Are the unborn human?

[BlueEyedLady]

If I remember right, both used language to obscure the actual actions that were going on, but you’re correct - Orwell probably incorporated the idea more fully. It’s been 27 years or so…maybe it’s time I reread these.

You should, they’re both very good. I read them in high school, let them sit in the back of my mind throughout my undergrad, and then last semester I worked under a professor and lectured a political philosophy course. I had to reread both books because college freshman relate EVERYTHING back to them.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You should, they’re both very good. I read them in high school, let them sit in the back of my mind throughout my undergrad, and then last semester I worked under a professor and lectured a political philosophy course. I had to reread both books because college freshman relate EVERYTHING back to them.

Please answer my questions above.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Please answer my questions above.

I really want to bow out of this thread, I never wanted this to turn into an abortion debate, only to explain what concerns need to be addressed if the vast bulk of pro-choicers are to be convinced. I feel like I made the point that I wanted to make and I really feel uncomfortable debating abortion on CAF. It’s rude of me and it inevitably leads a huge derail of the thread.

If you would like I can send you a private message with answers, but I really don’t like turning threads like this into a spectacle.

 

[VirtusTransitus]

You should, they’re both very good. I read them in high school, let them sit in the back of my mind throughout my undergrad, and then last semester I worked under a professor and lectured a political philosophy course. I had to reread both books because college freshman relate EVERYTHING back to them.

I just refreshed my memory with some online searching. I think we’re both right (convenient, hunh?). Orwell featured Newspeak overtly as part of his theme of control/revision of history.

On the other hand, Huxley subtely uses language to devalue certain things and bolster others. The reference to savages, the treatment of motherhood, sterilized women are FREEmartins (how nice!), etc.

It matches my point - if you shape language such that hedonistic (or narcissistic maybe) action is given virtuous tones and hues, then you enable society to ignore the actual moral and ethical implications of things like legalized abortion.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I just refreshed my memory with some online searching. I think we’re both right (convenient, hunh?). Orwell featured Newspeak overtly as part of his theme of control/revision of history.

On the other hand, Huxley subtely uses language to devalue certain things and bolster others. The reference to savages, the treatment of motherhood, sterilized women are FREEmartins (how nice!), etc.

It matches my point - if you shape language such that hedonistic (or narcissistic maybe) action is given virtuous tones and hues, then you enable society to ignore the actual moral and ethical implications of things like legalized abortion.

Yep. With Huxley though it was not an overt attempt at controlling the minds and attitudes. It was more of a subliminal effort mixed with background noise. The whole idea was that when you bombard people with so much they stop thinking and stop caring and just accept.

With Orwell it was more of a conscious effort on the part of the government. If you say “joycamp” enough times eventually that’s what it becomes in the minds of the people, and they start forgetting why they had any real objection.

On another note, people always say that our society is becoming more and more Orwellian, but I don’t believe it. I think if anything we are resembling Huxley’s world. When people freak out that the presidential debates are cutting into their sitcoms, you know we’re in trouble.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I really want to bow out of this thread, I never wanted this to turn into an abortion debate, only to explain what concerns need to be addressed if the vast bulk of pro-choicers are to be convinced. I feel like I made the point that I wanted to make and I really feel uncomfortable debating abortion on CAF. It’s rude of me and it inevitably leads a huge derail of the thread.

If you would like I can send you a private message with answers, but I really don’t like turning threads like this into a spectacle.

But the thread topic IS abortion, and you are a pro-choicer, so since you got your feet into the water, why not go all the way in?

You were once a fetus in your mother’s womb - did YOU have any value at that point?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

But the thread topic IS abortion, and you are a pro-choicer, so since you got your feet into the water, why not go all the way in?

You were once a fetus in your mother’s womb - did YOU have any value at that point?

I’ll send you a response.

 

[estesbob]

I just refreshed my memory with some online searching. I think we’re both right (convenient, hunh?). Orwell featured Newspeak overtly as part of his theme of control/revision of history.

On the other hand, Huxley subtely uses language to devalue certain things and bolster others. The reference to savages, the treatment of motherhood, sterilized women are FREEmartins (how nice!), etc.

It matches my point - if you shape language such that hedonistic (or narcissistic maybe) action is given virtuous tones and hues, then you enable society to ignore the actual moral and ethical implications of things like legalized abortion.

Language of abortion

Choice
Reproductive rights
Parasite
Unwanted
Product of conception
Termination
Womens Clinic

 

[Slaney]

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Language of abortion

Choice
Reproductive rights
Parasite
Unwanted
Product of conception
Termination
Womens Clinic

you left out a big one

The right to “privacy.”

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yep. With Huxley though it was not an overt attempt at controlling the minds and attitudes. It was more of a subliminal effort mixed with background noise. The whole idea was that when you bombard people with so much they stop thinking and stop caring and just accept.

With Orwell it was more of a conscious effort on the part of the government. If you say “joycamp” enough times eventually that’s what it becomes in the minds of the people, and they start forgetting why they had any real objection.

On another note, people always say that our society is becoming more and more Orwellian, but I don’t believe it. I think if anything we are resembling Huxley’s world. When people freak out that the presidential debates are cutting into their sitcoms, you know we’re in trouble.

I think the idea in Huxley is more along the lines of what has actually happened to us. We have bombarded ourselves with more and more noise, with more and more mindless distractions. The government didn’t do it–we did it. Mindless entertainment, we can’t get off our phones or ipods–even when we are asleep many still have those ipod ear buds in–the noise never stops. The mindless distractions never stop. The TV is on while we are on the computer and answering texts on our phone and maybe even answering a questions from a live person. So many can’t be alone in the silence with their own thoughts for even a small amount of time. That is one of the great tragedies of modern society.

Peace,
Mark

 

[tradcathconvert]

[LIKE button pressed]

Same for me. I was just going to say this is a time I wish CAF had a like button.

 

[HansTrappist]

Yep, that is the issue. Does it deserve full protection of the law? But to convince pro-choicers you are going to have to point to more than human DNA, and I think that’s why the two sides lack any real meaningful communication.

Actually, it is the pro-deathers that need to PROVE that the fetus is NOT a human person BEFORE they kill it. The burden of proof rests with the one wishing to do the killing. They have not done so.

There are only four logical possibilities: 1. The fetus is a person, and we know that. 2. The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that. 3. The fetus is not a person, but we don’t know that. 4. The fetus is not a person, and we know that. What is abortion in each of these cases: 1. Murder. 2. Manslaughter. 3. Criminal Negligence. 4. Morally and Legally Permissible.

Human personhood is an unalienable, pre-political right that originates in Nature (what the fetus is) rather than convention (what a majority says it is). Human rights begin at conception. There is no other non-arbitrary way to determine when human rights should begin.

You see, the pro-deathers want to play God by granting legal protection to the fetus when they deem fit. Usually they associate personhood with consciousness or the ability to detect pain or some other arbitrary point in time. And since they have reduced knowledge and reality to that which can be measured, they have made the fatal flaw of associating consciousness with a mere material process.

 

[mlz]

Isn’t it interesting how when we WANT the “fetus” it’s a baby and is valued but if it’s not wanted we decide the mother has more value…!!! Choice comes for the mother before conception only. You have two humans and just because one has more “power”, the weaker and vulnerable child is done away with. It’s not right- it’s evil.
mlz

 

[gardenswithkids]

Getting back to the original question “Are the unborn human?” It depends. An unborn puppy is not an unborn human. An unborn human baby? Yes."

The term “embryo” or “unborn” is not specific to humans. So, when we speak of unborn humans, it seems rather obvious to me that they are young humans.

 

[KellyPalmer]

So, once a human is no longer living inside another, they have value but up to the point that they are delivered, they do not? Where does the value come from?It isn’t so much about what their specific value is so much as its about if you are going to legally mandate that a woman must carry every pregnancy to term I’m going to need to see good reason why her autonomy and basic rights to her body should be violated like that. I have not seen any compelling reason why she should be forced to do that when the fetus itself doesn’t care if it lives or dies.

Wait, on the last page you specifically said it was about value and now you are moving the target. I need to see proof that its a violation to not go inside a woman’s vagina, into her uterus and destroy her baby. I also need proof that an unborn baby doesn’t care if “it” lives or dies. Why are either of these things automatically assumed?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Wait, on the last page you specifically said it was about value and now you are moving the target. I need to see proof that its a violation to not go inside a woman’s vagina, into her uterus and destroy her baby. I also need proof that an unborn baby doesn’t care if “it” lives or dies. Why are either of these things automatically assumed?

You somehow messed up my quote and have me credited with saying some pro life things that I didn’t say. If its not too late please fix that.

 

[KellyPalmer]

You somehow messed up my quote and have me credited with saying some pro life things that I didn’t say. If its not too late please fix that.

I’m sorry. I don’t see an option to edit my post. You typed your response directly inside of another persons post instead of in your own response and I quoted the whole thing. In the future, I will be more careful to edit out if a similar situation arises.

 

[stewstew03]

… When people freak out that the presidential debates are cutting into their sitcoms, you know we’re in trouble.

Why? If you learned something of consequence during the debates that you didn’t already know about the candidates I’d be interested in hearing it. The debates have become like sitcoms - catchphrases and sound bytes. The one debate that was worth watching (the first one where the candidates could ask one another open-ended questions) was pooh-poohed by pundits (probably because Obama didn’t perform well).

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Hmm, if the main reason people think abortion is ok is because they feel a woman shouldn’t have to carry a pregnancy if she wants to end it (it is already illegal to force a pregnancy on a woman, aka rape, so no one is advocating for it to be legal to force pregnancies), then I don’t understand how anyone can advocate late-term abortion. If a woman can be induced and give birth to a viable baby, thus reaching her goal of no longer be pregnant, why should it be ok for her to end the pregnancy by killing the child instead?

ETA: Don’t get me wrong, I think every life is valuable, even that of a tiny baby conceived by an act of violence, and just like slaveowners and nazi’s were wrong to assumed (wrongfully) that their lives were more valuable than the lives of the people they killed and mistreated, it is wrong for us to assume we are more valuable as well.