Pointless pro-choice statements

[Marc_Anthony]

How is it illogical? Why is it relevant what the many believe in regards to this question? Surely we can agree that truth of a supposition is untied to the number of people who believe/accept it.

This isn’t a question of which one you think is more likely. Your logic can easily be applied to another sort of situation which you have not distinguished other than saying you don’t think it’s possible. I don’t think it’s possible that a zygote is a person but that’s not really the point–in your reasoning in the post to which I responded.

Right now, science claims it’s not really sure if a zygote is a person-something I disagree with, BTW. I think it’s very clear that zygotes are people.

However, if science is unsure, then I think abortion should be outlawed because there’s an excellent chance that zygotes are people.

I am 100% positive that cows are not people. Scientists would agree.

Scientists would also agree that zygotes MIGHT be people. Thus, we should killing zygotes whenever possible.

 

[The_Reginator]

For example, a hunter is in the woods and has his trusty shotgun drawn. He hears a rustle in a nearby bush. Now if he can pull the trigger and blindly shoot into the bush, but he’s not really sure what’s there. It could be his quarry, or even another hunter. He has to determine if the rustle in the bush is fair game or not before he can fire a shot.

-Prophecy

If we are not 100% certain that we are not killing a human person, how can anyone defend such a killing?

As this analogy illustrates, each abortion, even the morning after kind, might mean the taking of a human life.
All the philosophical arguements I’ve read here can’t seem to get around this. There is no way of knowing for sure that the victim is not human. One might be 99% convinced that a foetus isn’t a human person, but that still leaves the chance that a murder is being sanctioned.
Even from a secular viewpoint I find that very troubling. As a Catholic I know it is a grave sin. One with eternal consequences.

 

[ThomasToo]

Right now, science claims it’s not really sure if a zygote is a person-something I disagree with, BTW. I think it’s very clear that zygotes are people.

However, if science is unsure, then I think abortion should be outlawed because there’s an excellent chance that zygotes are people.

I am 100% positive that cows are not people. Scientists would agree.

Scientists would also agree that zygotes MIGHT be people. Thus, we should killing zygotes whenever possible.

Science doesn’t ‘claims it’s not really sure if a zygote is a person’ since the sense in which ‘person’ is used in this discussion is outside the bound of scientific inquiry.

Scientists are the wrong people to be asking these questions. Philosophers (metaphysicians and moralists) are the ones we should be asking and there are those amongst them who would disagree with you that cows lack the rights we’re discussing–Tom Regan would be an example of one such figure. Science of course has important (name removed by moderator)ut to give on these questions–several people here have cited DNA as important–but it isn’t from where the answers ultimately will be coming.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Science doesn’t ‘claims it’s not really sure if a zygote is a person’ since the sense in which ‘person’ is used in this discussion is outside the bound of scientific inquiry.

Scientists are the wrong people to be asking these questions. Philosophers (metaphysicians and moralists) are the ones we should be asking and there are those amongst them who would disagree with you that cows lack the rights we’re discussing–Tom Regan would be an example of one such figure. Science of course has important (name removed by moderator)ut to give on these questions–several people here have cited DNA as important–but it isn’t from where the answers ultimately will be coming.

Ah! You want a philosophical argument?

Well, question for you. You mentioned that when brainwaves are measured is the time a fetus becomes a person. Why?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I have had this exact argument before. Somebody told me that consciousness is how we measure somebody’s personhood. When I pointed out that by that logic it is permissible to kill sleeping and comatose people, they said exactly what you did-that zygotes do not have measureable brainwaves, whereas sleeping and comatose people do.

This stumped me, I must admit. Obviously from a religious perspective abortion was clearly wrong, but how about from a secular perspective? So I posted this argument in the social justice thread and asked for a good refutation. Here was the best reply:

Firstly; being unconscious nessecarily implies a lack of consciousness - if “brain function” is the determinant of livelyhood; then coma patient’s are still alive because they have the nessecary brain functions to continue breathing; digesting and so forth.

A coma patient is identical to a sleeping person in every sense except the predictability of their emergence; a sleeping person is relatively easy to predict how and if they will wake; wheras this is not the case with a coma patient. Both have general brain functions; allowing the continuance of breathing, heart and so forth. Whilst both lack a critical awareness of their surroundings; even though some coma patients; and sleeping people display some reactions to external changes (temperature etc.) these awarenesses are not critical or consicous. Being asleep is identical to being in a coma in all senses except uniformity in the length.

Likewise; a baby might lack brain functions that permit critical consciousness; but it is demonstrably so that many animals and young post-birth children lack (full) awarnesses of their arroundings in a critical rather than an instinctive sense.

A baby; therein; is identical to a sleeping person, or a coma person in that - all three lack critical consciousness. All three have general sustainability; circulation etc;

Whilst it is true that the child is dependant; so is a coma patient or an elderly person; the only difference being the child is dependant upon a single, specific person (mother) wheras an elderly person; a newborn; a coma patient, an injured person; a cripple and so forth are dependant upon nonspecific people. The lack of nonspecificity in the dependance does not equate to the right of determinance for murder. If I found a disabled person whilst walking in the woods; I would be morally obligated to help them; not “even” if I am the only one; but specifically WHEN I am the only one. The same is true for children unborn.

 

[ThomasToo]

If we are not 100% certain that we are not killing a human person, how can anyone defend such a killing?

As this analogy illustrates, each abortion, even the morning after kind, might mean the taking of a human life.
All the philosophical arguements I’ve read here can’t seem to get around this. There is no way of knowing for sure that the victim is not human. One might be 99% convinced that a foetus isn’t a human person, but that still leaves the chance that a murder is being sanctioned.
Even from a secular viewpoint I find that very troubling. As a Catholic I know it is a grave sin. One with eternal consequences.

I used this example above, if there is philosophical doubt whether a cow is a person (i.e. the bearer of the right not to be killed) then we should all stop eating meat until the discussion is settled?

I’m 100% certain that at least for a large part of pregnancy a zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t a person. So now am I in the clear?

Hearing this argument (over and over) I’m curious how proximate the potential killing has to be for it to be morally significant. Diamonds are the cause of all manner of death in Africa so should engagement jewelry be cultured, imitation or laboratory grown? Should SUVs–or any gas powered vehicle–be outlawed because of the deaths oil has caused in the Middle East? I’m not trying to be belligerent here but I’m curious because especially in a global economy we are tangentially–knowingly or not–tied to all manner of atrocities and I would be interested to hear how far moral culpability reaches in your view.

 

[ThomasToo]

If I found a disabled person whilst walking in the woods; I would be morally obligated to help them; not “even” if I am the only one; but specifically WHEN I am the only one. The same is true for children unborn. (Emphasis added)

That moral principle is hardly universally accepted. If you have already heard the famous violinist thought experiment please skip the following:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Judith Jarvis Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so.

Do you dispute moral obligation in this case? I’m not asking for commentary about parallels to the abortion case or about its realism–or lack thereof–; I’m asking if you think you would be obligated (as opposed to blessed) to stay in that situation?

Ah! You want a philosophical argument?

Well, question for you. You mentioned that when brainwaves are measured is the time a fetus becomes a person. Why?

Of course I want a philosophical argument! Have you read the parts of this thread before where you jumped in where I repeatedly said this is about moral philosophy and metaphysics?

I’ve briefly explained my reasons above, they are tied to conceptions I have about humans’ rational nature and expounding them at length here–to be frank–would not be a useful use of our time.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The violinist argument is quite similar to an argument I encountered called the “My Sister’s Keeper” argument. It goes like this:

The book “My Sister’s Keeper” is about a girl who’s body is, as some pro-choicers described described it to me (never read the book), “perfectly suited to support the body of her sister”. As in, she had to live with her sister or she’d die. The girl sued that she was being forced to live with her sister and won-rightly so. That is a question of personal morals and sacrifice that you shouldn’t be forced to make. You should have the right to refuse being someone’s slave, more or less, to keep them alive.

So the obvious parallel is that a mother should not be FORCED, under law, to have to carry the child; yes, the child would die, but on the other hand, this arguement says, the mother should not be forced to keep the child alive if she doesn’t want to, right?

The situation is similar to abortion. But there are several key differences. First of all, the Mother chose to have sex. She has to accept the consequences. It would be horribly irresponsible to kill a child for your actions, correct?
But this does not take into account (very rare, BTW) cases of rape. Which is still a fair point. So, I’ll make my own analogy: abortion to infanticide.

A child must live with the mother to stay alive. This is both legally AND morally true. The Mother is forced to sacrifice money, food, and shelter to the child so that said child could stay alive. This is considered just by any reasonable society.

“Ah”, the pro-choicers argue, “But what about adoption!”

Fair enough. Pregnant mothers do not have that option. My counter: What if Mothers with born children did not have that option? As in, what if there was no adoption? You would still consider it murder if the child is abandoned, right? I certainly hope so.

So, if we agree that a born child who is not provided basic requirements of life by a legal guardian is in fact murder (and both moral and legal laws agree to this) how can we, in fact, agree that an unborn, yet still fully human, child that is denied the basic requirements of life by its mother is not murder?

Something else to consider here: the fact that a baby can only depend directly on the mother for the first 9 months of life is just part of life. The baby is not forcing the mother like a master forces a slave to take care of him. When they are saying the mother shouldn’t be “forced” to take care of this baby…who is doing the forcing? Nature – not the baby or the government. The rest of us are just saying there should be consequences that help protect the baby and give that human life in the womb the respect and dignity it deserves. As noted, we do the same for post-birth babies.

I can no more complain that I shouldn’t be “forced” to feel pain when I step on glass. Or “forced” to feel sad when somebody hurts my feelings. Or “forced” to breathe air. Or “forced” to have two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. This is just how life works. When new human life is conceived, it just so happens that it occurs inside a mothers womb and needs to live there for 9 months.

There is a moral difference between opting out of something and then actively killing them. Abortion is the latter. It is not just “choosing” not to participate. It is intentionally going into a mother’s womb and directly ending the life inside of her. Often stabbing, tearing the baby limb from limb, scraping to death, or burning the baby to death.

 

[ThomasToo]

The situation is similar to abortion. But there are several key differences. First of all, the Mother chose to have sex. She has to accept the consequences. It would be horribly irresponsible to kill a child for your actions, correct?
But this does not take into account (very rare, BTW) cases of rape. Which is still a fair point. So, I’ll make my own analogy: abortion to infanticide.

Cases of rape and the use of birth control. If contraception fails the case could be made that the fetus is an intruder on the mother’s body the same way the violinist (or sister) is.

A child must live with the mother to stay alive. This is both legally AND morally true. The Mother is forced to sacrifice money, food, and shelter to the child so that said child could stay alive. This is considered just by any reasonable society.

“Ah”, the pro-choicers argue, “But what about adoption!”

Fair enough. Pregnant mothers do not have that option. My counter: What if Mothers with born children did not have that option? As in, what if there was no adoption?

This is where your argument breaks down. It is a biological necessity that a fetus is tied to a woman through gestation and a born child is not.

So, if we agree that a born child who is not provided basic requirements of life by a legal guardian is in fact murder (and both moral and legal laws agree to this) how can we, in fact, agree that an unborn, yet still fully human, child that is denied the basic requirements of life by its mother is not murder?

Since you didn’t answer the question I posed above I will ask it again here in response to your question. Is it murder to get up and walk away from the famous violinist?

Something else to consider here: the fact that a baby can only depend directly on the mother for the first 9 months of life is just part of life. The baby is not forcing the mother like a master forces a slave to take care of him. When they are saying the mother shouldn’t be “forced” to take care of this baby…who is doing the forcing? Nature – not the baby or the government. The rest of us are just saying there should be consequences that help protect the baby and give that human life in the womb the respect and dignity it deserves. As noted, we do the same for post-birth babies.

They’re not being forced by nature to remain pregnant. They’re forced by laws prohibiting abortion and you know that.

There is a moral difference between opting out of something and then actively killing them. Abortion is the latter. It is not just “choosing” not to participate. It is intentionally going into a mother’s womb and directly ending the life inside of her. Often stabbing, tearing the baby limb from limb, scraping to death, or burning the baby to death.

So would it be morally licit to induce labor, deliver the child at whatever point of gestation it is? Food and water would not be withheld, of course, but extreme measures such as a ventilator or respirator would seem extraordinary. Is that opting out of the pregnancy?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Cases of rape and the use of birth control. If contraception fails the case could be made that the fetus is an intruder on the mother’s body the same way the violinist (or sister) is.

Ridiculous. Case of rape, fine, but having sex implies a very real risk. Because you decided to have sex you’re going to kill your child? Grossly irresponsible.

This is where your argument breaks down. It is a biological necessity that a fetus is tied to a woman through gestation and a born child is not.

So? An infant left alone would die, just like an aborted baby.

Since you didn’t answer the question I posed above I will ask it again here in response to your question. Is it murder to get up and walk away from the famous violinist?

Is it murder to leave a live baby you no longer want to die? We can exchange questions like this but how about instead of using metaphors we deal with the actual issues.

They’re not being forced by nature to remain pregnant. They’re forced by laws prohibiting abortion and you know that.

Untrue. Abortion ends a natural process. Natural implies nature. Nature made the woman pregnant.

So would it be morally licit to induce labor, deliver the child at whatever point of gestation it is? Food and water would not be withheld, of course, but extreme measures such as a ventilator or respirator would seem extraordinary. Is that opting out of the pregnancy?

Depends. Do you KNOW, with reasonable certainty, the child will die?

 

[ThomasToo]

Is it murder to leave a live baby you no longer want to die? We can exchange questions like this but how about instead of using metaphors we deal with the actual issues.

That’s the issue, after gestation there are places the baby can go so your parallel is not apt. The famous violinist case is the closest parallel I have read of for this case and since you have still not answered my question I will assume it is because it’s because the answer is inconvenient to you argument, that refusing to submit to the dominion of another individual over your body is not murder as such. So too in the cases of unintended pregnancy. The parallel with exposing a born child is different because of your contrary to fact assertion of being unable to give the child to anyone else.

Above, you said the case of rape was different but (thankfully) rare; do you think abortion is acceptable–morally or legally–in that case?

 

[pete_29]

A fertilized human egg, if unaffected by nature or human intervetion, will develop into a human being. A person can whitewash it any way they want to soothe their conscience, but abortion is preventing a human life from existing. No one has the right to do that!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That’s the issue, after gestation there are places the baby can go so your parallel is not apt.

What do you mean? Like adoption? If adoption wasn’t an option and the child were abandoned to die is this fine?

The famous violinist case is the closest parallel I have read of for this case and since you have still not answered my question I will assume it is because it’s because the answer is inconvenient to you argument, that refusing to submit to the dominion of another individual over your body is not murder as such.

The case of the viloinist is exactly the same as the, “My Sister’s Keeper” argument. I answered it.I think it’s a bad parrallel. I think a better parrallel is one of infanticide.

So too in the cases of unintended pregnancy. The parallel with exposing a born child is different because of your contrary to fact assertion of being unable to give the child to anyone else.

So IF your only choices WERE raising the child or killing it, you’d be okay with killing it?

Above, you said the case of rape was different but (thankfully) rare; do you think abortion is acceptable–morally or legally–in that case?

No, because if a child was born to somebody who was raped it would not be permissible to kill the child.

 

[ThomasToo]

What do you mean? Like adoption? If adoption wasn’t an option and the child were abandoned to die is this fine?..
So IF your only choices WERE raising the child or killing it, you’d be okay with killing it?

The questions are not true, they’re not apt and they’re not reflective of the situation under discussion. You said we should debate the issues and that’s fine but to revert repeatedly to a specious parallel without answering my parallels is intellectually sloppy at best.

The case of the viloinist is exactly the same as the, “My Sister’s Keeper” argument. I answered it.I think it’s a bad parrallel. I think a better parrallel is one of infanticide.

Of course you do… Maybe even parallel =P

 

[ThomasToo]

A fertilized human egg, if unaffected by nature or human intervetion, will develop into a human being. A person can whitewash it any way they want to soothe their conscience, but abortion is preventing a human life from existing. No one has the right to do that!

That’s not true. A fertilized human egg needs to be placed in the womb of a woman of appropriate age who lives a somewhat protected life then it will develop into a human being; a fertilized human egg on its own will die in a matter of hours at the most.

So those things that prevent a human life from existing are illicit and no one has a right to do such things? Surely then, fornication is beyond blessed.

 

[faithfully]

Jumping in… I don’t think abortion is right. Slicing and dicing is terribly wrong to me.

I do have a few things to point out, and consider. As they are things the bug me, or after reading this thread NOW bug me.

My sisters Keeper: READ THE STORY! The little girl went to court BECAUSE her dieing sister wanted to be allowed to die. The older sister begged the younger sister to fight it. She didn’t want her sister to be cut into or poked repeatedly so they could both suffer, and she could likely die anyway. Yes, the little girl won the case, because we are not supposed to be used for our parts. Or GROWN for our parts as the case in the story goes.

I know that people say, when the woman made the choice to have sex she already decided. In this exact case, I totally agree. HOWEVER, please at least offer some empathy to those that did not get to decide. Perhaps Rape, or insestual PG’s are rare (I wonder if the morning after pill has something to do with that), but I can NOT fathom the horror of a daily reminder. And SOME women’s bodies will carry the marks of PG FOR LIFE! I do however KNOW a woman who went through exactly this. Raped, PG, and adopted out. And I know that she sufferes emensly from this. Abortion was never on her agenda either. But I think it hurts her almost as much knowing a child is out there knowing they were NEVER wanted originally, and are the result of such a gross crime. I would actually be interested in the stats on the healthy mind of these individuals.

Also… with regard to the men that people seem to feel sorry for that don’t have rights to their unborn babies. THEY ALSO MADE A CHOICE when having sex with a person they CLEARLY don’t know well enough to know she’d kill their baby should one develop. I would seriously recommend to men that are so broken up about this, DON’T leave your sperm where someone can abuse it!

And finally, I read an article about a couple (n=1, here) who spent a long time trying to get pg. Finally did. All was well 'till the near end. The article stated that their baby was diagnosed with some horrifying disease. Mom would be lucky to make it full term, baby was guaranteed a PAINFUL death. Now, I can’t remember the disease. I just remember crying through the whole write up. BECAUSE, NOW, it’s legal to do the partial birth abortion… and apparently it would be MURDER to give a birthed baby that was in pain adequate meds to kill the pain without killing the baby (this was the scenario presented to the parents)… The parents chose the partial birth abortion. On the premise that they wanted to prevent their baby pain longer than necessary basically by law… NOW… OMG! They WANTED this baby.

I see these sorts of stories… and they are the ones that pull at my heart. I have NO interest in abortion. But I honestly don’t know HOW to tell a woman: I’m sorry you were raped, you must carry this child. (other than to hold their hand). I’m sorry your baby will suffer. You must not do what you THINK is best. I don’t think society all the way around does a good job supporting emotionally, and perhaps financially the people that really need it. We seem to care only about a life, but not the quality of life. And perhaps it’s not ours to decide on. But where is the empathy? I NEVER see it.

I know we are to defend the life of the unborn. But aren’t there ways we can help PREVENT these situations. Wouldn’t that be more productive? Is that possible? At least??? Is there seriously NO LEGAL way to medicate a dieing baby so that it won’t suffer?

BTW, I have fraternal twins. One whose heartbeat was visible at 2 weeks. The other didn’t seem possible. We have a picture of an empty sac next to the one with the heart beat. 2 Weeks later… 2 heart beats! That took a lot of prayers I’ll tell you. But I do think he has as much will to live as I had to have him. He’s still quite stubborn! They were discordinate, meaning they were at weights that indicate one was easily 2 weeks behind the other… Crazy!

 

[pete_29]

That’s not true. A fertilized human egg needs to be placed in the womb of a woman of appropriate age who lives a somewhat protected life then it will develop into a human being; a fertilized human egg on its own will die in a matter of hours at the most.

So those things that prevent a human life from existing are illicit and no one has a right to do such things? Surely then, fornication is beyond blessed.

It’s absolutely true! An egg will always end up in a womb unless it is affected by nature or by man.

So everyone has a right to prevent a human life from existing? Surely then murder is beyond blessed.

 

[vz71]

So you grant that you (as part of we) have insufficient evidence to support your claims that life and personhood begin at conception?

Now that is something that I did not say or imply.
It is a statement of one that wants to hear something and are willing to fill in the unasked questions with unproven conjecture to get there.

We can prove through DNA the unborn is human.
And we can prove through this same DNA that it is a unique creature seperate and distinct from the mother or father.
And we can prove that this unborn is alive.

“Personhood” is a false argument. It is a concept introduced by those that wish to justify murder.
All human life is precious. The concept behind personhood is that other conditions must be met before we can grant basic human rights to a human being.

Conditions that quite frankly cannot be proven among the adult population, much less in an unborn human.

One would do well to stay out of any argument that relies upon “personhood.”

 

[VetA]

So I was looking online for anti-abortion bumper stickers and a pro-choice( as they like to call it) bumper sticker came up. It says " 77 percent of anti-abortion leaders are men, 100 percent of them will never be pregnant". I just see this as an invalid point, because most leaders of just about anything are men. I was wondering if anyone else has any laughable (lets just call them what they really are) baby killer statments.

Pro Choice slogan: Make every child a wanted child
Unassailable logic: And make every unwanted child a dead child?

Pro Choice slogan: Reduce/Stop abortion?? Increase contraception… duh.
Unassailable logic: Actually the contraceptive mentality says that there is an absolute right to sex without resulting babies. Such an attitude leads directly to abortion. Duh.

Pro Choice slogan: Goddess of my own body (sign held by woman)
Unassailable logic: How about I get back to you in 60 years and see how well you’re doing at ruling/upholding your own body?

Pro Choice slogan: If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one!
Unassailable logic: “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own one! If you don’t like vehicular manslaughter don’t run anyone over! If you don’t like killing Jews, leave Germany! If you don’t like invasions of foreign countries, don’t join the Army! If you don’t like George W. Bush, don’t vote for him!”

brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/01/answering-the-p.html

cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2008/01/whats-in-slogan.html

 

[beafedor]

To answer the original poster, during the Freedom Pro-life Rides last month (led by Alveda King the niece of MLK junior), a few black women were protesting Alveda holding signs that read: “Trust black women”.
What does that mean? Who trusts black women, those who think they can make it with their child and will provide support or those who cash their money to get rid of the child and hide from them the emotional, spiritual and physical consequences of abortion?

trust=love&truth or greed&lies?