Construction vs. development
Never thought of the debate like this before, but it’s true. Excerpted from an op ed in YaleDailyNews.com, today:
The central difference between the pro-choice and pro-life position, as first stated by Valparaiso law professor Richard Stith, is the subtle dichotomy between pregnancy as construction and pregnancy as development….
The pro-choicer considers pregnancy the construction of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the construction of a car in a factory. The relevant question in the comparison is this: At what point in the construction process does the object under construction become a car? Some may say that it is when the object receives an engine. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels quickening. Others might say that the object becomes a car when it has an engine, axles and wheels, and the capacity to move. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels viability. And some may hold out and claim that the object isn’t really a car until it rolls out of the factory, paralleling birth.
But all who consider the question are certain that at the very beginning stages of construction, when only a few scraps of metal and a few bolts are in place, the object under construction is not a car. Similarly, if pregnancy is the construction of a human person, then at the early stages of pregnancy the embryo is clearly not a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: People disagree when a fetus becomes a person, but all agree that an embryo is not, so abortion is justified early in pregnancy and debatable only later on….
The pro-lifer does not consider pregnancy the construction of a human person. Rather, he considers it the development of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the development of a Polaroid photograph. The camera clicks, setting off a chain reaction of chemicals on photographic paper. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels conception. If someone were to wipe the chemicals away, saying that the image was only a potential photograph, he would seem crazy; he cut short the development of a uniquely existing photograph with an essential nature. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels abortion.
At what point in the process does the developing image become a photograph? The image of the photograph is not immediately apparent, but is revealed and develops over time. All agree, then, that the undeveloped photograph is very dissimilar from the developed photograph. Nevertheless, the undeveloped photograph is still a photograph. Similarly, if pregnancy is the development of a human person, an embryo, though at an early stage of development, is still a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: After conception, abortion is unjustified because it cuts short the natural development of a human person. From this point of view, pro-choicers seem irrational in asserting that an embryo is not a human person and dangerous in allowing its destruction.
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.
Brilliant…absolutely Brilliant!
Wish I had thought of it first!
mk
Great parallel!
Professor Stith wrote: “The pro-choicer considers pregnancy the construction of a human person. …The pro-lifer … considers it the development of a human person.”
What silliness. The difference is this: The pro-choicer considers that having the government force a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to carry it to term and undergo labor and delivery would be an unacceptable violation of her personal freedom. The pro-lifer thinks it’s acceptable for government to violate her personal freedom in this way.
The personhood or non-personhood of the fetus is a side issue.
Proffessor Stith wrote: “The image of the photograph is not immediately apparent, but is revealed and develops over time. All agree, then, that the undeveloped photograph is very dissimilar from the developed photograph. Nevertheless, the undeveloped photograph is still a photograph.”
No, it isn’t.
American Heritage Dictionary –
n. An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.
It’s not a photograph until it’s an image that can be seen.
I agree with SOMG.
SOMG writes, “The personhood or non-personhood of the fetus is a side issue.” In fact, that is the primary issue. If the fetus is a person, then that person has the right to life as acknowledged by our founding documents, including the Constitution. That right to life supersedes the mother’s right to privacy, even her right to “personal freedom”. If the right to life cannot be assured, then no other right is secure.
As Elizabeth Cady Stanton writes, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”
What silliness. The difference is this: The slave owner considers that having the government force a man with a slave to set it free and lose the value of its labor would be an unacceptable violation of his property rights. The abolitionist thinks it’s acceptable for government to violate his property rights in this way.
The personhood or non-personhood of the slave is a side issue.
I agree with Hal, the undeveloped photograph is not a photograph. It is in fact a piece of light sensitive paper with the opportunity to one day be a photograph. A photograph becomes a photograph after you have developed, fixed, washed it. This pro life person has made a horrible analogy, he is a lawyer, there’s no excuse for that.
Jk, the picture already exists before it is developed.
Actually no, you can’t bring an undeveloped piece of light sensitive paper into a gallery, hang it on the wall and say that it is a photograph. And anyway doing so would change the image once you actually developed it.
Actually no, you can’t bring an undeveloped piece of light sensitive paper into a gallery, hang it on the wall and say that it is a photograph. And anyway doing so would change the image once you actually developed it.
Actually, it would still be a photograph. You would have just destroyed it.
Bethany,
How would you be able to distinguish this invisible photograph from something that is just a piece of paper?
How would you be able to distinguish this invisible photograph from something that is just a piece of paper?
Sometimes, even the things we can’t see are more than what they appear to be.
And just because you don’t recognize it as a photograph, that does not take away from the fact that the photograph exists. It only needed time to develop so you could see what beauty lies within.
But you can’t say its a photograph if you can’t see it, I suppose you could call it experimental art. Art is usually something you can perceive using at least one of the senses.
But you can’t say its a photograph if you can’t see it, I suppose you could call it experimental art. Art is usually something you can perceive using at least one of the senses.
You can call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that a photograph exists on that paper.
Well, I think the real question is “Why are you exposing this photograph and then not bothering to develop it?”
Exactly, JK,why are you?
Actually, I was asking you. See I tend to go from the enlarger straight into the developer, it is a waste of paper if you don’t.
I don’t really see your point, JK. I am not the one wanting to change or hinder the development of the photograph in this analogy, you are.
A photograph becomes a photograph after you have developed, fixed, washed it.
Doofus, it’s a POLAROID…
sheesh!
mk
LOL
Bethany –
Do you like how JK tries to change it a metaphor to reality?
hmmm…
I thought Jill said no name calling MK. And I don’t think that I’ve said anything about wanting to hinder the development of a photograph. By the way a polariod is not magic, there are chemicals that go into that process as well. I am not trying to change the guy’s lame metaphor into reality, I am defending the reality of what a photograph is since I am a photographer.
If you want to talk about abortion then stop the pretenses and talk about abortion, not photography.
I thought Jill said no name calling MK. And I don’t think that I’ve said anything about wanting to hinder the development of a photograph.
Bethany –
Do you like how JK tries to change it a metaphor to reality?
hmmm…
Yep.
And its funny how people like him are “allowed” to use metaphors, but when we use them, they say, “let’s get back to talking about abortion.”
. By the way a polariod is not magic, there are chemicals that go into that process as well. I am not trying to change the guy’s lame metaphor into reality, I am defending the reality of what a photograph is since I am a photographer.
And your point is? A baby developing in the womb is not magic either. There are certain things which are essential to development, but certainly no magic is involved.
If you’re defending the reality of the photograph, you should realize that polaroids are indeed real, and because of that, the metaphor works perfectly.
If you want to talk about abortion then stop the pretenses and talk about abortion, not photography.
Sorry JK, you lose. The last time I checked this was Jill’s website, and she wants to talk about photography…
Not to mention, we were talking about abortion. You were the one who brought up developing and fixing and enlarging…
As for calling you a doofus, it was a term of endearment.
mk
I guess there’s a problem with using a metaphor of a photograph, already taken on polaroid medium, and in the process of developing, to explain the human organism in the process of development. The exposure of the medium to the light constituting the photograph is comparable to the process of fertilization. Because all the necessary means is available, the development proceeds unabated. Thus the photograph is understood to be already present and is in the process of becoming visible.
The trouble is that a good number of people aren’t old enough to be really familiar with the polaroid process.
I don’t believe I ever said polaroids weren’t real. Before i was speaking of the chemical processes used to develop a silver gelatin print, then someone said “no, we’re talking about polaroids” like it was some altogether different subject than black and white photography. And yes I was talking about photography the whole time and then someone accuses me of using my own metaphor, I assure you I was not.
I was however saying that I don’t believe something is a photograph unless it is a finished product i.e. an actual image. And just so you know I would believe this way even if I were pro life like you all.
Ok JK, but whether you like it or not, the image exists even when the paper appears blank.
image |?imij| noun a representation of the external form of a person or thing in sculpture, painting, etc.
There’s many more definitions than that, Q.
1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
3. a mental representation; idea; conception.
4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God’s image.
6. counterpart; copy: That child is the image of his mother.
7. a symbol; emblem.
8. the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.
9. a type; embodiment: Red-faced and angry, he was the image of frustration.
10. a description of something in speech or writing: Keats created some of the most beautiful images in the language.
11. Rhetoric. a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor or a simile.
12. an idol or representation of a deity: They knelt down before graven images.
13. Mathematics. the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.
14. Archaic. an illusion or apparition.
Q, 4/5, 8:15a, said: “I think the keyword in that is VISIBLE. Sorry Bethany, JK is right.”
Busted, Q. It’s no surprise you agree with JK. You’re the same person.
The problems for pro-aborts with this construction/development analogy are many.
Using car manufacturing as an example:
~ At the beginning of the process pro-aborts know they are in a car factory but feign ignorance as to what they are making, sometimes calling the car a parasite or a blob.
~ Even though at some point in the manufacturing process even a two-year-old can tell what is being manufacturered is a car, pro-aborts maintain one of two things:
or
~ Pro-aborts don’t consider the car driveable unless every part is in place. If even the cigarette lighter is missing, they claim the car unusable.
Also, Jill, don’t forget!…Even if it’s fully functional and has all it’s parts, until the completed car has been driven completely out of the manufacturing plant, it’s not a car then either.
;-)
And then of course there’s the hummer. Is it a car? Is it a jeep? Is car-jeep? Is it a bicycle? Is it a horse on wheels? No, it’s suuuuuupremannnnn!!!!
Could it be Saaaatttttaaaaa?
perregaux watches replica http://replicawatches.vdforum.ru >replica jacob watches
perregaux watches replica http://replicawatches.vdforum.ru >replica jacob watches