Issues other than abortion

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

You have to face it, being pro choice is the better policy

I don’t don’t prioritize freedom so it won’t work on me.

As most Americans, I do. So as long as it “works” on the courts and congress, then good enough for me.

Begs the question much?

I don’t assume that abortion is like slavery or murder. So telling me I’m begging the question doesn’t actually make sense.

Exactly. For you it is simply a question of power. Putting lipstick on it changes nothing.

Not at all! It’s an issue of liberty. YOU’RE the one wanting to inject yourself into the lives of women to tell them what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

I’m telling them that I think abortion is a tragedy, but it’s still their call. They must have the freedom to choose it and society must do all it can to make that choice come up as little as possible through education and birth control. Which we’ve largely done.

These rights are accorded by the state. Do you consider the state to be the sole arbiter of rights?

I think the state is the sole enforcer of rights. If the state doesn’t think you have the right, then “on the ground”, you don’t.

The conceived life is part of a continuum of life. Is it right to destroy this life at a point in its continuum?

I don’t like abortion - be clear on that. But I think it’s an even greater evil to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want - particularly if I’m not going to help her raise it.

Could we argue from this that the strong with their relative agency may choose to dismiss the weak?

You can argue anything you want - truly. But my counter is that born persons are due the basic legal protections due all persons.

Before we go any further, may I ask you to define “dismiss” as you use it here? In many ways, the strong can and do “dismiss” the weak, so I need to know what exactly we’re debating.

 

[Elf01]

I don’t assume that abortion is like slavery or murder.

Why don’t you?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t assume that abortion is like slavery or murder. So telling me I’m begging the question doesn’t actually make sense.

You assume it isn’t. Did you not call it a false equivalency? That is the very question at hand. Is that which is growing in the womb have the same personhood as a Nineteenth Century black living in the South? You are saying they do not (assuming you are not pro-choice on slavery as well), and therefore it is a false equivalency. It is only a false equivalency if you are correct, and thus you are begging the question.

So let us assume nothing. Was the South right in considering that from their viewpoint, it was possible that blacks were not as human as others? They did not know, and operated on the basis that in absence of certitude, that enslavement was a choice. Now from our Twenty-first Century understanding we say slavery was immoral because we believe we have evidence that homo sapiens are homo sapiens, but if we are to accept that killing that in which personhood is in doubt is moral, then at least at that time enslaving those for whom personhood was in doubt was moral. It is no coincidence that the Democrats have twice taken this stand.

These type of question are why I never use the term “pro-choice”. Everyone is pro-choice about most things. No one is pro-choice about everything.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I don’t assume that abortion is like slavery or murder.

Why don’t you?

Well, for starters, it’s not on me to prove the negative. It’s on you to prove the affirmative. That’s just a basic house-keeping rule of logical discourse.

But I’ll bite.

It’s not murder because it’s not indubitably a person.

And it’s not slavery because slavery involves holding a person in bondage against their will. If anyone is enslaved, it’s the mother enslaved by the unwanted child. In that case, her abortion is her liberation.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I don’t assume that abortion is like slavery or murder. So telling me I’m begging the question doesn’t actually make sense.

You assume it isn’t. Did you not call it a false equivalency?

Absolutely! Slavery, murder and abortion aren’t synonyms. Don’t believe me? Crack a dictionary.
An attempt to indicate they are is thus a freshman-logic-level false equivalency.

Is that which is growing in the womb have the same personhood as a Nineteenth Century black living in the South?

No. The “Nineteenth Century black living in the South” clearly bore personhood which is why the Emancipation Proclamation and Civil Rights Act were issued. To correct long-standing wrongs.

 

[pnewton]

No. The “Nineteenth Century black living in the South” clearly bore personhood which is why the Emancipation Proclamation and Civil Rights Act were issued. To correct long-standing wrongs.

That is clear now. They were deemed as somewhat lesson than human by many, which is why slavery was tolerated.

 

[Elf01]

And it’s not slavery because slavery involves holding a person in bondage against their will. If anyone is enslaved, it’s the mother enslaved by the unwanted child. In that case, her abortion is her liberation.

We don’t compare abortion to slavery because of the will. We compare it to slavery because the same types of arguments that are used to justify both.

Well, for starters, it’s not on me to prove the negative. It’s on you to prove the affirmative. That’s just a basic house-keeping rule of logical discourse.

When we are talking about potential murder it’s on you to be sure it’s not a person before you pass laws saying it can be killed imo.

 

[Vonsalza]

When we are talking about potential murder it’s on you to be sure it’s not a person before you pass laws saying it can be killed imo.

I understand completely. But rationally, you’re wrong here. But emotionally, you’re totally right as you see it.

Again, I understand. So in light of that, be as pro-life over yourself as you can possibly be! And leave others free to make their own choice.

The default claim is “undefined” - a gentle reminder. Nothing gets to be assumed true other than “We don’t know”. To move away from that on anything requires evidence.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

it’s the mother enslaved by the unwanted child.

The mother isn’t in bondage against her will.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

it’s the mother enslaved by the unwanted child.

The mother isn’t in bondage against her will.

Sure she is. She’s pregnant and doesn’t want to be.

 

[blackforest]

“Personhood” can be defined A) by the law or B) by personal opinion. The latter, by definition, cannot be proven in the “cold world of logic and reason.”

Legal definitions of “personhood” are socio-cultural constructs that don’t answer moral or ethical questions. Those of us who are pro-life, like the abolitionists of over a century and a half ago, know good and well not to use the state as a metric of what is right.

I understand completely. But rationally, you’re wrong here. But emotionally, you’re totally right as you see it.

I don’t think @Elf01 is making an “emotional” case so much as an ethical one . . .

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

She’s pregnant and doesn’t want to be.

Metaphorical bondages aren’t quite the same thing.

 

[graciew]

erein you do a picture perfect job of demonstrating the totalitarianism that underlies the pro life position.

Thankfully, we children of liberty know only victory against such.

Easy when the victory is over somebody you can crush with one hand…
Why not try with somebody your own size?
It is so unequal , so unfair that claiming victory over somebody that tiny and vulnerable and inoffensive is… how to say it? Totalitarian.
And not because one doesn t understand the crossroads in life, but to boast about it…no.

 

[Ender]

“Personhood” can be defined A) by the law or B) by personal opinion. The latter, by definition, cannot be proven in the “cold world of logic and reason.”

Legal definitions of “personhood” are socio-cultural constructs that don’t answer moral or ethical questions. Those of us who are pro-life, like the abolitionists of over a century and a half ago, know good and well not to use the state as a metric of what is right.

Science can tell us what human life is, but it can offer nothing that identifies which lives are “persons” and which are not. That distinction is completely arbitrary; it has no intrinsic meaning, and there is no example in the past where defining some lives as less than human has ever been anything other than disastrous.

 

[Vonsalza]

“Personhood” can be defined A) by the law or B) by personal opinion.

Well… I think some here would argue that God defines it. And since personhood is a progressive concept, the question we’re trying to answer isn’t “when is it a person?”.

The question is “when is it a person of sufficient magnitude that its continued existence overrides a woman’s control over her own body?”

Those of us who are pro-life, like the abolitionists of over a century and a half ago, know good and well not to use the state as a metric of what is right.

Ok. Great. Above you said that personhood is defined by law or opinion. You then laid waste to opinion and now you’ve laid waste to the state.

The natural and logical conclusion is that you must be pro-choice and allow the individual to choose for themselves, since neither party in your original dichotomy is sufficient to make an authoritative call on the issue.

Metaphorical bondages aren’t quite the same thing.

Nothing metaphorical about it at all. Like a parasite or a tumor, a baby requires theft of a woman’s sustenance in order to continue survival. And when the pregnancy concludes, the woman’s body is irreparably changed.

Nothing metaphorical about that at all. It’s very real. Very physical.

Easy when the victory is over somebody you can crush with one hand…
Why not try with somebody your own size?

The victory is over those who would tell women what to do with their bodies. And these people are usually men. In our species, the males are generally larger than the females.

 

[blackforest]

Human beings begin at conception. “Personhood” is used in the abortion debate to determine who’s allowed the basic human right not to be killed. I argue that in this context, “personhood” is a bigoted concept.

The question is “when is it a person of sufficient magnitude that its continued existence overrides a woman’s control over her own body?”

When is a woman of sufficient magnitude to override, i.e. kill, another human being’s body?

If might makes right, why is it socially, legally, and ethically frowned upon for her to kill her toddler?

It’s not enough to say that the human being depends on her or lives inside of her. This distinction is ethically arbitrary and, frankly, quite bigoted. I’d hate to think I’m living in a society that killed other based solely on their location or level of dependency.

Ok. Great. Above you said that personhood is defined by law or opinion. You then laid waste to opinion and now you’ve laid waste to the state.

This isn’t an issue of “laying waste.”

Opinion isn’t necessarily invalid. It’s just not something that can necessarily be proven as concretely as, say, the science of embryology.

The natural and logical conclusion is that you must be pro-choice and allow the individual to choose for themselves, since neither party in your original dichotomy is sufficient to make an authoritative call on the issue.

VanitasVanitatum:

This is incorrect. Using the precautionary principle, I’d argue for keeping both parties alive.

Like a parasite or a tumor, a baby requires theft of a woman’s sustenance in order to continue survival

A fetus is not a parasite because s/he is of the same species as the mother. A fetus is not a tumor because s/he is a separate human being, not part of the mother and not an overgrowth of the mother’s own cells. This is all very real. Very physical. Therefore these references to pre-born human beings would indeed be metaphorical.

The victory is over those who would tell women what to do with their bodies. And these people are usually men.

As a reminder, abortion is something also being done to somebody else’s body, usually death by crushing inside of a cannula.

That men have for so often exploited and dominated women throughout history isn’t right. So why is it OK to turn that domination around and impose it on the pre-born?

Men make up the majority of seats in Congress and other elected positions, and they dictate to all Americans what to do with their bodies, all of the time. Various drugs are illegal, cancer patients in most states can’t seek cannibis treatment, certain medical treatments can’t be withheld from children under threat of “medical neglect” charges, mandatory vaccination legislation is pending in various states, (and a reality in three), etc. Like it or not, government control over bodies is status quo.

 

[pnewton]

The natural and logical conclusion is that you must be pro-choice and allow the individual to choose for themselves,

I would suggest it is more logical to err on the side of not committing murder than err on the side of limiting freedom, or from a different perspective, if the question of personhood is too vague to incorporate into law, abandon the concept and use humanity instead. I have to think that if this issue was about anything else but having sex without consequences, this would be obvious.

 

[JanetF]

Most of us can and do address more than one issue at a time.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The natural and logical conclusion is that you must be pro-choice and allow the individual to choose for themselves,

I would suggest it is more logical to err on the side of not committing murder than err on the side of limiting freedom, or from a different perspective, if the question of personhood is too vague to incorporate into law, abandon the concept and use humanity instead. I have to think that if this issue was about anything else but having sex without consequences, this would be obvious.

I think that’s still a question of “a rose by any other name…”.

We know an adult woman is endowed with “humanity”.

For the unborn? That is still in doubt - especially in situations where it’s supposed humanity is at odds with the certain humanity of its mother. In that murky case, choice must reign.

I hope the mother chooses life. But I’m most certainly not going to make her. No one should.

 

[Ender]

Human beings begin at conception. “Personhood” is used in the abortion debate to determine who’s allowed the basic human right not to be killed. I argue that in this context, “personhood” is a bigoted concept.

Yes, “personhood” is an artificial concept created to justify the denial of human rights to a specific section of humanity. It is logically no different than the definitions used in the past to deny the security of the law to blacks, Jews, Indians, and other inconvenient groups. It is a creation designed to legitimize a particular action to achieve a specific result.