nervous system hasn’t acheived sentience, you are ”killing” or allowing the suffering of others that have. That is why I asked ther question about the DP or war for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of where your statement about a “right to a life free from attempts to alter their biological life for the worse” is contradicted if you affirm them. I noticed you didn’t touch them though. Xixalase accuses me of mental gymnastics, as if she is somehow not tumbling on the mat to make her beliefs fit. We all are.
“It is no more a “baby” as it is a “eukaryote, “toddler”, “teenager”, or “corpse”.”
Even if you meant to say zygote instead of eukaryote this sentence just don’t make no cents.
Tommy,
I apologize, I did mean zygote. Been quite a while since middle school biology for me;)
My point being the “human organism” isn’t classified as a ”baby” at that stage of human development anymore than it is any one of the other choices. By “admitting” it’s a baby your projecting your view of what it would be in the future, not what it is in the present(as scientifically classified). Would it sway some peoples’ decision? Certainly.
By the way. I wasn’t ranting. Just expressing some thoughts.
“Here’s where the rub is for me. Although rhetorically that sounds great, I don’t see how it jives with reality. Everything alters your biological life for either good or bad from conception till death. Not legally allowing abortions does not magiclly make them stop.”
I will rephrase. All humans have a right to life free from another’s unjustified attempts to alter their life for the worse. Can you disagree with that? The next point that I have to prove is that abortion is an unjustified act.
You are right, the law does not magically make anyone change their behavior. That is not what we expect. We would arrest and prosecute the abortionists. (Not the women. There are various reasons that would not be fair, such as coercion and manipulation.)
“Instead of altering the biological life of a human that’s nervous system hasn’t acheived sentience, you are “killing” or allowing the suffering of others that have. That is why I asked ther question about the DP or war for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of where your statement about a “right to life free from attempts to alter their biological life for the worse” is contradicted if you affirm them. I noticed you didn’t touch them though.”
Why is sentience a thing that confers rights? The suffering of the mother is a temporary thing. The death of the fetus is a permanent thing. If both the fetus and the mother are equal, then abortion is unjustified. (I will address ectopic pregnancies if you would like me to.)
The death penalty is only acceptable if there is no other way to keep a murderer away from society. A person who feely and willingly and in full understanding chooses to kill someone and poses a threat to others has forfeited his or her right to life. However, because in the U.S.A. we have the ability to permanently separate them from other people, we do not need to kill them and therefore we should not.
I also believe that the only justified war is a war of defense. Because we have the right to life free from an unjustified attack, we may defend ourselves using lethal force if necessary.
By the way, I do not agree with contraception. In fact, I think that a couple who do not wish to have children, but decide to have sex while using contraception, are weakening their relationship. Once again, if you want me to go into detail I will.
“We all are.”
I really don’t think so. There is always a point of view that fits reality perfectly. If there was not, why would anyone care?
“Baby” is not a scientific classification. It is an endearment that is used for very young humans, or for one’s offspring or lover, especially when one means to express a strong desire to care for, provide for and protect the person in question.
Mods, can someone please start monitoring xalisae? I am not the only commenter here to notice her name-calling and insults. I thought we were supposed to “criticize ideas, not people”.
Xalisae: apparently they have a glut of ill-informed individuals in Florida they keep around specifically for jury duty.
Jack: X, Florida has more than its fair share of crazies and idiots.
Ha! True that….
Juror,
I might have let the term misusage slide, but when a person comes off sounding like a scientific know-it-all spouting all manor of Einsteinish stuff…they got to have all the facts straight or people are going to dismiss the comment as an amateur rant.
Ultimately, I apologize for the snark. It’s a bad habit of mine. We all have our faults. I do regard you as a welcome addition to the dialog…so please stick around. ‘Cause you got some learning to do about prolifers…like…they are not just a bunch of conservatives!
Example: Various polls have consistently shown that self identified prolifers are more opposed to the death penalty than prochoicers. In fact, prolifers have made the effort to develop a consistent philosophy on various life topics sometimes called the “Consistent Life Ethic” or the “Culture of Life and Peace”. Many prolifers don’t see killing people as a legitimate way to solve any problem plain and simple. I would encourage you to explore the wider world of prolife philosophy! Here are a few starting points:
http://www.consistent-life.org/consistent-life-video.html (proof that it’s been around awhile.)
http://www.priestsforlife.org/consistentethic/
http://secularprolife.org/
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1950&Itemid=120
Juror-
I don’t really care what scientific people call the what-ever-you-want-to-call-it that exists pre-birth. Zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, cell blob, whatever (some names are just insulting) How would you like it if I referred to you by your scientific stage of development…This it the rub it exists and it is an individual living human person. US law ought to recognize that scientific fact in all its policies simply because it is true.
We as a people need to come to terms with the implications of this truth and give people full knowledge in which to make decisions so we can ALL live in freedom.
One thing I will “admit” to…loving other people’s children.
Yet the components of the human body have not developed to a point of concious thought or feeling until a certain period of time in it’s life cycle. It’s not metaphysics or spiritual, it’s neuroscience.
So? What does one’s development have to do with who or what they are? I’m the same entity regardless of how my brain is functioning. You’re once again mistaking metaphysics or spirituality for science. Your fixation on cognition/consciousness/feeling is reminiscent of if not identical to those religious abortion supporters I’ve spoken to who insist abortion is acceptable because it’s killing someone before they’ve developed a “soul”. Neuroscience doesn’t determine WHAT someone or something is. If cerebral material has been damaged, it doesn’t turn a cat into a mouse or a human into a horse. We are what we are regardless of injury or disease, whether we’re talking about neuroscience, ophthalmology, cardiology, etc.
I never claimed a human life didn’t start at conception.
I just wanted to make certain we were in agreement. Glad we got that out of the way. So…You fully acknowledge the gestating human being as a living human being, you just think it should be legal and acceptable for a parent to elect to have their child killed so long as they are young enough. Thanks for your honesty.
As far as we know, you are the sum of what your nervous system takes in throughout the course of your life. Anything else is spirituality.
Ummm…no. What you’re talking about is spirituality, and it’s called “ensoulment”, and it’s an absurd notion on its face. If someone is blind, or deaf, or lacking some other sensory information to or through his/her nervous system, that does not make them less of a human being, or some different species, or anything of the sort. I am a human being = to a blind human being = a deaf human being = a human being with a cognitive disability. We are not limited to being “the sum of what your nervous system takes in”. We are all human beings, regardless of the discrepancies in sensory input or cognition.
“The only reason you feel this way is because you are alive & your life has played out the way it has.” The reason any of us think the way we do is because of the life we’ve experianced.
Nope. I’d feel the way I do about protecting life regardless of what circumstances I’ve been in through my past. If I hadn’t had my crisis pregnancy 9 years ago but it happened tomorrow, I’d still feel just a strongly about protecting the life within me as I do today. I’m honestly surprised that there are people in the world who think it should be acceptable and legal for a parent to opt to kill their offspring.
Seriously? In the former you have no knowledge of the life you are living, in the latter you do.
Once again: So what? Are you saying the less cognizant of one’s existence one is, the more acceptable it is to kill him or her? So it’d be more acceptable to kill a newborn than a 4 year old, and more wrong to kill a teenager than a 10 year old? A sleeping person is ok to kill, but not a conscious person? The criteria you’ve established for acceptable killing of others makes very little sense and seems rather arbitrary.
Which is your perogative. Others may feel morally & ethically obligated to terminate that life before it experianced a life of pain & suffering just for the sake of living.
“just for the sake of living” varies in importance and becomes much more relevant the closer the person speaking gets to being the life being lived to which they are referring.
Derr: Cry more! Your tears sustain me!!! MMMmmmmmmmm….
What a disgusting thing to say, xalisae. You must be a terribly unhappy woman to project all this anger and hatred at people you don’t even know.
I give what’s deserved to those who deserve it. Anyone who advocates the legalized killing of innocent children by the hands of those who were meant to heal at the behest of their own parents deserves nothing less than my distilled malice and undying hatred. Enjoy. ^_^
Want to convert hearts and minds to the pro-life side? You’re not helping. And your attitude isn’t the least bit Christian.
Romans 2:1-3
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?
Matthew 7:1-5
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
I don’t care about depraved hearts and minds who think killing children should be acceptable legal behavior. I just want it illegal, and I do my part already in that respect.
I never was very good at being a Christian. I guess that’s why I stopped. Oh well.
1 John 4:7-8
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
My personal favorite is this because, according to the Bible, you’re as much a “murderer” as pro-choice folks with all that hatred inside of you.
1 John 3:15-16
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
Romans 2:1-3
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?
Matthew 7:1-5
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
I’ve never had an abortion. I don’t judge very many things as dispicable, disgusting, and absolutely scorn-worthy beyond words. Abortion is one of those things, though, and I’ve never had one, so I will call a spade a spade all day long. I’m entitled to do so.
Derrr, do you believe it is the will of God that babies should be aborted? You like to quote Scripture out of context often – wasn’t it you who disappeared from the thread where I posted the truth about your fallacious Old Testament miscarriage argument? Maybe that was a friend of yours – I can’t remember now.
Romans 2 mentioned a corrupt judge who practices the same things as those whom he condemns. Are pro-lifers busily promoting abortion and killing unborn children?
Matthew 7 mentions a log and a speck. Do you believe that pro-lifers are the ones with the log in their eyes, and those who slaughter the innocents are the ones with the speck?
James 4 mentions God as the judge. He will ultimately decide our final fates. We are not to condemn one another. But we are most definitely to examine the fruit in the lives of others to see whether they are trees bearing good or bad fruit.
Do you believe abortion is a good fruit?
“These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)
1 John 3:15-16
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
derrr, do you consider yourself a member of “sister” in the body of Christ?
I consider myself a Christian, yes.
I consider myself a Christian, yes.
On what grounds?
Remember how angry you were just an hour ago that Bruce was saying that there was no way you could be pro-life and use contraception? He believed strongly one way, you believed strongly another. Sure, both sides can come up with supporting quotes from the Bible and strong feelings regarding the theological ideas but either way… you don’t feel any less pro-life because you disagree with him on contraception, correct?
Oh, how the tables have turned. I refuse to let you tell me that I am any less Christian because I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I am a Christian because I believe in God, because I believe in a plan, and because I believe that God loves all his children… even those that live lifestyles you don’t approve of, Kel.
I never was very good at being a Christian. I guess that’s why I stopped. Oh well.
We’re all works in progress, X. We fail – He doesn’t.
Remember how angry you were just an hour ago that Bruce was saying that there was no way you could be pro-life and use contraception? He believed strongly one way, you believed strongly another. Sure, both sides can come up with supporting quotes from the Bible and strong feelings regarding the theological ideas but either way… you don’t feel any less pro-life because you disagree with him on contraception, correct?
Bruce and I agree on one thing – that the killing of preborn humans is wrong.
And in case you didn’t notice, I didn’t tell you anything about your Christianity. I asked you on what grounds you claimed to be a Christian.
Do you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Do you believe that He was God in the flesh? That through Him, and Him alone, we are saved and reconciled to God the Father and our sins are forgiven?
I believe that you have told me in previous posts that no one can be pro-choice and Christian. I know xalisae has.
I believe in God, Kel. I’m not discussing my personal faith any further with you because I can tell you’re just looking for weak spots to attack. How very Christian of you.
Derrr, I don’t want to attack you. I just want you to be honest with yourself about what it means to be a Christian, and honest with others. Misrepresenting faith in Jesus Christ isn’t something anyone should take lightly.
I don’t understand your continual defense of child killing through the misuse and twisting of Scripture. You are the one who came here and spoke as a representative of Christianity. I believe those of us here should have the right to ask on what grounds you deem yourself to be Christian.
Choose life, that you and your descendants may live.
Derrr,
Given the fact that you haven’t exactly been flawless in practicing what you now preach (see https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/06/planned-parenthood-helps-pro-life-movement-by-avoiding-the-a-word/ for details, and for a reminder of how your own incendiary comments, against the OWNER of this blog, of all people, were deleted), and in addition to the fact that not a single comment of Xalisae’s was a personal attack (she called some people in Florida “ill-informed”–which is hardly a stretch, and hardly an attack on intelligence, per se), you’re really coming across as a concern troll, and as disingenuous, at very least. If you want to be taken seriously, then lay off the seeds of dissent, and your own tantrums, and stick to logical point/counterpoint, all right?
I don’t care about depraved hearts and minds who think killing children should be acceptable legal behavior. I just want it illegal, and I do my part already in that respect.
You are comical. How exactly do you do your part? Voter fraud? It’s surely not by discussing things with others in a rational manner & trying to bring them around. By the tone of some of your posts I wouldn’t be the least bit suprised to hear about you on the news at some point.
If you take some notes from posters like RCJC & Tommy R., who express their thoughts without rightous condescension, you might actually get someone to listen to you instead of putting you in the category of a fanatical kook. Then again what do I know, right? I’m just a depraved heart & mind, idiotic juror in florida. Your vastly superior intellect has surmised this from the sum of about 10 posts I’ve made. To paraphrase your earlier post you made to me: You don’t know “jack” about me or my life.
“People adamantly oppose abortion, yet are pro-death penalty or see the need for war. There is no way to logically hold these views together in my opinion.”
This has always *fascinated* me! Someone who opposes the painless execution of a murdererer who has received due process and other extensive legal hoops to ensure their guilt supports the dismemberment of an innocent baby and that is logical? But someone who supports the right to life of an innocent baby but beleives that a murderer forfeits his/her right to life when they kill another human- that is somehow illogical?
For the record, I oppose abortion and the death penalty- but it’s perfectly consistent to support the death penalty and oppose abortion. It’s not consistent to support abortion and oppose the death penalty.
Juror,
At the risk of merely feeding another troll: if you’d been around for any length of time on this board, and if you’d paid even a modicum of attention to the posts, you’d know how silly your comment (and blind criticism) about Xalisae is; she’s one of the sharper and more incisive people I’ve met here, in fact… and your insinuations (and outright claims) to the contrary are simply puerile.
I also note that you don’t trouble yourself to live up to your own standard of conduct… which is hardly a way to encourage others even to take you seriously, much less “change hearts and minds” (cf. your cracks about “being comical”, “voter fraud” [from where on earth did that come?], “fanatical kook”, and your not-so-subtle suggestion that she might do something spectacularly violent and/or disruptive enough to be featured in the news in a negative way). Do your standards of conduct apply only to her, then, and not to you? You certainly violate them with impunity, when you want to make an acerbic point; where’s this “heroic self-restraint” whose praises you seem to sing, and where’s the desire to “change hearts and minds” by elevated, reasoned discourse?
Care to try again, and prove that you can come out from under the bridge?
Paladin,
I was addressing Xalisae with my comment, but since you felt the need to stick your nose in, I’d be happy to comment to you.
she’s one of the sharper and more incisive people I’ve met here, in fact… and your insinuations (and outright claims) to the contrary are simply puerile.
I never said she doesn’t make any valid points or she has no insite. Care to point out where I did? What I said is nobody that doesn’t hold her same beliefs is going to give a damn about what she has to say. This is because she feels the need to crap all over them.
if you’d been around for any length of time on this board
Did you even read my post before jumping up to defend your buddy? I’ve posted all of about 10 times. X felt the need to make desparaging remarks about me from the get go and a couple times since.
“fanatical kook”, and your not-so-subtle suggestion that she might do something spectacularly violent and/or disruptive enough to be featured in the news in a negative way)
Though I’ve posted only a few times, I have read a bit of material on this site and seen a number of her comments. Many are filled with hate & anger towards others that do not believe as she does. When people express themselves this way in an extreme manner there is no telling what they are capable of doing.
I also note that you don’t trouble yourself to live up to your own standard of conduct… which is hardly a way to encourage others even to take you seriously, much less “change hearts and minds”
You can take me seriously or not, I really don’t care to be honest. I don’t know you from Adam. As to my conduct, I have been nothing but respectful of others on this site with all of my posts, even after shots being taken at me. If you want to get your panties in a twist because I give X a little snark, knock yourself out big guy:)
By the way. Abortion is legal. The majority of people belief it is ok in some situations, just like I do. The onus isn’t on me to change hearts & minds. It’s on X, and presumably you. I was pointing out to her she aint being a very good ambassador. I was staying for dialogue. If you want everyone that isn’t aligned with you to buzz off(which she is basically saying) your going to have a blog where only like minded people feel welcome. Then y’all can sit around and pat each other on the back. What’s the point in that?
What’s the point in that?
Hmm. Maybe we could be the arch-nemesis of RH Delusion Check. They don’t allow any dissenting comments whatsoever.
Maybe someday. :D
Eh. I guess acting butthurt about my demeanor is easier than addressing any of my actual points. Care to stop obsesssing about my lack of manners and answer the post I’ve put up for you twice now?
Yet the components of the human body have not developed to a point of concious thought or feeling until a certain period of time in it’s life cycle. It’s not metaphysics or spiritual, it’s neuroscience.
So? What does one’s development have to do with who or what they are? I’m the same entity regardless of how my brain is functioning. You’re once again mistaking metaphysics or spirituality for science. Your fixation on cognition/consciousness/feeling is reminiscent of if not identical to those religious abortion supporters I’ve spoken to who insist abortion is acceptable because it’s killing someone before they’ve developed a “soul”. Neuroscience doesn’t determine WHAT someone or something is. If cerebral material has been damaged, it doesn’t turn a cat into a mouse or a human into a horse. We are what we are regardless of injury or disease, whether we’re talking about neuroscience, ophthalmology, cardiology, etc.
I never claimed a human life didn’t start at conception.
I just wanted to make certain we were in agreement. Glad we got that out of the way. So…You fully acknowledge the gestating human being as a living human being, you just think it should be legal and acceptable for a parent to elect to have their child killed so long as they are young enough. Thanks for your honesty.
As far as we know, you are the sum of what your nervous system takes in throughout the course of your life. Anything else is spirituality.
Ummm…no. What you’re talking about is spirituality, and it’s called “ensoulment”, and it’s an absurd notion on its face. If someone is blind, or deaf, or lacking some other sensory information to or through his/her nervous system, that does not make them less of a human being, or some different species, or anything of the sort. I am a human being = to a blind human being = a deaf human being = a human being with a cognitive disability. We are not limited to being “the sum of what your nervous system takes in”. We are all human beings, regardless of the discrepancies in sensory input or cognition.
“The only reason you feel this way is because you are alive & your life has played out the way it has.” The reason any of us think the way we do is because of the life we’ve experianced.
Nope. I’d feel the way I do about protecting life regardless of what circumstances I’ve been in through my past. If I hadn’t had my crisis pregnancy 9 years ago but it happened tomorrow, I’d still feel just a strongly about protecting the life within me as I do today. I’m honestly surprised that there are people in the world who think it should be acceptable and legal for a parent to opt to kill their offspring.
Seriously? In the former you have no knowledge of the life you are living, in the latter you do.
Once again: So what? Are you saying the less cognizant of one’s existence one is, the more acceptable it is to kill him or her? So it’d be more acceptable to kill a newborn than a 4 year old, and more wrong to kill a teenager than a 10 year old? A sleeping person is ok to kill, but not a conscious person? The criteria you’ve established for acceptable killing of others makes very little sense and seems rather arbitrary.
Which is your perogative. Others may feel morally & ethically obligated to terminate that life before it experianced a life of pain & suffering just for the sake of living.
“just for the sake of living” varies in importance and becomes much more relevant the closer the person speaking gets to being the life being lived to which they are referring.
xalisae, the weird thing is… that’s the second person (not counting myself) I’ve seen call you out eloquently and calmly for your attitude. Maybe you ought to take a look in the mirror is all.
And if you’re not going to do that then please refrain from addressing me ever again. Thanks!
xalisae, the weird thing is… that’s the second person (not counting myself) I’ve seen call you out eloquently and calmly for your attitude. Maybe you ought to take a look in the mirror is all.
I looked this morning before I went to work, thanks. I don’t give a flip how someone presents their message-if they’re wrong, I will rebut them. Just as I really don’t give a flying flip what you think about me personally, this is not a popularity contest nor would I want to be your friend even if it were. I do however expect someone to address the facts and points I present in an accurate manner, not just sit and piss and moan about how I’m not Miss Congeniality in an attempt to deflect.
Now. Would you care to try your hand at rebutting what I’ve posted 3 times now on 2 different threads, or should I take all this huffing and puffing about how mean I am as two white flags, because I love getting white flags.
Good grief.
What’s a mod to do when others start addressing those that asked them not to address them???
:O
I’m a little late to the party, but I just want to respond to this:
Calling the organism a “baby” is an attempt to play on emotions. It is no more a “baby” as it is a “eukaryote, “toddler”, “teenager”, or “corpse”.
Now, I’m not one to play semantics, but…
———-
ba·by
(bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang A girl or young woman.
4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
adj. bab·i·er, bab·i·est
1. Of or having to do with a baby.
2. Infantile or childish.
3. Small in comparison with others of the same kind: baby vegetables.
tr.v. ba·bied, ba·by·ing, ba·bies
To pamper like a baby; coddle. See Synonyms at pamper.
—
child
(chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
a. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
b. A product or result of something specified: ”Times Square is a child of the 20th century”(Richard F. Shepard).
—
Hooray for the English language?
You can take me seriously or not, I really don’t care to be honest.
Lol, THAT’S OBVIOUS. XD (get it? Grammar is funny!)
I don’t know you from Adam. As to my conduct, I have been nothing but respectful of others on this site with all of my posts, even after shots being taken at me.
I’ll admit, I got bristled first because you seemed to present yourself as if you were Mr. Impartial, and I could smell the abortion support dripping off of you from a mile away. I can’t help that I’m a good judge of character and detest disingenuousness.
If you want to get your panties in a twist because I give X a little snark, knock yourself out big guy:)
Paladin and I go way back. I appreciate his support and have for many years. I appreciate it even now, and perhaps especially. *hearts* But he’s at least one person in the world who knows I can be friendly, kind, and decent to those who deserve such treatment, even though you might not believe it.
By the way. Abortion is legal. The majority of people belief it is ok in some situations, just like I do. The onus isn’t on me to change hearts & minds. It’s on X, and presumably you.
Nah. We don’t have to change hearts and minds, we just have to change laws. I think we can. We just have to vote more regularly than you.
I was pointing out to her she aint being a very good ambassador. I was staying for dialogue.
Yeah. Until my last post, which you seemed to have a hard time answering (to the point that I STILL have yet to receive an answer) and then decided it’d be more prudent to attack my persona. You’re not fooling anyone, I hope you know.
If you want everyone that isn’t aligned with you to buzz off(which she is basically saying) your going to have a blog where only like minded people feel welcome. Then y’all can sit around and pat each other on the back. What’s the point in that?
The point is having a place to go where others care just as much about human lives as you do, and to get away from the ravenous who would consume their own children to suit their lifestyles. That’s the point.
(I always find it hilarious though to see the pro-abortionists look at me and try to think my thoughts through the filter of their own minds. They see my disdain for them and think immediately that I might have the capacity to hurt or even kill them. They fail to see that this line of thinking proves my point for me, as that is the abortion supporter’s heart in a nutshell. Murder. They fail to see that it is the pro-life position to protect lives, and pro-choice to choose to kill. I was amusing myself reading juror’s writing earlier with an off-color joke of “No, you miss my point. I’m pro-life, so I’d never opt to kill a pro-choicer no matter how worthless I felt their life to be. They’re the ones who consider themselves judge/jury/executioner of all those they deem unfit.” Sad, funny, and true all at once. *sigh*)
Some Guy: Hooray for the English language?
Yeah – it’s just as correct to say, “it’s a baby before birth,” as it is to say, “it’s not a baby until after birth.” It’s in the eye of the beholder.
It’s human either way, though. No matter how you perceive the word, it’s still a unique human being.
True, Jack, “unique living human organism,” etc. That’s different from trying to put a certain spin on it by insisting that “it’s a baby,” etc.
I don’t care what name you want to call it. Fetus, baby, organism, whatever. It still deserves protection just like everyone else at every other stage of life.
True, Jack, “unique living human organism,” etc. That’s different from trying to put a certain spin on it by insisting that “it’s a baby,” etc.
Not really. My children are unique living human organisms. They’re still my babies. The two are not mutually exclusive, and stating the fact that one is a unique living human organism rather than the colloquial term for whatever stage of development that human organism is in does not make the killing of that organism acceptable regardless of which one that may be.
Jack: I don’t care what name you want to call it. Fetus, baby, organism, whatever. It still deserves protection just like everyone else at every other stage of life.
Okay, your opinion, just as many others feel the liberty and freedom of the woman has importance as well.
Well, I am a supporter of liberty and freedom, until it harms someone else. Hope to change everyones mind. :)
Okay, your opinion, just as many others feel the liberty and freedom of the woman has importance as well.
lol, as if we don’t think the liberty and freedom of women have any importance. Doug, you know this: we don’t think that the liberty and freedom of any one party supersedes the liberty and freedom of any other. That’s why one party shouldn’t be allowed to have the other party killed. Because BOTH their liberties and freedoms are important. Quit trying to act as though you can’t believe a pregnant woman has ANY rights if you think her gestating child is entitled to BASIC rights.
Forgive the length of this; some responses don’t condense well into sound-bytes!
Juror wrote:
Paladin, I was addressing Xalisae with my comment, but since you felt the need to stick your nose in, I’d be happy to comment to you.
I see. By that characterization, are you suggesting that it was inappropriate or unwelcome of me to do so?
[Paladin]
[Xalisae is] one of the sharper and more incisive people I’ve met here, in fact… and your insinuations (and outright claims) to the contrary are simply puerile.
[Juror]
I never said she doesn’t make any valid points or she has no insite.
Quite so; you don’t talk directly about validity or insight. You merely call her “comical”, claim that she “doesn’t discuss things in a rational manner”, is irrational enough to be featured negatively in a news broadcast (unless, of course, you were suggesting that–against every other word you utter–she would be featured *positively*, as one to be emulated? If so, then please pardon my mistake.), and is “a fanatical kook” (I won’t even touch the bizarre non-sequitur about “voter fraud”; I only hope it made some sort of sense to you, at least.) Nowhere did you use the phrases “valid points” or “no insight”. Does that reassure you, on this point? It wouldn’t reassure me, frankly…
Care to point out where I did?
I’d rather point out (as per my original, verbatim comment) where you call her comical, irrational (perhaps to the point of violence) and a “kook”, which support my contention that you don’t see her as sharp and/or incisive, and you vocalized that opinion. Are you seriously trying to deny that you denigrated her intelligence, her sanity, and/or her stability? If so, then I really don’t know what to tell you, and I’ll leave it to the reader to decide between us, on that point.
What I said is nobody that doesn’t hold her same beliefs is going to give a damn about what she has to say. This is because she feels the need to crap all over them.
You say (present tense) that now, certainly. Before, you said (past tense) what I’ve already quoted. I’ll address this new point of yours in a moment.
[Paladin]
[…] if you’d been around for any length of time on this board […]
[Juror]
Did you even read my post before jumping up to defend your buddy?
I did.
I’ve posted all of about 10 times.
That rather supports my contention that you had NOT been around for any length of time, yes? IF YOU HAD been around for any length of time, and if you’d paid even a modicum of attention to the posts, you’d know how silly your comment (and blind criticism) about Xalisae was. I’d also gently note that you left a great many of her logical points unanswered/ignored, in the other thread.
X felt the need to make desparaging remarks about me from the get go and a couple times since.
All right… and you’re quite free to try to take her to task if/when you feel that way (though you’d be a bit more credible if you kept a rein on your own tongue, or fingers)… just as I am free to call you out when I find your own comments to be lacking in some way. But I think you may be missing a key dynamic in all this: when you (or others) speak blandly and presumptively about the moral liceity of abortion, and about your (materialistic) assumptions which underpin that belief (such as “person” = “what your nervous system takes in throughout the course of your life” [your comment]), it can be horrifying… since this is not a debate about angels and pins (which is a wretched caricature of Middle-Age philosophy… but I digress), but about life and death. You really should expect, when visiting a pro-life blog, to encounter some emotional energy against your world-view, which (in essence) canonizes the execution of innocent unborn children (and the brutalization of their mothers–talk to Carla, or to any number of post-abortive mothers on this blog, about that; there are real people with real wounds from the real culture of death on this board, not simply numbers in a recent Guttmacher study). Perhaps you could take my word for it (since I know her a bit better than do you) that Xalisae is reacting out of that horror and disgust, that her reaction is quite sensible, and that you’d do well not to try to dismiss her as some sort of hysterical crank who’s reacting for no reason?
Though I’ve posted only a few times, I have read a bit of material on this site and seen a number of her comments. Many are filled with hate & anger towards others that do not believe as she does. When people express themselves this way in an extreme manner there is no telling what they are capable of doing.
“Hate”? Anger, certainly… but I don’t see, apart from mind-reading, how you could possibly know whether she hated anyone, or not. As for your ominous-sounding conclusion: I hope, friend, that you can see why I’ll have to treat this as rhetorical theatre, on your part. Anyone could say virtually the same thing about virtually anyone (including you), with just as little basis, and with just as little weight. Have some sense, man.
[Paladin]
I also note that you don’t trouble yourself to live up to your own standard of conduct… which is hardly a way to encourage others even to take you seriously, much less “change hearts and minds”
[Juror]
You can take me seriously or not, I really don’t care to be honest. I don’t know you from Adam.
And you don’t know Xalisae from Eve, nor she, you; and yet you seem to have devoted a great deal of time to her replies to you… to the extent that you lectured her about “people not listening to her [unless she takes your suggestions]”. Will you never take your own advice about anything? It’s comments (of yours) like this which make me start to wonder about your authenticity in this discussion… or at least the coherence of your position.
As to my conduct, I have been nothing but respectful of others on this site with all of my posts, even after shots being taken at me.
To the extent that this claim is true, that’s commendable. If so, why did you stop?
If you want to get your panties in a twist because I give X a little snark, knock yourself out big guy:)
:) That was a curious way to demonstrate your capacity for “respect” for me, friend! I hope you’ll see how this makes your earlier claims a bit less credible? One man’s “irrational hatred” seems to be another person’s “snark”, it seems.
By the way. Abortion is legal.
I’m aware that it is legal in the United States. How is this germane to the topic at hand?
The majority of people belief it is ok in some situations, just like I do.
Then the task, for anyone who cares about morality, is to find out whether that majority is, in fact, CORRECT; yes? Merely counting noses and number-crunching the latest poll from the Times settles nothing about the morality of the topic; surely you see that? Else, you’d need to embrace the absurd notion that abortion was morally wrong in earlier decades, when the law forbade it, and when it was much less popular… only to become utterly moral with the advent of Roe v. Wade; yes? With all due respect: have you thought this issue out, at all?
The onus isn’t on me to change hearts & minds.
You certainly seem to be trying your hand at it, now…
It’s on X, and presumably you. I was pointing out to her she aint being a very good ambassador.
Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that you’re utterly right (which is bosh, but we’ll set that aside for the moment). Whyever does this concern you, to the point where you pour forth unsolicited advice? Beyond that, your own actions speak rather louder than your words of concern; whatever restraint and mildness you might have shown in the past, it went blowing away like an ill-fitting derby as soon as you met a prolonged challenge. Are you completely indifferent to your own consistency?
I was staying for dialogue.
Very good. Might I suggest, on a board which handles issues of murder and violation, life and death, that you might expect your abortion-tolerant position to be challenged with some vigour, during that “dialogue”? If you’d like bland commentary, perhaps you might seek out a discussion forum about crumpet recipes… :)
If you want everyone that isn’t aligned with you to buzz off(which she is basically saying) your going to have a blog where only like minded people feel welcome.
You’re assuming that she wants you to “buzz off”; did you ask her, rather than assuming? She might want other things: (1) for you to reconsider your own stance on abortion, (2) for you to re-examine your thought-process by which you come up with your conclusions, or (3) simply to challenge what she takes to be (and about which she’s quite correct) a morally evil position supported by illogic. The possibilities go on.
Then y’all can sit around and pat each other on the back. What’s the point in that?
Since you offered some unsolicited advice, I’ll return the favour: “Question your starting assumptions.” Rule #1 in logic… and it would have served you quite well, here. See above for details.
Well, I am a supporter of liberty and freedom, until it harms someone else. Hope to change everyones mind.
Jack, that’s getting into the real argument – just how much of a “someone” are the unborn, etc. That’s the real deal, rather than people just stomping their feet and saying, “it’s a baby” or “it’s not a baby.”
“True, Jack, “unique living human organism,” etc. That’s different from trying to put a certain spin on it by insisting that “it’s a baby,” etc.”
Xalisae: Not really. My children are unique living human organisms. They’re still my babies. The two are not mutually exclusive, and stating the fact that one is a unique living human organism rather than the colloquial term for whatever stage of development that human organism is in does not make the killing of that organism acceptable regardless of which one that may be.
X, yeah, you can say “not mutually exclusive,” but you’ve apples-and-oranged it as there are different usages at work. You could be 80 years old and still saying “they’re my babies.” But is a 60 year old (for example) really “a baby”? Obviously many people will say no.
I wasn’t even getting into the morality of things, just noting that there is no one way it is for the unborn – whether “baby” applies or not is in the eye of the beholder.
“Jack, that’s getting into the real argument – just how much of a “someone” are the unborn, etc. That’s the real deal, rather than people just stomping their feet and saying, “it’s a baby” or “it’s not a baby.””
I can agree with you to an extent. I think the fighting over what we call an unborn human a little silly, unless it is used to deliberately dehumanize and conceal the fact that it is a human. When I hear choicers throw a fit and insist that we call it a z/e/f or “developing cells” or any such disingenuous term, it is hard to actually have a dialogue about the personhood issue. I am fully aware of the “proper” terminology, when I say “unborn child” I am not revealing any ignorance or whatever people want to say. I am simply pointing out that, yeah, the fetus is a human, the genetic offspring of it’s parents, and what we are arguing about isn’t what to call it, it is how we treat it.
“Okay, your opinion, just as many others feel the liberty and freedom of the woman has importance as well.”
X: lol, as if we don’t think the liberty and freedom of women have any importance.
I didn’t mean that, X, but Jack had gotten away from the “baby or not” deal (a good thing IMO) and he’d mentioned that protection mattered to him. He hadn’t mentioned the part about the liberty of the pregnant woman. Not saying he doesn’t care about it, but now we have the two biggest “real-deal” aspects of the debate, eh?
____
Doug, you know this: we don’t think that the liberty and freedom of any one party supersedes the liberty and freedom of any other. That’s why one party shouldn’t be allowed to have the other party killed. Because BOTH their liberties and freedoms are important.
That’s putting the cart before the horse, though. What you *want* is for rights to be attributed to the unborn, as they are not now. You want a different status accorded to the unborn. It’s also not as simple as just saying “Y of one does not supersede the Y of the other,” since the unborn are inside the body of the woman. The pregnant women and the unborn can’t be treated the same way, without some qualifications, due to the difference in their circumstances.
___
Quit trying to act as though you can’t believe a pregnant woman has ANY rights if you think her gestating child is entitled to BASIC rights.
I’ve never said or implied any such thing. Obviously, society has already deemed some rights to be present for the woman, and regardless of the legality of abortion that would still be the case. I was just saying to Jack, in effect, “here we have not one thing, but two things in balance, in flux, etc.” There is the consideration of the protection of the unborn and the consideration of the woman’s liberty.
I think the fighting over what we call an unborn human a little silly, unless it is used to deliberately dehumanize and conceal the fact that it is a human. When I hear choicers throw a fit and insist that we call it a z/e/f or “developing cells” or any such disingenuous term, it is hard to actually have a dialogue about the personhood issue.
Jack, there is no point in “throwing a fit” over terminology, certainly, but while zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., are objectively correct, many people insist on things which aren’t that way, as if it makes a difference in the debate.
“Developing cells” – okay, that’s too far out there to really matter, and any insistence on that is silly, IMO. The flip side of that, for me personally, is somebody maintaining that the zygote is a “child” or a “person” – things that are at best entirely subjective, if not simply wrong. Personhood, after all, is what society is not deeming to be present for the zygote, a fact which many or most pro-lifers would like to have changed.
Eh. I guess acting butthurt about my demeanor is easier than addressing any of my actual points. Care to stop obsesssing about my lack of manners and answer the post I’ve put up for you twice now?
Butthurt? Hardly, more like annoyed. I guess I’m just used to civil discourse.
I’ll admit, I got bristled first because you seemed to present yourself as if you were Mr. Impartial…I can’t help that I’m a good judge of character and detest disingenuousness.
I’m not responsible for your erroneous assumptions. I initially came to clarify some information on the trial. Only after one poster(you) disparraged me for expressing compassion for Howard did I feel the need to defend myself. I had no intention of expressing my views on abortion, since it wasn’t something I ever really had strong convictions about. I was hardly disingenuous, but I can see how it makes you feel better claiming that.
Yeah. Until my last post, which you seemed to have a hard time answering (to the point that I STILL have yet to receive an answer)
Hard time answering? You seem to think my life revolves around your questions. Actually I dismissed you as a bit of a wackjob and moved on to talking with others not foaming at the mouth. Also, I have a life I am enjoying that isn’t cloaked in hate & vitriol, so I chose not to let you suck me into yours.
They’re the ones who consider themselves judge/jury/executioner of all those they deem unfit.”
Yeah, ok. That’s the viewpoint of all pro-choicers.(sarcasm off) Makes sense though, explains your hate & anger. Seeing as how you equate the evil of anyone not anti-abortion as on par with Hitler.
They fail to see that this line of thinking proves my point for me, as that is the abortion supporter’s heart in a nutshell. Murder.
Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Malice: desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness.
Hyperbole much?
I always find it hilarious though to see the pro-abortionists look at me and try to think my thoughts through the filter of their own minds.They see my disdain for them and think immediately that I might have the capacity to hurt or even kill them.
Yeah, that’s such a ludicrous thought isn’t it? No anti-abortion fanatic has ever murdered someone before. (eye-roll)
Yeah, Doug, I see your point. I usually refer to the unborn with the medical terminology when I am not on a pro-life blog. Otherwise, no real debate happens. Of course, when I slip up and use “baby” they tend to freak on me, lol.
Yeah – it’s just as correct to say, “it’s a baby before birth,” as it is to say, “it’s not a baby until after birth.” It’s in the eye of the beholder.
No, it’s not, because both of us know that when a pro-choicer says “It’s not a baby!” they don’t mean that as a statement of one’s opinion, but rather a statement of fact.
Anyway, for the record, a newborn baby is really a neonate. If we’re going to strive for “medical accuracy”, then it’s only fair that pro-choicers use the correct terns much the same way they demand pro-lifers use the correct term.
Jack, I hear you on the “no real debate happens” – have seen that many times. That said, “unborn baby” is fine with me – I see no point in objecting every time somebody says “baby.” Exactly the same for other blogs or anywhere that people insist, “it’s not a baby.” That is not a meaningful argument, and there’s no “admitting” it’s one way or the other.
And yet you devote an entire post to just (once again) my demeanor and still refuse to address my points, even though you supposedly are ignoring me (lol, wut?). I’ll take that flag, thankyouverymuch. And by the way, it’s obvious you haven’t given the abortion issue much thought.
“Yeah – it’s just as correct to say, “it’s a baby before birth,” as it is to say, “it’s not a baby until after birth.” It’s in the eye of the beholder.”
Some Guy: No, it’s not, because both of us know that when a pro-choicer says “It’s not a baby!” they don’t mean that as a statement of one’s opinion, but rather a statement of fact.
I think my point stands. It is not correct to insist that “it’s not a baby.” It’s also not correct to insist “it’s a baby.” They are both equally correct (in this case, not correct).
___
Anyway, for the record, a newborn baby is really a neonate. If we’re going to strive for “medical accuracy”, then it’s only fair that pro-choicers use the correct terns much the same way they demand pro-lifers use the correct term.
I disagree, because while there is plenty of usage of “baby” as being after birth, same as for “child,” as opposed to the terms applying before birth, there really is no debate on “baby” applying after birth up to some later time, i.e. it’s not like a portion of the population maintains that “baby” applies before birth yet not after.
Child is factually accurate for a gestating human being. A simple DNA test would prove as much.
I think my point stands. It is not correct to insist that “it’s not a baby.” It’s also not correct to insist “it’s a baby.” They are both equally correct (in this case, not correct).
How can both statements be equally correct in their incorrectness?
I disagree, because while there is plenty of usage of “baby” as being after birth, same as for “child,” as opposed to the terms applying before birth, there really is no debate on “baby” applying after birth up to some later time, i.e. it’s not like a portion of the population maintains that “baby” applies before birth yet not after.
So your grand argument boils down to this; it’s not okay to call a fetus a baby because pro-choicers as a whole disagree with a fetus being a baby, but it’s okay to call a neonate a baby because pro-choicers as a whole would agree with a fetus being a baby. That seems rather… convenient… for you.
Anyway, is the pro-choice argument so weak that it hinges on whether or not a fetus is defined and/or perceived baby? Because if it is, then I’ve been drastically overestimating the pro-choice argument.
Doug, I think pro-lifers use the word “baby” to describe an unborn child for two principal reasons:
1) it’s true.
2) it emphasizes the personhood of the unborn child, whereas the modern, attenuated use of the word “fetus”, at least for modern, secular ears, does not. (Native Latin-speakers would not have regarded the word “fetus”–literally, “small boy [or child]”–as indicative of “non-person”; that connotation is a modern innovation.)
Beyond that, I’ll have to echo Some Guy’s point: it’s hardly reasonable for pro-lifers to abandon all personhood-affirming terms (which reflect reality) simply because opponents (who are mistaken on that point) would rather not acknowledge such personhood; that would be a bit like requiring a tennis opponent to play blind-folded, because one doesn’t like the prospect of having points scored against oneself!
Paladin,
I wanted to address a few points you made that I take issue with. After that I’m going to squash it on my end because the thread has been hijacked enough and no one ever wins an internet pissing contest.
I see. By that characterization, are you suggesting that it was inappropriate or unwelcome of me to do so?
My post was personally directed to X regarding dialogue we had been engaged in. You, obviously having not read all the prior posts, analyzed my final comment to her out of context of the prior posts, felt the need to interject yourself and call me out. Makes you look like a bit of a buttinski to me.
I’d rather point out (as per my original, verbatim comment) where you call her comical, irrational (perhaps to the point of violence) and a “kook”, which support my contention that you don’t see her as sharp and/or incisive, and you vocalized that opinion. Are you seriously trying to deny that you denigrated her intelligence, her sanity, and/or her stability? If so, then I really don’t know what to tell you, and I’ll leave it to the reader to decide between us, on that point.
Again, if you had read all the comments prior, rather than cherrypicking to fit your desired viewpoint, you’d see this makes no sense. Not once in any of my comments did I denigrate her intelligence. Hell I even agreed with her on the point of origin of human life. Did I question her rationality & stability? You bet, I can’t deny that. After someone that I have done nothing to provoke continuously attributes phrases such as “Killer”, “Murderer”, “Depraved”, “Evil”, “Despicable” to me ad naseum it’s generally going to illict that response.
“What I said is nobody that doesn’t hold her same beliefs is going to give a damn about what she has to say. This is because she feels the need to crap all over them.”
You say (present tense) that now, certainly. Before, you said (past tense) what I’ve already quoted.
Again, please check the prior comments if you care to know the context. Early on I expressed these very views to HER. They were rebuked with her typical hostility.
That rather supports my contention that you had NOT been around for any length of time, yes? IF YOU HAD been around for any length of time, and if you’d paid even a modicum of attention to the posts, you’d know how silly your comment (and blind criticism) about Xalisae was. I’d also gently note that you left a great many of her logical points unanswered/ignored, in the other thread.
I have to admit you lost me here. Supports your contention? I told YOU I had only been around for a few posts and encouraged you to go back and read them so you could get a clue.
I find it hilariously ironic that you accuse me of blind criticism of X after I’ve had dialogue with her and read comments of her’s to others. Meanwhile, it’s ok for you to critcize me after no communication.
“A great many of her logical points”? What, you mean her logical points like how old would I let my kids get before feeling it wasn’t ok to murder them? That’s basically where the conversation devolved to. From where our conversation started with her disparaging my character, to where it was going with her flying off the handle with things I never said(see:I don’t know Jack about her life) I made a decision to try to hit the ignore button with her. It wasn’t worth it to me. Plenty of others on the board were engaging me in a civil manner & not baiting me into an argument or attacking me on a personal level.
All right… and you’re quite free to try to take her to task if/when you feel that way (though you’d be a bit more credible if you kept a rein on your own tongue, or fingers)…
Again, after someone feels compelled to use the words to describe me that she chose, without being provoked, forgive me if I get a little snarky. Put yourself in my shoes.
You really should expect, when visiting a pro-life blog, to encounter some emotional energy against your world-view
Your assuming I didn’t. Read my posts. A number of people challenged my views. Tommy R corrected an error I made, rightfully so. I had no problem with any of them for disagree with me. But that’s because of the manner in which they expressed their views and asked me to question mine.
Xalisae is reacting out of that horror and disgust, that her reaction is quite sensible
Calling someone she knows thru about 10 posts on the internet “evil” “Despicable” “disingenious” “depraved” is sensible to you? Jesus man, what do you consider nosensical?:O
“Hate”? Anger, certainly… but I don’t see, apart from mind-reading, how you could possibly know whether she hated anyone, or not. As for your ominous-sounding conclusion: I hope, friend, that you can see why I’ll have to treat this as rhetorical theatre, on your part. Anyone could say virtually the same thing about virtually anyone (including you), with just as little basis, and with just as little weight. Have some sense, man.
She herself said “despise”, but it’s a synonym yeah? As for the second part, the difference is that neither you nor I have vocalized behavior in our posts to warrant a reasonable person to claim us a fanatical kook or loose canoon. Stereotypes aren’t just created out of thin air. When you spout hate & vitriol with a giant brush over people you don’t know, they’re going to attach that label to you. Does that make sense?
And you don’t know Xalisae from Eve, nor she, you; and yet you seem to have devoted a great deal of time to her replies to you… to the extent that you lectured her about “people not listening to her [unless she takes your suggestions
Actually you can deduce some information from posters’ replies if they aren’t putting up an alter ego. I can get a sense of X from her comments and her from mine. When you posted I had nothing to work from. You seem like a fine enough person to me. Didn’t call me depraved, which is nice. As I said before, initially I was sincerly answering her questions. When i felt her rude & baiting I chose to ignore her. She then felt the need to lash out personally when Deeer commented so I fired back. That’s when you butted in:)
To the extent that this claim is true, that’s commendable.
Thank you, but don’t take my word for it, research it yourself.
If so, why did you stop?
See above explanations.
That was a curious way to demonstrate your capacity for “respect” for me, friend! I hope you’ll see how this makes your earlier claims a bit less credible? One man’s “irrational hatred” seems to be another person’s “snark”, it seems.
Considering she called me despicable and depraved without provocation, while I defended myself with what most would consider snark, it seems your bias is effecting your judgment.
I’m aware that it is legal in the United States. How is this germane to the topic at hand?
X said she was doing her part to make it illegal. I countered with my snark about voter fraud due to her turning people off. Admittedly not my best zing, but all i could come up with at the moment. Her retort was “We just need to vote more regularly than you”. It was germane because if you want to start a revolution, but you run around calling everyone depraved murderers, ain’t nobody gonna sleep with you anyhow. Plus it’s disengenous.
Then the task, for anyone who cares about morality, is to find out whether that majority is, in fact, CORRECT; yes?
Certainly. That’s what the discussion is for. What needs to be left out is the hyperbole and vitriol, from both sides. Notice I’m bringing none to the table. She is.
With all due respect: have you thought this issue out, at all?
Uh oh! I think your assumptions are showing again:)
Very good. Might I suggest, on a board which handles issues of murder and violation, life and death, that you might expect your abortion-tolerant position to be challenged with some vigour, during that “dialogue”? If you’d like bland commentary, perhaps you might seek out a discussion forum about crumpet recipes…
That was pretty good one. Made me chuckle. But again, you’re assuming things about me not presented. In fact the opposite has been shown as I noted above. Feel free to eviscerate my points if you find them lacking. Throw me some snark if you want. Just show me the same modicum of respect I show you.
Whatever restraint and mildness you might have shown in the past, it went blowing away like an ill-fitting derby as soon as you met a prolonged challenge.
I can understand this point of view coming from someone cherrypicking comments. I respectfully disagree however.
You’re assuming that she wants you to “buzz off”; did you ask her, rather than assuming? She might want other things: (1) for you to reconsider your own stance on abortion, (2) for you to re-examine your thought-process by which you come up with your conclusions
Nope. Her actions speak volumes. I’d rather ignore her. I already do the other two things.
(3) simply to challenge what she takes to be (and about which she’s quite correct) a morally evil position supported by illogic.
Your opinion dually noted.
Since you offered some unsolicited advice, I’ll return the favour: “Question your starting assumptions.
Thanks, but I’m the one reading on a anti-abortion site. Which supports the notion I already do that. How bout you? Frequent many pro-choice sites & conversate?
See. I’m really not a despicable, murdering troll after all;)
“A great many of her logical points”? What, you mean her logical points like how old would I let my kids get before feeling it wasn’t ok to murder them? That’s basically where the conversation devolved to. From where our conversation started with her disparaging my character, to where it was going with her flying off the handle with things I never said(see:I don’t know Jack about her life) I made a decision to try to hit the ignore button with her. It wasn’t worth it to me. Plenty of others on the board were engaging me in a civil manner & not baiting me into an argument or attacking me on a personal level
I see you’re uncomfortable with the very idea of abortion to the point you won’t let yourself think about it when I’ve brought it to your attention. I can see why you’d fly off on some wild tangent of my personal nature and intentionally misconstrue my illustration of what abortion is to a “personal attack”.
Please allow yourself to think about this for a minute.
1.) The gestating human being is in fact a living human being.
2.) That living human being is the biological child of the pregnant woman.
3.) abortion kills this living human being.
4.) abortion is a parent paying a doctor to kill her living child.
Show me I’m wrong. Show me how anything you’re interpreting as a “personal attack” is anything less than cold hard fact you simply don’t like.
xalisae, the personal attack isn’t the fact that you disagree with abortion and juror may or may not be pro-choice. The personal attack is words like “depraved” “despicable” “evil” “mentally confused” etc etc. Attack ideas, not people. You believe that abortion is killing a baby. Do you believe that juror (who cannot have ever had an abortion, since he is a man) is a murderer? That’s attacking people, not an idea. There are plenty of pro-life commenters on this site that can disagree with the pro-choice folk in a calm, non-accusatory manner. I’ve simply never seen you do anything but call names like a child.
I have been looking for the question you asked me that you think I’m avoiding but I can’t seem to find it. Care to ask me again?
I’ve simply never seen you do anything but call names like a child.
Did you read her last post? Or was there a personal attack that I missed?
Juror wrote:
I wanted to address a few points you made that I take issue with. After that I’m going to squash it on my end because the thread has been hijacked enough and no one ever wins an internet pissing contest.
Mm-hmm. That’s often used as a handsome-sounding way of saying, “Let’s desist, so long as I get the last word!”, you know. You’re free to comment or not about anything, or nothing, as you wish, of course. But I’ll try to keep this shorter, if you like.
My post was personally directed to X regarding dialogue we had been engaged in. You, obviously having not read all the prior posts, analyzed my final comment to her out of context of the prior posts, felt the need to interject yourself and call me out. Makes you look like a bit of a buttinski to me.
First: on a public discussion forum, it’s not at all inappropriate for me to comment on such discussions; you, in fact, didn’t “launch” at Xalisae until you reacted to a post by her that was personally directed to Derrr (i.e. not to you). It’s rather odd of you to think, “Paladin’s interjection in someone else’s conversation = buttinski”, “Juror’s interjection in someone else’s conversation = well and good”; it’s hardly fair, and it’s rather on par with your view of “Xalisae snark = hysterical, violent raving”, “Juror snark = harmless, light-hearted retort”. The wish (and the bias) is father to the thought, friend.. and I’ll let the reader decide which of us is more guilty of bias (one of your accusations against me). Of course, I wished to offer support to my friend… but I was also driven by the fact that you’re quite wrong, on many counts… and that you’d misread her (or imagined posts by her) quite badly.
Second: you repeatedly (and erroneously) assumed that I’d not read her previous posts. I had, and I did. Is that now quite clear? Another of your accusations (of “assumptions”) comes back to roost in your own hen-house, dear chap.
Third: as I already mentioned, there isn’t a single complaint of yours of which you’re not guilty, yourself. You seem not to care about that (“who cares if people take me seriously or not”, and all that), and you minimize your own indiscretions while griping about those of others; so be it… but you really do dismantle your own credibility, and neutralize the power of your own complaints, thereby.
Calling someone she knows thru about 10 posts on the internet “evil” “Despicable” “disingenious” “depraved” is sensible to you?
You’ll have to help me out, on this one; I’ve read every last post of Xalisae’s (and even copied them into a single document, and word-searched them), in the interval from where you first commented on the “jury award” thread, until your recent “I’m calling Xalisae an unstable kook” post… and I don’t see a single case where she called you any ONE of those. Could you quote her, and give a link (right-click on the “date/time” of the particular message, select “copy link location”, and paste it into your reply) for each instance? Perhaps I missed all of them. Are you quite sure she wrote anything of the sort in that interim (i.e. while you were still being “mild-mannered”), and that she was addressing you? (Your “she only read 10 posts about me” lament seems to suggest that you thought so.)
I’ll leave it at that, for now; I’ll gladly reply to your other questions, if you wish, but you’ll have to tell me where your view of “dialogue” ends and your view of… ahm… “urea-exchanging contest” begins.
Derrr, let me say again: you’re hardly on any high perch from which you could lecture about manners. To wit:
derrr says:
July 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm, https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/07/stanek-sunday-funnies-7-24-11/
Wow, TexasGal, way to show how completely uneducated you are about pretty much EVERYTHING.
=====
derrr says:
July 24, 2011 at 5:51 pm, https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/07/new-stanek-poll-do-you-view-contraception-as-a-pro-life-issue/
How does Ken turn every argument into a birther argument?!? Seriously, his delusional harping is hilarious.
=====
This was after a 30-second Google search, mind you, and it doesn’t include the comments of yours that were deleted by moderators. If you insist on plying us with histrionics about the supposed “un-Christian, un-civil discourse”, perhaps you could offer an apology for your own, and some assurance that you’ll not resort to it again?
Well, I stand by both those comments. :)
Derrr wrote:
Well, I stand by both those comments. :)
Well, then! At least we’re settled on the fact that your subsequent protestations against “impolite, un-Christian comments/discussion” were all self-serving nonsense, from which you always considered yourself quite exempt, yes?
Honestly, madam… I don’t know if you could have missed the point more cleanly, if you’d tried! It’s also quite clear that anyone with sense now has every reason to ignore your hollow complaints about “impoliteness”, and all that rot. Q.E.D.
(Moderators: “Derrr” wouldn’t happen to be “CC”, would she?)
Hi Paladin.
Sorry. No.
One derrr. One CC.
Have a good night!
This is the post that I would appreciate an answer to after reposting 3 times now, and I’d accept that answer from either you, durrrrr, or duror:
Yet the components of the human body have not developed to a point of concious thought or feeling until a certain period of time in it’s life cycle. It’s not metaphysics or spiritual, it’s neuroscience.
So? What does one’s development have to do with who or what they are? I’m the same entity regardless of how my brain is functioning. You’re once again mistaking metaphysics or spirituality for science. Your fixation on cognition/consciousness/feeling is reminiscent of if not identical to those religious abortion supporters I’ve spoken to who insist abortion is acceptable because it’s killing someone before they’ve developed a “soul”. Neuroscience doesn’t determine WHAT someone or something is. If cerebral material has been damaged, it doesn’t turn a cat into a mouse or a human into a horse. We are what we are regardless of injury or disease, whether we’re talking about neuroscience, ophthalmology, cardiology, etc.
I never claimed a human life didn’t start at conception.
I just wanted to make certain we were in agreement. Glad we got that out of the way. So…You fully acknowledge the gestating human being as a living human being, you just think it should be legal and acceptable for a parent to elect to have their child killed so long as they are young enough. Thanks for your honesty.
As far as we know, you are the sum of what your nervous system takes in throughout the course of your life. Anything else is spirituality.
Ummm…no. What you’re talking about is spirituality, and it’s called “ensoulment”, and it’s an absurd notion on its face. If someone is blind, or deaf, or lacking some other sensory information to or through his/her nervous system, that does not make them less of a human being, or some different species, or anything of the sort. I am a human being = to a blind human being = a deaf human being = a human being with a cognitive disability. We are not limited to being “the sum of what your nervous system takes in”. We are all human beings, regardless of the discrepancies in sensory input or cognition.
“The only reason you feel this way is because you are alive & your life has played out the way it has.” The reason any of us think the way we do is because of the life we’ve experianced.
Nope. I’d feel the way I do about protecting life regardless of what circumstances I’ve been in through my past. If I hadn’t had my crisis pregnancy 9 years ago but it happened tomorrow, I’d still feel just as strongly about protecting the life within me as I do today. I’m honestly surprised that there are people in the world who think it should be acceptable and legal for a parent to opt to kill their offspring.
Seriously? In the former you have no knowledge of the life you are living, in the latter you do.
Once again: So what? Are you saying the less cognizant of one’s existence one is, the more acceptable it is to kill him or her? So it’d be more acceptable to kill a newborn than a 4 year old, and more wrong to kill a teenager than a 10 year old? A sleeping person is ok to kill, but not a conscious person? The criteria you’ve established for acceptable killing of others makes very little sense and seems rather arbitrary.
Which is your perogative. Others may feel morally & ethically obligated to terminate that life before it experianced a life of pain & suffering just for the sake of living.
“just for the sake of living” varies in importance and becomes much more relevant the closer the person speaking gets to being the life being lived to which they are referring.
And what the heck, we’ll add my latest post to the mix since you both have yet to answer that one as well:
“A great many of her logical points”? What, you mean her logical points like how old would I let my kids get before feeling it wasn’t ok to murder them? That’s basically where the conversation devolved to. From where our conversation started with her disparaging my character, to where it was going with her flying off the handle with things I never said(see:I don’t know Jack about her life) I made a decision to try to hit the ignore button with her. It wasn’t worth it to me. Plenty of others on the board were engaging me in a civil manner & not baiting me into an argument or attacking me on a personal level
I see you’re uncomfortable with the very idea of abortion to the point you won’t let yourself think about it when I’ve brought it to your attention. I can see why you’d fly off on some wild tangent of my personal nature and intentionally misconstrue my illustration of what abortion is to a “personal attack”.
Please allow yourself to think about this for a minute.
1.) The gestating human being is in fact a living human being.
2.) That living human being is the biological child of the pregnant woman.
3.) abortion kills this living human being.
4.) abortion is a parent paying a doctor to kill her living child.
Show me I’m wrong. Show me how anything you’re interpreting as a “personal attack” is anything less than cold hard fact you simply don’t like.
In conclusion:
Not so much a question, but more like statements in need of rebutting. Since juror is new and everything, I’d just kindly like to explain to him that this is not a “pissing contest” but in fact what is frequently referred to as a “debate”, and unlike what I can only imagine he is accustomed to (jerking around about which sports teams are better or brand of automobile you prefer) this is so far beyond a “pissing contest” he cannot even fathom it, as literally thousands of lives hang in this balance on a daily basis. But once again, I can see how you both would opt to divert attention to my lack of kindness rather than address the fact that you both support the legality of a parent opting to kill their child.
Doug, I think pro-lifers use the word “baby” to describe an unborn child for two principal reasons:
1) it’s true.
2) it emphasizes the personhood of the unborn child, whereas the modern, attenuated use of the word “fetus”, at least for modern, secular ears, does not. (Native Latin-speakers would not have regarded the word “fetus”–literally, “small boy [or child]“–as indicative of “non-person”; that connotation is a modern innovation.)
Paladin, not so many native Latin speakers around, eh? My point with “baby” is that no, it’s not true, any more than it’s “true” to say “the unborn are not babies.” It can be either way – it’s in the eye of the beholder – it’s not that one person can state that another person’s opinion is wrong, there.
“It emphasizes the personhood” – well, no, it may be a conscious or subconscious attempt to spin things that way, but it is the lack of personhood for the unborn that has pro-lifers upset in the first place.
X: Child is factually accurate for a gestating human being. A simple DNA test would prove as much.
Wrong – “child” is entirely subjective in its application, there.
no. Just…no.
In biology, offspring is the product of reproduction, of a new organism produced by one or more parents.
Collective offspring may be known as a brood or progeny in a more general way. This can refer to a set of simultaneous offspring, such as the chicks hatched from one clutch of eggs, or to all the offspring, as with the honeybee.
Human offspring (descendants) are referred to as children (without reference to age, thus one can refer to a parent’s “minor children” or “adult children”);
No, Doug. Just…no.
In biology, offspring is the product of reproduction, of a new organism produced by one or more parents.
Collective offspring may be known as a brood or progeny in a more general way. This can refer to a set of simultaneous offspring, such as the chicks hatched from one clutch of eggs, or to all the offspring, as with the honeybee.
Human offspring (descendants) are referred to as children (without reference to age, thus one can refer to a parent’s “minor children” or “adult children”);
Doug wrote:
Paladin, not so many native Latin speakers around, eh?
:) Not in my part of the world, at any rate…
My point with “baby” is that no, it’s not true, any more than it’s “true” to say “the unborn are not babies.”
I’ll grant that the word “baby” can be used in a loose, slang-ish manner (e.g. a term of endearment to a beloved romantic partner, etc.); but that doesn’t mean the word is completely “up for grabs”, or that it’s now a card-carrying member of the “relativist’s dictionary”. Given the fact (I’ll discuss this below) that the unborn human child is a person, it’s both appropriate and necessary for us to use language which highlights that fact, rather than falling into the politically-motivated trap of using any Orwellian language which diminishes or denies the personhood of that child (usually for the purpose of granting the speaker the “freedom” to dispose of the child as the speaker sees fit).
It can be either way – it’s in the eye of the beholder – it’s not that one person can state that another person’s opinion is wrong, there.
I’m afraid you’re speaking as something of an absolute relativist, friend (e.g. “your truth for you, my truth for me, there’s no such thing as absolute moral truth”); and that quickly reduces itself to logical nonsense and incoherence. I suppose one could argue that, so long as the true personhood of the human offspring is respected and identified (and not diminished or denied) by one’s language, it’s quite possible to use synonyms for “baby”… such as “small child”, “son”, “daughter”, and the like. But I don’t think that’s what you meant; I suspect you meant that it’s not valid to insist on recognition of the personhood of the child, since you find the personhood of the child to be a mere matter of opinion, and nothing more (which is not true).
“It emphasizes the personhood” – well, no, it may be a conscious or subconscious attempt to spin things that way, but it is the lack of personhood for the unborn that has pro-lifers upset in the first place.
Correction: it is the lack of RECOGNITION of the fact of the personhood of the unborn child (and of the mentally handicapped, the incapacitated, the elderly, the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Christians in Sudan, etc.) that has pro-lifers upset in the first place. The personhood of the child is a raw fact… as cold and hard of a fact as is the multiplication table, or the number of protons in a molecule of Carbon; it’s not a mere fancy, or a hypothetical trifle, or even up for reasonable doubt… and I think I can prove that to you, using your own standards… if you’re game?
Carla wrote:
Hi Paladin. Sorry. No. One derrr. One CC.
Ah. Thank you, anyway! (I’m not quite sure whether to feel good about this, or not: one more troll, but one less pseudonym. Hm.)
Have a good night!
:) You, too… and a good morning!
Paladin,
Mm-hmm. That’s often used as a handsome-sounding way of saying, “Let’s desist, so long as I get the last word!”, you know.
What you are doing with this statement is Exactly the conduct I observed from X continuosly that led for me to hit the ignore button on her(along with her overall uncivil attitude). My EXACT quote “After that I’m going to squash it on my end”. NOWHERE did I say YOU were not free to reply. I was giving YOU the last word if you so chose. I even asked you some questions hoping you would. Which I would read. You seemed level headed enough since you were’nt throwing around words like evil, murder, depraved when talking about people you don’t know. The final series of questions she posted to me I feel for the most part are nonsensical and could not be sincerely constructed from actually reading what I posted prior. I’m not going to waste my time answering them, especially when asked by someone shown to be uncivil. I moved on until being attacked in the Deeeer post. Haven’t commented to her since, nor do I plan to.
As for the body of your response, you appear to be doing an awful lot of “mental gymastics” to excuse the conduct of X in her dialogue with me and others on this blog. I find it odd you equate the singlular snark I made to X (which a reasonable person coming to this site such as I did, could justify based on her overall conduct) with X’s behavior. Also, your logic in equating YOUR sticking your yap into a conversation that didn’t have a single thing to do with you, and my replying to X’s post to Deeer specifically directed to describe me(go back and read the post prior to Deeer) is frankly idiotic.
Third: as I already mentioned, there isn’t a single complaint of yours of which you’re not guilty, yourself
Seriously guy? Show me ONE time I personally attacked another on this blog. Show me ONE time I manipulated another person’s comment. Show me ONE time I have used Hyperbole and painted a group of people with a broad disparaging brush. You can’t. So you won’t.
I consider the discussion you and I are currently engaging in to be a pissing contest because it seems to be non-productive for the most part.IMO. (Unless of course others can learn from how we are discussing our disagreement respectfully and learn from it.)
Now I’ll squash it on my end and give you the final word if you so chose.
xalisae, tl;dr, basically. I didn’t write the original post that you’re responding to so why are you expecting me to respond to your rebuttal? I thought you had a question specifically for me (since you have come after me on many posts accusing me of ignoring it) but… that isn’t directed at me. I can’t speak for juror.
Xalisae: Human offspring (descendants) are referred to as children (without reference to age, thus one can refer to a parent’s “minor children” or “adult children”
X, agreed that you could also say, “my child was conceived on such-and-such date…”
As before, there are different senses of the word. Is a 60 year old a child? No, not in most people’s opinions, though it remains true that they are the children of their parents.
As for “offspring” coming from their parents, well yeah, sure, but the unborn have not “sprung off” yet, eh? ; )
That “children come from parents” isn’t at issue. The sense of the word where the debate lies is in deeming stages of growth and age, etc., and one valid definition is “a person between birth and full growth.”
Paladin: I’ll grant that the word “baby” can be used in a loose, slang-ish manner (e.g. a term of endearment to a beloved romantic partner, etc.); but that doesn’t mean the word is completely “up for grabs”, or that it’s now a card-carrying member of the “relativist’s dictionary”. Given the fact (I’ll discuss this below) that the unborn human child is a person, it’s both appropriate and necessary for us to use language which highlights that fact, rather than falling into the politically-motivated trap of using any Orwellian language which diminishes or denies the personhood of that child (usually for the purpose of granting the speaker the “freedom” to dispose of the child as the speaker sees fit).
Paladin, personhood is a separate thing. For “baby” and “child” there are acceptable and recognized usages where it’s from birth to a later time. Not that those are the only acceptable usages nor that it “has” to be one way or the other.
Personally, I think “unborn baby” is okay – we all know what is meant even if we would not say the same thing ourselves – and I have no problem using it at all.
Past a point in gestation, I do see the fetus being a baby – it looks enough like a baby, etc. However, to say that the zygote, the blastocyst, etc., are “babies” is getting quite far-fetched and ridiculous – my opinion, and it’s certainly a subjective deal. Same thing for “child.”
____
The personhood of the child is a raw fact… as cold and hard of a fact as is the multiplication table, or the number of protons in a molecule of Carbon; it’s not a mere fancy, or a hypothetical trifle, or even up for reasonable doubt… and I think I can prove that to you, using your own standards… if you’re game?
I’m certainly game, but think you are talking about a different thing. I really doubt that you and I disagree on the physical nature of the unborn here – living human organisms, unique DNA, the progeny of the parents, etc.
The meaning of “person” that is at issue is “legal human being” or a living being deemed to be a person in the eyes of society/the law. Personhood is a societal construct. We have our physical reality, but personhood is not a scientific or biological deal.
Juror,
(*sigh*) I’m well aware of the fact that you couldn’t stop me from replying; that wasn’t at all my point. But let that be…
NOTE: if you’d like to skip the give-and-take about our past communications, feel free to skip to my next comment, which is about the tactical issue of the main thread. I write the following, mainly because… well… you asked. I’ll assume that you’ll sit still for the answers, and answer (or not) as you please.
You aimed some rather pointed accusations at Xalisae, some of which were quite specific; intellectual honesty, if nothing else, should require you to prove them, or else retract them. To wit:
1) You claimed that Xalisae, on the basis of “10 or less comments” by you, called you “evil” “despicable” “disingenious” and “depraved”. Now: give me the quotes (and links) where she sad any of the above to you, in that time interval (i.e. “on the basis of 10 or less posts”). If she did, then you should have little trouble finding them, yes? If she didn’t, then you have some serious explaining and/or apologizing to do, regardless of your feelings toward her (or me).
2) You claim, “Not once in any of my comments did I denigrate her intelligence.” Well… I think especially of the following comment: “It’s surely not by discussing things with others in a rational manner & trying to bring them around”, and the preceding comments about expecting her violent appearance on the news. If it assuages your conscience to think, “I didn’t slight her intelligence! I just said that she’s too insane and irrational to implement it!”, in order to salvage something of your position, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Again: I’ll let the reader be the judge.
3) You also claim: “Also, your logic in equating YOUR sticking your yap into a conversation that didn’t have a single thing to do with you, and my replying to X’s post to Deeer specifically directed to describe me(go back and read the post prior to Deeer) is frankly idiotic.” Your hyperbolic and crass (and insulting) characterization aside, I’d ask: can you please show me what words prove to you that Xalisae “specifically directed [any particular criticism] to describe you”? Humour me. Quote it for me, and highlight (with bold, or italics, or ALL-CAPS, or what-have-you) the part where she leaves no reasonable doubt that you are her specific “target”… since that’s precisely what you’re claiming, here. Or… were you painting with a bit more broad of a brush than you intended? :)
4) You repeatedly accuse me of failing to read Xalisae’s (and your) old posts, and you based a good deal of your previous argument on that idea. I call you on that (and tell you that you’re flatly wrong), and you now pass over that in silence. Will we not get so much as an “okay, my bad” out of you, on that point?
5) You ask: “Seriously guy? Show me ONE time I personally attacked another on this blog.” All right…
“You are comical. How exactly do you do your part? Voter fraud? It’s surely not by discussing things with others in a rational manner & trying to bring them around. By the tone of some of your posts I wouldn’t be the least bit suprised to hear about you on the news at some point. If you take some notes from posters like RCJC & Tommy R., who express their thoughts without rightous condescension, you might actually get someone to listen to you instead of putting you in the category of a fanatical kook.” (attacking Xalisae)
Would that do?
In summary: your whole case against Xalisae seems to boil down to three points:
1) You don’t like her tone. (Fair enough.)
2) You claim that she attacked you personally, and that she specifically called you “evil” “despicable” “disingenious” and “depraved” (which, you claim, was the provocation which triggered your own insults toward her). Nowhere do I see anything of the sort; and unless you can give proof to the contrary, I’ll need to start questioning your honesty, as well as your logic and care with details.
3) You dismiss her arguments on the pretext that “you don’t like her tone” and “the questions are crazy”. The questions are not at all “crazy”, and I really do think (unless I’ve underestimated you) that you can at least make an attempt to answer them. Direct your answer to the board as a whole (and not to Xalisae), if you like; but “dodging” them with the excuse that “I don’t like the messenger” is–with all due respect–coming across as a bit craven.
Show me One time I manipulated another person’s comment.
You’d have to explain what you mean by that vague-sounding charge, before I could answer.
Show me one time I have used Hyperbole
Do you recall your stated “expectations to see Xalisae on the news, someday”?
and painted a group of people with a broad disparaging brush.
Hm. Again, I’m not sure how to answer such a subjective charge. In the meantime: do you find it better to paint individuals with a broad and disparaging brush (e.g. writing Xalisae off as a “potentially explosive nut-case”, and dismissing my efforts as “idiotic” and “cherry-picking”–which I’ve already told you was quite false)?
You can’t. So you won’t.
What did you say about “assumptions”, earlier? My dear fellow: you’ve denigrate others and called it “mere snark”; you’ve “assume” and “used hyperbole” and “disrespected” others, while giving yourself a free pass in those regards. If you’ll forgive the Christian aphorism: perhaps you might dislodge the plank in your own eye before attempting an extraction of detritus from the eyes of others?
As I mentioned earlier: I’ll follow this post with some “tactical questions” about the topic at hand (which you claimed to prefer), which you will, hopefully, find a bit less urea-laden to your tastes. :) But again: you asked these questions, and you asked me to back up my allegations; hence my reply, here.
Jill’s original question was, “If abortion proponents admit a baby is being killed, will the rate subside?” May I respectfully suggest, against all semantic quibbles to the contrary, that this question would lose none of its force if it were re-worded to read, “If abortion proponents admit a child is being killed, will the rate subside?” I really don’t see such a substitution making any appreciable difference; true?
The answer depends almost completely on two things: (1) whether or not the abortion-proponents can recognize an unborn human offspring as a baby/child/person, and (2) whether or not they care (or care enough to deny themselves what they take to be a convenient “right”). I find the question to be rather frightening, in one sense: there’s no real limits to the depravity and self-delusion of the human mind, especially when fighting to retain some self-gratifying thing to which it’s become dependent/addicted (such as “sex without limits”… or, more accurately, “sex without any limits with which I don’t personally agree”). Dr. Peter Singer, for example, has shown that abortion-tolerant folk are quite capable of defending abortion so stridently that “4th-trimester abortions” (once called “infanticide” by the unenlightened who cling to the myths of their religions and objective moral codes) are excused.
Case in point: since no one with any knowledge of the topic (and with any honesty can deny that a direct, procured abortion kills a woman’s own human offspring, it remains only to determine the personhood of that offspring, and to determine how to make anyone care, if they have a vested interest in refusing to care.
I’ll offer the first challenge. I would assert, for example, that plain common sense would ordinarily lead one to protect the offspring of a human person as vigorously as they would defend the life of any other human person. I can only think of a few morally coherent exceptions: such as, if the offspring is already dead, if there is no possible way to save the offspring, and such.
Those who feel that abortion should be allowed at the demand of the mother (or, more often than not, at the demand of those who coerced her into procuring the abortion): could you explain why you think so? Given that the “default” position of human morality is (and I challenge anyone to argue otherwise) “defend human offspring with the same vigour by which you would defend the offspring’s parents”, it would seem that the new “right to kill that offspring” is an aberration which would need to be justified. What say you?
JackBorsch –“Well, I am a supporter of liberty and freedom, until it harms someone else.”
Being new to the blog, I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic or not in this post. Can you clarify what you mean by “harm” since it encompasses a huge spectrum. Also, if you weren’t being sarcastic, wouldn’t in death during childbirth constitute “harm” to the mother?
Doug wrote:
Paladin, personhood is a separate thing. For “baby” and “child” there are acceptable and recognized usages where it’s from birth to a later time.
…or in an earlier time; yes. But my point was this: in the same way that we use personal pronouns (he, she, you, etc.) rather than impersonal pronouns (it, that, etc.) to describe already-born persons, we should also use personhood-honouring words (baby, child, etc.) to describe the offspring of a human mother, in common parleyance (so as not to desenstitze the culture to the humanity/personhood of the unborn child. We should avoid exclusive use of the word “fetus” or “conceptus” or other word that sounds sterile and im-“personal” to the ears of the layman, when referring to such human offspring (though they can be used properly in a strictly scientific sense, as could, say, a classification of a human as “carbon-based construct”, but no one would use that as a normative way to refer to, say, one’s mother… save, perhaps, as a joke).
Not that those are the only acceptable usages nor that it “has” to be one way or the other.
That sounds rather handsome and generous… but I’m afraid it simply won’t do. The personhood of every human is a fact that can be proven (though the proof is tedious), and it can be demonstrated even by recourse to the moral codes of the vast majority of people who are abortion-tolerant. Frankly, the reason most people are abortion-tolerant is that they simply haven’t thought the issue through to its conclusions… and they usually have emotion-based, vested interests in preventing themselves from such thinking. Therein lies a key difficulty; “the man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”, as the old saying goes.
Personally, I think “unborn baby” is okay – we all know what is meant even if we would not say the same thing ourselves – and I have no problem using it at all.
All right. But my main point was not so much the use (or lack of the use) of any given word in any given instance, per se; rather, I’m concerned with the import, the meaning, of that word. If you avoid the words “child” and “baby” because you seek to reject the personhood of that child, then we have a problem.
Past a point in gestation, I do see the fetus being a baby – it looks enough like a baby, etc.
Well… surely you see how opinion-based and subjective that is? It cannot help but be abused; some shallow, narrow-minded people have looked at those of different skin-colour and think, “that looks so little like me that I must reject the idea of personhood for it; other ‘lower primates’ [sic] have superficial resemblance to humans without being ‘persons’, after all!” The same can be said of those who are born with cleft palates, with harelips, without arms and legs, etc.; to deny them recognition of their personhood, and to relegate them to the status of “non-persons” (usually for the purpose of giving yourself permission to abuse and/or destroy them) is a monstrous injustice.
However, to say that the zygote, the blastocyst, etc., are “babies” is getting quite far-fetched and ridiculous – my opinion, and it’s certainly a subjective deal. Same thing for “child.”
Be careful with the terms, here: to say that one small aspect of a situation is “a matter of opinion” is not at all the same as thinking that the whole lot of it is a “mere matter of opinion”. One can, for example, hypothetically refrain from calling a child in the blastocyst stage a “baby”, while still recognizing his/her personhood and personal rights (including the right to life).
I’m certainly game, but think you are talking about a different thing. I really doubt that you and I disagree on the physical nature of the unborn here – living human organisms, unique DNA, the progeny of the parents, etc.
Those are valid ideas, but no: I wasn’t going to use any of those. I was going to examine your own (personal) moral code, regarding the respect of personal rights of other humans, and show that your own views are internally inconsistent (i.e. somethign must be wrong with them, somewhere).
The meaning of “person” that is at issue is “legal human being” or a living being deemed to be a person in the eyes of society/the law.
Again: “personhood” is quite distinct from “legal recognition of personhood”. More on that, below.
Personhood is a societal construct.
That is precisely what it is NOT. Consider: society gives “legal recognition” to the death of a person by issuing a death certificate… but the death certificate is meant to reflect a physical, ontological (i.e. not simply in our minds) reality; it doesn’t “bring about” what it describes. For example: there are cases where a death certificate has been issues in error (and the poor person may have a devil of a time getting his “identity” back, re: his credit cards, his ability to vote, etc.), but the legal recognition was obviously detached from the raw fact; there are also cases where the “dead” have been “allowed” to vote (i.e. in cases of fraud), but the registered vote (assuming it wasn’t caught) does not, however, enact an actual resurrection of the voter. No… legal recognition is (when it functions properly) the servant of reality, not its author.
Now, there are some instances where legal recognition does enact something (such as papers to define a corporation, etc.); but the thing enacted is a raw legal construct, not an ontological reality (such as the personhood and personal rights of a human). This is why we can denounce the Nazi tortures, experients, and killings of Jews (and many others) as objective atrocoties, and not merely “unsuited to our personal tastes”. Accidentally giving someone a food that they find revolting is not a moral evil; torturing that someone to death for the sake of “science”, however, is.
We have our physical reality, but personhood is not a scientific or biological deal.
I’ll agree that personhood is not strictly a scientific or biological issue (though both can supply ample reason for recognizing the already-present personhood of any human, at any stage of development); but it’s not at all necessary that it should be.
“If abortion proponents admit a child is being killed, will the rate subside?” I really don’t see such a substitution making any appreciable difference; true?
Totally agree, Paladin, and a very good post by you. As before, I’d note that “child” or not is in the eye of the beholder. For example, two gametes get together and make a cell – the zygote. Now, is that really “a child”? For many people, me included, the answer is no.
____
(1) whether or not the abortion-proponents can recognize an unborn human offspring as a baby/child/person, and (2) whether or not they care (or care enough to deny themselves what they take to be a convenient “right”).
We are all not agreed on what that means, however. Are we just talking about the physical reality of the unborn, or are we bringing legal status, etc., into it?
I’m with you on “caring enough” – the argument revolves around what people care about, and how much they do so.
____
I’ll offer the first challenge. I would assert, for example, that plain common sense would ordinarily lead one to protect the offspring of a human person as vigorously as they would defend the life of any other human person. I can only think of a few morally coherent exceptions: such as, if the offspring is already dead, if there is no possible way to save the offspring, and such.
Those who feel that abortion should be allowed at the demand of the mother (or, more often than not, at the demand of those who coerced her into procuring the abortion): could you explain why you think so?
I’m not for coercion, though I’d think it would be unusual for the pregnant woman or girl to be making the decison in a total vacuum, without any input from others. Short of being physically compelled against her will, it’s still up to her, even if others have strong feelings about it. Yes – there are some “horror stories” of coercion, and it goes both ways – wasn’t there a pregnant girl whose parents tied her to a chair to prevent her from going to have an abortion?
If we say that common sense is protecting others, then it’s also wanting others to be free. In both cases there will be exceptions due to circumstance, etc. In lieu of anything else, yeah – we tend to protect others. Same for allowing others freedom.
So now there’s a conflict when the pregnant woman’s freedom of action comes against the desire to protect the unborn – she wants to end the pregnancy, others want her unborn baby to live. (There, I said “unborn baby.” : )
I don’t see that we as a society, or as the whole human race, etc., need every pregnancy to continue all the way to birth. I think that miscarriages can be very sad for the people involved, when they want to have a baby. I know that many people think abortion is sad. In the case of abortion, do we really have a need to try and compel a given woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, though? I don’t think so.
Some others will want her to, but she is the one who is pregnant, and even if one feels that the greatest good, no matter what, comes in continuing the pregnancy, one must still realize that the issues of liberty and bodily autonomy are real ones.
To a point in gestation, I don’t think the unborn can suffer – they have no conscious sensation, emotion, etc. Overall, I probably give the total amount of suffering a lot of weight in the abortion debate. I know that some people suffer just from the fact that abortion is legal, but I still give the pregnant woman the nod since the baby is in her body. To a point in gestation, I see the greatest good as allowing her to choose to keep the pregnancy going or to end it.
RCJC,
“I will rephrase. All humans have a right to life free from another’s unjustified attempts to alter their life for the worse. Can you disagree with that? The next point that I have to prove is that abortion is an unjustified act.”
What is just and moral is not absolute IMO. Life challenges us with many moral dilemmas. Human’s, like many organisms, have a strong emotional response of empathy for our fellow humans when we concieve or witness suffering. That evolutionary drive is so strong it can happen to the point of harm to ourselves. To go with that, we try to minimize the harm/suffering that we inflict on our individual selfs. If one views that pain/suffering as being above a certain threshold and beyond hope, they might take action to stop it by commiting suicide.
An unborn baby can’t concieve of the possible pain/suffering it could be challenged with. Even if it could it can’t to anything about it. We can percieve it, we can do something about it. While one person may be fine conceptualizing themselves living out their life had they been born with Ty-sachs or having their mother die birthing them, others may not.
Doug wrote:
As before, I’d note that “child” or not is in the eye of the beholder. For example, two gametes get together and make a cell – the zygote. Now, is that really “a child”? For many people, me included, the answer is no.
Well… that begs at least two necessary questions:
1) How did you settle your mind, on the matter [of the “child-ness” of the new offspring]? Do you have reasoning to support it, or is it mere personal taste (such as your taste or distaste for avocados)?
2) The fact that the word “child” can be stretched for use in varied contexts (as a metaphor, etc.) does not detract from the fact that it always (practically by definition) connotes personhood; and it is as proper to address a 1-celled offspring as “child” as it would be proper to refer to one’s mother as “her, rather than as “it”.
[Paladin]
(1) whether or not the abortion-proponents can recognize an unborn human offspring as a baby/child/person, and (2) whether or not they care (or care enough to deny themselves what they take to be a convenient “right”).
[Doug]
We are all not agreed on what that means, however. Are we just talking about the physical reality of the unborn, or are we bringing legal status, etc., into it?
None of the above (if I understand you correctly). The physical reality of the unborn is self-evident, and no one is arguing against it; the legal status of the unborn is accidental (in the philosophical sense of being non-essential to the situation), and it could be changed by the vote of a fickle majority (or the decree of a dictator, etc.). Neither of them prove or disprove the personhood of the unborn child, one way or the other.
I’m with you on “caring enough” – the argument revolves around what people care about, and how much they do so.
Right. I’m willing to concede the fact that many who promote legal abortion do so out of some conscious sense of doing what they think to be right and best (though I suspect that many–if not most–of those who promote legal abortion do so out of motives and thinking that is murky, muddled, and sometimes tainted with shallow self-interest); I certainly assert that the majority of pro-legal-abortion supporters take their position out of profound ignorance (of the procedure itself, of human nature, of objective morality, and more).
[Paladin]
Those who feel that abortion should be allowed at the demand of the mother (or, more often than not, at the demand of those who coerced her into procuring the abortion): could you explain why you think so?
[Doug]
I’m not for coercion, though I’d think it would be unusual for the pregnant woman or girl to be making the decison in a total vacuum, without any input from others.
True. By “coercion”, I mean any morally illicit (e.g. dishonest, malicious, etc.) means by which the woman’s choice–and awareness of the reality of all dynamics of the situation–is impaired through misinformation, threats, physical violence, etc.
Short of being physically compelled against her will, it’s still up to her, even if others have strong feelings about it.
That’s true, legally speaking (and in a pure “free-will” sense); but that’s quite beside the point of establishing the personhood of the offspring (and of the moral evil of attacking/killing that offspring). The mere fact that one is “free” to make a choice says nothing about the moral gradient of that choice. I, for instance, am physically and legally “free” to purchase a handgun and ammo, and proceed to shoot the first 6 people who cross my path; but my freedom in choosing the act says nothing about the morality of the act (which is decidedly evil).
Yes – there are some “horror stories” of coercion, and it goes both ways – wasn’t there a pregnant girl whose parents tied her to a chair to prevent her from going to have an abortion?
I have no idea. But even in that case, a great deal hinges on the question of “is the offspring a human person, with human rights”? If so, then a great many means/actions which would otherwise be immoral can become justified. (Consider: is it immoral for medical personnel and/or police to strap down a person who’s determined to kill himself or someone else? Such restraint would be immoral, without proportionately grave and relevant reason.)
If we say that common sense is protecting others, then it’s also wanting others to be free.
Yes… but one must have a proper understanding of “freedom”. Freedom is not simply “doing whatever I please” (that’s the definition of “license”, not freedom); freedom is living in perfect harmony with one’s nature. That may sound a bit philosophical and “heady”, but consider: is a fish truly “free” if one “frees” it from the confines of the water, and flips it into a tree? Hardly; its death quickly follows. We humans are not truly “free” if we were to be “freed” from the atmosphere of the Earth (without a portable environment); we would die in short order. True “freedom” (which, I assume, you’d agree should be “desirable”, yes? Otherwise, why fight for it as a “right”?) is living in accord with our true nature (e.g. fish in water, human in air, moral creature within a proper moral framework, etc.). Anyone with sense knows that pure anarchy (an absence of all legal restrictions) is not freedom, but chaos and danger, since someone else’s “freedom” might involve harming or killing me!
In both cases there will be exceptions due to circumstance, etc.
Well… yes, though such “exceptions” are built into the true definitions of “freedom” and “personhood”‘ they’re not violations of them.
In lieu of anything else, yeah – we tend to protect others. Same for allowing others freedom.
True (though there are more or less grave circumstances, and lesser and greater freedoms, threats to life, etc., and those proportions must be taken into consideration, realistically and with a cool head).
So now there’s a conflict when the pregnant woman’s freedom of action comes against the desire to protect the unborn – she wants to end the pregnancy, others want her unborn baby to live. (There, I said “unborn baby.” : )
:) Bravo, sir! But as to your point: it’s not merely a conflict of “wishes”, but it involves objective (i.e. beyond anyone’s feelings or personal thoughts/views) morality, which cannot simply be a matter of taking a poll of the interested parties. Even if 100% of the other members of the world voted to torture a toddler to death, that would not justify it; the “real” morality stands, solid as a rock, to deny such a monstrosity. Wouldn’t you agree?
I don’t see that we as a society, or as the whole human race, etc., need every pregnancy to continue all the way to birth.
Hm. Two replies to that:
1) The idea of society’s “need” is painfully vague, in this instance. Society does not strictly “need” you or me to remain alive, for that matter; but would that make it morally licit for anyone to kill (or otherwise harm) us?
2) We are, of course, talking about the direct act of killing an unborn offspring (i.e. ending a pregnancy “by force”, if you will), and not about simply “having a pregnancy end” (which is more of a proper description of “miscarriage”).
I think that miscarriages can be very sad for the people involved, when they want to have a baby.
Certainly; they’re usually devastating… and I wouldn’t restrict it only to people who look forward to the birth with enthusiasm.
I know that many people think abortion is sad.
That doesn’t really capture the dynamics of the situation, here; many people (rightly) find abortion to be an abomination, a moral outrage, and a crime against humanity. That’s a bit more than merely feeling “sad” (though that would almost certainly be in the mix, somewhere). For example: if my grandmother had been murdered instead of dying of “natural causes”, do you see how both my emotions and my intellect would view it as utterly different? Both would certainly involve a dead grandmother, and both would involve sadness… but that’s not really saying much. One might as well say that there’s no substantial difference between making sausage out of lentils, and making sausage out of one’s neighbour, since both involve the killing of living material for the purposes of producing food! :)
In the case of abortion, do we really have a need to try and compel a given woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, though? I don’t think so.
Well… with all due respect: I’d say that that’s almost an entirely backwards way to view the matter… and it quietly (and illogically) assumes the NON-personhood of the child in order to make its point. This fact becomes rather obvious if I change the words and details, just a bit: if my mother were to have slain me in my sleep, in order not to “continue her motherhood against her will”, don’t you think there’s be a moral problem with that?
Some others will want her to, but she is the one who is pregnant,
…and the child is the one whose life will certainly end if an abortion is procured. Do remember that.
and even if one feels that the greatest good, no matter what, comes in continuing the pregnancy,
Again: that’s not an accurate way to characterize the situation. We (pro-lifers) want to avoid the moral crime of murder (i.e. the unjust killing of another human person); and abortion is murder (in that moral, not-necessarily-legal [more’s the pity] sense), so we find it to be a moral imperative to stop it (to the extent that’s humanly possible: making it illegal would be a good start). We’re not talking about forbidding a woman from continuing dance lessons, or continue wearing her hair in a certain fashion!
one must still realize that the issues of liberty and bodily autonomy are real ones.
Of course. But the issues of the sanctity of human life is a real one, as well… and I think you’d agree that, all things being equal, it’s a more important one. It’s certainly of higher priority (i.e. one must have life, first, in order to have any liberty and/or bodily autonomy at all).
To a point in gestation, I don’t think the unborn can suffer – they have no conscious sensation, emotion, etc.
That might be true… but again (as Xalisae tirelessly tried to point out to Juror and Derrr), no sane person thinks that murder is wrong purely because it causes suffering to the victim (especially since many murders do not). Any suffering caused by a murder INCREASES the evil of the act, but it does not define it.
Overall, I probably give the total amount of suffering a lot of weight in the abortion debate.
I understand… but I’d gently suggest that this idea is mistaken.
I know that some people suffer just from the fact that abortion is legal, but I still give the pregnant woman the nod since the baby is in her body.
Well… again: pro-lifers do not view abortion as amoral evil simply because it happens to distress pro-lifers! Intellectual recognition of the moral evil of murder is quite distinct from any emotional reaction (negative or otherwise) to it.
To a point in gestation, I see the greatest good as allowing her to choose to keep the pregnancy going or to end it.
I see. But: in order for a logical argument to be sound, two things have to happen: (1) the premises (starting assumptions) must be true, and (2) the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. You do #2 fairly well, here, but I’d assert that your starting premises (e.g. the issue of abortion is all about comparing the feelings/suffering of all involved) are incorrect.
Paladin,
If 100% of the members of the world voted to allow a toddler to naturally be tortured till death even if they could have prevented it, do you think that would be a moral decision? You very well may, but I think it is going to be an impossible thing to convince to the majority of people.
Paladin,
Here you go. The first one of the group is the one prompting my snarky reply to her:
“I don’t care about depraved hearts and minds who think killing children should be acceptable legal behavior. I just want it illegal, and I do my part already in that respect”
“I give what’s deserved to those who deserve it. Anyone who advocates the legalized killing of innocent children by the hands of those who were meant to heal at the behest of their own parents deserves nothing less than my distilled malice and undying hatred. Enjoy. ^_^ ”
“I’ll admit, I got bristled first because you seemed to present yourself as if you were Mr. Impartial, and I could smell the abortion support dripping off of you from a mile away. I can’t help that I’m a good judge of character and detest disingenuousness”
“apparently they have a glut of ill-informed individuals in Florida they keep around specifically for jury duty.”
“Here’s some information for you, since you seem to be in desperate need of facts”
“Compassion” for killers and attempted killers doesn’t belong in a court of law. If you make your decisions based on such emotional notions, I don’t think you’re doing as good of a job as a juror as Jespren thinks you are“
If 100% of the members of the world voted to allow a toddler to naturally be tortured till death even if they could have prevented it, do you think that would be a moral decision? You very well may, but I think it is going to be an impossible thing to convince to the majority of people.
Depends on how you’re talking about preventing that. Pain meds, operations, medical treatment, emotional support and intervention, sure. But if you’re talking about “preventing” a toddler’s suffering by killing them as an infant, you’re just changing out a naturally occurring atrocity for a man-made one. They are equal in horror if the latter does not surpass the former (as the latter can be prevented [there’s that word again] by simply refraining from acting to kill the child while the former cannot be prevented because it’s just a natural circumstance).
I certainly wouldn’t want someone with such a mindset to fancy themselves as doing me a favor when all I want is help to heal.
“I don’t care about depraved hearts and minds who think killing children should be acceptable legal behavior. I just want it illegal, and I do my part already in that respect”
I fail to see how thinking that it should be legal for a parent to opt to have their child executed as long as he or she is young enough is not depraved. It is at the very least misguided, although I think that’s being generous. If you’re insulted by that statement, perhaps you should re-evaluate your position?
“I give what’s deserved to those who deserve it. Anyone who advocates the legalized killing of innocent children by the hands of those who were meant to heal at the behest of their own parents deserves nothing less than my distilled malice and undying hatred. Enjoy. ^_^ ”
I’ll freely admit that that was just trying to get a rise out of Durrrr. She annoys me with her pseudo-Christianity when she preaches at me. I don’t see how someone who advocates the legal killing of a child by his or her parents can sit there and tell me how much more righteous they are than I. 9_9
“I’ll admit, I got bristled first because you seemed to present yourself as if you were Mr. Impartial, and I could smell the abortion support dripping off of you from a mile away. I can’t help that I’m a good judge of character and detest disingenuousness”
If you explained adequately how you weren’t being disingenuous at the outset that really wouldn’t apply to you, would it?
“apparently they have a glut of ill-informed individuals in Florida they keep around specifically for jury duty.”
“Here’s some information for you, since you seem to be in desperate need of facts”
And you’ve yet to prove to me you are anything but ill-informed and in need of facts. You’ve opted not to rebut any of the points I’ve made in previous posts, so as far as I am concerned, those two statements are statements of fact rather than insults, and if you’re so well-informed, prove it by addressing what I’ve said instead of feigning scarred sensibilities at my demeanor so that you don’t have to answer.
“Compassion” for killers and attempted killers doesn’t belong in a court of law. If you make your decisions based on such emotional notions, I don’t think you’re doing as good of a job as a juror as Jespren thinks you are“
How is my opinion of you as a juror an insult? Are you a professional juror? Is it the sole defining aspect of your being? Critiquing someone’s performance in something they’ve not been formerly trained to do is to be expected. This is a clear-cut (in my opinion) case of you being deliberately over-sensitive in order to avoid debate and skirt issues. Also, if you’ll notice, there’s a conditional there: “If you make your decisions based on emotional notions…” further down the line you mentioned something about this decision not having anything to do with emotion or your pro-legal-abortion stance. Therefore, that remark wouldn’t even apply to you, would it?
Oh, how the tables have turned. I refuse to let you tell me that I am any less Christian because I believe in a woman’s right to choose.
“Christian” pro-legal-abortionists: Go to God and ask him this for me: “A woman’s right to choose what?” See what He says.
Juror wrote:
If 100% of the members of the world voted to allow a toddler to naturally be tortured till death even if they could have prevented it, do you think that would be a moral decision?
Er… you may have to unpack this one for me, a bit. First: how is it possible for a toddler to be “naturally tortured to death”? Torture involves a moral agent, does it not? Ir did you mean this to be a metaphorical way of saying that the toddler died of a painful natural illness? Second, perhaps you mean “morally good” decision or “morally licit” decision? All decisions involving right and wrong are moral decisions, whether they be morally good or morally evil.
I’ll assume that you mean to ask: “would it be morally licit for 100% of the [other] members of the world to vote to allow the preventable death (by some natural but agonizing means) of a toddler?” In that case: absolutely not. I can’t help but think, however, that you missed my point entirely. I was trying to show that morality is objective, and not simply a construct of a given mind, society, or plurality of votes. As such, I would not think that it would be morally licit for the world to kill a toddler (or allow him/her to die needlessly), regardless of the number of votes; that was my entire point. Approval or disapproval by society does not determine morality, at all, per se.
You very well may,
What on earth gave you that idea?
but I think it is going to be an impossible thing to convince to the majority of people.
(?? Er… your syntax was a bit scrambled in that sentence, sir.)
Not only would I have no desire to convince anyone of any such thing, but it was not at all the point I was trying to make. Is that now clear?
Juror,
I’m not quite certain whether to reply to your latest list (re: Xalisae) or not. Would this qualify as a “urea-spraying” match, in your eyes, if I did? I certainly will, if you’ve changed your mind on the subject (as there are a great many things which you’d gotten quite wrong, in it); but if not, I’d rather not distract you from the main point at hand. Let me know, one way or the other.
“Being new to the blog, I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic or not in this post. Can you clarify what you mean by “harm” since it encompasses a huge spectrum. Also, if you weren’t being sarcastic, wouldn’t in death during childbirth constitute “harm” to the mother?”
I was poking fun at the “my body, my choice” argument. I think it’s ridiculous, because there is another body involved in abortion, and this body is always killed (some choice for the fetus, eh?).
Paladin, good discussion. I have to drive today, but will respond to the rest of your post later. For now:
1) How did you settle your mind, on the matter [of the “child-ness” of the new offspring]? Do you have reasoning to support it, or is it mere personal taste (such as your taste or distaste for avocados)?
Just personal feeling, as in “when does it really start looking like a baby,” the same as it’s subjective (at least to some extent) when the 8 month old or 1 year old, etc., “stops being a baby.” That the unborn are products of the parents isn’t at issue, but the terms we apply to stages of development, growth, etc., are.
___
2) The fact that the word “child” can be stretched for use in varied contexts (as a metaphor, etc.) does not detract from the fact that it always (practically by definition) connotes personhood; and it is as proper to address a 1-celled offspring as “child” as it would be proper to refer to one’s mother as “her, rather than as “it”
From my point of view – yes, “child” means personhood since I’m seeing it as after birth, and thus society has deemed personhood to be present, i.e. the born are full, legal human beings in the sense that’s a good bit of the abortion debate.
Yet if one maintains that “child” applies before birth, then personhood is thus not the same thing. It’s not, anyway, as for the born there is both the physical reality and then the status they are accorded. You and I are still missing each other, somewhat, here, since you are approaching it as if personhood is a matter of physical reality – correct me if I’m wrong – while I’m saying it’s a societal construct, a matter of status that’s conferred.
Juror: If 100% of the members of the world voted to allow a toddler to naturally be tortured till death even if they could have prevented it, do you think that would be a moral decision? You very well may, but I think it is going to be an impossible thing to convince to the majority of people.
Well, that 100% would think it’s a moral decision. Yet then you portray people opposing that. In reality, there’s no significant argument for that. There is vast commonality, all around the world, on many such issues, and thus the laws tend to be the same in so many countries.
Abortion is quite a special case, IMO, since there are huge amounts of sentiment on both sides.
Paladin: I was trying to show that morality is objective, and not simply a construct of a given mind, society, or plurality of votes.
Doesn’t morality have to come from the mind, by definition? Even if we hypothesize that it’s from the mind of God, it’s still a matter of ideas and ideals within the mind, rather than anything existing externally from the mind.
From my point of view – yes, “child” means personhood since I’m seeing it as after birth, and thus society has deemed personhood to be present, i.e. the born are full, legal human beings in the sense that’s a good bit of the abortion debate.
But the word “child” is applicable before birth. And do you really want to get into the historical instances when society has deemed huge swaths of the population as “non-persons”? The precedent which has been historically set does not bode well for your case. Personally, I’d still believe myself to be a person regardless of society’s opinion of me. I’m all self-assured like that. *strut*
Yet if one maintains that “child” applies before birth, then personhood is thus not the same thing. It’s not, anyway, as for the born there is both the physical reality and then the status they are accorded. You and I are still missing each other, somewhat, here, since you are approaching it as if personhood is a matter of physical reality – correct me if I’m wrong – while I’m saying it’s a societal construct, a matter of status that’s conferred.
It HAS to be a physical reality, Doug, or else then you get into all kinds of bad kharma crap. You arguing the case you are right now is arguing for every wide-scale social injustice and atrocity that has ever been carried out against groups of others deemed “non-persons” by society. How can you not see this is an inherently unjust philosophy you hold?
Xalisae: “Personally, I’d still believe myself to be a person regardless of society’s opinion of me. I’m all self-assured like that. *strut*” LOL! YEAH, YOU WOULD!! Love it.
And:
“You arguing the case you are right now is arguing for every wide-scale social injustice and atrocity that has ever been carried out against groups of others deemed “non-persons” by society. How can you not see this is an inherently unjust philosophy you hold?” === spot on, though such clarity generally elicits eyerolls and groans of, “But this is different!”
“HOW is it different?”
“It’s not a person!”
Then it’s our turn to groan, as we’ve completed yet another loop in the circular, deadly reasoning of those who view abortion as an acceptable “choice”.
Doug wrote:
I have to drive today, but will respond to the rest of your post later.
No rush; real life does have a habit of intruding on conversations like these! :)
[Paladin]
1) How did you settle your mind, on the matter [of the “child-ness” of the new offspring]? Do you have reasoning to support it, or is it mere personal taste (such as your taste or distaste for avocados)?
[Doug]
Just personal feeling, as in “when does it really start looking like a baby,” the same as it’s subjective (at least to some extent) when the 8 month old or 1 year old, etc., “stops being a baby.” That the unborn are products of the parents isn’t at issue, but the terms we apply to stages of development, growth, etc., are.
Well… all right. But since the issue of “baby vs. non-baby, person vs. non-person” involves the difference between life and death (by dismemberment, usually), do you see how the stakes are a bit higher in this case? No one’s waiting in the wings to rip a child limb-from-limb as soon as he/she is not longer classified as “a baby” by someone, right? A baby isn’t marked for death by being “re-classified” as a toddler, or a teenager, or what-have-you. But the United States alone has done just that, in the case of unborn children who are classified as “non-persons” for the sake of killing them, at least 50,000,000 times. To use a grotesque understatement: that’s rather a serious matter. That’s why this fight is going on. It’s not simply a matter of a “difference of opinion”.
[Paladin]
2) The fact that the word “child” can be stretched for use in varied contexts (as a metaphor, etc.) does not detract from the fact that it always (practically by definition) connotes personhood; and it is as proper to address a 1-celled offspring as “child” as it would be proper to refer to one’s mother as “her, rather than as “it”
[Doug]
From my point of view – yes, “child” means personhood since I’m seeing it as after birth, and thus society has deemed personhood to be present, i.e. the born are full, legal human beings in the sense that’s a good bit of the abortion debate.
Xalisae already addressed this, but: society has only the power to *recognize* or *acknowledge* the already-present, already-existing personhood of any given person; it has no more power to “create” personhood than it has the power to “create” matter out of nothing. Hitler and his ilk used the idea of “government not deeming Jews to be persons” for the purpose of exploiting and exterminating (i.e. murdering) millions of them. The United States (and other countries) used the idea of “not deeming blacks to be persons” for the purpose of treating black people as property to be used, raped, tortured, and/or thrown away (i.e. murdered) at the discretion of the “owner”. (Look up “Dred Scott v. Sanford”, the U.S. Supreme Court case which declared that “the negro has no rights that the white man is bound to respect”. BTW: the pro-life movement has always seen a clear parallel between that wretched and objectively wrong decision, and the wretched and objectively wrong decisions of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bulton.)
Yet if one maintains that “child” applies before birth, then personhood is thus not the same thing.
I’m not sure I follow what you mean; can you explain that a bit?
It’s not, anyway, as for the born there is both the physical reality and then the status they are accorded.
That’s part of my point: merely “according” someone a status does not change their ontological reality. If I regard you (God forbid) as a non-person bit of meat, inasmuch as I declare myself free to kill you at will, that wouldn’t make it right or just, even if the laws of the United States were somehow amended to allow it! (You might be tempted to dismiss that [idea of changing USA laws to allow such] as wildly improbable; but if your skin were black in the early 1800’s or earlier, or if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, you might not be so quick to think so. Every last Nazi murder of every last Jew under their power was perfectly legal, under the laws of Germany of the time. Just so with the abuses in the USA of black slaves. This is not far-fetched; this is grim reality, and it is historical fact, and it can happen again, and it IS happening again.)
You and I are still missing each other, somewhat, here, since you are approaching it as if personhood is a matter of physical reality – correct me if I’m wrong – while I’m saying it’s a societal construct, a matter of status that’s conferred.
And I’m saying that not even you believe that! You do not (correct me if I’m wrong) support the torture, medical “experimentation”, and murder inflicted on the Jews under Nazi rule, do you? If not, why not? You must be appealing to something beyond mere “social recognition of personhood”… because “society” had not granted the Jews “status as persons”, and they acted accordingly… just as our country is doing with unborn children.
As an aside: if you think the pro-legal-abortion arguments used to defend such things (e.g. “they just don’t look human!”) were not used in Nazi Germany against the Jews, think again… and Google “Nazi propaganda film Jews animals” (or some similar combination). Just be sure not to eat, first.
Doug wrote:
[Paladin]
I was trying to show that morality is objective, and not simply a construct of a given mind, society, or plurality of votes.
[Doug]
Doesn’t morality have to come from the mind, by definition? Even if we hypothesize that it’s from the mind of God, it’s still a matter of ideas and ideals within the mind, rather than anything existing externally from the mind.
:) Well-lll… I wasn’t expecting you to let me include God in the mix! Yes, you have me, there!
What I meant was this: morality isn’t merely the construct of any given HUMAN mind (or collection of minds)… and that fact becomes rather obvious if you try to imagine a world where (as per a previous example) all of the other people of the world voted to make it legal to torture a particular toddler to death. You would not longer be able to flee to the defense of, “Oh, but it’s legal… it must be right, since the consent of society and its duly-established system of laws defines morality!” You can see, and you already know (once you think it through), that it does not.
So I guess that was the heart of the matter. No leg to stand on=attack the person, divert from the message. Glad we got that clarified.
Yeah, I agree… that seems to be your standard M.O. xalisae.
Er… Milady X, I’ve not yet given Derrr her official troll certificate, but she’s now safely in the “do not feed” category! :)
(Cf. https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/07/stanek-weekend-question-if-abortion-proponents-admit-a-baby-is-being-killed-will-the-rate-subside/comment-page-1/#comment-343015, and following comments)
No wonder you guys don’t debate. You suck at it. “NO U!” does not an adequate rebuttal make.
I will rephrase. All humans have a right to life free from another’s unjustified attempts to alter their life for the worse. Can you disagree with that? The next point that I have to prove is that abortion is an unjustified act.
What is just and moral is not absolute IMO.
You can’t have an opinion about whether something is absolute or is not. It either absolutely, and in truth, IS, or it IS NOT. Do you follow me?
Life challenges us with many moral dilemmas.
Yes… which we can meet with an absolute moral code.
Human’s, like many organisms, have a strong emotional response of empathy for our fellow humans when we concieve or witness suffering.
No kidding. Which other organisms share this? (Grammar check. Humans, not Human’s.)
That evolutionary drive is so strong it can happen to the point of harm to ourselves.
I think you mean that we would put ourselves in harm’s way for another’s sake. Although there may be instances of harm to one person that is so great, the mere knowledge of it in another causes someone physical illness.
To go with that, we try to minimize the harm/suffering that we inflict on our individual selfs. If one views that pain/suffering as being above a certain threshold and beyond hope, they might take action to stop it by commiting suicide.
Nothing is beyond hope. Suicide is the result of cowardice and selfishness. Care to debate that one?
An unborn baby can’t concieve of the possible pain/suffering it could be challenged with.
Hey, neither can I until I experience that pain and suffering.
Even if it could it can’t to anything about it.
Helpless, innocent, beautiful baby.
We can percieve it, we can do something about it.
Where I would heal, I see that you would kill.
While one person may be fine conceptualizing themselves living out their life had they been born with Ty-sachs or having their mother die birthing them, others may not.
Is it license to kill someone (who may be able to handle the reality of his/her life) because you don’t know if they will be able to? (Please bear with my confused train of thought. You are not connecting your support to a claim. What is your claim?)
By the way, I feel that you did not address my claim at all. All humans have a right to life free from another’s unjustified attempts to alter their life for the worse. Which part do you dispute?
I will repeat another of my questions. Why is sentience a thing that confers rights?
And out of sheer curiosity, are you a skeptic?
Thanks, Paladin. I shall put away my troll-chow now. ;P
“From my point of view – yes, “child” means personhood since I’m seeing it as after birth, and thus society has deemed personhood to be present, i.e. the born are full, legal human beings in the sense that’s a good bit of the abortion debate.”
X: But the word “child” is applicable before birth. And do you really want to get into the historical instances when society has deemed huge swaths of the population as “non-persons”? The precedent which has been historically set does not bode well for your case. Personally, I’d still believe myself to be a person regardless of society’s opinion of me. I’m all self-assured like that. *strut*
Ha! I’ve always liked you, Xalisae. You’ve got a swagger to you, yes, and you shoot from the hip (and sometimes I agree with you.)
Once again – “child” as far as “the product of the parents” isn’t being argued, but the stage of development – as how a born infant will stop being a “baby” at some point, is. I have no problem with history, and indeed, full personhood has not always been attributed to all the born, at every time in all societies everywhere. That does not change the fact that the Birth Standard for rights and personhood is exceedingly prevalent. While there have been the exceptions (as you note) to the “born = person” deal, no society anywhere has ever attributed full personhood to the unborn.
When you say, “I’d still believe myself to be a person,” well yes – that’s just it – you’re sentient, mentally aware, conscious, you have *personality,* etc. It’s not just being “unique human beings” that make us the singular race on earth that we are, it’s our brains, it’s our self-awareness, it’s our personalities, as individuals and as groups – that’s what make us “people.”
Personally, I feel that as the fetus gets later in gestation, some personhood does appear. My opinion. Most late-term fetuses are tending toward the same awareness as most full-term, born infants have. I also think that the restrictions we have on later-term abortions constitute a limited form of personhood, on the societal/legal scale.
_____
It HAS to be a physical reality, Doug, or else then you get into all kinds of bad kharma crap. You arguing the case you are right now is arguing for every wide-scale social injustice and atrocity that has ever been carried out against groups of others deemed “non-persons” by society. How can you not see this is an inherently unjust philosophy you hold?
No, it’s not physical reality, X. If it was, then there would really be no debate. I’m not saying the unborn have any different physical reality than how you describe them – from what I’ve seen you say. That’s not what the abortion argument is. The argument is how we treat the unborn, what status do we deem them to have, etc.
I’m not arguing for the “social injustices” that have been done to born people because there’s no even half-compelling argument for them, as I see it. There’s nothing close to the liberty/bodily autonomy argument.
When we come to “unjust” – there is no mystery here. You see it more unjust to allow abortion to be legal, to allow the unborn to be killed. I see it more unjust to restrict abortion earlier than a point in gestation.
Doug: “Just personal feeling, as in “when does it really start looking like a baby,” the same as it’s subjective (at least to some extent) when the 8 month old or 1 year old, etc., “stops being a baby.” That the unborn are products of the parents isn’t at issue, but the terms we apply to stages of development, growth, etc., are.”
Paladin: Well… all right. But since the issue of “baby vs. non-baby, person vs. non-person” involves the difference between life and death (by dismemberment, usually), do you see how the stakes are a bit higher in this case? No one’s waiting in the wings to rip a child limb-from-limb as soon as he/she is not longer classified as “a baby” by someone, right? A baby isn’t marked for death by being “re-classified” as a toddler, or a teenager, or what-have-you. But the United States alone has done just that, in the case of unborn children who are classified as “non-persons” for the sake of killing them, at least 50,000,000 times. To use a grotesque understatement: that’s rather a serious matter. That’s why this fight is going on. It’s not simply a matter of a “difference of opinion”.
I disagree – “baby or not” doesn’t involve the difference between life and death. Doesn’t matter what we call the unborn, the deal is whether society attributes the right-to-life or not. What you want is for society to say they are protected as the born are. On 50,000,000 (or in that area) additional people that would have resulted from abortion not being legal from 1973 on – it indeed is a matter of opinion as to how “bad” (or “good,” for that matter) it is that they weren’t born, are not existing now. Personally, I don’t think it would be all that good if we could, in effect, wave a magic wand and have all the additional people appear. If one thinks we need more people to support social programs, etc., then much better to allow the emigration of educated, motivated people from outside the country, as they can reasonable be expected to contribute much more to our system as a class.
____
Xalisae already addressed this, but: society has only the power to *recognize* or *acknowledge* the already-present, already-existing personhood of any given person; it has no more power to “create” personhood than it has the power to “create” matter out of nothing. Hitler and his ilk used the idea of “government not deeming Jews to be persons” for the purpose of exploiting and exterminating (i.e. murdering) millions of them. The United States (and other countries) used the idea of “not deeming blacks to be persons” for the purpose of treating black people as property to be used, raped, tortured, and/or thrown away (i.e. murdered) at the discretion of the “owner”. (Look up “Dred Scott v. Sanford”, the U.S. Supreme Court case which declared that “the negro has no rights that the white man is bound to respect”. BTW: the pro-life movement has always seen a clear parallel between that wretched and objectively wrong decision, and the wretched and objectively wrong decisions of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bulton.)
No – personhood is a societal construct. Sure – some given societies have not always applied it uniformly, after birth, and great suffering has occurred, and I do not think that is good. I hear you on the Dred Scott decision, and then 11 years later along came the 14th Amendment which overturned it – the idea being that the states did not have a good enough reason to deny freedom to the slaves. Roe came down as the Court saying the states did not have a good enough reason to deny freedom to pregnant women, to a point in gestation.
____
Yet if one maintains that “child” applies before birth, then personhood is thus not the same thing.
I’m not sure I follow what you mean; can you explain that a bit?
If we go with the sense of “child” that means the product of the parents – which certainly applies from conception on – then we are talking about physical reality, versus the status we attribute.
____
“It’s not, anyway, as for the born there is both the physical reality and then the status they are accorded.”
That’s part of my point: merely “according” someone a status does not change their ontological reality. If I regard you (God forbid) as a non-person bit of meat, inasmuch as I declare myself free to kill you at will, that wouldn’t make it right or just, even if the laws of the United States were somehow amended to allow it! (You might be tempted to dismiss that [idea of changing USA laws to allow such] as wildly improbable; but if your skin were black in the early 1800’s or earlier, or if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, you might not be so quick to think so. Every last Nazi murder of every last Jew under their power was perfectly legal, under the laws of Germany of the time. Just so with the abuses in the USA of black slaves. This is not far-fetched; this is grim reality, and it is historical fact, and it can happen again, and it IS happening again.)
Had you and I been born long enough ago, especially in the southern US, (or in Germany early last century), we might feel differently too. We just cannot know what would be the case, there. There is no “ontological reality” that takes away from what the abortion argument is – it’s not “what the unborn are,” really – rather it’s how we are to treat them.
____
“You and I are still missing each other, somewhat, here, since you are approaching it as if personhood is a matter of physical reality – correct me if I’m wrong – while I’m saying it’s a societal construct, a matter of status that’s conferred.”
And I’m saying that not even you believe that! You do not (correct me if I’m wrong) support the torture, medical “experimentation”, and murder inflicted on the Jews under Nazi rule, do you? If not, why not?
No, because there was not a good enough reason for it (nothing remotely so, IMO), and because of the suffering that ensued. This in no way changes the fact that personhood is a status.
____
You must be appealing to something beyond mere “social recognition of personhood”… because “society” had not granted the Jews “status as persons”, and they acted accordingly… just as our country is doing with unborn children.
Well, there are different things at work there. I will certainly give my opinion of any and all cases, situations, etc., my feelings of the goods/bad/rights/wrongs in the moral realm with respect to what we’re talking about. This in no way means that I will necessarily agree with a society’s position, same as for you. I’m not saying the Nazis were “right.” But the fact is that they didn’t attribute full personhood to the Jews.
____
As an aside: if you think the pro-legal-abortion arguments used to defend such things (e.g. “they just don’t look human!”) were not used in Nazi Germany against the Jews, think again… and Google “Nazi propaganda film Jews animals” (or some similar combination). Just be sure not to eat, first.
I hear you – the Nazis had a wide-ranging agenda, frequented with horrors. However, “they don’t look human” really has no logical application here, in the abortion debate. Granted that the unborn, the zygote, and for that matter – the sperm and egg are just as human as you and I. And – as it happens, the Nazis were very anti-choice as they didn’t want certain segments of the population to continue pregnancies, while for the remainder, they didn’t want them to end them, in both cases really regardless of what the individual woman wanted.
“Doesn’t morality have to come from the mind, by definition? Even if we hypothesize that it’s from the mind of God, it’s still a matter of ideas and ideals within the mind, rather than anything existing externally from the mind.”
Paladin: Well-lll… I wasn’t expecting you to let me include God in the mix! Yes, you have me, there!
What I meant was this: morality isn’t merely the construct of any given HUMAN mind (or collection of minds)… and that fact becomes rather obvious if you try to imagine a world where (as per a previous example) all of the other people of the world voted to make it legal to torture a particular toddler to death. You would not longer be able to flee to the defense of, “Oh, but it’s legal… it must be right, since the consent of society and its duly-established system of laws defines morality!” You can see, and you already know (once you think it through), that it does not.
Staying with the “mind” concept for a moment – I’ve always said that morality is a subjective thing since it’s internal to the mind, right in line with the very definition of “subjective.” If there are gods, a God, or other “higher” beings than us earthly humans, they too may have their moral opinions. Not trying to argue here – just saying that morality *is* in the mind, some mind, anyway. If we hypothesize a God, then that God’s moral opinion is internal to that God’s mind.
In lieu of proof the the higher beings, here on earth, witness the fact that people simply do have moral opinions. We want this, we don’t want that – and our moral opinions follow, regardless of any ascribing of our feelings to this-or-that. If one of us most wants the unborn life to continue, then they will say that abortion is not moral. If one of us most wants women to retain the legal freedom they now have in the US, they will say that abortion is moral.
On your example where almost everybody in the world thought it was okay to torture the toddler to death – I would not say, “It’s right because it’s legal,” necessarily, in the first place. Nor will I agree on a society’s moral position, in the here-and-now, necessarily. There’s nothing that says a given individual’s feelings will mirror the position of a society or of a given larger group of people. On many issues, there is such commonality of opinion that there’s really no significant disagreement, around the world, and thus the laws, country-by-country, tend to be the same.
On something like female genital mutilation, for example, there is not the overwhelming commonality of opinion. Had you and I been raised in different families, different cultures, different areas of the world, we might think it’s okay. As things are, I think it’s horrible, and of course there are those who think it “has” to be done, for things to be right.
No, because there was not a good enough reason for it (nothing remotely so, IMO)…
Ok. So your grounds for abortion isn’t the same as the arguments for slavery or the holocaust. Why? Because you say so. Okies. 9_9
When you say, “I’d still believe myself to be a person,” well yes – that’s just it – you’re sentient, mentally aware, conscious, you have *personality,* etc. It’s not just being “unique human beings” that make us the singular race on earth that we are, it’s our brains, it’s our self-awareness, it’s our personalities, as individuals and as groups – that’s what make us “people.”
So if something happened to me tonight and my personality/thought processes/cognitive capacity drastically changed overnight, I’d actually be dead. And someone with multiple personality disorder is actually 2 or more people. Riiiiiiight.
Doug-our minds and thoughts do not change the physical realm of being. That is all there is, and all the philosophy in the world will not change it. Conscious thought is not the be-all, end-all, and if something happens and you drop dead (God forbid) one second from now, I will still be alive and a human being without you. Your consciousness is not what is driving all this mess, nor is mine. Lack of conscious thought is hardly grounds for killing other human beings.
Doug: We are all not agreed on what that means, however. Are we just talking about the physical reality of the unborn, or are we bringing legal status, etc., into it?
Paladin: None of the above (if I understand you correctly). The physical reality of the unborn is self-evident, and no one is arguing against it; the legal status of the unborn is accidental (in the philosophical sense of being non-essential to the situation), and it could be changed by the vote of a fickle majority (or the decree of a dictator, etc.). Neither of them prove or disprove the personhood of the unborn child, one way or the other.
Well, the situation is whether we deem personhood or the status of “full, legal human being,” etc. – meaning they are treated as having the right to life, etc. – to be present or not. There is no “proving” or “disproving” the personhood of the unborn, other than to point to society’s position.
_____
I’m with you on “caring enough” – the argument revolves around what people care about, and how much they do so.
Right. I’m willing to concede the fact that many who promote legal abortion do so out of some conscious sense of doing what they think to be right and best (though I suspect that many–if not most–of those who promote legal abortion do so out of motives and thinking that is murky, muddled, and sometimes tainted with shallow self-interest); I certainly assert that the majority of pro-legal-abortion supporters take their position out of profound ignorance (of the procedure itself, of human nature, of objective morality, and more).
You’re asserting “objective morality,” etc., without proof. Personally, I support legal abortion since I think it’s better for society to allow the woman to choose, either way (to a point in gestation). In lieu of a good enough reason to restrict somebody’s freedom, I go with letting them be free, and I don’t see the opinions of pro-lifers as constituting a good enough reason to overrule the opinion of the pregnant woman herself.
_____
If we say that common sense is protecting others, then it’s also wanting others to be free.
Yes… but one must have a proper understanding of “freedom”. Freedom is not simply “doing whatever I please” (that’s the definition of “license”, not freedom); freedom is living in perfect harmony with one’s nature. That may sound a bit philosophical and “heady”, but consider: is a fish truly “free” if one “frees” it from the confines of the water, and flips it into a tree? Hardly; its death quickly follows. We humans are not truly “free” if we were to be “freed” from the atmosphere of the Earth (without a portable environment); we would die in short order. True “freedom” (which, I assume, you’d agree should be “desirable”, yes? Otherwise, why fight for it as a “right”?) is living in accord with our true nature (e.g. fish in water, human in air, moral creature within a proper moral framework, etc.). Anyone with sense knows that pure anarchy (an absence of all legal restrictions) is not freedom, but chaos and danger, since someone else’s “freedom” might involve harming or killing me!
A fish cannot overcome physical reality, no, anymore than we can. I’m not for “pure anarchy,” but in reality there is that great commonality of opinion at the individual level – that most societies tend to be very similar. It’s human nature that we have desires, fears, etc. We tend to legislate against fears, i.e. we fear being killed so we make laws against it, while on the “desire” side we tend to leave legal avenues for the individual to pursue things, an example being food and eating. We don’t totally legislate that “everybody will eat,” (though we do feed orphans and so forth), but rather we aim toward people growing their own food and/or buying from others.
____
In both cases there will be exceptions due to circumstance, etc.
Well… yes, though such “exceptions” are built into the true definitions of “freedom” and “personhood”‘ they’re not violations of them.
Sure. It being legal, some places, anyway, to kill an intruder in your home doesn’t mean they still aren’t considered persons. It just means that in the situation there was a good enough reason for the killing.
___
So now there’s a conflict when the pregnant woman’s freedom of action comes against the desire to protect the unborn – she wants to end the pregnancy, others want her unborn baby to live. (There, I said “unborn baby.” : )
Bravo, sir! But as to your point: it’s not merely a conflict of “wishes”, but it involves objective (i.e. beyond anyone’s feelings or personal thoughts/views) morality, which cannot simply be a matter of taking a poll of the interested parties. Even if 100% of the other members of the world voted to torture a toddler to death, that would not justify it; the “real” morality stands, solid as a rock, to deny such a monstrosity. Wouldn’t you agree?
Actually, I do say it’s all wishes. It’s all desire and valuation. Among our available choices, we choose or attempt that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste. There’s my statement of human motivation. If everybody else on earth were as you postulate, then some of them would be saying that “objective morality” was on their side. Between you and me, it’d be only you saying it was on our side.
____
I don’t see that we as a society, or as the whole human race, etc., need every pregnancy to continue all the way to birth.
Hm. Two replies to that:
1) The idea of society’s “need” is painfully vague, in this instance. Society does not strictly “need” you or me to remain alive, for that matter; but would that make it morally licit for anyone to kill (or otherwise harm) us?
No, I don’t think so (unless we did certain things). However, what’s the argument for killing us? There is nothing like us being inside the body of a person. Now then, as I’ve said before, Joe Blow walking down the street is one thing. If ol’ Joe is inside my body, then it’s like, “Uh, Joe, we’re going to have to have a talk about this deal….”
_____
2) We are, of course, talking about the direct act of killing an unborn offspring (i.e. ending a pregnancy “by force”, if you will), and not about simply “having a pregnancy end” (which is more of a proper description of “miscarriage”).
Agreed, but in both cases society ends up having one less person. With a miscarriage, society can’t do anything (that I know of, anyway) to prevent it. If society denies an abortion to a woman who wants one, then it may well be impacting her life in huge measure.
____
I think that miscarriages can be very sad for the people involved, when they want to have a baby.
Certainly; they’re usually devastating… and I wouldn’t restrict it only to people who look forward to the birth with enthusiasm.
Contrast that with desired abortions. There can be more sadness in one miscarriage than in a great number of abortions.
_____
In the case of abortion, do we really have a need to try and compel a given woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, though? I don’t think so.
Well… with all due respect: I’d say that that’s almost an entirely backwards way to view the matter… and it quietly (and illogically) assumes the NON-personhood of the child in order to make its point. This fact becomes rather obvious if I change the words and details, just a bit: if my mother were to have slain me in my sleep, in order not to “continue her motherhood against her will”, don’t you think there’s be a moral problem with that?
No, again – it’s not “illogical” to note that we don’t attribute personhood to the unborn. I don’t think your mom would have any reason even remotely comparable to the liberty/bodily autonomy argument. Were you inside her body, it’d be different.
____
Some others will want her to, but she is the one who is pregnant,
…and the child is the one whose life will certainly end if an abortion is procured. Do remember that.
But the unborn don’t care. To a point in gestation there is never “anyone” there with any caring, with any awareness at all. This is the opinions of other people – pro-lifers – against that of the pregnant woman. I go with the woman.
_____
and even if one feels that the greatest good, no matter what, comes in continuing the pregnancy,
Again: that’s not an accurate way to characterize the situation. We (pro-lifers) want to avoid the moral crime of murder (i.e. the unjust killing of another human person); and abortion is murder (in that moral, not-necessarily-legal [more’s the pity] sense), so we find it to be a moral imperative to stop it (to the extent that’s humanly possible: making it illegal would be a good start). We’re not talking about forbidding a woman from continuing dance lessons, or continue wearing her hair in a certain fashion!
Again, you are asserting “moral crime,” and ahem – “murder,” without proof. Meanwhile it is fact that it matters what people want the most – whether it’s the continued life of the unborn or the woman being free to choose.
___
one must still realize that the issues of liberty and bodily autonomy are real ones.
Of course. But the issues of the sanctity of human life is a real one, as well… and I think you’d agree that, all things being equal, it’s a more important one. It’s certainly of higher priority (i.e. one must have life, first, in order to have any liberty and/or bodily autonomy at all).
Yeah, sure – all things being equal. If they were, I would not disagree with you. But as the unborn are inside the woman’s body, in no way are “things equal.”
____
To a point in gestation, I don’t think the unborn can suffer – they have no conscious sensation, emotion, etc.
That might be true… but again (as Xalisae tirelessly tried to point out to Juror and Derrr), no sane person thinks that murder is wrong purely because it causes suffering to the victim (especially since many murders do not). Any suffering caused by a murder INCREASES the evil of the act, but it does not define it.
And I don’t say that abortion is “okay purely because the unborn are not sentient.” But couple that with them being inside the woman’s body – thus my opinion.
_____
Overall, I probably give the total amount of suffering a lot of weight in the abortion debate.
I understand… but I’d gently suggest that this idea is mistaken.
No problem, there, but these are simply my feelings, and really – this debate is *about feelings* – again, even if we ascribe our feelings to moral constructs, religious constructs, etc.
____
To a point in gestation, I see the greatest good as allowing her to choose to keep the pregnancy going or to end it.
I see. But: in order for a logical argument to be sound, two things have to happen: (1) the premises (starting assumptions) must be true, and (2) the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. You do #2 fairly well, here, but I’d assert that your starting premises (e.g. the issue of abortion is all about comparing the feelings/suffering of all involved) are incorrect.
Heh – well hey – prove there is “absolute morality.” It cannot be done. Meanwhile, while the idea of “absolute morality” appeals to some people, it is fact (given some assumptions that I’m making – just as I’m assuming you’re making them, i.e. we’re not just “dreaming,” etc.) that we are individuals here, having our say. Whatever you and I say, you feel that abortion is wrong, while I feel it’s wrong to legally forbid the woman’s choice to a point in gestation.
I really wasn’t making a “logical argument” but rather just saying how I felt, there. I’m not saying my feelings reflect any “external” stuff nor that my opinion should necessarily be enshrined in law.
No, because there was not a good enough reason for it (nothing remotely so, IMO)…
Ok. So your grounds for abortion isn’t the same as the arguments for slavery or the holocaust. Why? Because you say so. Okies. 9_9
Yes, X, I say so. The arguments that were for slavery and for the Holocaust were not nearly as compelling as the argument for the liberty and bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman.
___
When you say, “I’d still believe myself to be a person,” well yes – that’s just it – you’re sentient, mentally aware, conscious, you have *personality,* etc. It’s not just being “unique human beings” that make us the singular race on earth that we are, it’s our brains, it’s our self-awareness, it’s our personalities, as individuals and as groups – that’s what make us “people.”
So if something happened to me tonight and my personality/thought processes/cognitive capacity drastically changed overnight, I’d actually be dead. And someone with multiple personality disorder is actually 2 or more people. Riiiiiiight.
No, I said nothing to that effect. What I am saying is that it’s our self-awareness, our tool-using and tool-making brains, our ability and desire to accumulate knowledge and pass it forward in time, etc., that makes us “people.” As far as drastic change, if they took you or me and scooped out our brains, while pumping oxygenated blood through our vessels, then I state that there would still be a “human being” there. There’d be a living human body, a living human organism. But I think that “you” or “me” would be outta there. Living body, sure, but the people we had been would be long gone.
____
Doug-our minds and thoughts do not change the physical realm of being.
Totally agree. : )
____
That is all there is, and all the philosophy in the world will not change it.
Granted that “philosophy” won’t change physical reality, yet there is certainly more to the abortion debate than that – philosophy, etc., mos’ definitely come into it. Mos’ mos’ def’….
____
Conscious thought is not the be-all, end-all, and if something happens and you drop dead (God forbid) one second from now, I will still be alive and a human being without you. Your consciousness is not what is driving all this mess, nor is mine.
Well, morality *is* conscious thought. There is no caring in “physical reality.” The moral realm has to have a mind involved. A thing will exist, or not, physically. An action will occur, or not. Thus far, we have no morality, there’s no element of good/bad/right/wrong yet. It’s only when there is desire, one way or another, that morality comes.
____
Lack of conscious thought is hardly grounds for killing other human beings.
And I didn’t say it was as simple as that. I’m saying that to a point in gestation there is not only no conscious thought, there’s also no emotion, no personality, no “somebody” there at all (this is all my opinion), and what we have is pro-lifers wanting to deny the wish of women who are pregnant (with the unconscious beings *inside* them) and don’t want to be. My opinion – the pro-lifers don’t have a good enough reason to legally trump what the woman wants.
Paladin,
(*sigh*) I’m well aware of the fact that you couldn’t stop me from replying; that wasn’t at all my point. But let that be…
What exactly was your point then?
”give me the quotes (and links) where she sad any of the above to you, in that time interval (i.e. “on the basis of 10 or less posts”).”
I have done so. It is unarguable.
I just said that she’s too insane and irrational to implement it!”, in order to salvage something of your position, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Again: I’ll let the reader be the judge.
Intelligent people do irrational things all the time when clouded by extreme emotion. Explain why this position needs salvaging.
show me what words prove to you that Xalisae “specifically directed [any particular criticism] to describe you”? Humour me. Quote it for me, and highlight (with bold, or italics, or ALL-CAPS, or what-have-you) the part where she leaves no reasonable doubt that you are her specific “target”… since that’s precisely what you’re claiming, here. Or… were you painting with a bit more broad of a brush than you intended?
I’ve done so. I’m not sure why you are denying it when she does’nt deny it and even takes pride in it.
In summary: your whole case against Xalisae seems to boil down to three points:
1) You don’t like her tone. (Fair enough.)
Correct
2) You claim that she attacked you personally, and that she specifically called you “evil” “despicable” “disingenious” and “depraved” (which, you claim, was the provocation which triggered your own insults toward her). Nowhere do I see anything of the sort; and unless you can give proof to the contrary, I’ll need to start questioning your honesty, as well as your logic and care with details.
I’ve given you proof. I’m starting to question your honesty, logic, and care with details. You seem to be looking to argue for arguments sake, when you make a comments like this:
“Hate”? Anger, certainly… but I don’t see, apart from mind-reading, how you could possibly know whether she hated anyone, or not.
and
Second: you repeatedly (and erroneously) assumed that I’d not read her previous posts. I had, and I did. Is that now quite clear?
No it’s not clear. What is clear is that you seem to be the only one that can’t see she was calling me depraved in the post just prior to my snark.
3) You dismiss her arguments on the pretext that “you don’t like her tone” and “the questions are crazy”. The questions are not at all “crazy”, and I really do think (unless I’ve underestimated you) that you can at least make an attempt to answer them. Direct your answer to the board as a whole (and not to Xalisae), if you like; but “dodging” them with the excuse that “I don’t like the messenger” is–with all due respect–coming across as a bit craven.
No. I am ignoring her because she was uncivil, condescending, & insulting towards me from the jump. I am not obligated to answer her questions. It’s not “dodging”.
Since you and other more respectful commenters are asking me to explain my position I’d be glad to:
I believe abortion is a women’s moral right to chose. I believe a “human being” is entitled to those rights at birth, not before. I believe you are not a human “being” until birth. I believe one’s human being’s right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness should not be imposed upon by another unless they have freely chosen to allow it. I believe abortion as a singular “act” can be both moral or immoral.
After reading a bit on here it seems that my views line up pretty much with Doug’s. Although, admittedly he is a much better communicator than I am. :)
Hi, Doug,
Sorry for the delay; I’ll be out and about for most of today, so a full reply might need to wait until tomorrow. In the meantime:
1) You seem to suggest that personal wants are paramount “reasons” for doing (or not doing) something. Can you explain why?
2) Along the lines of #1: would you consider it immoral (objectively speaking, not just your opinion or mine) of me to violate your wants without (what you take to be) sufficiently good reason? (I’m wondering: if there is no objective right and wrong, and morality is simply a matter of personal whim and preference and inheritance from ancestors, then why would anything ever be wrong, even if there were no “reason” for it at all? I don’t need a world-approved “reason” to eat an ice-cream cone… so why should I need a “reason” to rape, kill, or do whatever I have the physical and/or political power to do, as my whims strike me?)
RCJC,
Nothing is beyond hope. Suicide is the result of cowardice and selfishness. Care to debate that one?
I’m not sure what you mean by the statement “Nothing is beyond hope” Plenty of things are “beyond” hope. Are you asserting that someone with late stage ALS or terminal cancer is selfish & a coward because they may chose to take their own life(a human right)? It would seem to me those denying a person that right are the one’s acting cowardly & selfish.
And out of sheer curiosity, are you a skeptic?
Yes and agnostic, which I feel is the only logical position someone can honestly take regarding God.
Is it license to kill someone (who may be able to handle the reality of his/her life) because you don’t know if they will be able to? (Please bear with my confused train of thought. You are not connecting your support to a claim. What is your claim?)By the way, I feel that you did not address my claim at all. All humans have a right to life free from another’s unjustified attempts to alter their life for the worse. Which part do you dispute?
I will repeat another of my questions. Why is sentience a thing that confers rights?
I understand your confusion. I didn’t establish a basis for my claims. I apologize. Let me do so now with an analogy:
Adolf Hitler breaks into your house when you have left the door open accidentally. You awake to find Hitler eating your food and drinking your liquor. Hitler has thoughts of maybe murdering you in your sleep. I feel you have the right as a human being to use whatever means nescessary to remove Hitler from your legal dwelling. You have legal ownership, Hitler does not. If you chose to allow Hitler to stay that is also your right. Once hitler leaves your house you no longer have the legal, human right to kill him unless your life is threatened by him again in some way.
With abortion, the only difference I see with my analogy is someone anti-abortion substitutes “Adolf Hitler” with “Baby” to appeal to emotion and Hitler would be entering the house unconcious. There is a reason we are called Human “Beings” and it is not because of our DNA. You must be born to come into being and be afforded equal rights of an already born human being. Your stance gives power of a non human “being”(although it is a homo sapien sapien) over an actual human being. It is perverse and illogical. Please show me I’m wrong…….
Tommy R,
I don’t really care what scientific people call the what-ever-you-want-to-call-it that exists pre-birth. Zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, cell blob, whatever (some names are just insulting) How would you like it if I referred to you by your scientific stage of development…This it the rub it exists and it is an individual living human person. US law ought to recognize that scientific fact in all its policies simply because it is true.
Why would I care if you called me by my scientific name? How is it insulting? For some reason I envision a kid getting embarassed saying “penis” & “vagina” in middle school sex ed class when I read your post. My point was people don’t have to admit that it is something it is not. “Baby” in our nomenclature normally signifies something that has been birthed(as well as other things). US law is correct in that although it is the fetus is living, it is not a “person”, so deserves no equal rights.
We as a people need to come to terms with the implications of this truth and give people full knowledge in which to make decisions so we can ALL live in freedom.
We need to give people full knowledge, you got that part right. If what you think is “true” as you say, then you(and others) should have no problem proving your ascertion to the rest of us. Light shines on the truth. It hasn’t shown on your “truth” yet. Until it does don’t force your truth on what we know to be the real TRUTH.
One thing I will “admit” to…loving other people’s children.
So do I. What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China? Or were you implying I don’t ;)
JackBorsch,
I don’t care what name you want to call it. Fetus, baby, organism, whatever. It still deserves protection just like everyone else at every other stage of life.
Why? Sperms alive, should it get protection to? How bout your skin? Human cloning isn’t far. Each cell has your DNA and could produce a life. By your logic everything in your body will deserve protection. Since you are pro-“life” I’m assuming you are also a proponent of human cloning correct?
X, Florida has more than its fair share of crazies and idiots.
I eagerly look forward to more of your incredibly insightful & mature commentary such as this.
Man, you are touchy, aren’t you Juror? I am a native Floridian, live near Orlando, as most of the regulars on this blog know. I poke fun at Florida all the time. I am terribly sorry you don’t have a sense of humor.
Sperm won’t form a unique human being left to it’s own devices. To suggest it is equivalent to a conceived human is fallacious. I don’t like cloning because it is fraught with ethical concerns that I don’t think society has considered properly. I simply believe a conceived human being deserves protection under the law.
You should chill out.
JackBorsch,
Sperm won’t form a unique human being left to it’s own devices. To suggest it is equivalent to a conceived human is fallacious.
No kidding it won’t, but it will if enginered via human cloning and it is a stage of human life. That was my point. They are not “equivelant” meaning what? One has more value? If so, why?
I simply believe a conceived human (being) deserves protection under the law.
I understand that. My question is why? It is a living human organism like sperm, but it is not a human “being”. Big distinction.
Man, you are touchy, aren’t you Juror? I am a native Floridian, live near Orlando, as most of the regulars on this blog know. I poke fun at Florida all the time. I am terribly sorry you don’t have a sense of humor. You should chill out.
Who said I don’t have a sense of humor? I thought my sarcasm was hilarious.
Human cell that does not develop into a distinct human left to it’s own devices = sperm, egg, hair, etc. Human cell that is already distinct in terms of DNA and will develop into a fully functional adult = fertilized egg. It is really no that hard to understand. Why you are bringing cloning into it, I have no idea. If there are human being being created in a lab I think they deserve legal protection too.
Out of curiosity, do you have a ranking system for every stage of development? Is my eight-month-old less important than my two-year-old, because one is less developed? Maybe the more important question is why don’t you think that a developing distinct human is worth protecting at all stages.
I think you are very strange for picking out some throw away comment from six days ago and getting a case of teh interwebz butthurtz about it.
Your scientific terminology and theory is off, Juror. A human sperm is not a human organism, unlike an already conceived human being. There isn’t a species of sperm. They’re a haploid gamete belonging to an organism, not an organism themselves.
“In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole.”
The form that human organisms reach all of these capabilities is some time around puberty, and may or may not be able to actualize some or all of them. Spermatozoa do not fit this criteria. Human beings do, however, and that is something inherent in us from conception. I think “ill-informed” is an accurate descriptor for you.
Since I’m sure you didn’t read what’s been posted, let me re-post for you in order to prove our claims that a human being does indeed exist from the point of conception. You may not take our word for it, but please try to listen to medical and science professors. I think they might know what they’re talking about.
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Fail post is fail.
No, because there was not a good enough reason for it (nothing remotely so, IMO)…
Ok. So your grounds for abortion isn’t the same as the arguments for slavery or the holocaust. Why? Because you say so. Okies. 9_9
Yes, X, I say so. The arguments that were for slavery and for the Holocaust were not nearly as compelling as the argument for the liberty and bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman.
And I’m sure the German’s arguments for the Holocaust and plantation owner’s arguments for slavery were way more compelling TO THEM than your argument for the legality of a woman opting to legally kill her offspring.
As far as this “bodily autonomy” and “liberty” crap, a woman’s “bodily autonomy” isn’t being violated by pregnancy. That’s her body acting exactly as it should in regard to her child whose body is also acting exactly as it should given the circumstances. It’s not like rape (which is also in a way bodies acting in a biologically normal manner depending upon what exactly is being perpetrated, however, this is a moot point as there is no conscious effort on the part of the unborn causing the “violation”.) The gestating human being was placed exactly where they are by the very woman in question’s body. You can’t penalize someone else with death for being placed somewhere by someone who wants to kill them. And as far as “liberty” goes, I’ve been pregnant twice, Doug. I had every bit the same liberty while pregnant that I did pre- and post-pregnancy. No one was turning me away at the voting booth when I went there pregnant with my son.
___
When you say, “I’d still believe myself to be a person,” well yes – that’s just it – you’re sentient, mentally aware, conscious, you have *personality,* etc. It’s not just being “unique human beings” that make us the singular race on earth that we are, it’s our brains, it’s our self-awareness, it’s our personalities, as individuals and as groups – that’s what make us “people.”
So if something happened to me tonight and my personality/thought processes/cognitive capacity drastically changed overnight, I’d actually be dead. And someone with multiple personality disorder is actually 2 or more people. Riiiiiiight.
No, I said nothing to that effect. What I am saying is that it’s our self-awareness, our tool-using and tool-making brains, our ability and desire to accumulate knowledge and pass it forward in time, etc., that makes us “people.” As far as drastic change, if they took you or me and scooped out our brains, while pumping oxygenated blood through our vessels, then I state that there would still be a “human being” there. There’d be a living human body, a living human organism. But I think that “you” or “me” would be outta there. Living body, sure, but the people we had been would be long gone.
First, I’d like to say that it is precisely because I am a “somebody” right now, that is exactly how I know I’d want to and deserve to be protected as a “somebody” even when/if I didn’t live up to your criteria for the term somewhere down the line. But I digress…
You’re all over the board with this one. First you say “self-awareness, our tool-using and tool-making brains”-That excludes a lot of post-born people (or “non-people”, by your standard, apparently). I did a lot of work at a school for children with SEVERE autism. They had self-injurious behaviors and were too dangerous to themselves and others to even be enrolled in the public school’s special education programs. Many of those children I saw were in wheelchairs, some with fixed-gazes into nothing. Many couldn’t speak, and didn’t appear to know anything about where they were, who they were, or the things and people around them. They were persons, Doug, and I’d fight to protect their lives just as I fight now for gestating humans. They’re both still valid human lives deserving of protection under the law. We all are.
Then you go on to say, “our ability and desire to accumulate knowledge and pass it forward in time”-this statement encompasses gestating human beings as well. They may not be able to actualize this ability in their current stage of growth and development, but the ability exists. It would be actualized if they were simply allowed to live. And if by your logic it is absent, then once again there are many human beings who have already been born who lack this. Where does it end?
____
Doug-our minds and thoughts do not change the physical realm of being.
Totally agree. : )
I’m glad we agree on this point. I’ve actually talked to some people who disagree. I’d like to meet their dealers. :P
____
That is all there is, and all the philosophy in the world will not change it.
Granted that “philosophy” won’t change physical reality, yet there is certainly more to the abortion debate than that – philosophy, etc., mos’ definitely come into it. Mos’ mos’ def’….
I disagree. The physical reality of the situation is paramount, and I’ll go into that notion further and deeper a little later. But I think this is probably where the vast majority of the static between us arises, eh? :P
____
Conscious thought is not the be-all, end-all, and if something happens and you drop dead (God forbid) one second from now, I will still be alive and a human being without you. Your consciousness is not what is driving all this mess, nor is mine.
Well, morality *is* conscious thought. There is no caring in “physical reality.” The moral realm has to have a mind involved. A thing will exist, or not, physically. An action will occur, or not. Thus far, we have no morality, there’s no element of good/bad/right/wrong yet. It’s only when there is desire, one way or another, that morality comes.
In this respect, I suppose you’re correct. But this is where I try to take the tact of the most “morality” with the least amount of hindrance to either party while causing the least amount of damage to each party. Ending one’s life is entirely out of the question. To me that seems to be causing the most damage for the least amount of gain to anyone. A human being’s life is irretrievably lost and there is no definitive way to prove that the woman would be better off one way or the other. I can sit here and conjecture all day that perhaps had I aborted my daughter in my time of crisis that maybe I’d be some six figure professional now, but that’s also tantamount to saying if I sprouted wings tomorrow I might fly to Tijuana. I could still possibly fly to Tijuana without growing wings, I’d just have to buy airplane tickets instead. I could sprout wings, but they might be incapable of flight as well. I’d rather not someone lost their lives for the sake of what MAY be for someone else when we know that we have this very real life in front of us that is most certainly being killed in an abortion.
____
Lack of conscious thought is hardly grounds for killing other human beings.
And I didn’t say it was as simple as that. I’m saying that to a point in gestation there is not only no conscious thought, there’s also no emotion, no personality, no “somebody” there at all (this is all my opinion)
“to a point in gestation” Why “to a point”? If it should be acceptable for a woman to kill her offspring, then it always is. It either is or it isn’t. Period.
The existence of a “somebody” in a human being’s body isn’t even there after birth, really. Heck, I’m not even the same “somebody” I was when I was in high school. I wasn’t the same “somebody” I was in high school by the time my first semester of college was over. Would that make my murder in high school acceptable because I turned out not to be “that somebody” anyway? Did I murder myself because I subjected myself to experience which changed my psyche so dramatically that people who knew me then wouldn’t even know I was the same person simply by speaking to me now? Should I be charged? Attempting to assign moral values to this subject by anything other than definitive physical/biological/scientific criteria is like trying to pin a ribbon of smoke to a dress, and makes about as much sense. The idea of it might look pretty on paper, but without definite quantifiable values, it’s a wasted effort.
You might not see a “somebody” there, but empirically, if there’s a human body there, there’s a “somebody” there. You might not have seen a “somebody” behind you when you backed your car out this morning, but if you ran over him, when you came home this evening, the police would be there with the evidence begging to differ with your original assessment.
what we have is pro-lifers wanting to deny the wish of women who are pregnant (with the unconscious beings *inside* them) and don’t want to be. My opinion – the pro-lifers don’t have a good enough reason to legally trump what the woman wants.
My dad used to say, “Wish in one hand and s___ in the other, and see which one gets full first.” (he cleaned it up for us children, of course. He used to say “spit in the other”. I learned what the actual statement was after I became an adult. :P ) A woman wanting an abortion probably never wanted to become pregnant in the first place. I’m sure there are some twisted individuals out there, no doubt, but I stand by my statement. Unfortunately, that cannot be, and what has happened has happened. We can’t allow people to cause harm to others over their wishes and whims due to circumstances. An investor who has just lost all of his life savings on Wall Street can’t be given a pass on shooting a bank teller to death to steal his cash back, even if he once had the money, it was his, and he wants it back desperately or needs it back to keep from being evicted. As a woman, I’ll be the first to say that yes, biology is quite unkind to the “fairer sex”, and it quite frankly sucks. However, I’m not about to shrug the obligations I have to other living human beings I’ve created even unintentionally just because I wish or I want or I’d like _blank_. I honestly don’t see how you can sit there and say someone’s wish is more important than their child’s life. I really don’t.
And Doug-I enjoy this exchange with you because you get my style, and I appreciate that. At least you address me honestly instead of using what I can only describe as “my machismo” as an opportunity to be evasive and distract from the issue at hand. Granted, I think you do get a little evasive sometimes which is frustrating, but at least you’re discreet about it. :X
I’m not about to shrug the obligations I have to other living human beings I’ve created even unintentionally just because I wish or I want or I’d like _blank_. I honestly don’t see how you can sit there and say someone’s wish is more important than their child’s life. I really don’t.
First off, you did not and are not “creating” anything. It is a biological process. Second, why is the fact that if one organism comes into existance that automatically obligates another organism to suffer and possibly die on it’s behalf to ensure it continues to exist? You are forcing the woman to abrogate their rights. Your so fond of posting facts, here is one you seem to have missed:
“Every day, 1500 women die from pregnancy- or childbirth-related complications. In 2005, there were an estimated 536 000 maternal deaths worldwide.”
-(1) Maternal mortality in 2005: estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007 (http://www. who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2005/index.html, accessed 14 August 2008).
By your logic you would be a “murderer” if I fell into a torrential river and you didn’t jump in to save me, even though there is a good chance we may both die in the process. By your logic someone with failing kidneys could demand one of your’s and you would be obligated to turn it over. I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but the human organism when concieved is parasitic. It doesn’t mean to be, but it is. Nature is uncaring.
Jack-
I was bringing up cloning to make sure you would be consistant on protecting engineered human life as well as naturally occuring. I was happy to hear you would be. Although I’m perplexed as to your “Ethical” concerns stance. If they can clone a human, why should’nt a man or a woman who can’t concieve be able to have a child that way?
Out of curiosity, do you have a ranking system for every stage of development? Is my eight-month-old less important than my two-year-old, because one is less developed? Maybe the more important question is why don’t you think that a developing distinct human is worth protecting at all stages.
Important for what and to whom? To nature they are of equal importance, which is none. They are only important to you and others that know them. Individuals assign importance to things. Look at my post above. 1500 women that are fully cognizant of the world around them are killed each day by fetuses. Where is your protection for those stages of life? That number is with the option of abortion in many places. How much more staggering will the numbers be if that right was taken away?
I think you are very strange for picking out some throw away comment from six days ago and getting a case of teh interwebz butthurtz about it.
What’s with people around here and the term butthurt? Someone calls them on a dumb insult they’ve made and they cry about it. That’s the definition of butthurt. None the less, I apologize. I didn’t know you are a native Floridian and were in actuallity refering to yourself.
“Important for what and to whom? To nature they are of equal importance, which is none. They are only important to you and others that know them. Individuals assign importance to things. Look at my post above. 1500 women that are fully cognizant of the world around them are killed each day by fetuses. Where is your protection for those stages of life? That number is with the option of abortion in many places. How much more staggering will the numbers be if that right was taken away?”
Important to all of us, as a society. I don’t want to live in a society where a healthy human being’s right to life can be taken away on someone else’s decision. I stay out of the medical abortion arguments, I really don’t know enough about medicine to have an opinion. But elective abortions, for social reasons that have nothing to do with maternal or fetal health? Not the same deal. And by the way, how in the world does not agreeing with elective abortion translate into not caring about maternal health?
” What’s with people around here and the term butthurt? Someone calls them on a dumb insult they’ve made and they cry about it. That’s the definition of butthurt. None the less, I apologize. I didn’t know you are a native Floridian and were in actuallity refering to yourself.”
Ok, that actually had me laughing, so hats off for showing you have a sense of humor, I guess? The whining is one your part, by the way.
Juror,
Since you’ve apparently (though implicitly) said, “Okay, I’ll not squash the conversation on my end, just yet” (and you’ve either categorized it as non-urea, or your tolerance for urea has suddenly spiked), I’ll try my best to handle the salient points. I’m doing this against my better judgment, given some of your acerbic and drama-heavy comments to Jack, et al. (i.e. I’m a bit wary of you morphing into a troll before my very eyes). Hope springs eternal, I suppose.
First: You claimed, on July 27, 2011 at 12:07 pm:
Did I question her rationality & stability? You bet, I can’t deny that. After someone that I have done nothing to provoke continuously attributes phrases such as “Killer”, “Murderer”, “Depraved”, “Evil”, “Despicable” to me ad naseum it’s generally going to illict that response.
The syntax of your paragraph is a bit rough, but it seems as if you’re accusing Xalisae of calling you “killer”, “murderer”, “depraved” and “evil”, continuously (?!? All right… but I hope you can understand how, after your vehement denials about using hyperbole, this was a bit hard to process…), and that she aimed such comments at you personally (and not globally, at pro-legal-abortion people in general). I hope I have that clear.
Next, you repeat that charge (in the same comment), but you then specify that Xalisae was, in your words:
Calling someone she knows thru about 10 posts on the internet “evil” “Despicable” “disingenious” “depraved”[…]
This sounds, to my ears, as if you’re decrying not only her word choices, but you’re decrying the idea that she singled you out (personally), and seemingly did so on the basis of so few posts of yours (“after only 10 posts, or so”). All right, so far?
Now, not only have you never retracted or modified your claim (save for adding two new words to your list: “despicable” and “disingenuous”), but you actually “doubled down” on your claim, affirming in no uncertain terms that you’ve proven your case absolutely, that I cannot possibly disprove it (nor could anyone), and that the case is, as they say, open-and-shut. I hope I’ve summarized your case adequately, on this particular point.
Shall we examine that conclusion?
Claim #1: Xalisae, after 10 or less posts, specifically called you “killer”.
I’ve done a word-search for all variants of the words “kill” and “killer”, in the comments up to (and including) your first quote of hers… and I find nothing which supports your case, at all. There is no quote from Xalisae calling you a “killer”, and your claim to that effect is provably wrong. (Incidentally: the first of her comments in your “quote pile” was aimed at Derrr; anyone who takes even a split-second to read the surrounding comments can see that plainly; how on earth do you claim that it was specifically referencing you, and “on the basis of 10 or less posts” at that? At most, it was a blanket rebuke of *all* who are pro-legal-abortion… which would make your “how could she say such things about me, after only 10 posts?” question utterly nonsensical.)
Claim #2: Xalisae, after 10 or less posts, specifically called you “murderer”.
Same as #1, and worse: there is not a single instance of any variant of the word “murder”, “murderer”, or anything of the sort, in any of your quotes, or in any of Xalisae’s comments of that interval which you neglected to quote.
Claim #3: Xalisae, after 10 or less posts, specifically called you “depraved”.
The word “depraved” does, indeed, show up in one of Xalisae’s quotes… the last of her quotes in the given interval; it’s also (as described in #1) addressed to ALL pro-legal-abortion people (in the context of Xalisae talking to Derrr, not to you), as the use of the plural (“hearts and minds”… unless your name is legion, and there are many of you?) makes quite clear; the idea that you could “obviously tell that she was directing it at you, and after only 10 posts” is silly. One might, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, ask if you had a guilty conscience which goaded you to “butt in” as you did…
Claim #4: Xalisae, after 10 or less posts, specifically called you “evil”.
Word search yields no occurrences of the word “evil”, in any shape or form, in any of your quotes, or in the quotes you neglected.
Claim #5: Xalisae, after 10 or less posts, specifically called you “despicable”.
Word search also yields no occurrences of the word “despicable” or “despise”, in any shape or form, in any of your quotes, or in the ones you neglected. (You do have a word-search utility on your computer, do you not?)
Claim #6: Xalisae, after 10 or less posts, specifically called you “disingenuous”.
This was true (approximately)… AFTER you launched your little salvo about expecting to see her on the news, calling her a fanatical kook, and such. Frankly, in addition to the fact that this was not during the 10-post interval of the “Dr. Jekyll Juror” (as opposed to the Mr. Hyde Juror, who appeared soon afterward), you’d really have a difficult time showing how any post of Xalisae’s after your incendiary one would in any way help establish your case.
…and that settles all of them, I think. Summary: 4 claims that were flatly false (despite your “double-down”), one that was after your own initiation of hostilities (if you like), and one that was directed at someone else, and applicable to pro-legal-abortion supporters in general (with no indication, whatsoever, that you were being singled out). Does that clarify? For someone who prided himself on attention to detail and ability to back up claims, this was a curious admixture of sloppiness and irresponsibility, friend… and I’d invite you to re-evaluate all of it.
Again: I write this, because you asked. If this is too detailed for your tastes, I don’t really know what to tell you, save that this is the way I choose to rebut detailed accusations. (Seriously: you didn’t notice that most of your quotes were utterly useless to your case?)
Beyond this, I’ll leave Xalisae’s reply as the definitive answer to your questions on this particular point… and I’ll leave you to balance your urge to reply with your urge to avoid what you take to be urea concentrations. :) You might also join us, instead, in returning to the theme of the main post, where some intellectual progress might be made?
First off, you did not and are not “creating” anything.
Sure I did. My ovum (a part of my body) combined with my partner’s sperm and created my offspring. We both created them, with equal shares. Although, since my body provided nourishment for them for 9 months before they were born (and 1/2 yr. – 1 yr. afterwards), I think my body played more of a part in creating them, but I may just be biased since I’m a woman and my kids are pretty freaking awesome. You’re still not clear on this whole “science” thing, eh? By the way, do you admit to gestating humans being human beings, contrary to your former statement, since I provided that sworn testimony from medical and scientific experts? I notice you’ll respond to the post I put up for Doug, but not the one I posted for you. Curious…
It is a biological process.
Cellular division is also a biological process. That doesn’t mean it can’t create cancer. I don’t see your point with this statement.
Second, why is the fact that if one organism comes into existance that automatically obligates another organism to suffer and possibly die on it’s behalf to ensure it continues to exist?
I don’t know, Juror. Why do we as a society pass and enforce ANY laws which “force” parents to care for, provide for, nurture, and protect their offspring? I guess all those are just violations of rights, and totally passe in this Age of Enlightened Freedom, eh? Abolish Child Protective Services! They’re violating peoples’ rights!!!
You are forcing the woman to abrogate their rights.
No such thing as a right to terminate your child’s life. And there isn’t any force involved in carrying a child to term. It kinda just happens on its own. “It’s a biological process.” lol. There is, however, force involved in ending that child’s life through abortion. A whole lot of it. THAT is force.
And I’m sorry, but who’s talking about life-threatening conditions while pregnant? And where have you ever seen a pro-lifer say that women can go ahead and die if their lives are endangered during a pregnancy/birth? You’ll find that we support everyone’s right to live equally. That includes a pregnant mother. As Jack has said earlier, care to tell us what this has to do with elective abortion?
By your logic you would be a “murderer” if I fell into a torrential river and you didn’t jump in to save me, even though there is a good chance we may both die in the process.
Only if I pushed you in, and you’d find that the law agrees with me on this point. I would be responsible for putting you in a place and a position that endangered your life/killed you. That is EXACTLY what is happening when a pregnant woman terminates a pregnancy. She is killing another human being because her body placed that human being there and she did not want him/her there. How is this just?
By your logic someone with failing kidneys could demand one of your’s and you would be obligated to turn it over.
Only if I had a.) done something to that person to cause kidney failure and b.) had a parent/child/caregiver relationship with that person which obligated me to care for them in such a way. But there is no law stating this must happen, because there hasn’t ever been a need for it. Most people are decent human beings who wouldn’t allow their sick children to die if there was something they could donate to prevent it. But the situation you describe isn’t even analogous, since women do tend to emerge from their pregnancies/births intact. You don’t loose organs being pregnant or giving birth. As a matter of fact, the accurate analogy is a parent with default custody providing food and shelter for their child (umbilical cord=food, amniotic sac inside uterus=shelter), which state government DOES require under penalty of law.
I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but the human organism when concieved is parasitic.
No, I don’t have a hard time grasping your hypothesis. You’re just wrong. A parasitic relationship entails the host is either harmed or at least does not gain anything from the relationship. That is incorrect. First and foremost, passing one’s genetic material forward to the next generation is a desirable outcome. It’s the purpose of sexual reproduction, and if you take about 50-30 minutes watching a nature show, you’ll see just how desirable and coveted that chance is. Secondly, carrying a child to term improves a mother’s overall health and lowers her chances of developing certain diseases. With such an opinion of your offspring, though, I do find it hard to grasp your care for your children. I’m not saying that to be confrontational, spiteful, or mean. I’m just looking at what you have there and thinking about it in relation to the children you said you have and finding it surprising.
It doesn’t mean to be, but it is. Nature is uncaring.
Nature IS uncaring. That’s why I expect a parent to nurture and care for their offspring rather than kill that offspring. Nature dictates the the desirable result of copulation is procreation. Tough stuff, ladies. I’m not saying one cannot or should not avoid that all they like. But acting as though attempting to avoid conception excuses you from wrongdoing should you decide to kill any offspring produced by the end result of your actions is bunk.
X,
First and foremost, passing one’s genetic material forward to the next generation is a “desirable” outcome. It’s the “purpose” of sexual reproduction.
Desirable to whom? Incidently, if the mother doesn’t want the child, child is born with birth defects, or mother dies during pregnancy, the offspring could very well never fulfill on this so called “desired” outcome. An abortion does not stop this “desirable” outcome from happening again in the future. It is not a “purpose” of sexual reproduction. Concious people afix purpose. Again, nature is unfeeling. It is simply a result.
Secondly, carrying a child to term improves a mother’s overall health and lowers her chances of developing certain diseases. With such an opinion of your offspring, though, I do find it hard to grasp your care for your children. I’m not saying that to be confrontational, spiteful, or mean. I’m just looking at what you have there and thinking about it in relation to the children you said you have and finding it surprising.
None of those things are true if the mother dies. My wife & I chose to have children. In doing so we accepted the responsibility that that entails from the point that we make that choice until we die or the child dies. We did not conciously make this choice because of the desire to pass on our genetic material. I can see where a legal debate to when that choice must be made by should be, but their is no debate if a woman should have that choice in the first place.
By the way, do you admit to gestating humans being human beings, contrary to your former statement, since I provided that sworn testimony from medical and scientific experts? I notice you’ll respond to the post I put up for Doug, but not the one I posted for you. Curious…
Contrary to what former statement? You keep bringing that up like it proves your point for some reason. I already said that it is a human. Like Doug & I have expressed to you, it is not a “person” yet. If you are brain dead, you are still in existance and a homo sapien, but you abrogate your ”rights” since you could never exercise them. Sentience matters. Others exercise them for you(IE: family members usually on your behalf).
I don’t know, Juror. Why do we as a society pass and enforce ANY laws which “force” parents to care for, provide for, nurture, and protect their CHOSEN offspring? I guess all those are just violations of rights, and totally passe in this Age of Enlightened Freedom, eh? Abolish Child Protective Services! They’re violating peoples’ rights!!!
I added in the key word that you chose to omit that really makes all the difference. If society choses to tell a woman that she has to carry a child to term, they better take responsibility for providing for that child till death. For some reason I don’t see you agreeing to that though.
Paladin,
Claim #3: Xalisae, after 10 or less posts, specifically called you “depraved”.The word “depraved” does, indeed, show up in one of Xalisae’s quotes… the last of her quotes in the given interval; it’s also (as described in #1) addressed to ALL pro-legal-abortion people (in the context of Xalisae talking to Derrr, not to you), as the use of the plural (“hearts and minds”… unless your name is legion, and there are many of you?) makes quite clear; the idea that you could “obviously tell that she was directing it at you, and after only 10 posts” is silly. One might, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, ask if you had a guilty conscience which goaded you to “butt in” as you did…
I see, so your view is her intent wasn’t to direct those comments specifically towards me, as well as in general to pro-choice advocates. Even though she was making them to someone(Derrr) that had called her out on her behavior towards me and defended my conduct towards X. Also, she posted a communication I had with her earlier in the middle of her responses to Derrr. I’m still not sure why other then to single me out. It appears to me you will not admit to making a mistake, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m doing this against my better judgment, given some of your acerbic and drama-heavy comments to Jack, et al. (i.e. I’m a bit wary of you morphing into a troll before my very eyes). Hope springs eternal, I suppose.
I’m a troll because I disagree with your views? What was ascerbic or drama heavy? Did I disparaged his character? Like I asked before, have you ventured outside your comfort zone where 90% of the posters don’t agree with your core beliefs and challenge your assumptions?
You might also join us, instead, in returning to the theme of the main post, where some intellectual progress might be made?
Have I not been doing this continuosly thru the thread? You are the one that wanted to pick a fight, then beat a dead horse, and accuse ME of trolling. Why not just give it a rest?
All right, then. Back to the point at hand (for me)!
As an aside: I once found myself in an ongoing debate with a group at the “Friendly Atheist” blog (whose title was usually, though not always, an accurate descriptor of the commenters)… and I brought up this issue of “objective morality”. Several of the commenters flatly denied the existence of any such thing, of course (which didn’t surprise me), but some of them actually pushed the idea quite a bit farther than I’d seen it done before: one, in particular, asserted that there truly wasn’t a qualitative, substantive difference between his moral code and his taste/preference for olives (or whatever)… which surprised me very much! His thesis involved the idea that anyone’s moral code is “a product of biological/genetic pressures, social pressures and programming, and the like”, that “no person’s moral code is immutable” (e.g. some Christians can, under torture, social pressure, or sudden mental/physical trauma, be led/forced to accept abortion, blasphemy, etc.), and that no one can “prove, or point to” any source of objective moral truth; therefore, the only difference between his dislike of olives (or whatever) and his dislike for the rape of children was simply a matter of degree of emotional intensity (which could theoretically be modified with sufficient external/internal pressure). He further stated that the presence of an emotional aversion to murder, rape, torture, etc., were merely variants of the biological self-preservation instinct, insofar as a general, base-line reluctance of the typical human to do such “crimes” allows for the smooth survival of the species (which is also neither “good” nor “bad”, but it simply “is”–he asserted that, if we lacked such instincts, we’d quickly become extinct… and that’s “neither good not bad, but simply is”, as well).
It was quite the experience… to talk to an absolute moral nihilist. (I have to admit: when I mentioned that I’d “blocked” the messages of a particularly obnoxious member of the forum, this particular fellow [mentioned above] expressed “shock” that I could possibly do such a thing! Regrettably, some rather serious upheaval in my personal life–which is settled, for the most part, thanks be to God!–prevented me from pursuing this tantalizing hint of “objective moral code”–“thou shalt not shut down free expression”–in further discussion… but I admit to being semi-amused at the “utter agnostic”, who’d seemingly regressed his argument to the point of unassailability, finding such a blockage to be a sort of “secular sin”! Ah, well…)
Since some of the same ideas are coming up in Doug’s posts (and, recently, in Juror’s), perhaps we could bring the idea up again. To start, I’ll need to ask (so as not to go over needless ground):
“Is there any action which you, personally, take to be wrong in all circumstances–intrinsically wrong, by its very nature, regardless of circumstances, and regardless of a society’s approval, consent, knowledge, etc.?” For example (which I mentioned earlier): is it an intrinsically evil act (i.e. morally wrong) to torture an innocent toddler to death, even if the entire remaining population of the world were to approve of it and “legalize” it through civil legislation, etc.?
NOTE: please do not waste time trying to dodge this question on the pretext of “That’s ridiculous, because it’d never happen!” Of course, the example is extreme; you’ll find, when doing the hard and serious work of ethics (the science of examining moral good and evil), that such examples are often necessary, in order to make the main point clear, and to remove red-herring-esque distractions. In short: saying that “it’d never happen” is an under-handed way of leaving your answer blank; and that simply won’t do. Answer, or say outright that you do not know (and there’s no shame in that)… but be honest and forthright and logical.
Juror:
(*sigh*) Nary a peep from you, about Claims #1,2,4,5,6, which were also “unarguable”… all of them passed over in silence? No more mention of your (now discredited) claims that I “didn’t read Xalisae’s comments” and “cherry-picked” them (I do wonder how one could cherry-pick the “good” comments from the bad, without reading them all!)… followed (inexplicably and ironically) by your accusation that I was making “assumptions” about you, and that you indignantly denied doing the same?
Friend, to borrow a colloquialism: you’ve been throwing accusation after accusation against the wall, in the hopes that at least something might stick; and when the plenitude of them fails to stick, you ignore them all as if they’d never existed. (“Nothing to see, here, folks… move along, move along!”) That, sir, is intellectually dishonest; let’s not sugar-coat the matter. I truly see no general accusation (or even some of your specific accusations) of which you are not guilty, yourself… and as you continue your efforts on this topic, this trend seems only to get stronger.
Case in point:
I’m a troll because I disagree with your views?
No. Plenty of people disagree with my views; not many throw accusation after unfounded accusation, only to dodge them and grab another one when the first ones proved faulty… utterly heedless of logical coherence (i.e. a troll technique). I find it increasingly difficult not to believe that you’re utterly blind to the very faults in yourself that you accuse others of having; your track-record of being guilty of your own accusations is quite impressive.
What was ascerbic or drama heavy?
(*facepalm*) Lord, give me strength; here we go, again! All right… for example:
What’s with people around here and the term butthurt? Someone calls them on a dumb insult they’ve made and they cry about it. That’s the definition of butthurt. None the less, I apologize. I didn’t know you are a native Floridian and were in actuallity refering to yourself.
Portraying your opponents as “crying about it” (while you keep a stiff upper lip and Stoic demeanour about all vagaries of verbal battle, of course?) is rather patronizing, is it not? That’s merely one of the most recent drama-dripping and acerbic (BTW: I don’t usually make comments about spelling, but: it’s a bit easier for comprehension if you check your spelling, syntax and grammar, eh?) “grenades” you’ve thrown. Your quip about expecting spectacular things of Xalisae on the news was a bit drama-rich, was it not? Now, if you’re content to say “No, no… those were all light-hearted snark, not drama or acerbic epithets!”, then I’ll leave you to your own misconceptions on that matter.
Did I disparaged his character?
Not exactly, and not yet. Hence my comment that I was “wary” of you “morphing” into a troll. Hope springs eternal that you will not.
Like I asked before, have you ventured outside your comfort zone where 90% of the posters don’t agree with your core beliefs and challenge your assumptions?
(*sigh*) He asks, as he makes the assumption that I am doing so. (You seriously find it so hard to believe that you’ve been something of a one-man snark-fest, of late, that the only explanations for complaints must be that your opponents are “insecure” and “out of a comfort zone”? Condescension is becoming a skill of yours, sir.)
Have I not been doing this [logical discourse, sans the firefight] continuosly thru the thread?
“You keep useeng dat word [“continuously”]. I do not theenk it means what you theenk eet means.”
No, you haven’t. If you had, you wouldn’ have heart one complaint from me, I assure you. I can hardly believe that you have the temerity to ask such a thing.
You are the one that wanted to pick a fight, then beat a dead horse, and accuse ME of trolling. Why not just give it a rest?
(*groan*) Carla, stop me!!
My dear fellow: do you not remember replying to me, and asking me a series of questions… repeatedly, and after you’d resolved (at least twice) to “squash it on your end”? I even asked you, point-blank, if you wanted to cease talking about this (and if you wanted me to forbear in replying on this topic again); and your answer was a full reply, continuing discussion on this very issue, complete with questions for me. And now, you say that I “beat a dead horse” (then why did you keep riding it?) and will not “give it a rest”? For the love of all that’s good and holy, man, get a grip on yourself, and have some sense!
Let me ask this again, and give you yet another chance: do you wish to go tit-for-tat on this issue further, or do you wish to drop it and proceed with the thread-topic comments? If you prefer the latter, then I’d thank you to leave off any further comments on this particular issue; if the former, then feel free to reply away, and I will do likewise, as time and energy allow. I hope that’s sufficiently unambiguous?
Paladin,
(*sigh*) Nary a peep from you, about Claims #1,2,4,5,6, which were also “unarguable”… all of them passed over in silence?
Your attention to detail is again showing. I did address claim#2(her ascerion that I was “despicable”) as well as claim#3. In regards to the others, there’s really nothing more I can say about them since you refuse to acknowledge what is easily evident and they all originate from claim#3.
Portraying your opponents as “crying about it” (while you keep a stiff upper lip and Stoic demeanour about all vagaries of verbal battle, of course?) is rather patronizing, is it not?
Was his insult not dumb? Did he not whine that I needed to “chill out” and that I was “uptight” for calling him out on it? When did I claim to be stoic? I gave him a little sarcasm. I didn’t call him a despicable, morally corrupt human being though like X did to me.
Your quip about expecting spectacular things of Xalisae on the news was a bit drama-rich, was it not?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Like I said, extremists do extreme things. Do I think she would shoot someone? No. Can I see her breaking the law in support of what she feels correct. Absolutley.
(You seriously find it so hard to believe that you’ve been something of a one-man snark-fest, of late, that the only explanations for complaints must be that your opponents are “insecure” and “out of a comfort zone”?
I have snarked at exactly 3 people. Two that directed unprovoked personal insults at me, and you, the only person to defend the actions of those two.
Friend, to borrow a colloquialism: you’ve been throwing accusation after accusation against the wall, in the hopes that at least something might stick; and when the plenitude of them fails to stick, you ignore them all as if they’d never existed. (“Nothing to see, here, folks… move along, move along!”) That, sir, is intellectually dishonest; let’s not sugar-coat the matter.
(Sigh) Just because you say my accusation doesn’t stick doesn’t make what I accused her of untrue. Just because you fail to accept what is true, does not make it any less untrue. Again, show me what claims I made that didn’t “stick”.
By the way. Bravo on your feeling the need to call attention to my syntax & grammatical errors. Is that somehow suppose to strenthen your case?
Juror, in case this didn’t get through your mental filter:
[Paladin]
Let me ask this again, and give you yet another chance: do you wish to go tit-for-tat on this issue further, or do you wish to drop it and proceed with the thread-topic comments? If you prefer the latter, then I’d thank you to leave off any further comments on this particular issue; if the former, then feel free to reply away, and I will do likewise, as time and energy allow.
You seem to be choosing “option #2: respond”. Is that correct? And if I reply, will you be so kind as to leave off the bizarre comments about “beating a dead horse” and “letting the issue rest”… or, at very least, make up your mind?
I already told you I think we should let it rest. The only reason I continued to “ride the dead horse” is because you called my honesty into question and asked me for the quotes from X. Which i provided, free of commentary, true to my word. I think we can both agree this is useless, no? You may reply or not. I’ll stick to replies on topic from now on.
Fair enough. As I said earlier, I’ll let the reader decide whether you satisfied your point(s), or not.
I’ll let the reader decide whether you satisfied your point(s), or not.
If EITHER of you think anyone is still reading and following along carefully at this point I think you will be disappointed! ;)
Hahaha! I hear what your saying Len! That’s the funniest post i’ve read the entire thread. Well done sir. Back on topic it is then. :)
:) Len, may I introduce to you Juror, our new chill-out trainee? Juror, Len. (And I’m afraid we busted you, Len, since you read and followed us enough to comment! ;) )
Very well… back to business!
len, I hope you’re at least following the points relevant to the topic itself. ;P
Juror, now that you’ve answered my post directed towards Doug, could you please rebut the one I addressed to you? The most glaring point being this quote from you: “I believe you are not a human “being” until birth.” Which I addressed with sworn testimony from not 1 but 2 professors. Care to concede the point yet?
Desirable to whom?
The family line of the individuals who have reproduced. Socially/economically, perhaps not immediately fortuitous, but having reproduced affords anyone certain benefits, the first that comes to my mind being having another family member to provide care for you when you yourself are no longer able to do so.
Incidently, if the mother doesn’t want the child, child is born with birth defects, or mother dies during pregnancy, the offspring could very well never fulfill on this so called “desired” outcome.
So? That’s still the purpose. The purpose of my purchasing a vehicle is so that I might drive it from place to place. If it breaks down, that doesn’t change its purpose.
An abortion does not stop this “desirable” outcome from happening again in the future.
So? It still stops it then. And it is that precise instant which is important, because every instant is important, because beyond a given individual’s “purpose” is the fact that they are a human being who deserves consideration beyond their usefulness or other peoples’ circumstances.
It is not a “purpose” of sexual reproduction. Concious people afix purpose. Again, nature is unfeeling. It is simply a result.
Balderdash. The purpose of photosynthesis is to produce glucose. Me using my conscious mind to “afix” the purpose of photosynthesis yielding dimes for my piggybank doesn’t make it so. Natural processes have natural goals.
None of those things are true if the mother dies.
ELECTIVE ABORTION, JUROR. STICK WITH US, OK?! ELECTIVE!
My wife & I chose to have children.
I’m sorry that your children entered this world being viewed as merely an option for you and your wife. I didn’t choose to have my children. I was gifted with their arrival and did my best to make the necessary adjustments in my life to afford them the respect and dignity they deserved, regardless of what I would’ve chosen.
In doing so we accepted the responsibility that that entails from the point that we make that choice until we die or the child dies.
I’m sorry your children were born into a world in which their parents only thought the responsibility of their care only needed to be accepted if they felt like it. My kids had at least one parent who was willing to accept the responsibility of their care regardless of her circumstances or how that parent happened to be feeling about the idea of being a parent on any given day.
We did not conciously make this choice because of the desire to pass on our genetic material. I can see where a legal debate to when that choice must be made by should be, but their is no debate if a woman should have that choice in the first place.
Nope. A human being’s right to continue to live shouldn’t be dependent upon the whims of their parents. Every human being should be given the minimum dignity to have their lives protected by law regardless of how anyone else might feel about them being given the chance to live, even their parents.
Contrary to what former statement? You keep bringing that up like it proves your point for some reason. I already said that it is a human.
Yes. He or she is a human. A human BEING. Why won’t you say that?
Like Doug & I have expressed to you, it is not a “person” yet.
I don’t give a rat’s rear about your and Doug’s idea of “person”. I’m not arguing about “persons”, and you’ll find I go out of my way not to mention the word. I say “HUMAN BEING”, because abortion is a human rights issue, and a human rights violation, and every HUMAN BEING should be entitled to having their lives protected by law by sheer virtue of them being a human being, regardless of their cognitive capacity, level of development, or any other factor by which you choose to discriminate.
If you are brain dead, you are still in existance and a homo sapien,
Ok. And that should be enough.
but you abrogate your ”rights” since you could never exercise them. Sentience matters. Others exercise them for you(IE: family members usually on your behalf).
A squirming, defenseless neonate cannot “exercise their rights”. I’ll ask you what I asked Doug: Where does it end? How “pro-choice” are you?
I added in the key word that you chose to omit that really makes all the difference.
No it doesn’t. A woman “choosing” something doesn’t suddenly excuse inexcusable behavior. As I stated earlier, I didn’t choose to have my children, I gave them the consideration every human being deserves. Because I didn’t CHOOSE them, that means I should be able to abuse them legally? I didn’t choose them, after all.
If society choses to tell a woman that she has to carry a child to term,
Society does no such thing. You do realize women naturally carry to term on their own, regardless of the laws established by society?
they better take responsibility for providing for that child till death. For some reason I don’t see you agreeing to that though.
I support programs that assist women in gaining the skills that they need to take care of their children. Assistance programs as they stand now are useless. I know, I’ve used them. We need real childcare programs to help women through real educational programs for real degrees, licenses, and certifications. We need real incentives or companies to provide childcare and parent-friendly facilities and atmospheres in the workplace. But this is a moot point, because as I’ve pointed out before, we’re talking about ELECTIVE abortions. I’ve talked to plenty of women who were in a fine place to take care of and raise a child when they became pregnant who aborted just because they didn’t feel like being a mommy and they also didn’t feel like letting their child live. All the aid programs in the world won’t prevent that. That’s what laws are for, and they’re needed. So…what about ELECTIVE ABORTIONS?
p.s. please answer the post that I directed toward you earlier that contained real valid points that you’ve been side-stepping for weeks.
1) You seem to suggest that personal wants are paramount “reasons” for doing (or not doing) something. Can you explain why?
Paladin, sorry for the days-long delay in replying. Work has just crushed me lately. I try and leave nothing ever not replied-to, even if I have to bring the posting to another thread if comments become disabled on one.
I do think that conscious choices, things where we are not compelled physically otherwise, are indeed because of our desires. We may say we want something because it’s in line with the law, in line with what our parents say, our teachers, our peers, the Bible, etc., but it still comes down to us. Even if we state that a thing is “objectively moral” or “absolutely moral,” it’s still our perception.
Sometimes you see people saying, “I didn’t really want to do it…” Well, the truth is that they did want to do it. More than they wanted to do something else or have the thing not done.
____
2) Along the lines of #1: would you consider it immoral (objectively speaking, not just your opinion or mine) of me to violate your wants without (what you take to be) sufficiently good reason? (I’m wondering: if there is no objective right and wrong, and morality is simply a matter of personal whim and preference and inheritance from ancestors, then why would anything ever be wrong, even if there were no “reason” for it at all? I don’t need a world-approved “reason” to eat an ice-cream cone… so why should I need a “reason” to rape, kill, or do whatever I have the physical and/or political power to do, as my whims strike me?)
I don’t agree there is any objective or absolute morality. It’s always going to be in the eye of the beholder, in the mind. Why would anything ever be “wrong”? Because we have desires and when we don’t like a thing or don’t want it, we often say it’s wrong. This applies to the individual, to groups, to societies, countries, the whole world – on some issues there is overwhelming commonality of opinion.
In no way is morality “just personal whim.” A society is basically a group of people with things in common – if the individual gets far enough out of line compared to the morals of the society, the individual will be imprisoned, killed, etc., or otherwise “put out” of society.
If it’s just between two people, then yes, I think it’s immoral for one to tread on the other’s wants, to make the other suffer, without a good enough reason.
As far as this “bodily autonomy” and “liberty” crap, a woman’s “bodily autonomy” isn’t being violated by pregnancy. That’s her body acting exactly as it should in regard to her child whose body is also acting exactly as it should given the circumstances. It’s not like rape (which is also in a way bodies acting in a biologically normal manner depending upon what exactly is being perpetrated, however, this is a moot point as there is no conscious effort on the part of the unborn causing the “violation”.) The gestating human being was placed exactly where they are by the very woman in question’s body. You can’t penalize someone else with death for being placed somewhere by someone who wants to kill them. And as far as “liberty” goes, I’ve been pregnant twice, Doug. I had every bit the same liberty while pregnant that I did pre- and post-pregnancy. No one was turning me away at the voting booth when I went there pregnant with my son.
Xalisae, I’m not saying pregnancy violates autonomy. The woman is (usually) free to get pregnant or not. Also not saying the unborn are “guilty” – there’s no capacity for guilt there, anyway. And yeah, you were allowed to vote. Where liberty and bodily autonomy come in are in society’s approach to the woman. She’s free to start a pregnancy. Is she free to end one?
____
First, I’d like to say that it is precisely because I am a “somebody” right now, that is exactly how I know I’d want to and deserve to be protected as a “somebody” even when/if I didn’t live up to your criteria for the term somewhere down the line. But I digress…
Well, it takes quite a bit to stop being a “somebody,” i.e. lose sentience, awareness, cognizance, etc., as with my example of scooping out the brain and keeping the body alive.
___
You’re all over the board with this one. First you say “self-awareness, our tool-using and tool-making brains”-That excludes a lot of post-born people (or “non-people”, by your standard, apparently). I did a lot of work at a school for children with SEVERE autism. They had self-injurious behaviors and were too dangerous to themselves and others to even be enrolled in the public school’s special education programs. Many of those children I saw were in wheelchairs, some with fixed-gazes into nothing. Many couldn’t speak, and didn’t appear to know anything about where they were, who they were, or the things and people around them. They were persons, Doug, and I’d fight to protect their lives just as I fight now for gestating humans. They’re both still valid human lives deserving of protection under the law. We all are.
I don’t exclude the autistic from having personhood – they most certainly do, IMO. It’s not being “all over the board,” it’s that there are several things at work here. There is my opinion of what sets our species apart from others, and then there is what you mention, above – “I know I’d want..” = certainly qualifies for personhood.
____
Then you go on to say, “our ability and desire to accumulate knowledge and pass it forward in time”-this statement encompasses gestating human beings as well. They may not be able to actualize this ability in their current stage of growth and development, but the ability exists. It would be actualized if they were simply allowed to live. And if by your logic it is absent, then once again there are many human beings who have already been born who lack this. Where does it end?
After birth, there’s nothing like the woman’s autonomy argument. Our racial trait of passing knowledge to our descendants isn’t present in the unborn. Heck, it’s not present in kids until well after birth, if not until later. But again – this is not what I’m saying “personhood” is, but rather what makes us “people” as a race, IMO – what set’s us apart from the other species on the planet.
____
“Granted that “philosophy” won’t change physical reality, yet there is certainly more to the abortion debate than that – philosophy, etc., mos’ definitely come into it. Mos’ mos’ def’….”
I disagree. The physical reality of the situation is paramount, and I’ll go into that notion further and deeper a little later. But I think this is probably where the vast majority of the static between us arises, eh?
Ha! Could be, probably – I’ll wait and see what you say. To me, the physical reality is just a given.
_____
“Well, morality *is* conscious thought. There is no caring in “physical reality.” The moral realm has to have a mind involved. A thing will exist, or not, physically. An action will occur, or not. Thus far, we have no morality, there’s no element of good/bad/right/wrong yet. It’s only when there is desire, one way or another, that morality comes.”
In this respect, I suppose you’re correct. But this is where I try to take the tact of the most “morality” with the least amount of hindrance to either party while causing the least amount of damage to each party. Ending one’s life is entirely out of the question. To me that seems to be causing the most damage for the least amount of gain to anyone. A human being’s life is irretrievably lost and there is no definitive way to prove that the woman would be better off one way or the other. I can sit here and conjecture all day that perhaps had I aborted my daughter in my time of crisis that maybe I’d be some six figure professional now, but that’s also tantamount to saying if I sprouted wings tomorrow I might fly to Tijuana. I could still possibly fly to Tijuana without growing wings, I’d just have to buy airplane tickets instead. I could sprout wings, but they might be incapable of flight as well. I’d rather not someone lost their lives for the sake of what MAY be for someone else when we know that we have this very real life in front of us that is most certainly being killed in an abortion.
“The least amount of damage to each party” = you’re equating the woman and the unborn, there, and that’s one area of our disagreement. Agreed, that we can’t definitively say the woman will be better or worse off (either way).
“I’d rather not someone lost their lives for the sake of what MAY be for someone else.” Your use of “someone” there sure seems like you’re personifying the unborn, to me. Prior to emotion, sentience, etc., being there, there isn’t any emotion, any desire for anything. That’s a far cry from the “I know I’d want” statement you made for yourself. For most fetuses, I do see what I consider personhood appearing in the weeks in the 20s.
____
“Lack of conscious thought is hardly grounds for killing other human beings.”
“And I didn’t say it was as simple as that. I’m saying that to a point in gestation there is not only no conscious thought, there’s also no emotion, no personality, no “somebody” there at all (this is all my opinion)”
“to a point in gestation” Why “to a point”? If it should be acceptable for a woman to kill her offspring, then it always is. It either is or it isn’t. Period.
Who says “it either is or it isn’t”? That’s one more opinion. I say to a point in gestation because most fetuses do become aware, have emotions, personality, etc., things I include in personhood. My opinion.
____
The existence of a “somebody” in a human being’s body isn’t even there after birth, really. Heck, I’m not even the same “somebody” I was when I was in high school. I wasn’t the same “somebody” I was in high school by the time my first semester of college was over. Would that make my murder in high school acceptable because I turned out not to be “that somebody” anyway? Did I murder myself because I subjected myself to experience which changed my psyche so dramatically that people who knew me then wouldn’t even know I was the same person simply by speaking to me now? Should I be charged? Attempting to assign moral values to this subject by anything other than definitive physical/biological/scientific criteria is like trying to pin a ribbon of smoke to a dress, and makes about as much sense. The idea of it might look pretty on paper, but without definite quantifiable values, it’s a wasted effort.
Agreed that much more of a person is present, almost always, later in life than at birth, but we’re not arguing about the born – society has already attributed personhood there, and neither you nor me is thinking that’s wrong. Nobody wanted to kill you when you were in high school or college, did they? If you had been inside their body, I’d say it would be a much different deal – at least there would be a real question about things then, versus what I am presuming – that nobody had any reasonable wish to kill you. Biology and science do not pronounce upon morality.
_____
You might not see a “somebody” there, but empirically, if there’s a human body there, there’s a “somebody” there. You might not have seen a “somebody” behind you when you backed your car out this morning, but if you ran over him, when you came home this evening, the police would be there with the evidence begging to differ with your original assessment.
Is there debate on the dude behind my car? ; ) Now, if that was out hypothetical body with the brain having been scooped out, then yeah, I’d say it wasn’t a person. It would still be a “human being,” certainly, but IMO the person they were would be long gone.
____
“what we have is pro-lifers wanting to deny the wish of women who are pregnant (with the unconscious beings *inside* them) and don’t want to be. My opinion – the pro-lifers don’t have a good enough reason to legally trump what the woman wants.”
My dad used to say, “Wish in one hand and s___ in the other, and see which one gets full first.” (he cleaned it up for us children, of course. He used to say “spit in the other”. I learned what the actual statement was after I became an adult.)
Heh – okay, but wishes is what this is. You more wish the unborn lives would be preserved, I more wish women retain the freedom they now have.
___
A woman wanting an abortion probably never wanted to become pregnant in the first place. I’m sure there are some twisted individuals out there, no doubt, but I stand by my statement. Unfortunately, that cannot be, and what has happened has happened. We can’t allow people to cause harm to others over their wishes and whims due to circumstances.
Again, this is you stating the unborn are “others” without qualification, without distinction, and I certainly see a difference.
___
An investor who has just lost all of his life savings on Wall Street can’t be given a pass on shooting a bank teller to death to steal his cash back, even if he once had the money, it was his, and he wants it back desperately or needs it back to keep from being evicted. As a woman, I’ll be the first to say that yes, biology is quite unkind to the “fairer sex”, and it quite frankly sucks. However, I’m not about to shrug the obligations I have to other living human beings I’ve created even unintentionally just because I wish or I want or I’d like _blank_. I honestly don’t see how you can sit there and say someone’s wish is more important than their child’s life. I really don’t.
First and foremost, I see the importance of the unborn in relation to the woman or couple – I am leaving the obligations they feel up to them in the matter, to a point in gestation. I hear you about what you feel your obligations and our obligations are in general – and I would not ask you to change. I also wouldn’t have your way forced above the desires of another pregnant woman.
_____
And Doug-I enjoy this exchange with you because you get my style, and I appreciate that. At least you address me honestly instead of using what I can only describe as “my machismo” as an opportunity to be evasive and distract from the issue at hand. Granted, I think you do get a little evasive sometimes which is frustrating, but at least you’re discreet about it. :X
Honestly, I cannot figure out why you’d say I’m ever evasive. I will always give my opinion, my feelings on “how things work” as far as morals, society, laws, etc., what makes human motivation, etc. I really like talking to you, too, X.
“Is there any action which you, personally, take to be wrong in all circumstances–intrinsically wrong, by its very nature, regardless of circumstances, and regardless of a society’s approval, consent, knowledge, etc.?” For example (which I mentioned earlier): is it an intrinsically evil act (i.e. morally wrong) to torture an innocent toddler to death, even if the entire remaining population of the world were to approve of it and “legalize” it through civil legislation, etc.?
Paladin, no, I see nothing that’s intrinsically moral or immoral. My feeling is that it’s immoral/wrong/bad/evil to torture the toddler to death. Doesn’t matter about the rest of the population.
Where liberty and bodily autonomy come in are in society’s approach to the woman.
There is no “society’s approach to the woman”. Laws are not passed to protect other human beings in order to “oppress” those who would harm others. They’re implemented to protect those human beings who would come to harm, only. That is not denying liberty to a woman any more than passing laws against murder is violating the liberty and autonomy of serial killers or passing laws against rape violates the bodily autonomy of rapists.
Well, it takes quite a bit to stop being a “somebody,” i.e. lose sentience, awareness, cognizance, etc., as with my example of scooping out the brain and keeping the body alive.
Because I don’t draw discriminatory lines in the sand between which human beings are “persons” and which are not, I find the notion of disqualifying someone from personhood based on some flimsy criteria like mental processes and what some outside party deems cognizance/sentience horrifying. You still haven’t satisfied my prior comment that your argument for abortion might not be satisfactory to a participant in the Holocaust or the slave trade, just as their arguments are not adequate to appease you. Once you start disqualifying ANY human being, you start down a very disturbing path, and you haven’t yet set my mind at ease about that fact.
I don’t exclude the autistic from having personhood – they most certainly do, IMO.
Why? Some don’t live up to the criteria you’ve established beforehand, and maybe not just the kids with autism I’ve worked with, but certainly some of the other children and young adults with other various handicaps I’ve assisted in my time would not. Why are you making exceptions to your own rule, and what exactly are those exceptions? But honestly…talk about “without qualification”…
There is my opinion of what sets our species apart from others, and then there is what you mention, above – “I know I’d want..” = certainly qualifies for personhood.
Both of those things are your opinions of what sets our species apart from others. I’d rather rest my head at night knowing I place my convictions on something a little less flimsy than opinions. One thing that sets our species apart from others is just that-our species. That’s provable and not subject to mere opinion. “Human being”, not “person”. And “I know I’d want” still wouldn’t qualify me for personhood AFTER THE FACT.
“The least amount of damage to each party” = you’re equating the woman and the unborn, there, and that’s one area of our disagreement.
I’m equating them because they’re both living human beings. Do you disagree?
Your use of “someone” there sure seems like you’re personifying the unborn, to me.
That’s because you have a separate concept of “persons” vs. “human beings”. I do not, and refuse such discriminatory notions. This is merely a product of your flawed logic.
Prior to emotion, sentience, etc., being there, there isn’t any emotion, any desire for anything. That’s a far cry from the “I know I’d want” statement you made for yourself.
And my argument doesn’t rest on that being important. Yours does. And you haven’t lead me to understand why yet.
Who says “it either is or it isn’t”?
The fact that a change in one’s cognitive capacity/ability doesn’t change who/what he/she is. Same with the guy behind the car. If someone found a dead body in your driveway, I don’t think they’d give a flying flip what his SAT scores were, if he’d ever suffered any sort of previous head trauma, etc. However, I really would love to see you arguing the point with police officers. I doubt they’d be as understanding as I’ve been should you find that the person behind your car was actually Johnny McHandicapped who lived down the lane and who was by your definition not a “person”.
Agreed that much more of a person is present, almost always, later in life than at birth, but we’re not arguing about the born – society has already attributed personhood there, and neither you nor me is thinking that’s wrong.
Some people argue that about neonates from your camp, and for the exact reason you argue it about prenatal human beings. What society arbitrarily giveth, society may arbitrarily taketh away. It’s happened before, no less than twice before abortion.
Nobody wanted to kill you when you were in high school or college, did they? If you had been inside their body, I’d say it would be a much different deal – at least there would be a real question about things then, versus what I am presuming – that nobody had any reasonable wish to kill you.
How is wanting to kill someone after an act that is well-known to cause that someone to the point that causing a someone is the biological intent of the act itself “reasonable”? “OH CRAP! WHAT I JUST DID/WHAT OCCURRED WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ITS BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE! HOW CAN THAT BE?! KILL THE RESULTING HUMAN BEING!” – not reasonable. Heck, you seem big on societal norms. The societal norm is a woman who shares a genetic parent/child relationship with another human being, her part being the parent, is expected to care for and nurture that other human being. If you’re so big on societal norms/approval, abortion doesn’t even stand up to your accepted substitute for morality.
Honestly, I cannot figure out why you’d say I’m ever evasive.
Sometimes you seem to be. I sometimes can’t tell if it’s genuine lack of understanding, or if you’re intentionally being coy, but I suppose I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. ;P
Doug,
First of all: a tip of the hat to you for your diligence! (And no need to worry: reply when you have leisure. I’m quite familiar with trying to balance discussions in cyberspace with responsibilities in real life! The latter comes first, if you’ll forgive the pun…)
It’s long been my contention that absolute moral relativism (i.e. “my truth for me, your truth for you, there is no objective standard of morality, ever, anywhere”) has one of two ultimate fates: degeneration into utter amorality–functionally, as well as philosophically–(and ultimately into insanity), or being abandoned in favour of objective truth. I can explain my reasoning for this as we go, but let me take a different starting point, for a moment.
I’m a mathematician (and teacher), so I hope you can understand why I do not tolerate “mathematical relativism”, for example (e.g. “2 + 2 = 4 for you, but not for me; I think it’s 5!”–and no, I’m not talking about changing the base, or any other deviation from basic arithmetic using the field of real numbers… just in case there are any other mathematical pedants out there! :) ). If a student writes “5” as the answer to “2 + 2” on one of my tests, I’m afraid I’ll have to mark it wrong… appeals to freedom and relativism and opinion notwithstanding. Do you see why? More importantly, do you see why it’d be objectively correct (and necessary) for me to do so?
Juror, now that you’ve answered my post directed towards Doug, could you please rebut the one I addressed to you? The most glaring point being this quote from you: “I believe you are not a human “being” until birth.” Which I addressed with sworn testimony from not 1 but 2 professors. Care to concede the point yet?
For like the 4th time, I have never disputed that testimony. Sentience does matter though. Maybe not to you, but to the vast majority of others it does. It is what makes us human. It is the reason you have zero problem(most likely) smashing that fly buzzing around your kitchen. You asked would I kill my children. If they were in a vegetative state like Terry Shiavo was, I would have no problem doing that. Again, IMO it is living for the sake of living. Why prolong the suffering? What’s so great about existence(especially in agony) and so awful about nonexistence?
So? That’s still the purpose. The purpose of my purchasing a vehicle is so that I might drive it from place to place. If it breaks down, that doesn’t change its purpose.
Again, purpose is afixed by people. Maybe I buy a car for the purpose of impressing my friends when they come over, so I never drive it. I have one purpose you have another purpose. Someone as intelligent as you clearly understands that sexual intercourse rarely results in pregnancy. For most, the purpose is intimacy with another.
So? It still stops it then. And it is that precise instant which is important, because every instant is important, because beyond a given individual’s “purpose” is the fact that they are a human being who deserves consideration beyond their usefulness or other peoples’ circumstances.
Important for what? Your life is important to you only because you are aware you are living it.
juror(None of those things are true if the mother dies)
ELECTIVE ABORTION, JUROR. STICK WITH US, OK?! ELECTIVE!
Are they not all elective? When not elected it’s called a miscarraige. There are number of reasons why one may be elected. You jumped all over me for expressing compassion towards Carol Howard because she elected to have an abortion due to fear of a ruptured uterus & death. No one has a crystal ball. Do I think she should have elected to do it earlier, sure. But she didn’t and that’s life. Do you think JH would be better off if she had been aborted, then she is now? Profoundly handicapped existing in a world where she is continuosly frustrated because she can barely communicate. I certainly do, and I’m not even religious.
I’m sorry that your children entered this world being viewed as merely an option for you and your wife. I didn’t choose to have my children. I was gifted with their arrival and did my best to make the necessary adjustments in my life to afford them the respect and dignity they deserved, regardless of what I would’ve chosen.
What are you talking about “merely an option”? Who said we would have wanted to terminate the pregnancy if it had happened earlier in our marraige? We planned and took great measures so that we could provide for them the way we feel they deserve to be. It’s called responsibility. A 14 year old girl in all likelyhood can’t do that. So is it best to continue that life of most likely hardship, or end it well before sentience(when 90% of abortions occur)?
I’m sorry your children were born into a world in which their parents thought the responsibility of their care needed to be accepted.
There you go. I changed your response to correctly reflect what actually occured in my family’s situation. :)
Yes. He or she is a human. A human BEING. Why won’t you say that?
Because if you haven’t developed the capacity for thought yet, you are no more a human “being” than your kidney is.
I don’t give a rat’s rear about your and Doug’s idea of “person”. I’m not arguing about “persons”, and you’ll find I go out of my way not to mention the word.
You make that abundantly clear. Yet the majority of Humans do give a rat’s ass about it. The reason being is concious thought and the degree at which we can do it is what seperates us from other species.
(juror)If you are brain dead, you are still in existance and a homo sapien,
Ok. And that should be enough.
Enough for what? To keep living? For what purpose would you want to go on living at that point? To drain your loved one’s physical,emotional, & financial assests? Because that’s what you’d be doing.
A squirming, defenseless neonate cannot “exercise their rights”. I’ll ask you what I asked Doug: Where does it end? How “pro-choice” are you?
Exactly the reason the parents do it for them. It ends where the majority says it ends. You would have to put up specifics for me to answer on the last question.
.
No it doesn’t. A woman “choosing” something doesn’t suddenly excuse inexcusable behavior. As I stated earlier, I didn’t choose to have my children, I gave them the consideration every human being deserves. Because I didn’t CHOOSE them, that means I should be able to abuse them legally? I didn’t choose them, after all.
No one is saying anything about children already born. If a women didn’t chose to have a child and it was born they most likely wouldn’t/couldn’t provide for it the way it deserves to be. Fact of life.
(juror)If society choses to tell a woman that she has to carry a child to term,
Society does no such thing. You do realize women naturally carry to term on their own, regardless of the laws established by society?
Say what? Notice I put in the word “if”? That is because if anti-abortion measures were passed that is what would be required by law.
I support programs that assist women in gaining the skills that they need to take care of their children. Assistance programs as they stand now are useless. I know, I’ve used them. We need real childcare programs to help women through real educational programs for real degrees, licenses, and certifications. We need real incentives or companies to provide childcare and parent-friendly facilities and atmospheres in the workplace. But this is a moot point, because as I’ve pointed out before, we’re talking about ELECTIVE abortions.
I support all those things as well. But we live in the real world. No chance in H-e double hockey sticks the Earth would be able to sustain every child that could be carried to term. With more people comes more problems for those already in concious existance. Using the technology to curb a life before it is “truly” living is necessary IMHO.
By the way, I appreciate your more civil tone towards me. It makes dialogue easier.
EDITED BY MOD
Paladin,
“Is there any action which you, personally, take to be wrong in all circumstances–intrinsically wrong, by its very nature, regardless of circumstances, and regardless of a society’s approval, consent, knowledge, etc.?” For example (which I mentioned earlier): is it an intrinsically evil act (i.e. morally wrong) to torture an innocent toddler to death, even if the entire remaining population of the world were to approve of it and “legalize” it through civil legislation, etc.?
I do believe the example given is intrinsically evil. There is no good that could come from it on society’s part. It could be beneficial on an individual level if the perp is a twisted mess that got pleasure from it. Me not being that type of person however would disagree with the practice.
IMO, there are absolutes such as numbers and objects(chair for instance). Right & wrong I don’t think are absolutes. No two people have the same thought ever.
Juror wrote:
I do believe the example given [cf. the world giving unanimous consent to the torture-death of a toddler] is intrinsically evil.
Er… given what you write after this, I think we have a lack of clarity on some definitions, here. “Intrinsically evil” means “morally illicit by its nature, in its very essence, independent of other circumstances”; something which is intrinsically evil cannot be made “non-evil” by changing the surroundings or dynamics, and it can never be a subjective matter (which would be merely a subject’s views/feelings about the essence of the act, not a statement about the essence of the act itself). For instance: if torturing a toddler to death (and/or giving consent to that act) is intrinsically evil, then it would not matter if, as a result, the rest of the world were to be freed from all physical and emotional suffering for the rest of their long mortal lives; that would, at best, be describing a *relative* (extrinsic) evil (i.e. evil only so long as the circumstances are thus-and-so, and do not yet meet a certain set of standards). “Intrinsic” and “objective” go hand-in-hand, so to speak; it’s impossible for an intrinsic characteristic (i.e. pertaining to the actual essence of an object/act) to be anything other than objective (i.e. definite, regardless of the views, opinions, votes, beliefs, feelings, or even awareness of any spectators).
There is no good that could come from it on society’s part.
Again: that is language proper to relativism, not to intrinsic matters. I, for example, would find the decision to torture a toddler to death to be a grave evil, no matter what the potential (hypothetical) benefits might be. If that one torture-death could bring about an utter physical utopia on Earth until the end of time, it would not justify the original act; if such a torture-death were the only possible means by which Earth would not be transformed into a hellish nightmare for every living person, it would not justify the original act.
It could be beneficial on an individual level if the perp is a twisted mess that got pleasure from it.
That is where your definition of “beneficial” is dubious. I might agree that a perverse person might derive *pleasure* from it; but “benefit” is a label whose appropriateness is rather murky, there… and I think I might be able to find a few examples where even you, who aspire to be a moral relativist par excellence, would agree with me.
Me not being that type of person however would disagree with the practice.
Are you familiar with the difference between the technical (philosophical) terms, “quantitative” and “qualitative”? If two things are quantitatively different, they differ only by a matter of degree, and not in substance (e.g. the number 5 is larger than the number 3, but they’re both numbers; a pitcher-full of water differs from a thinbleful of water only by degree/amount/quantity); but if two things are qualitatively different, they differ in their substance/essence, and not merely in amount/quantity (e.g. a side of beef is larger than a typical slass of water, but the difference is far more profound than mere quantity; one is meat, and the other is not; one is water, and the other is not; the very substance/quality of the objects are fundamentally different).
Now, consider this case: I, for example, regard my distaste for olives (and I really don’t like them) as being qualitatively different from my antipathy toward the idea of torturing a toddler to death; I regard the first as a nuisance (even if I can’t escape them), and the second as a crime (even if I’m not forced to watch). I might well have a difference in emotional intensity (i.e. quantitative) between the two situations, in addition to my other reactions, but that’s hardly the whole story, nor is it even the most important part of the story. Do you see? I find it hard to believe that even you would categorize “biting into a bad grape” as being in the same moral category as “raping a child to death”, and that your only difference in reaction would be a “matter of degree” (e.g. if you were to find an unpleasant enough grape, it’d trouble you just as deeply). Can you clarify?
IMO, there are absolutes such as numbers and objects(chair for instance).
There are.
Right & wrong I don’t think are absolutes.
Not all issues about right and wrong (i.e. ethics) are objective; that is true. But you’d be mistaken to say that no moral issues are objective in nature, or that no moral issues have an objective basis (and I think you’d find it insanely difficult, if not impossible, to prove your case). I’m still rather confident that even you and Doug have not abandoned every last vestige of moral sense, just yet… and that it’s only in the safety of anonymous, philosophical debate that you feel the luxury to propose such ideas (since amorality and agnosticism are, on the average, quite a bit easier to defend from objections than are issues about which someone actually takes a stand–just as it’s far easier to say that “a witch cast a spell and caused an earth-quake” than to study the tiresome, dry details of plate techtonics and find a physical hypothesis/explanation.
No two people have the same thought ever.
I hope you can see that this is quite beside the point, and that it’s proper only to extrinsic (i.e. non-intrinsic) ideas? And unless you’re using a rarefied, esoteric definition of “same”, your statement is false: every last student who answered my last exam question correctly, for example, had the very same thought (at least insofar as the answer was concerned), and at roughly the same time and place.
Whoops… I’ll play “grammar/spelling/typo Nazi” on myself, this time:
“the very substance/quality of the objects
areIS fundamentally different).”“dry details of plate
techtonicsTECTONICS”Fair’s fair, after all… :)
“Sentience does matter though. Maybe not to you, but to the vast majority of others it does. It is what makes us human.”
—
Animals are sentient. Are they human?
Oi. Right out of the box, we have “For like the 4th time, I have never disputed that testimony.” and then what do you do a little further down? Dispute the testimony of course, by saying:
“Yes. He or she is a human. A human BEING. Why won’t you say that?”
Because if you haven’t developed the capacity for thought yet, you are no more a human “being” than your kidney is.
If you’re not disputing the testimony, then stop disputing the testimony. lol. A gestating human being is just that, and I’ve provided sworn testimony of college professors who are pioneers in their respective fields to back me up. If you really think you can take them on, go for it. Otherwise, drop the notion that a gestating human being is “no more of a human being than your kidney is.” and say it with me: “A gestating human is a human being.” It’s not hard.
Sentience does matter though. Maybe not to you, but to the vast majority of others it does.
Unsubstantiated. Prove it. I’m sure if most people saw someone laying on the side of the road displaying no signs of sentience, they’d still go out of their way to help that human being.
It is what makes us human.
No it’s not. Our genus and species make us human.
It is the reason you have zero problem(most likely) smashing that fly buzzing around your kitchen.
Not if that fly were genetically engineered with human DNA. Should a fly/human hybrid be developed, even though it looked like nothing but a fly, I’d certainly have a problem with ending that fly’s life, and not only that, but that fly being created in the first place. Especially if he looked like Jeff Goldblum. That guy is creepy.
You asked would I kill my children. If they were in a vegetative state like Terry Shiavo was, I would have no problem doing that.
I’ll just repeat that and let it speak for itself.
Again, IMO it is living for the sake of living.
Are you living for some grand purpose I don’t know about? Most of us are living for the sake of living, and are quite fond of it, even if we don’t realize it. That’s why we fight to survive. If you’re not living for the sake of living, usually those individuals attempt or succeed in killing themselves.
Why prolong the suffering?
Who gets to determine what suffering is? Who gets to set the bar when anyone under the bar is fair game for being killed? Is it the guy earning 300k a year that says he wouldn’t want to live anymore if he didn’t have his BMW with heated leather seats? If that’s the case, then we’re both in trouble, eh? Do you get my point yet?
Flowers For Algernon…
What’s so great about existence(especially in agony) and so awful about nonexistence?
I don’t know. Why don’t you try “nonexistence” (although you’d still exist, you’d just be dead. I could still poke you with a stick though) yourself (before recommending it for others) and tell me what could possibly be so horrible about it, m’kay? 9_9
[More to follow…]
Important for what? Your life is important to you only because you are aware you are living it.
Everything that has life acts as though it is important to them, regardless of how self-aware they are. They’re called “survival instincts”, and most living creatures have them. Ironically enough, seems to me the only living creatures that don’t are human beings who use that oh-so-important (in your opinion) consciousness and sentience to rationalize themselves out of them. A lot of good that does them then, eh? But this is all a moot point anyway, because how valuable my life is to me is not the issue here. I could hate myself and want to die and my life would still be protected by law, as well it should be.
Are they not all elective?
No. Sometimes a mother might die due to a complication of pregnancy, and in the course of treating the complication, the pregnancy is unintentionally ended. Some definitions of “therapeutic abortion” satisfy this criteria. On to the next point at which you’re wrong…
When not elected it’s called a miscarraige.
No, that’s called a “spontaneous abortion”.
You jumped all over me for expressing compassion towards Carol Howard because she elected to have an abortion due to fear of a ruptured uterus & death.
No, I “jumped all over you” for letting your obvious support of abortion prevent you from seeing that the abortion which injured JH (which it seems you would’ve been just fine with had it KILLED jh for some odd reason) was in no way necessary nor was the pregnancy endangering this woman’s life or health. Aside from the fact that I would’ve sought every medical opinion necessary to do the best to save myself AND my child rather than opting to have that child killed, I think if I was afraid for my life during a pregnancy, I wouldn’t just sit on it for almost the entire duration THEN decide “Hey, I should probably do something about this, huh?”
No one has a crystal ball.
No, but doctors have these things they call “prognoses”. Look it up. Frankly, the last thing in the world I’d let someone do if I were afraid of my uterus rupturing is sticking metal objects and sh- up there. If you think abortion is the thing to prevent a ruptured uterus, take a look at this: http://www.lovematters.com/unsafe.htm
Do I think she should have elected to do it earlier, sure.
Why? Dead is dead, whether it’s at 1 month or 7. To me, that’s irrelevant, really.
Do you think JH would be better off if she had been aborted, then she is now?
Uhhhh…obviously not. “Injured” is a couple steps above “Dead” in the “How’m I Doin’?” Handbook.
Profoundly handicapped existing in a world where she is continuosly frustrated because she can barely communicate. I certainly do, and I’m not even religious.
Are you trying to piss me off with this remark? Did you miss the bit about how I worked for a year of my life with kids who I loved dearly that were in this same situation who are valuable and by no means “better off dead”, as you seem to think? Do you think you’re better than them? Is it the (false) sense of superiority you get from looking at an individual with handicaps and thinking “Man, I sure am glad I can read Tolstoy and be a condescending pr- to those I deem my lessers.” I have a non-verbal cousin who is a beautiful little girl, and if you said something like that about her to my face, I’d deck you. I really would. And you’d deserve it.
Do these kids have trouble communicating, if they’re even at all able? Yeah. Do we kill them because of it? Do we see their death as being justified and a happy occasion if they do pass away because “poor them’s just a dumb lump and they weren’t doin’ nothin’ nohow”? No. I really wish you could grasp how absolutely stomach-turning your words are at this point.
p.s. Wt- does religion have to do with this?
What are you talking about “merely an option”? Who said we would have wanted to terminate the pregnancy if it had happened earlier in our marraige?
Any parent who supports legal abortion believes that they should have at some point in their child(ren’s) lives had the legal option to end that child’s life. That’s what legal abortion and “pro-choice” mean. Hence, your kids are optional to you.
We planned and took great measures so that we could provide for them the way we feel they deserve to be. It’s called responsibility.
Congrats, but not every measure is 100% effective. It doesn’t make someone irresponsible if it fails, but it also doesn’t excuse them taking the resulting child’s life if it does fail. Killing your child because measures you’ve taken have failed is irresponsible. And “provide for them the way we feel they deserve to be”…as far as that goes, step 1 is not killing them, regardless of other circumstances. Abortion is the epitome of failure as both a parent and a human being.
A 14 year old girl in all likelyhood can’t do that.So is it best to continue that life of most likely hardship, or end it well before sentience(when 90% of abortions occur)?
Ahhh. I love the smell of hopelessness from pro-legal-abortionists in the evening. It’s always there, towering behind the messages like the spectre of a post-apocalyptic ramshackle skyscraper, clinging to every word they say like the smell of stale smoke from cheap cigarettes. “Despair! Despair! Despair and kill your children!” they say to others. So predictable. So sad.
http://www2.scnow.com/news/2011/apr/15/johnsonville-garden-club-gets-guest-latest-meeting-ar-1720536/
That’s a nice story I just found. The speaker seems like a really wonderful man from a loving family, and he does so much to help the Earth. Too bad you think he should be dead! I also found a wonderful article about a talented guitarist/blues singer, and a few others who I guess should all be dead because their mothers were young, unprepared, poor, and their lives began under difficult circumstances. Does it get lonely in your ivory tower? You should come down sometime and spend some time with us peons. It’s actually quite nice down here. 9_9
There are plenty of kids who are “wanted”, who are “planned”, and who are abused/neglected/etc. Physical resources are no substitute for love, care, and guidance, and plenty of people grow up without the former yet thrive with plenty of the latter. I’m the oldest of 6 children from a poor family. My siblings could’ve been aborted, and I could’ve never gone to bed hungry in my life. I could’ve had my own room, a car when I turned 16, and college tuition paid by my parents. The lives of my siblings are infinitely more valuable than any of that, and if I had to choose, my siblings would come first every single time. Money and resources are worthless without compassion for other human beings (sentient or not).
I’m sorry your children were born into a world in which their parents thought the responsibility of their care needed to be accepted *like a chore or a job rather than being looked upon as an incredible opportunity and a gift, regardless of the timing or circumstances.
Fixed for ya.
Enough for what? To keep living? For what purpose would you want to go on living at that point? To drain your loved one’s physical,emotional, & financial assests? Because that’s what you’d be doing.
And I’d do the same for them, gladly, because I love them, and I know they’d do the same for me, because they love me. You must live a harsh life with very little unconditional love if any. Once again, what’s your purpose, juror?
Exactly the reason the parents do it for them.
Ok. So neonates are incapable of exercising their rights, so parents are expected to take care of them. Fetal human beings are also incapable of exercising their rights, but for some reason parents should be able to legally “opt-out” by killing them without repercussions. MAKES SENSE! Not.
It ends where the majority says it ends.
Majority rules…so you would’ve been fine with the Holocaust and slavery. Good to know.
You would have to put up specifics for me to answer on the last question.
Sorry, I’m really bad at envisioning discriminatory criteria to classify other human beings as “worthy of protection under the law” or “not worthy of protection under the law”, so I’m gonna have to skip that one. That’s why I’m pro-life.
No one is saying anything about children already born.
I just did a little further upstream. Neonates fail to meet your criteria and yet you say they should have their rights protected by their parents, and you didn’t really say why.
If a women didn’t chose to have a child and it was born they most likely wouldn’t/couldn’t provide for it the way it deserves to be.
Step 1 of providing for children as they should be is not killing them. You fail that by being pro-choice, no matter how big your bank account is. ^_^
That is because if anti-abortion measures were passed that is what would be required by law.
Not necessarily. She should always induce post-viability pre-term. If when you say “required by law” you mean “required by the laws of nature” then yeah. By that measure, “the law” also requires that the Earth rotate around the sun, maggots come from flies rather than rotten meat, and matter cannot be created from nothing. DAMNED GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GET ITS NOSE OUT OF MY SCIENCE BOOKS!
Using the technology to curb a life before it is “truly” living is necessary IMHO.
Ok. Work on improving contraception. A life is “truly” living after conception. Do I have to bring the professors back out again?
Edited, eh? Hmmm….
Juror wrote, in reply to Xalisae (if you’ll forgive me for being so gauche as to “butt in”):
The reason being is concious thought and the degree at which we can do it is what seperates us from other species.
First, one clarification (as others have suggested, as well): “sentience” means “capable of feeling” (including physical and emotional), such as the capacity to feel pleasure or fear or pain, whereas “sapience” is the capacity for self-aware, rational thought and consciousness. I think you meant to refer to the latter, when you wer talking about “sentience”, earlier. (Dogs, cats, llamas, etc., are all sentient; they all feel pain, fear, etc… but humans are the only sapient animals of which we’re aware.
Second, I have to ask: what is the substantial difference between the sapience (or even the sentience) of a new-born baby, as opposed to that same baby, 1 minute earlier, while still within the mother’s body? I see none of any significance, frankly… which is one of many reasons why I (and others) see your “personhood begins at birth” criterion to be almost utterly arbitrary. If you believe that sapience is the only thing separating us from other animals, and if we are morally free to kill other animals at any perceived need (or even desire), and if you do not believe that a 1-minute-before-birth human baby (or even a new-born baby) is sapient, then does it not follow that you believe we are morally free to kill that baby, whether he/she is within the mother’s body or not? Unless you’re willing to back-track on your claims that infants are “not sapient”, I don’t see how you could avoid that conclusion.
Oh, drat! Foiled by the “newer comments” link, and led into a duplicate post! Sorry about that!
Sorry about the double-post. I’ve tried two different browsers, and it’s still going crazy for me today…
Xalisae: There is no “society’s approach to the woman”. Laws are not passed to protect other human beings in order to “oppress” those who would harm others. They’re implemented to protect those human beings who would come to harm, only. That is not denying liberty to a woman any more than passing laws against murder is violating the liberty and autonomy of serial killers or passing laws against rape violates the bodily autonomy of rapists.
X, yes there is our societal approach to the woman, on this matter. Do we or do we not say it’s legal for her to have an abortion if she wants? It’s a question.
____
“Well, it takes quite a bit to stop being a “somebody,” i.e. lose sentience, awareness, cognizance, etc., as with my example of scooping out the brain and keeping the body alive.”
Because I don’t draw discriminatory lines in the sand between which human beings are “persons” and which are not, I find the notion of disqualifying someone from personhood based on some flimsy criteria like mental processes and what some outside party deems cognizance/sentience horrifying. You still haven’t satisfied my prior comment that your argument for abortion might not be satisfactory to a participant in the Holocaust or the slave trade, just as their arguments are not adequate to appease you. Once you start disqualifying ANY human being, you start down a very disturbing path, and you haven’t yet set my mind at ease about that fact.
It’s not a “flimsy criteria” – mental processes are why we’re having the discussion in the first place, why there is such a thing as morality, etc. I hear you about a “slippery slope,” but that is not what’s going on with the abortion debate. It’s not like with born people where rights are almost always attributed at birth. With the unborn – and I understand you wish them protected as the born are (usually) – it’s that personhood has never been attributed, rather than the normal way is that personhood is deemed present, and then we have the exceptions like the religious and slavery cases, that you mention. When abortion was (generally) illegal in the US, personhood was not attributed. That is quite a different thing.
While I’m not totally sure what you mean about my argument for abortion possibly not being satisfactory to a Nazi or a slaver, what does it matter, there? They might accept my argument, or they might not.
____
“I don’t exclude the autistic from having personhood – they most certainly do, IMO.”
Why? Some don’t live up to the criteria you’ve established beforehand, and maybe not just the kids with autism I’ve worked with, but certainly some of the other children and young adults with other various handicaps I’ve assisted in my time would not. Why are you making exceptions to your own rule, and what exactly are those exceptions? But honestly…talk about “without qualification”…
I disagree – they do qualify. Unless you are saying they have no emotion, no mental awareness whatsoever, no more sentience than a rock, basically, then they qualify. Scoop out the brain and keep the body live, is there no change in “them” at that point?
____
“There is my opinion of what sets our species apart from others, and then there is what you mention, above – “I know I’d want..” = certainly qualifies for personhood.”
Both of those things are your opinions of what sets our species apart from others. I’d rather rest my head at night knowing I place my convictions on something a little less flimsy than opinions. One thing that sets our species apart from others is just that-our species. That’s provable and not subject to mere opinion. “Human being”, not “person”.
I would say that us being tool-makers, tool-users, and recording and passing information into the future are not “just opinions” as to what makes us different from other species on earth. No other species comes close to us on those scores, and were they not true of us, we would be vastly different from what is the case. I’m saying it’s a real and substantive difference with real-world cause and effect to it. As to “our species” – there are millions of “unique species” on the planet. That alone is no big deal. “Person or not” isn’t provable on a scientific basis. Neither science nor biology makes any such pronouncements.
____
And “I know I’d want” still wouldn’t qualify me for personhood AFTER THE FACT.
You lost me, there. My opinion is that it qualifies, and for any human that has those thoughts, personhood isn’t a question – full rights and personhood were attributed at birth (generally).
____
“The least amount of damage to each party” = you’re equating the woman and the unborn, there, and that’s one area of our disagreement.
I’m equating them because they’re both living human beings. Do you disagree?
No, X, certainly agree that “living human beings” applies. Not everybody only looks at that, though.
____
Your use of “someone” there sure seems like you’re personifying the unborn, to me.
That’s because you have a separate concept of “persons” vs. “human beings”. I do not, and refuse such discriminatory notions. This is merely a product of your flawed logic.
Wrong, there is no necessary logic to it at all. It’s a question. It’s how we define personhood.
____
“Prior to emotion, sentience, etc., being there, there isn’t any emotion, any desire for anything. That’s a far cry from the “I know I’d want” statement you made for yourself.”
And my argument doesn’t rest on that being important. Yours does. And you haven’t led me to understand why yet.
It’s what we value, what we care about. If a given egg does not implant, or if a given woman has an abortion, I don’t see it as being all that bad, per se. If a woman or couple wants to have a baby, and cannot, that’s often very sad for them, but does society really suffer great harm, right there? I don’t think so. Frankly, failure-to-implant happens all the time. What’s really operative right there is whether or not a baby is wanted.
I see great potential suffering in a woman with a wanted pregnancy being forced to end it, and the same for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy being forced to continue it. If I could “wave a magic wand” and alter events, I’d rather ensure a healthy pregnancy to completion for the woman who wants a baby, versus prevent a hundred women with unwanted pregnancies from having abortions.
____
The fact that a change in one’s cognitive capacity/ability doesn’t change who/what he/she is. Same with the guy behind the car. If someone found a dead body in your driveway, I don’t think they’d give a flying flip what his SAT scores were, if he’d ever suffered any sort of previous head trauma, etc. However, I really would love to see you arguing the point with police officers. I doubt they’d be as understanding as I’ve been should you find that the person behind your car was actually Johnny McHandicapped who lived down the lane and who was by your definition not a “person”.
You’re mischaracterizing it, though. SAT scores don’t determine personhood or not, not in society and not in my own personal view. Neither does being handicapped or not. Now, if brain death was fact before I ran the body over, then I’m thinking it would at least be a question as to what I’d be charged with, if anything.
____
“Agreed that much more of a person is present, almost always, later in life than at birth, but we’re not arguing about the born – society has already attributed personhood there, and neither you nor me is thinking that’s wrong.”
Some people argue that about neonates from your camp, and for the exact reason you argue it about prenatal human beings. What society arbitrarily giveth, society may arbitrarily taketh away. It’s happened before, no less than twice before abortion.
Well, if somebody says that rights and personhood should be attributed later than birth, then I disagree with them. You’re right that society can change things, and what you want re the abortion issue is for society to change things and deem personhood to be there in the unborn. (My opinion is that the restrictions we have on later-term abortions constitute a limited form of personhood.) As to “taking away personhood from the unborn,” however, that’s never happened. No society, anywhere on earth, at any time, has ever deemed the unborn to be persons and to have the same rights as the born. Not saying it’s impossible that it could happen, but it’s never occurred yet.
____
Nobody wanted to kill you when you were in high school or college, did they? If you had been inside their body, I’d say it would be a much different deal – at least there would be a real question about things then, versus what I am presuming – that nobody had any reasonable wish to kill you.
How is wanting to kill someone after an act that is well-known to cause that someone to the point that causing a someone is the biological intent of the act itself “reasonable”? “OH CRAP! WHAT I JUST DID/WHAT OCCURRED WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ITS BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE! HOW CAN THAT BE?! KILL THE RESULTING HUMAN BEING!” – not reasonable.
You say it’s not reasonable, I say it’s reasonable, and as yet you and I don’t agree on when “someone” is present. Driving a car might mean one has a wreck and suffers damage to the vehicle. One may well fix the undesired situation – the damaged vehicle. Our existence is full of things that we attend to, and there’s no way to avoid all such incidents. I’m not going to tell people not to drive just because wrecks happen, and I’m not going to tell people not to have sex just because unwanted pregnancies happen.
____
Heck, you seem big on societal norms. The societal norm is a woman who shares a genetic parent/child relationship with another human being, her part being the parent, is expected to care for and nurture that other human being. If you’re so big on societal norms/approval, abortion doesn’t even stand up to your accepted substitute for morality.
That is also mischaracterizing things. Maybe I agree with society on a given thing, maybe not. Most sex is for pleasure, rather than with the intent to start a pregnancy. When a pregnancy is the undesired situation, then just as with the vehicle damaged in a wreck, I would not prevent people from changing things.
____
Sometimes you seem to be (evasive). I sometimes can’t tell if it’s genuine lack of understanding, or if you’re intentionally being coy, but I suppose I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. ;P
I think I do understand, X, and if not I’ll readily ask for clarification. I neither see nor feel any need for coyness. : )
Doug,
Perhaps this might help you understand our position, on this point: given what you’ve said about your criteria for determining morality (to the extent that you do so at all), you seem to have left yourself no ground on which to stand for any possible condemnation of the Nazi mass torture/slaughter/extermination of the Jews (and other “undesirables”), or of the practice of enslaving blacks. No true moral relativist can possibly do anything beyond saying, “well, my tastes don’t run in that direction, in general”; and since most people regard that sort of statement (in the face of a moral crime, like the Shoah) as indicative of drawing moral equivalence between moral crimes and “matters of taste” (e.g. “that instance of the S.S. raping a Jewish woman to death doesn’t meet my tastes” having the same moral gradient as “those velvet chartreuse drapes don’t meet my tastes”), it’s not unreasonable for them to think that you regard human life as something very cheap.
Does that clarify?
It’s long been my contention that absolute moral relativism (i.e. “my truth for me, your truth for you, there is no objective standard of morality, ever, anywhere”) has one of two ultimate fates: degeneration into utter amorality–functionally, as well as philosophically–(and ultimately into insanity), or being abandoned in favour of objective truth. I can explain my reasoning for this as we go, but let me take a different starting point, for a moment.
I’m a mathematician (and teacher), so I hope you can understand why I do not tolerate “mathematical relativism”, for example (e.g. “2 + 2 = 4 for you, but not for me; I think it’s 5!”–and no, I’m not talking about changing the base, or any other deviation from basic arithmetic using the field of real numbers… just in case there are any other mathematical pedants out there! ). If a student writes “5? as the answer to “2 + 2? on one of my tests, I’m afraid I’ll have to mark it wrong… appeals to freedom and relativism and opinion notwithstanding. Do you see why? More importantly, do you see why it’d be objectively correct (and necessary) for me to do so?
No argument there, Paladin. Logic – and math really just is logic to a large extent – is something I regard as “objective.” If we say, “All B are A, and all C are B,” then we can conclude that all C are A. I regard that as absolutely true. I note that math is a mental process, and as such it’s internal to the mind, not external to it, and thus I see some similarity to morality. If we go with physical reality, such as a number of planets orbiting a sun, then they will be there whether or not a mind is aware of it. It may be “4 planets,” but if there’s nobody to do the counting, then there is no mathematics. I’m saying that with logic/math, there may be an objectively correct answer, but they are still things internal to the mind. If we are to count those planets, then we are accessing external physical reality – which is independent of the mind. With morality, the mind has to have valuations, feelings of good and bad, etc. Saying, “4 planets are there,” is one thing. Saying “those planets are good (or bad)” is another.
I think that morality is subjective and relative, by definition – relative to whatever mind or group of minds we’re talking about. I do state that morality is relative, but see no degeneration at work – we have such commonality of desires, the world over, that things really don’t change much, there.
“Sentience does matter though. Maybe not to you, but to the vast majority of others it does. It is what makes us human.”
Some Guy: Animals are sentient. Are they human?
No, but they have their own sentience or types of awareness, sometimes, which also sets them apart, as with elephants, dolphins, primates, even dogs and cats, for example, versus a sponge, grass, protozoa, etc.
Perhaps this might help you understand our position, on this point: given what you’ve said about your criteria for determining morality (to the extent that you do so at all), you seem to have left yourself no ground on which to stand for any possible condemnation of the Nazi mass torture/slaughter/extermination of the Jews (and other “undesirables”), or of the practice of enslaving blacks. No true moral relativist can possibly do anything beyond saying, “well, my tastes don’t run in that direction, in general”; and since most people regard that sort of statement (in the face of a moral crime, like the Shoah) as indicative of drawing moral equivalence between moral crimes and “matters of taste” (e.g. “that instance of the S.S. raping a Jewish woman to death doesn’t meet my tastes” having the same moral gradient as “those velvet chartreuse drapes don’t meet my tastes”), it’s not unreasonable for them to think that you regard human life as something very cheap.
Does that clarify?
Paladin, what, really, is the difference? Whether we say that a thing is “bad” because the Bible says, so, or because our parents told us so, or because of our peers, teachers, etc., or just because we do not like the thing, it’s still us as individuals having our say.
It’s not just that “my tastes don’t run in that direction,” it’s that as with the Jewish woman getting raped, horrible suffering can be present, and we can have great empathy with that. A woman with a wanted pregnancy, if forced to end it, could suffer a lot. Same for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy if she is forced to continue it. The effect of the velvet chartreuse drapes isn’t in that league (though not saying it couldn’t be “horrible” in its own way…)
On the value of life – what do you see as the big deal if a given fertilized egg does not implant, there being no knowledge of it on the part of the parents, and no desire to have a baby being present? This happens all the time, and sure, “a life ends,” but I see this as vastly different from a born person with relationships, loves, etc., being killed.
Value is in the eye of the beholder…
Paladin, to Juror: what is the substantial difference between the sapience (or even the sentience) of a new-born baby, as opposed to that same baby, 1 minute earlier, while still within the mother’s body? I see none of any significance, frankly… which is one of many reasons why I (and others) see your “personhood begins at birth” criterion to be almost utterly arbitrary. If you believe that sapience is the only thing separating us from other animals, and if we are morally free to kill other animals at any perceived need (or even desire), and if you do not believe that a 1-minute-before-birth human baby (or even a new-born baby) is sapient, then does it not follow that you believe we are morally free to kill that baby, whether he/she is within the mother’s body or not?
I gotta “butt in” here too. ; )
Paladin, you’re certainly correct that there isn’t much, if any, difference between the almost-to-be-born and the born, as far as mental awareness. I leave room for “some difference” having read that parts of the brain “wake up” at birth.
Yes, it’s arbitrary – personhood – what we are talking about is attributed status, and being born in no way *has* to be the qualifier. Since the unborn are inside the body of a person – no debate on the personhood of the pregnant woman – there is the issue of the overlap between the woman’s rights and what would be the rights of the unborn were personhood to be deemed present. Nobody knows how that all would work out.
I don’t say we are morally free to kill other animals at any perceived need. The situation matters. I also do think some sapience is there in dolphins, elephants, and at least some of the primates. Even morality itself – bands of chimpanzees can display their own morality, expectations of how others are to behave, notions of the good/bad/right/wrong of certain actions.
Doug wrote:
Paladin, what, really, is the difference? Whether we say that a thing is “bad” because the Bible says, so, or because our parents told us so, or because of our peers, teachers, etc., or just because we do not like the thing, it’s still us as individuals having our say.
Look at my previous post about “quantitative” vs. “qualitative”; unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re saying that (in your worldview) there is no such thing as a “qualitative” (i.e. difference in the very nature/substance) difference between any two things which might displease you. I’ve heard that (nigh-unto-incomprehensible) sort of comment before, but again: I’m holding out some hope that it’s the result of “debating in a safe, abstract, anonymous forum”, and it’s the result of a thousand (or more) “tweaks” to a (no offense meant by this–I mean it in the general philosophical sense, not as an insult or put-down) self-centered mindset which seeks to claim license to do whatever one pleases, without any restrictions which don’t fit one’s personal tastes. More on that, in a moment… but please understand that I disagree, utterly, and that–unless you have truly given up all attempts at holding a moral code at all–you could not possibly live according to the worldview you’ve outlined, here.
It’s not just that “my tastes don’t run in that direction,” it’s that as with the Jewish woman getting raped, horrible suffering can be present, and we can have great empathy with that.
Some people might. Many S.S. members (including the rapist) did not. Who are you to say that your empathy is rightly placed, and not simply a burst of silly sentimentalism? For that matter, why should (mind you, I say SHOULD, not COULD) anyone else CARE whether another person suffers, or not? Why make that the basis for any sort of restrictions on me? If I desire to murder and rape as I please, who are you to say that laws should be in place to stop me?
A woman with a wanted pregnancy, if forced to end it, could suffer a lot.
Absolutely… but do you see how “amount of suffering” is really rather irrelevant, unless you’re willing to make some sort of objective claim about it? (E.g. “That which causes more unnecessary suffering is morally worse than that which causes less unnecessary suffering.”) Once you do that, all your hopes for “morality is completely relative” collapse.
Same for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy if she is forced to continue it.
I’d suggest that this is a rather backward way of looking at the matter. I might, if I were shallow and peevish enough, say that “I’m experiencing unbearable suffering, because I’m being forced to let my most hated enemy live (rather than them simply minding their own business, and letting me shoot him)!” It’d be equally bizarre.
The effect of the velvet chartreuse drapes isn’t in that league (though not saying it couldn’t be “horrible” in its own way…)
Could you explain what you mean by “league”? Do you mean mere extent of suffering (e.g. quantitative)? If I were to find a Nazi who had no qualms about killing a homeless, orphan Jewish girl by putting a painless bullet in her head, but who hates the colour chartreuse with a passion, there would be an instance of “far more suffering” from the chartreuse curtains, yes? And for that matter: why should I care if someone has the “opinion” that such sufferings are not in the same “league”? Why would that be enough to set up a moral code which restricts my license in any way?
On the value of life – what do you see as the big deal if a given fertilized egg does not implant, there being no knowledge of it on the part of the parents, and no desire to have a baby being present?
First: the baby dies without anyone killing him/her… so I hope it’s obvious that no moral crime is involved (since that requires the action of a free will, coupled with sufficient intellect). Second: I think I can answer your question with a rhetorical question which highlights my point: what do you see as the “big deal” if a given homeless man in New York City, with no friends or family, is killed instantly by an assassin’s bullet to the head while he slept, and if the assassin disposes of the body tidily, so as to prevent any emotional distress (or nuisance of clean-up) of any passers-by?
This happens all the time,
It does. Post-born people are killed (and raped, brutalized, etc.) all the time, as well… often in situations where no one cares about them, personally. Read Blessed Mother Teresa’s accounts of Calcutta, some time; that culture “redefined” people of the non-caste as “non-people” who were left to die in the streets without so much as a qualm (much less “suffering” over it). Measuring the worth of a person based on how much others care about them (and the extent to which they would suffer) is very Peter-Singer-esque, but it’s also blatantly absurd. (If our worth is solely dependent on the extent to which we are valued, then how did our “spectators who value us” get *their* value? It seems like an empty system, to me… akin to a hundred broke men wishing to see a movie, and passing each other “IOU” notes to try to remedy the situation!)
and sure, “a life ends,” but I see this as vastly different from a born person with relationships, loves, etc., being killed.
You see it that way… but I’d gently suggest that you haven’t thought this through, to the needed extent. If your principle (as stated above) is true, then you’d necessarily believe that the friendless, picked-on, poor “wallflower” orphan who’s dressed in rags in school (who is valued by no-one, perhaps including herself) is worth less than are the popular students who are idolized by most of the student body. Do you believe that? If not, then something in your statement needs to be overhauled.
Value is in the eye of the beholder.
And I assert that this, sir (with all due respect), is balderdash. Our *idea* of value is in the eye of the beholder, certainly… but (as I say above), unless you’ve given up all effort to maintain any sort of coherent moral code at all, I assert that even you do not believe what you say, here (i.e. you may have meant it in earnest and in sincerity, but you would not be willing to accept the logical consequences and implications of your maxim). If you “devalue” me in your own “beholding” eyes, that will no more diminish my worth than the praises of a sycophant would heighten it! My worth remains, regardless of your perceptions; just so, for the unborn child, the homeless man, the waif at school, the Jewish woman, the negro slave of the 1700’s, and so on.
From your second message:
Yes, it’s arbitrary – personhood – what we are talking about is attributed status, and being born in no way *has* to be the qualifier.
Well… I’d argue that “attributed status” is your unproven assumption.
Since the unborn are inside the body of a person – no debate on the personhood of the pregnant woman
Back up.
1) Why does the location of the baby matter, in the least? To what moral principle are you appealing?
2) How do you settle your mind on the personhood of the pregnant woman? If she were a pregnant Jew in Nazi Germany (or a pregnant black slave in the United States, in the 1700’s), there would be “no question” that the pregnant woman was not a person at all.
– there is the issue of the overlap between the woman’s rights and what would be the rights of the unborn were personhood to be deemed present.
And again (playing devil’s advocate, here): why should anyone give a fig about the so-called “deemed personhood” of the mother (and her so-called and attendant “rights”)? To what moral standard are you appealing?
Nobody knows how that all would work out.
(?) I’m afraid that’s a bit too vague for me to know what you mean.
I don’t say we are morally free to kill other animals at any perceived need. The situation matters.
Why on earth would it matter? What moral principle could possible stand in the way of me throwing concussion grenades at every pod of dolphins, of taking a flame-thrower to every last endangered babboon, of committing mayhem against every last elephant for the sake of enriching myself with ivory, or the like?
Paladin: Look at my previous post about “quantitative” vs. “qualitative”; unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re saying that (in your worldview) there is no such thing as a “qualitative” (i.e. difference in the very nature/substance) difference between any two things which might displease you. I’ve heard that (nigh-unto-incomprehensible) sort of comment before, but again: I’m holding out some hope that it’s the result of “debating in a safe, abstract, anonymous forum”, and it’s the result of a thousand (or more) “tweaks” to a (no offense meant by this–I mean it in the general philosophical sense, not as an insult or put-down) self-centered mindset which seeks to claim license to do whatever one pleases, without any restrictions which don’t fit one’s personal tastes. More on that, in a moment… but please understand that I disagree, utterly, and that–unless you have truly given up all attempts at holding a moral code at all–you could not possibly live according to the worldview you’ve outlined, here.
I don’t think there is any intrinsic morality, and the difference between things which displease us is a matter of perception, unless it’s physical reality, logic, or something else that’s truly external to us. In no way am I trying to claim license to do whatever I please, nor for the individual within society – most things really are not being disputed to any meaningful degree, though of course abortion is a large-looming exception. Peoples’ desires are so common, the world over, that moral codes tend to be very similar.
_____
“It’s not just that “my tastes don’t run in that direction,” it’s that as with the Jewish woman getting raped, horrible suffering can be present, and we can have great empathy with that.”
Some people might. Many S.S. members (including the rapist) did not. Who are you to say that your empathy is rightly placed, and not simply a burst of silly sentimentalism? For that matter, why should (mind you, I say SHOULD, not COULD) anyone else CARE whether another person suffers, or not? Why make that the basis for any sort of restrictions on me? If I desire to murder and rape as I please, who are you to say that laws should be in place to stop me?
I’m just one person, same as you, but on murder and rape there isn’t significant disagreement, while on abortion there obviously is. My feelings, per se, may not constitute a good enough reason for there to be laws, but enough people, or really, just a sufficient opinion – held by those who can make law – can make for a law being. A society is a group of people with things in common, and it ends up that society says you can’t legally rape, for example, and that if you do you’ll be “put out” of society, in effect, by imprisonment.
Why should we care about the suffering of others? That’s like asking why we should have desires at all. It’s just a fact, starting out, that we have desires, and that almost all of us empathize with others, admittedly to varying degrees there. All other things being equal, we tend to not want somebody to suffer, versus them suffering. If they are to suffer, we see a good enough reason for it – or at the least we want to.
____
“A woman with a wanted pregnancy, if forced to end it, could suffer a lot.”
Absolutely… but do you see how “amount of suffering” is really rather irrelevant, unless you’re willing to make some sort of objective claim about it? (E.g. “That which causes more unnecessary suffering is morally worse than that which causes less unnecessary suffering.”) Once you do that, all your hopes for “morality is completely relative” collapse.
It’s not making an objective claim about it. Example: Joe Blow comes up and spits on me. Okay, that’s one thing, and in this example I have not done anything to Joe, don’t know him, etc., and I see what he did as a moral wrong, and that it causes me some suffering. Were he to steal my wallet and whack me on the head, I’d suffer more, see that as worse, morally, than just spitting. Would not have to be that way – if I had some extreme phobia or fixation about spitting, perhaps I’d rather take the whack on the head and have my wallet stolen – but as things are now, like most people, I think the spitting isn’t as bad as the other.
Not saying that a certain amount of suffering has to be present for “morally wrong” to apply, but do certainly think there are degrees to all this. The pregnant woman, being forced to end a pregnancy against her will – I see this as a moral wrong since I don’t see a good enough reason for it. There, it’s not dependent on her suffering “a lot.” Yet if we’re talking about empathy, then the degree of suffering does come into play.
____
Same for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy if she is forced to continue it.
I’d suggest that this is a rather backward way of looking at the matter. I might, if I were shallow and peevish enough, say that “I’m experiencing unbearable suffering, because I’m being forced to let my most hated enemy live (rather than them simply minding their own business, and letting me shoot him)!” It’d be equally bizarre.
Doesn’t have to be any sense of “enemy.” I think it’s silly to place any “blame” on the unborn – there’s no capacity for guilt in the first place. But the unborn can be unwanted. If no women ever wanted to have abortions, we wouldn’t be discussing things as we are. Same as for the woman with the wanted pregnancy – I don’t see that society has a good enough reason to “tell her what to do” (to a point in gestation), and I do think that some women suffer by being denied an abortion.
____
The effect of the velvet chartreuse drapes isn’t in that league (though not saying it couldn’t be “horrible” in its own way…)
Could you explain what you mean by “league”? Do you mean mere extent of suffering (e.g. quantitative)?
I think the difference there is both qualitative and quantitative. It’s not really a “rights violation” to be exposed to the curtains, same as for seeing some of the outfits people at a local retailer are wont to wear. I also think the suffering is much less than for Holocaust prisoners, etc.
____
If I were to find a Nazi who had no qualms about killing a homeless, orphan Jewish girl by putting a painless bullet in her head, but who hates the colour chartreuse with a passion, there would be an instance of “far more suffering” from the chartreuse curtains, yes?
Possibly, yes, but that neglects the reason behind the actions of the killer and he who hung the curtains. In no way am I saying that the amount of suffering, per se, is the end-all of the deal. There is the reason for the action to be considered. We may think the owner of the curtains has bad taste, etc., but can we really object to them hanging the curtains, or for wearing sweatpants that are truly frumpy? Meanwhile, in general we most certainly do object to the killing of the orphan girl.
____
And for that matter: why should I care if someone has the “opinion” that such sufferings are not in the same “league”? Why would that be enough to set up a moral code which restricts my license in any way?
If you want to be in society, then to an extent you have to follow the rules of that society. Given our fear of being killed, and our general desire to live, it’s no surprise there are laws regarding killing. It may be that a given individual won’t care, and then they are liable to be imprisoned or killed by that society, if the transgression is seen as bad enough.
____
“On the value of life – what do you see as the big deal if a given fertilized egg does not implant, there being no knowledge of it on the part of the parents, and no desire to have a baby being present?”
First: the baby dies without anyone killing him/her… so I hope it’s obvious that no moral crime is involved (since that requires the action of a free will, coupled with sufficient intellect).
That really doesn’t address the value of the life, though. Also, there is as yet no agreement that’s it’s necessarily a moral crime, but continue…
Second: I think I can answer your question with a rhetorical question which highlights my point: what do you see as the “big deal” if a given homeless man in New York City, with no friends or family, is killed instantly by an assassin’s bullet to the head while he slept, and if the assassin disposes of the body tidily, so as to prevent any emotional distress (or nuisance of clean-up) of any passers-by?
Presumably, the homeless guy wants to live, and I don’t see the assassin having any reason anywhere near comparable to the woman being pregnant. If the homeless guy were inside the body of the person who wanted to kill him, that would be a much different thing, for starters.
_____
This happens all the time,
It does. Post-born people are killed (and raped, brutalized, etc.) all the time, as well… often in situations where no one cares about them, personally. Read Blessed Mother Teresa’s accounts of Calcutta, some time; that culture “redefined” people of the non-caste as “non-people” who were left to die in the streets without so much as a qualm (much less “suffering” over it). Measuring the worth of a person based on how much others care about them (and the extent to which they would suffer) is very Peter-Singer-esque, but it’s also blatantly absurd.
Worth *is* valuation. Here too, it’s in the mind. Some states execute people as they are so negatively valued (and this is after the right-to-life was deemed to be present). The situation matters.
___
(If our worth is solely dependent on the extent to which we are valued, then how did our “spectators who value us” get *their* value? It seems like an empty system, to me… akin to a hundred broke men wishing to see a movie, and passing each other “IOU” notes to try to remedy the situation!)
The “spectators” want to live (presumably) and thus no surprise they outlaw killing in general. How is it an “empty system”? People tend to make laws against that which they fear – being killed, having their stuff stolen, etc.
___
“and sure, “a life ends,” but I see this as vastly different from a born person with relationships, loves, etc., being killed.”
You see it that way… but I’d gently suggest that you haven’t thought this through, to the needed extent. If your principle (as stated above) is true, then you’d necessarily believe that the friendless, picked-on, poor “wallflower” orphan who’s dressed in rags in school (who is valued by no-one, perhaps including herself) is worth less than are the popular students who are idolized by most of the student body. Do you believe that? If not, then something in your statement needs to be overhauled.
It depends on what value you mean. If you mean “has the right to life” and/or “should not be killed” then I don’t see the less popular kid as different. Going back to the egg that does not implant, I see that as not even remotely the same as, say, the death of a loving parent in a family with a bunch of school-age kids. In both cases, “a life ends,” but I see the death of the parent as much, much sadder, involving immeasurably more suffering. Often, the death of the egg is not even known about.
Paladin, you’re right – I do see it this way, and I realize that others hold that “life is sacred,” etc., per se. I do maintain that “born person with relationships, etc.,” can make a big difference. Even for many people who are against abortion, have beliefs on the sanctity of life, etc., it would be much worse for them to lose a born child than to have a miscarriage.
____
Value is in the eye of the beholder.
And I assert that this, sir (with all due respect), is balderdash. Our *idea* of value is in the eye of the beholder, certainly… but (as I say above), unless you’ve given up all effort to maintain any sort of coherent moral code at all, I assert that even you do not believe what you say, here (i.e. you may have meant it in earnest and in sincerity, but you would not be willing to accept the logical consequences and implications of your maxim).
Valuation is a mental process – it occurs in sentient minds. There isn’t any such thing without emotion, caring, etc., on the part of a mind. The “:value” we are talking about is mental conception, is ideas in the first place.
____
If you “devalue” me in your own “beholding” eyes, that will no more diminish my worth than the praises of a sycophant would heighten it!
Well, yeah it would, since here it’s my “eyes” we’re talking about. Not to say that you or society would feel any differently, necessarily.
____
My worth remains, regardless of your perceptions; just so, for the unborn child, the homeless man, the waif at school, the Jewish woman, the negro slave of the 1700’s, and so on.
You’re talking about different things, though. There would be my perception, yes, but then there’s also yours, society’s, etc. Perceptions, indeed, and thus it matters whose perception we are talking about. There is physical reality, which indeed is external to the mind, but when it comes to valuation, that can and does change. A person may be protected by law one day, and executed by society on the next, due to society’s valuation of them.
____
“Yes, it’s arbitrary – personhood – what we are talking about is attributed status, and being born in no way *has* to be the qualifier.”
Well… I’d argue that “attributed status” is your unproven assumption.
Once again, isn’t it a status change for the unborn that you want, as a pro-lifer? Don’t you want them treated differently, under the law?
____
“Since the unborn are inside the body of a person – no debate on the personhood of the pregnant woman”
Back up.
1) Why does the location of the baby matter, in the least? To what moral principle are you appealing?
To the principle that liberty is, in general, good. In lieu of a good enough reason otherwise, we let people do what they want. “Inside one’s body” (even if what’s inside is a living being) makes a big difference to a lot of people. Personal liberties and bodily autonomy – though there is argument about how far they should extend, as with the abortion debate – do matter a great deal to people.
____
2) How do you settle your mind on the personhood of the pregnant woman? If she were a pregnant Jew in Nazi Germany (or a pregnant black slave in the United States, in the 1700’s), there would be “no question” that the pregnant woman was not a person at all.
As things are now, there isn’t any debate on the personhood of the woman. Sure, there have been exceptions in the past, and for that matter – there are some real abuses of women going on right now in the world, abuses where we here in the US are just about in total agreement that “wrong” applies. In the here and now, while there is vast disagreement on the morality of abortion, there really isn’t anybody saying the mother is not a person.
____
“– there is the issue of the overlap between the woman’s rights and what would be the rights of the unborn were personhood to be deemed present.”
And again (playing devil’s advocate, here): why should anyone give a fig about the so-called “deemed personhood” of the mother (and her so-called and attendant “rights”)? To what moral standard are you appealing?
They should give a fig if they want to be in society. You could ask why should anybody care about anything. The fact is that we do have desires, and to remain in society is a very common one. Go far enough against the rights of the woman and society will imprison you or kill you – if you want to avoid those, then you should not transgress on the rights of the woman.
____
“Nobody knows how that all would work out.”
(?) I’m afraid that’s a bit too vague for me to know what you mean.
It’s really an aside, here – how far would we go in restricting the actions of the pregnant woman if personhood were deemed to be present for the unborn? There are all sorts of things the woman could do that would impact the unborn, with real or possible effects.
____
“I don’t say we are morally free to kill other animals at any perceived need. The situation matters.”
Why on earth would it matter? What moral principle could possible stand in the way of me throwing concussion grenades at every pod of dolphins, of taking a flame-thrower to every last endangered baboon, of committing mayhem against every last elephant for the sake of enriching myself with ivory, or the like?
It matters because the valuation can change, and the argument for the killing can be very different. A tiger jumps on you and is biting you, hey – go ahead and defend yourself even if it means killing the tiger. A tiger is lying on a rock in the zoo, then I say don’t kill it.
Internet access will be erratic, for the next 2-3 days; I’ll write back when I can. Thanks for the replies!
(If in doubt, subscribe to the thread! :) )
Paladin, no problem – this weekend I won’t be online much at all, and this thread will “time out” at some point – 2 weeks since it began, 3? We can shift forward in time if required.