Abortion supporters now both anti- “choice” and uber- “choice”
Planned Parenthood triggered a massive identity crisis in the pro-abortion world when it announced on February 9 it was abandoning the term “pro-choice.”
I mentioned at the time Planned Parenthood must certainly not have conferred with such groups as NARAL Pro-Choice America before dropping its bombshell.
I don’t think abortion advocacy groups appreciate the fact that Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar business. So its decisions will be primarily market-driven, which may or may not be coincide with the best interest of ideological groups – one of the hard truths about the 1%.
Thus, Planned Parenthood basically hung NARAL, et al, out to dry, forcing them to defend their commitment to the word “choice.”
In an interview with Politico today, new NARAL president Ilyse Hogue said her group is doubling down…
… to redefine “choice.” It’s the right to end a pregnancy – and the right to start one, including access to pricey fertility treatment. Once a baby is born, parents should have paid family leave to take care of them.
I asked several pro-life leaders for their insights about the other side’s growing schizophrenia over the word “choice.” Eric Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League wrote:
As Planned Parenthood backs away from the language of “choice,” NARAL is trying to expand it. These contradictory strategies show how effectively the pro-life movement has rammed home the message that “choice” means abortion – any time, for any reason or no reason at all. That’s what Planned Parenthood and NARAL stand for, no matter what new slogans they come up with or old ones they try to dust off.
Jim Sedlak of American Life League added:
Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL are having problems with the word “choice.” PP is running away from it and NARAL is trying to redefine it.
Their basic problem is that they are not able to relate to the younger generation. NARAL’s former president admitted that is why she left. For 40 years pro-lifers have been telling people that we will eventually win because we are having children while the other side is not. All those children of pro-life families now make-up the majority of the younger generation. They are rejecting the “pro-choice” lies. PP and NARAL don’t know what to do about it.
From a public relations standpoint, Kristina Hernandez, Senior Account Manager for CRC Public Relations, noted:
NARAL is actually following PP’s lead. Abortion is a losing issue. They need something else to reel in the masses, so they are trying to figure out what works.
How does endorsing fertility treatments and parental leave play with the younger generation? I doubt they care about such things until later in life. If NARAL is so keen on being hip and young, why choose those issues?
Speaking for the youth, Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America suggested the appeal might be to appear as a more well-rounded social justice movement:
Hogue’s statements are reflective of the general census in the U.S. that abortions are wrong. Instead of focusing on abortion, the other side wants to move beyond it, as they know its a loser for them.
This is new redefining campaign targeted at this generation, who knows the tired arguments of “it’s just a blob of tissue” are scientifically wrong.
Abortion proponents are hoping their “holistic” approach will help bring in more of the mushy-middle young women out there who don’t like abortion but also want to make sure help is always available for women.
It kinda sounds like they are trying to do what the pro-life movement has done in some ways – moving beyond just focusing on the baby but now being sure to always include the women when we talk about the effect of abortion.
I see this as a challenge for the pro-life movement.
[Photo via Politico]
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.
“Abortion proponents are hoping their “holistic” approach will help bring in more of the mushy-middle young women out there who don’t like abortion but also want to make sure help is always available for women.”
Interesting. And bummer. It will indeed be a challenge for us. Rat poison is 99% nutritious rat food – while it’s the poison that kills, it’s the food that makes it effective. Does this revamping of image mean there will be dancing genitalia suits collecting dust on craigslist? Hope not. Those kind of antics are so easily rejected and good for us.
It will be a challenge. People love free stuff, and our debt-obsessed popular culture expects instant gratification. With an aging population, and children laboring under years of education and crippling student loans before starting families, older women will want fertility treatment, and like everything else, for free if they can make it so. Anyone who walks in a Babies R Us can see how a child is sometimes treated as a subject rather than an object. Most of the bibs you buy for them say “My Dad is awesome” or “My aunt loves me” or “Momma’s all-star.” Our post-modern pop-culture can sustain cognitive dissonance very well. Planned Parenthood has been successful staying alive by adopted a few generally good health practices.
All that said, however, abortion is still a losing issue for them, and you can only survive so long trying to ignore and distract people from your core issue. That’s why they never succeed in state legislatures, and why they are so buoyed about being able to express the smallest amount of their true views on a wide stage. So if we persevere through the challenge, we should not be afraid.
As infants’ viability gets younger and technology improves, abortion can only be more and more a losing issue. Ultrasounds used to be hard to see, but new ultrasounds make the baby recognizable at a glance.
What can boys and men think of Hogue’s “…redefine “choice.” It’s the right to end a pregnancy – and the right to start one, including access to pricey fertility treatment..” Ahem, Ms. Hogue, but I’m pretty sure you don’t mean to say that MEN have a RIGHT to start a pregnancy. Nope, I’m pretty sure you mean MEN are SECOND CLASS CITIZENS in the pregnancy business.
Boys, men, are you going to buy this crud for another generation? I hope not.
I think they are aiming exactly for a nice holistic approach to women that will actually begin to look a little bit like our pregnancy resource centers. I feel like our best response from the pro-life side is to step up our pro-life clinics and expand far beyond the pregnancy resource center that offers pregnancy tests and ultrasounds to creating full service, holistically based centers that meet all the needs from pre-conception through the early child-rearing years. We are already working on this at The Guiding Star Project http://www.theguidingstarproject.com
We’ll be ahead of them and ready to do battle with their assisted reproductive technology by appealing to the younger generation’s organic and natural sensibilities. We’ll speak the language of holistic health and fertility awareness in dealing with their pill pushing contraceptive approach. We can offer “designer births” in our alternative birthing centers and allow young women to dream about becoming empowered as a woman and mother through working with and accepting her body as naturally created. If we can teach our side to speak a language that makes femininity an appealing and beautiful gift we’ll have created a massive road block to women accepting the new language and approach of Planned Parenthood.
My husband died today. please keep me in your prayers
Wow, Heather, I’m so sorry… :( Praying for you. How else may we help you?
Oh no Heather!!! :(
Please email me
carla@jillstanek.com
I am praying for you and your family.
Heather – God will be with you. I’m so sorry. Prayers for you & your family. This is not our home.
I’m so sorry to hear that Heather. I really don’t know what to say now.
Oh, Heather! I’m so very sorry, hon’! I will be praying for you and your family today.
I’m so sorry Heather for your loss. I will pray for you.
In response to this blog post however, I have a few responses. The diversity of opinions in the pro-choice movement is not a new thing. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, it is probably a good thing that the different sections of the movement are beginning to refer to themselves by different names. There are people who view abortion as morally wrong, yet think it should be legal on the basis of bodily rights like myself. Then there are people who think abortion should be legal because the unborn are not persons and providing abortions to women improves their lives. These are two very different perspectives and they focus on very different arguments, so it follows that they should be called different things. These two camps are also supported by different people so the movement is not ”schizophrenic”. It just means people within the movement disagree with eachother. If you are going to say that disagreement within the movement makes the movement schizophrenic, then pro-lifers are as well. Because apparently you guys can’t make up your mind on whether the murder of abortionists is compatable with your “pro-life” view.
Also, “pro-abortion” is a terrible blanket term for people who think abortion should be legal. It is possible to be strongly opposed to an action morally, but think it should be legal. If someone wanted to make adultery illegal would it be accurate for people who oppose such a law to be called “pro-adultery”?
“If someone wanted to make adultery illegal would it be accurate for people who oppose such a law to be called “pro-adultery”?”
If they were taking real action to oppose it, then yes, I might call them that. Pro-adultery rights would probably be more fair, I would concede.
Okay, but would you at least also concede that there should be different words describing the people who think adultery is wrong, but should be allowed and the people who think adultery is wonderful and should be encouraged? After all these views would support vastly different public policy decisions (programs either to encourage or discourage adultery) and vastly different arguments for their respective views. Plus, they would likely be really offended to be mistaken for someone with the other view. This seems like a good idea, just for the sake of clarity.
All the words in the dictionary won’t change the fact that abortion kills a human child, and if you think a woman should be able to kill her child, you’re pro-abortion. For the sake of clarity, the new human being is present at conception, alive, unique, with his or her own DNA. The bodily autonomy argument is one of bullying; bullying a small human to death… because you can. I don’t give anyone an extra pass because they find abortion immoral or unpleasant.
And newsflash, we all agree that murderers are criminals, including murderers who think they’re pro-life.
Yes, but those words in the dictionary are there so that people can convey meaning to one another and it makes sense that if people are getting confused because they are using the same word to describe different things then miscommunications occur. If there are miscommunications (like what is currently happening in the pro-choice movement) then this is a sign that the words are not conveying meaning very well. We can remedy this by making different words to describe these different things.
I agree that human life begins at conception http://prochoicevoice.blogspot.ca/2013/02/why-i-think-unborn-are-persons.html, so there is some common ground there.
I would disagree that bodily rights arguments are bullying http://prochoicevoice.blogspot.ca/2013/02/mybody-my-choice-unconscious-violinist.html , why do you think it is “bullying a small human to death…because you can”?
I’m sorry, Heather.
Sandra, you said, “There are people who view abortion as morally wrong, yet think it should be legal on the basis of bodily rights like myself.”
Those statements are contradictory, since if abortion is morally wrong, it is because abortion violates the bodily rights of the gestating child. So, by that same token, I think abortion is morally wrong AND it should be illegal on the basis of bodily rights.
You pray? Might I ask to whom?
I’m sorry, Heather.
Sandra, you said, “There are people who view abortion as morally wrong, yet think it should be legal on the basis of bodily rights like myself.”
Those statements are contradictory, since if abortion is morally wrong, it is because abortion violates the bodily rights of the gestating child. So, by that same token, I think abortion is morally wrong AND it should be illegal on the basis of bodily rights.
You pray? Might I ask to whom?
oh, yay! The violinist argument. Because THAT’S new.
A HUGE problem with the violinist argument is that it is an inapt analogy, because it fails to consider one IMMENSELY important factor. Pregnancy (unless the pregnant woman is a surrogate somehow) entails not a stranger as is the violinist, but the minor child of the pregnant woman, and she has guardianship of that child by default. I have no inherent obligation to sustain and care for some random stranger’s pizzicato shenanigans. I do, however, have the legal obligation to provide care, nourishment, and shelter for my minor children for as long as they must remain in my care. As a pregnant mother, that entails gestation and birth. Because, just as I wouldn’t be able to beat the child abuse rap had I thrown my child out of my moving vehicle by saying, “Yeah, but I really didn’t want to care for him anymore, and I didn’t have time to drive him to a safe haven/DHS office/etc.”, no such excuse for abortion is acceptable, either.
Okay, suppose that a boy is raped by his teacher and she gets pregnant and gives birth. He doesn’t know that his child exists until he finds himself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He is about to unplug from him because he doesn’t want to to sustain and care for some random stranger’s pizzicato shenanigans, but a beurocrat runs in and tells him he has to stay plugged in because the violinist is his son. He then has to take months off work which puts him in a terrible financial situation, he gets sick every day because of the procedure, he gets a kidneystone the size of a golf ball that he must painfully pass.
Does the government have the right to do such a thing? Why are parents responsible for caring for their children in the first place? It seems like it is because they have created a dependent and people are responsible for their dependents to which I have this reply http://prochoicevoice.blogspot.ca/2013/02/responsibility-and-abortion.html. If you have another explanation however, I am willing to listen.
why do you think it is “bullying a small human to death…because you can”?
A child who gets evicted from the womb by his parent(s) doesn’t get to live on somewhere else. That child is dead. The child had nowhere else to go to finish growing enough to be viable and adoptable. The parent(s) don’t have the patience to wait a few more months. The child can’t leave on his own. The parent(s) pay another person to destroy the child and remove the child’s corpse from the womb. That is bullying a small person to death. Because he’s small, and you can.
Well, I don’t think there are too many women who abort because they hate babies because they’re small and they can kill them. Really? What’s that senario going to look like?
“Hey sweety”
“Hey girl, I’m so bored, what do you want to do?”
“I dunno, get pregnant so I can panic and go through surgery which might have complications so that I can kill a small person because that’s fun!”
“Sounds great, lets bang”
Hi Heather,
My deepest sympathy to you and your family on your loss. Please let us help you any way we can.
I’m sorry, did I miss a comment where someone said that they hate babies? I didn’t see that.
Bringing up the violinist and then trying to make arguments about forced bone marrow donations reveal to me that you lack a very fundamental understanding of human biology, human reproduction, and mammals.
In fact, the violinist argument, which I see you also proudly tout on your blog, is very encouraging to me as a pro-lifer. It proves that the abortion lobby is simply out of ideas and scraping at old, tired comparisions. You really think that’s going to work on the younger generation? Keep it up. Time magazine says your side is winning.
Sandra,
I’m sorry, did I miss a comment where someone said that they hate babies? I didn’t see that.
Bringing up the violinist and then trying to make arguments about forced bone marrow donations reveal to me that you lack a very fundamental understanding of human biology, human reproduction, and mammals.
In fact, the violinist argument, which I see you also proudly tout on your blog, is very encouraging to me as a pro-lifer. It proves that the abortion lobby is simply out of ideas and scraping at old, tired comparisions. You really think that’s going to work on the younger generation? Keep it up. Time magazine says your side is winning.
Heather – I’m so sorry – lifting you and your family up in prayer.
Mods, I tried to edit my comment but it double posted. Feel free to delete one.
Heather, I’m so sorry. :>(
Ninek: Bullying requires some illintent does it not?
Also, saying that there are differences between bone marrow and pregnancy is not helpful. The point of an analogy is that the two situations are different. There needs to be a morally relevant difference between the two for it to actually discredit the analogy. For example, some people claim that a morally relevant difference would be that in the violinist analogy you have not caused him to need you to survivem while in pregnancy the parents have caused the child to need them to survive. I have addressed this in my blog.
If you have a morally relavent difference to share, then please do.
Heather, I am so deeply sorry for your loss.
Why does the level of famousness of the violinist matter? I think everyone should get the same treatment regardless of their individual renowned. Honey Boo Boo shouldn’t get more or better treatment than little orphan Joe Blow in foster care. Most minor children AREN’T famous violinists. And, providing something to a *legal dependent* AND THEN WITHDRAWING IT is not the same as opting not to provide anything in the first place. Especially organs. Check it:
http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Husband-Can-t-Take-Back-Gift-of-Kidney-to-Wife.html
Not that a woman loses any organs or tissues that belong to her in a typical, healthy pregnancy and birth.
Not to mention, you’re confusing legal dependents of an individual with…well…nobody with any legal ties to an individual at all, other than crimes against them. Harming someone else in a way that incapacitates them doesn’t make them my dependent.
Congrats. You’re twisting this initially inapt analogy into something even less applicable.
I see no morally relevant difference between paying an abortionist to kill your child or paying a contract killer to snuff an adult. Both should be illegal, not just the second.
I think you might have misunderstood me. Please, if you want to have a dialogue and an exchange of ideas read the link I will post at the end of this comment. I think I did a pretty good job of explaining both my position and the argument I am trying to refute.
You said that parents are responsible for their children. I would like to know why. All people have the right to life would you not agree? So who is obligated to provide the basic needs of life to who is an important moral question to answer. Your answer is that parents are responsible for their children. There are lots of reasons why people think this, the most common being that if you cause someone to need you to survive (as parents do in producing their children) then you are responsible for providing them with the things they need to survive. Here is a more in-depth explanation http://prochoicevoice.blogspot.ca/2013/02/responsibility-and-abortion.html
If you have another reason for why parents are obligated to provide for their children while other people are not then please share that reason. I look forward to further dialogue.
Thank you everyone . i found him dead on the floor autopsy done this morning . very sad but he’s in heaven …loved kids. i love you all. he was 54 years old
Heather, I’m very sorry for your loss. I really wish there was something I could do.
Sandra, I do see where you’re coming from with respect to the inadequacies of the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. As I understand them, “pro-life” applies to someone that thinks abortion should usually be illegal (though they might be for legalized abortion in some circumstances such as life of the mother, rape, or extreme fetal abnormalities). “Pro-choice” applies to people that think abortion should usually be legal (though they may be against legalized abortion in a few cases, such as for sex-selection or late-term). There are certainly supporters of legalized abortion who call themselves pro-life, and opponents of legalized abortion who call themselves pro-choice. And between the two, there is a wide continuum of possible positions one could take on abortion (ie legal up to around 9 weeks, which would outlaw about half of all abortions). But in general, I think the definitions I have provided are pretty much accepted. And while I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the label “pro-abortion” (supporters of gay marriage have no problem saying they’re for gay marriage even though they’re really just “pro-choice” on the matter), I don’t think that endlessly arguing over terminology is ever likely to accomplish anything productive. So I won’t insist on saying that you’re “pro-abortion” if that’s not how you want to be described.
Tactics and arguments of course vary considerably between individuals and groups in both camps. You’ll see for yourself if you stick around here for a while. I don’t, however, agree with your assessment of violence against abortionists. Virtually all national pro-life groups in America, and some international ones, loudly condemned the shooting of George Tiller. Among them was Operation Rescue, the most vocal opponent of his practice. Now, I would consider Scott Roeder to be pro-life (I’m not going to do the “no true Scotsman” thing like some do – the moral reprehensibility of his action doesn’t change the fact that he was an opponent of legalized abortion). But I think it’s fair to say that the pro-life movement as a whole is very much against murdering abortion clinic workers.
I’m glad you have thought about this issue (and are even willing to take your own side to task for faulty arguments). And you do take pro-lifers seriously in your writing, which is more than I can say about many pro-choicers. I’ll try to respond to some of your points.
On the responsibility objection, I think that the concept of negligence is an important factor. If there is sufficient evidence that you are at fault for running over a child, I do not personally think that it would be unreasonable for the child’s representatives to sue you for your kidney if it was necessary to save him. This would be an area where we disagree. I am not aware of any civil law case similar to this. However, even in the scope of current criminal law, the driver has a strong incentive to do whatever is necessary to keep the child alive. If the child lives, the driver is charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm. If the child dies, the driver is charged with vehicular homicide – a much more serious sentence. This isn’t present with pregnancy, where the mother faces no legal penalties if she aborts. And it is reasonable to view parents responsible for children they conceive through consensual sex (regardless of precautions taken beforehand). This would explain why we have laws mandating child support payments from fathers.
I believe you have misrepresented the concept of extraordinary vs. ordinary care. Ordinary care refers to care that all humans require at the respective stage of life (ie food, water, shelter, oxygen, etc). Extraordinary care, on the other hand, is exceptional. If I develop a rare heart condition that can only be cured if Mickey Mouse kisses me on the surface of Mars, nobody has any obligation to make it happen. On the other hand, if an infant needs food, a caregiver must make sure the need is met. The same principle gives a pregnant woman a duty to carry her child to term but doesn’t rule out refusing to let the violinist use your kidneys for nine months.
You present the example of cannibalism to illustrate a case where one can refuse to meet an ordinary need in order to maintain their bodily integrity. Here, I think it is important to look at the purpose of the organs in question. Taking your plane crash example, let’s suppose instead that the sole survivor was a pregnant woman. To strengthen our case, we’ll say that she was impregnated by rape nine months ago and never found out (this is not at all unheard of – there’s an entire television show based around the concept). She gives birth unexpectedly, and now the baby is dependent on her for breast milk. Intuitively, I think we see that she would be obligated to nurse as long as necessary. Intrauterine support seems to fall under the same category.
I extensively discuss the self-defence/rapist version of the bodily autonomy argument here (you’ll definitely need to do some scrolling!). Some of my analysis is applicable to the violinist as well.
Navi: Thank you for looking at my arguments. I appreciate your critique. I do have a few responses though.
“Virtually all national pro-life groups in America, and some international ones, loudly condemned the shooting of George Tiller.”
I have no doubt this is true, but the same goes for pro-choicers. A majority of pro-choicers will say that they do not support abortion. We view it as a bad thing (unlike the supporters of gay marriage who view it as a good thing). There are of course people who will give arguments “for” abortion, but they are few and far between. Not unlike pro-life people who will support the killing of abortionists.
“I’m glad you have thought about this issue (and are even willing to take your own side to task for faulty arguments). And you do take pro-lifers seriously in your writing, which is more than I can say about many pro-choicers. I’ll try to respond to some of your points.”
Thank you so much, I do try and see things from both sides of the issue so I’m glad that shows through. Thank you for responding.
“If the child lives, the driver is charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm. If the child dies, the driver is charged with vehicular homicide – a much more serious sentence.”
I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t think the person I described in the analogy was negligent. He really could not have done anything to prevent what happend besides quit driving all together. It would make sense if he was drunk or something, but if you are actively taking precausions to prevent an accident I don’t think that’s negligent. That being said, I don’t think it matters too much sinse you think it is alright to sue someone for the use of their body. So I think we will just have to agree to disagree there.
“This isn’t present with pregnancy, where the mother faces no legal penalties if she aborts.”
That’s true now, but if abortion is murder (like the pro-life movement thinks) then there would be penalties to abort. There aren’t any now because we do hold bodily autonomy above the right to life, if this was changed however, we would be making abortion illegal.
“Ordinary care refers to care that all humans require at the respective stage of life”
Okay, but they “require” that care at that point in their life because they would die without it.
“Extraordinary care, on the other hand, is exceptional.”
I’m not sure quite what you mean here, it seems like you just said extraordianry care is extraordinary, which isn’t really a definition. What makes extraordinary care extraordinary?
“If I develop a rare heart condition that can only be cured if Mickey Mouse kisses me on the surface of Mars…”
Nice, that’s hilarious.
“Here, I think it is important to look at the purpose of the organs in question.”
We can’t say that people are obligated to use the parts of their bodies for the purposes those parts were created for because it would justify rape. We also can’t say that women have the right to refuse to allow anyone to use any part of their body for any reason because that would mean women could refuse to breastfeed and their infants would die. We also can’t say that parents are obligated to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to provide for the basic needs of their children, because this would justify cannibalism. It seems to me that our only solution to this issue is to compare the harm/sacrifice involved in each of these activities and see which ones are reasonable to force a parent to do and which are not. If we think allowing a kidney or bone marrow to be used is unreasonable (which I do, but I realize you don’t) then interuterine support would also be unreasonable (and you would think it is) because the harm/sacrifice would be similar. I think we can agree that the sacrifice of limbs would be too much, so there is consensus there.
Kodos on using the breast feeding analogy btw. It is hands down the best pro-life analogy.
Heather, I’m so sorry for your loss.
Navi, great arguments and very well presented! There really, really is no other issue like this, and it’s interesting the different ways people come to their conclusions.
For me, the only valid argument is that the child’s right to life supersedes all other rights (except in the rare cases when a mother’s life is in danger and the baby can’t be saved at the same time).
But I have to say, I hate, hate, HATE the idea that another human could tell me what I am allowed do with my body. I’m still conflicted about supporting laws prohibiting abortion, although I do so, strongly, because it’s the fairest thing.
For me, though, none of the arguments work except the abortion=murder one. The slavery and Holocaust ones are easily negated by the autonomy argument in cases of rape or incest. And pregnancy isn’t always a jolly skip through the park, as some (certainly not all) pro-lifers forget. I couldn’t wait for my daughter to be born, yet couldn’t wait to have a tubal ligation, even though her existence is the happiest thing in my otherwise pretty happy life.
Long story short (too late), I do understand the distinctions in thought re: abortion and the difficulty in describing so many viewpoints. For me it’s pretty simple now, but bodily autonomy used to be more important when I was pro-choice, over a decade ago. Sandra, if you’re at all conflicted yourself on this, I wish you luck figuring it out.
“If I develop a rare heart condition that can only be cured if Mickey Mouse kisses me on the surface of Mars…”
Nice, that’s hilarious.
You wish us to take the violinist seriously while calling this funny. Hm.
““Virtually all national pro-life groups in America, and some international ones, loudly condemned the shooting of George Tiller.”
I have no doubt this is true, but the same goes for pro-choicers. A majority of pro-choicers will say that they do not support abortion.”
I have never on any pro-life website (or in any conversation with a pro-life person, or anywhere in print) seen a call of support for the legalized murder of adult abortionists. However, despite the alleged squeamishness of pro-choicers, they do in fact, to a one, support the legal murder of pre-born human beings. A criminal may post such a thing on his own website, but if ANY pro-choicer finds such a quote on any one of our blogs or websites, I’d like to see it here in print. Because we hear this accusation but we see no proof. Yet, there is proof aplenty that pro-choicers want to continue the legal practice of feticide and infanticide.
Next time one of you pro-choicers want to accuse pro-lifers of supporting criminals and murderers, you ought to provide proof. Otherwise, it’s just one more straw man in a 40 year plus history of straw men and windmills that you want to fight.
Indeed, most people who support legalized abortion don’t say it’s a good thing. “Safe, legal, and rare” is a popular sentiment. And it does make a lot of sense if you approach the problem solely from a bodily rights standpoint (we would want most women to carry their pregnancies to term the same way we would want most people to donate blood, organs, and tissue – yet it shouldn’t be mandatory). I would, however, say that it is more common to see someone say that abortion is a good thing than it is for a pro-lifer to say that they support killing abortion providers. See here for an example. Others are very easy to find (just visit imnotsorry.net or thanksabortion.com for women and men that literally say abortion is the best thing that ever happened to them). But for the purposes of this dialogue, I don’t really care what Katie Stack or Randall Terry happen to think. I’m more interested in what you think.
I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t think the person I described in the analogy was negligent. He really could not have done anything to prevent what happend besides quit driving all together. It would make sense if he was drunk or something, but if you are actively taking precausions to prevent an accident I don’t think that’s negligent. That being said, I don’t think it matters too much sinse you think it is alright to sue someone for the use of their body. So I think we will just have to agree to disagree there.
You’re right. Negligence is somewhat more convoluted in this respect and the reasonable person standard is used to determine culpability. For child support, however, the father is always considered responsible if he consented to sex and matches the paternity test. He is not excused if he had a vasectomy, used a condom, and ensured that his partner was on birth control drugs.
That’s true now, but if abortion is murder (like the pro-life movement thinks) then there would be penalties to abort. There aren’t any now because we do hold bodily autonomy above the right to life, if this was changed however, we would be making abortion illegal.
The thesis of the responsibility objection is that the current laws are unjust. I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this point.
I’m not sure quite what you mean here, it seems like you just said extraordianry care is extraordinary, which isn’t really a definition. What makes extraordinary care extraordinary?
It is somewhat difficult to define. It’s much easier to provide an example, which I did above.
I don’t think pregnancy is analogous to rape. Visit the link at the end of my last comment for my justification. You agree that the right to refuse to provide bodily support is not absolute. However, I don’t think you are right to claim that the level of harm or sacrifice is what distinguishes breastfeeding from cannibalism or organ donation. On your blog, you imply that it would be wrong to make a parent donate a unit of blood to save their child. However, I would argue that donating blood once is less of a sacrifice than breastfeeding continuously in the emergency scenario I described. Donating blood consists of lying down, putting a needle in your arm, and playing with a squishy ball for a few minutes. Breastfeeding requires sleep deprivation, reduced caffeine intake, and refraining from alcohol. It can also be awkward or embarrassing in public (much like pregnancy), and can cause sore nipples or infection. In the post I linked to, I also describe a case where you wouldn’t have the right to refuse even though the level of burden is definitely greater than that faced by a pregnant woman.
Kodos on using the breast feeding analogy btw. It is hands down the best pro-life analogy.
Thanks! Though I didn’t come up with it myself. I’m not sure who was the first to use it.
hi Navi. So, I tried to add a comment yesterday but apparently it didn’t work so I’m going to try again.
I would, however, say that it is more common to see someone say that abortion is a good thing than it is for a pro-lifer to say that they support killing abortion providers.
I agree. There’s no arguing with that lol. However, imagine if a significant number of pro-lifers did support this? Would you not want them to be called something else?
For child support, however, the father is always considered responsible if he consented to sex and matches the paternity test.
That’s true, and I agree that fathers should pay child support (with one or two exceptions). But I think that if we expect fathers to pay child support regardless of whether or not he is negligent then I think it follows that people who, for example, get into care accidents should have to pay some sort of compensation to anyone who was injured regardless of negligence.
Also, we expect men to pay child support. We don’t expect them to give a kidney or anything else.
I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this point.
Sorry! I just misunderstood what you said.
I don’t think pregnancy is analogous to rape
I don’t either. I use it to respond to one of the definitions of extraordinary needs that involves the function of organs http://prochoicevoice.blogspot.ca/2013/02/extraordinary-needs-and-thomsons.html.
However, I don’t think you are right to claim that the level of harm or sacrifice is what distinguishes breastfeeding from cannibalism or organ donation.
I’m not sure that’s true. I read your post and I thought the conjoined twins analogy was very good. However, I don’t see a possible definition for extraordinary needs that would force someone to stay conjoined for the rest of their life while not forcing them to donate organs. I think there’s a case to be made for an obligation to donate organs but I don’t think you can have one obligation without the other.
You are an excellent writer and you make really good arguments. Do you have a blog?
Ninek:
You wish us to take the violinist seriously while calling this funny. Hm.
I’m not sure if I just did a poor job of expressing it, but I meant that as a compliment. I thought she was trying to make that entertaining while making her point (which I took seriously) at the same time.
I have never on any pro-life website (or in any conversation with a pro-life person, or anywhere in print) seen a call of support for the legalized murder of adult abortionists.
I agree that they are few and far between. However, if you define pro-lifers as being people who are for criminalizing abortion, then the people killing abortionsists are pro-life. So they definitely exist. Although, again, there are not that many people. I agree.
Otherwise, it’s just one more straw man in a 40 year plus history of straw men and windmills that you want to fight.
A straw man is when you refute an argument your opponent was not making. Usually a weaker, more easily refuted version of their argument. Although making a claim without evidence may be really stupid, it’s not a straw man.
“Although making a claim without evidence may be really stupid, it’s not a straw man. ”
I said prove it, you can’t but you can’t just cop to it completely. I get it. Why don’t you stop fighting false opponents and do something about creeps like Kermit Gosnell. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. You all must support him, right, because he’s pro-choice, even though he kills people…
Giant, gaping, bucket of duh. I had an awesome professor that taught logic. Every time he reads a pro-choice comment or argument, he cries a little.
Giant, gaping, bucket of duh. I had an awesome professor that taught logic. Every time he reads a pro-choice comment or argument, he cries a little.
I’m glad you took a logic class, it is definitely something everyone on both sides of the debate should do. I definitely agree there are a lot of terrible pro-choice arguments and when I do make bad ones I appreciate when people point them out to me.
But, this is probably going to be my last comment. I feel that you are probably a wonderful person and you are definitely committed to your convictions, which is admirable. But I’m honestly getting kind of offended. Maybe I’ve just been reading you comments wrong, but it seems like you’re not listening to me at all and are just going to continuously call me an idiot.
Yes, I might be commenting in a snarky manner.
We are not pro-life because we are trying to control women and we do not support criminals who murder people no matter what they think their motives are. I may not be a wonderful person, maybe not even nice sometimes. But I want the killing of pre-born children to end, immediately. Every single day, lives are lost. Pro-choicers may comfort themselves that babies aren’t people, but that doesn’t comfort those of us who can deny neither their humanity nor their membership in the human family.
If pro-choice folks really want to find common ground with us, leave the windmills and straw men and let’s talk about what’s real. Hope to see you on another thread.
hi Navi. So, I tried to add a comment yesterday but apparently it didn’t work so I’m going to try again.
Yeah, the comment form has been really annoying the last week or two. I have no idea why.
I agree. There’s no arguing with that lol. However, imagine if a significant number of pro-lifers did support this? Would you not want them to be called something else?
That’s a good point. On the one hand, someone that supports the murder of abortionists could argue that it will save more lives (so their actions are indeed “pro-life”). On the other hand, violently killing someone (even to save more lives) does seriously conflict with the pro-life principles. This really highlights a weakness in the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, as they are vague and somewhat flowery. Nobody on either side is seriously opposed to protecting life or allowing choices. But they are generally accepted, regardless of their inadequacies.
That’s true, and I agree that fathers should pay child support (with one or two exceptions). But I think that if we expect fathers to pay child support regardless of whether or not he is negligent then I think it follows that people who, for example, get into care accidents should have to pay some sort of compensation to anyone who was injured regardless of negligence.
I must disagree. I don’t think that driving a car generates such a responsibility the same way that voluntarily engaging in a procreative act does. Actually being at fault is necessary for the driver to owe compensation.
Also, we expect men to pay child support. We don’t expect them to give a kidney or anything else.
The purpose of the child support example was to gauge responsibility for the child’s neediness. I was not trying to suggest that it’s a similar burden to pregnancy. The fact that the parents have to make different sacrifices doesn’t seem to imply that the latter ought to be voluntary. Using another example, suppose we have a two-vehicle collision (instead of a vehicle-pedestrian collision) where both drivers are found to be equally negligent. A passenger is injured and requires a blood transfusion. However, only one of the drivers has the right blood type – the other can only give a monetary compensation. I don’t think this last detail is relevant to the question of whether or not the first driver should be required to donate their blood. Likewise, the fact that only the woman can get pregnant does not defeat the responsibility objection.
I’m not sure that’s true. I read your post and I thought the conjoined twins analogy was very good. However, I don’t see a possible definition for extraordinary needs that would force someone to stay conjoined for the rest of their life while not forcing them to donate organs.
That is the difficult part. It’s easy to come up with scenarios and determine what is or isn’t obligatory in each instance. It’s much harder to isolate the abstract principles that do the work, and formulate a general framework that accurately and consistently distinguishes between the cases. So it ultimately turns into a battle of intuitions, so to speak. I think there are important legal and metaphysical differences between conjoined twins and organ donation. I’ve listed a few plausible ones in my other post. However, I unfortunately don’t have time to go through them in a rigorous way right now.
I think there’s a case to be made for an obligation to donate organs but I don’t think you can have one obligation without the other.
It might in fact be possible for to make such a case. Some utilitarian philosophers have argued that our intuitions about the violinist are mistaken. I don’t think this is impossible, though either way there are relevant dissimilarities that undermine its comparison to pregnancy.
You are an excellent writer and you make really good arguments. Do you have a blog?
I don’t, though I appreciate the compliment. I barely have time to keep up with this blog right now, let alone maintain my own and think of interesting things to write about. I’ve also enjoyed this discussion. You are a Worthy Opponent that has compelled me to think carefully about my position!
On the other hand, violently killing someone (even to save more lives) does seriously conflict with the pro-life principles
Although in one sense you are obviously right, I don’t think pro-life means protecting life in all cases. I think it just means illegal abortion. If it could be applied to other stuff then anti-war movements, anti-death penalty etc would all be considered pro-life. Yet, in reality it seems specifically focused on making abortion illegal.
But they are generally accepted, regardless of their inadequacies.
I think that is starting to change, which I think is a good thing. : )
I don’t think that driving a car generates such a responsibility the same way that voluntarily engaging in a procreative act does.
How come?
Likewise, the fact that only the woman can get pregnant does not defeat the responsibility objection.
I wasn’t trying to say that. I was trying to say that if we force women to stay pregnant we would have to force people to donate kidneys. But I think you already agreed that would be okay. Most people don’t. I get diffent people I’m dialoguing with mixed up sometimes. I aplogogize.
I’ve listed a few plausible ones in my other post.
Where in your other post was it? I’m intrigued.
You are a Worthy Opponent that has compelled me to think carefully about my position!
As are you. Truly : )
ninek
Yes, I might be commenting in a snarky manner
I appreciate your willingness to admit that.
But I want the killing of pre-born children to end, immediately. Every single day, lives are lost.
I think we have some common ground there. Truly, it is a tragedy.
Hope to see you on another thread.
You too : )
I think that is starting to change, which I think is a good thing. : )
We shall see…
I’m not entirely sure why a driver isn’t always considered liable to pay damages for motor vehicle accidents but is always required to pay child support. Some people would appeal to the teleology of the sexual act and employ an elaborate analogy involving a hypothetical baby-making machine, but I don’t think this is necessary to get there. After all, you’re always considered liable if you (or your minor child) break a window with a baseball even if you take multiple precautions to prevent it from happening (using a soft bat and wiffle ball, going to the park, positioning the batter to avoid buildings and vehicles, and so on). It is, of course, possible that one or more of the laws is unjust.
The relevant part of the other post is here:
Of these, I think the former has more explanatory power. The latter could work too, and many different versions of it can be found in literature. However, some would justify certain forms of abortion or fatal separation (and others would imply that staying connected to the violinist is mandatory). Adequately developing the natural-artificial distinction would require a comprehensive metaphysical exploration, which I regrettably don’t have time to do right now.
We could force the analogy to become even closer to pregnancy by imagining that all humans begin life with a conjoined twin (where only one is capable of living independently at the start, so it turns into an ordinary human need rather than an exceptional one) and the amount of time is shorter (the weaker twin becomes viable a few months after creation), but I don’t think either of these features are necessary. I would wager that most defenders of legalized abortion, along with the courts, would reject the claim that you have the right to kill your conjoined twin by detaching from them (even if it’s a rare, permanent condition). I could be wrong (we’re dealing with a proper subset of a very small group of people, so we’ll probably have to wait a long time to know for sure). David Boonin (who calls this “[o]ne of the most interesting and least discussed objections to the good samaritan argument”) does bite the bullet and accept it even in the modified version. The consistency is commendable, but coherency doesn’t equal correctness.