Pointless pro-choice statements

[ThomasToo]

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.

You said, ‘Attributing these traits to a human being that cannot be seen or heard is unreasonable and illogical. We simply cannot know. Likewise it is irresponsible and illogical to assume they do not exist. We do not have sufficient evidence to suggest anything.’ I’m not exactly what traits to which you were referring since this was in response to me saying ‘But “human” in the biological sense and “person” in the moral and ontological senses are not self-evidently synonymous. I’ve done my best to explain why I don’t think they are but to be frank I don’t feel like anyone here has done anything to defend the supposition that they are.’

Your response, however, clearly states that on moral and metaphysical questions ‘we simply cannot know’ and that we have insufficient ‘evidence to suggest anything’ (emphasis added). Maybe you didn’t mean to say that you lack evidence but that is what you did say.

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.

We can prove through DNA that a severed finger is human and for a time will remain alive apart from its hand. That doesn’t mean a severed finger should get rights.

“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.

That’s not what personhood means. Personhood is simply the question of what criteria must be fulfilled for a being to be–morally speaking–the sort of being to which it is intelligible to attribute rights. The argument you want to be making–if I may be so bold–and the one that most Catholic who are conversant with the relevant philosophy is that all biologically human beings are, from the moment of conception, persons. I disagree with this argument–obviously–but I respect it for being intellectually rigorous. To try to make an end-run around philosophy however…

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

The concept of personhood as a moral and ontological question outdates medical abortion as it is understood today by millennia. To be very frank your constant grasping to the idea that biological humanity is enough to answer a ethical and metaphyical question is indicative of at best a misunderstanding and at worst a deliberate ignorance as to the true nature of the question at hand. I would say something very similar, one would do well to understand the nature of the issues in play before attempting to speak with any manner of authority on or insight into it.

 

[ThomasToo]

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.

Preventing a life from existing is–depending on whom you ask–only available by preventing on conception or (as you’ve indicated) having an abortion. Of course I don’t think murder is blessed but if you truly want to argue that no one has the right to prevent a human life, as opposed to end one, then shouldn’t everyone be having unprotected, penetrative vaginal intercourse as often as possible?

 

[vz71]

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.

We can prove through DNA that a severed finger is human and for a time will remain alive apart from its hand. That doesn’t mean a severed finger should get rights.

Your bias is showing.
How about responding to the argument written and not the argument you wish were written.

A severed finger is not a unique creature, it is part of another.
If you read my argument, you would know your severed finger had already been addressed.
I quoted the previous post and highlighted the appropriate part for you.

 

[vz71]

You said, ‘Attributing these traits to a human being that cannot be seen or heard is unreasonable and illogical. We simply cannot know. Likewise it is irresponsible and illogical to assume they do not exist. We do not have sufficient evidence to suggest anything.’ I’m not exactly what traits to which you were referring since this was in response to me saying ‘But “human” in the biological sense and “person” in the moral and ontological senses are not self-evidently synonymous. I’ve done my best to explain why I don’t think they are but to be frank I don’t feel like anyone here has done anything to defend the supposition that they are.’

Your response, however, clearly states that on moral and metaphysical questions ‘we simply cannot know’ and that we have insufficient ‘evidence to suggest anything’ (emphasis added). Maybe you didn’t mean to say that you lack evidence but that is what you did say.

Quite right, there is insufficient evidence.
And that is why the particular road of “personhood” should not be pursued.
It is also why the pro-death side of the argument has brought it in.

The fact of human being is enough.
Anything further is simply trying to isolate a part of the population for extermination.

The first step in any holocaust is to de-humanize the intended victim.
This is done quite efficiently to the unborn, and to a great many children as well depending on definition, when someone brings in such arbitrary measures as “personhood.”

 

[starlight101]

Isn’t it a little sexist to assume that because men won’t experience it themselves they shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion on it? I’ve never experienced rape or murder, but I know they are wrong.

 

[ThomasToo]

Quite right, there is insufficient evidence.
And that is why the particular road of “personhood” should not be pursued.
It is also why the pro-death side of the argument has brought it in.

The fact of human being is enough.
Anything further is simply trying to isolate a part of the population for extermination.

The first step in any holocaust is to de-humanize the intended victim.
This is done quite efficiently to the unborn, and to a great many children as well depending on definition, when someone brings in such arbitrary measures as “personhood.”

My other post somehow disappeared but I am done talking with you about this. Personhood is not arbitrary, even if you think my idea of it is.

 

[ThomasToo]

Isn’t it a little sexist to assume that because men won’t experience it themselves they shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion on it? I’ve never experienced rape or murder, but I know they are wrong.

Experience ‘it’ meaning what? Experience having a pregnancy that they did not intend that will drastically alter the course of their life possibly obliterating their hopes and dreams in the process? I’m confident that men cannot experience that…

 

[vz71]

That’s not what personhood means. Personhood is simply the question of what criteria must be fulfilled for a being to be–morally speaking–the sort of being to which it is intelligible to attribute rights. The argument you want to be making–if I may be so bold–and the one that most Catholic who are conversant with the relevant philosophy is that all biologically human beings are, from the moment of conception, persons. I disagree with this argument–obviously–but I respect it for being intellectually rigorous. To try to make an end-run around philosophy however…

Exactly.
You are introducing further criteria to a human being before providing basic rights then the simple fact of human being. I highlighted the appropriate words in your quote to show you exactly where you are doing this.
This is both illogical and wrong.

You also are saying that my position states that all “biologically human beings are, from the moment of conception, persons.”
That is not true at all.
What I am saying is that all human beings from the moment of conception are human beings. I am not changing my vocabulary to suit someone else’s argument.

The concept of personhood as a moral and ontological question outdates medical abortion as it is understood today by millennia. To be very frank your constant grasping to the idea that biological humanity is enough to answer a ethical and metaphyical question is indicative of at best a misunderstanding and at worst a deliberate ignorance as to the true nature of the question at hand. I would say something very similar, one would do well to understand the nature of the issues in play before attempting to speak with any manner of authority on or insight into it.

Not at all.
Your “moral and ontological question” is at the very core an opinion.
Good opinions maybe, or in other instances they can be poison.
Laws must be based upon fact.
Rights must be based upon what is provable.

 

[vz71]

Personhood is not arbitrary, even if you think my idea of it is.

Then you should have no difficulty proving this.
Please do so.

Actually, don’t bother. There are no further criteria necessary to a human being then existence to provide human rights.

 

[beafedor]

Experience ‘it’ meaning what? Experience having a pregnancy that they did not intend that will drastically alter the course of their life possibly obliterating their hopes and dreams in the process? I’m confident that men cannot experience that…

16 years ago, my boyfriend forced me to abort our child using the same (pointless pro-choice) statements. One year later, he said that “we had made a mistake” and that he was grieving “our daughter”. This is one of thousands of testimonies of men’s experience of abortion. Abortion doesn’t free men from a pregnancy problem, it makes them the father of a dead baby. Please educate yourself on men and abortion silentnomoreawareness.org/

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I started up another thread focusing on the Violinist argument. The best replies were interesting.

First of all MY answer to the violinist argument would be that I am ABSOLUTELY morally obligated to be hooked up to the violinist for nine months-9 months of inconvenience in exchange for a life-count me in.

But, in regards to the flaw in the argument-the problem is that being hooked up to the violinist is an extraordinary manner to keep this person alive. Pregnancy is NOT an extraordinary manner. It is a completely natural process that you would have to take extraordinary means to end. It is the norm; ending it is NOT the norm.

That’s the flaw in the argument. Having an abortion is NOT the norm, it is unnatural, and it is an extraordinary measure to take a life, as opposed to the ordinary-letting the child develop naturally in the womb.

With the violinist, it is unnatural to be hooked up, it is not the norm, and extraordinary things are being asked of you. The norm would be to NOT be hooked up to the violinist.

Anyway, you’d have to be one Hell of a person if you were willing to let somebody die in exchange for nine months of inconvenience anyway.

“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.”

What is wrong with the parallel? I completely disagree. My questions were execllent parallels that you also are avoiding to answer, and then you claim that I’m avoiding answering your questions!

 

[ThomasToo]

16 years ago, my boyfriend forced me to abort our child using the same (pointless pro-choice) statements. One year later, he said that “we had made a mistake” and that he was grieving “our daughter”. This is one of thousands of testimonies of men’s experience of abortion. Abortion doesn’t free men from a pregnancy problem, it makes them the father of a dead baby. Please educate yourself on men and abortion silentnomoreawareness.org/

I was just asking what you meant by ‘it’ and making it clear that what most of us think of regarding abortion do not apply. I’m sorry for what you went through.

 

[ThomasToo]

I started up another thread focusing on the Violinist argument. The best replies were interesting.

First of all MY answer to the violinist argument would be that I am ABSOLUTELY morally obligated to be hooked up to the violinist for nine months-9 months of inconvenience in exchange for a life-count me in…
Anyway, you’d have to be one Hell of a person if you were willing to let somebody die in exchange for nine months of inconvenience anyway.

The question is whether or not there is moral obligation in this case. I think the vast majority of people–including Catholic moral theologians–would disagree with you. Whether staying, acting charitably and saving that life is blessed is another question.

What is wrong with the parallel? I completely disagree. My questions were execllent parallels that you also are avoiding to answer, and then you claim that I’m avoiding answering your questions!

The problem with the parallel is that it is beyond conterfactual. I’m sure you think your parallel was excellent the same way I think mine is. We both, however, disagree with the other on this question. What you are trying to force my answer to is akin to ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ or ‘would you rather burn down all the hospitals or shoot 10 children in the head?’ They’re specious and not realistic.

 

[starlight101]

Experience ‘it’ meaning what? Experience having a pregnancy that they did not intend that will drastically alter the course of their life possibly obliterating their hopes and dreams in the process? I’m confident that men cannot experience that…

Meaning experience pregnancy, of all kinds (wanted and unwanted). Men can be affected by abortion of course, although they cannot give birth. If men can be affected by abortion then does it not mean that their veiws should be important and so the pro choice statement in the title really was pointless?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The question is whether or not there is moral obligation in this case. I think the vast majority of people–including Catholic moral theologians–would disagree with you. Whether staying, acting charitably and saving that life is blessed is another question.

CATHOLICS are morally obligated to help this person-as for everybody else, well, we can’t force you, but man, you’d be some kind of jerk to let somebody die for nine months of mere inconvenience.

I had a bit more on the violinist argument in the post as well.

The problem with the parallel is that it is beyond conterfactual. I’m sure you think your parallel was excellent the same way I think mine is. We both, however, disagree with the other on this question. What you are trying to force my answer to is akin to ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ or ‘would you rather burn down all the hospitals or shoot 10 children in the head?’ They’re specious and not realistic.

Honestly, I’m confused here. Why? The question seems fairly simple. IF giving up the child were no option, and your choices were raising the child and abandoning the child, yould you abandon the child?

I don’t see how this is compromising you. It’s like abortion. Your choice is between carrying the child and aborting the child. What do you choose?

Your choice is between raising the child and abandoning the child. What do you choose?

 

[ThomasToo]

CATHOLICS are morally obligated to help this person-as for everybody else, well, we can’t force you, but man, you’d be some kind of jerk to let somebody die for nine months of mere inconvenience.

I had a bit more on the violinist argument in the post as well.

I wouldn’t call being bound to a bed, hooked up to a stranger ‘mere inconvenience.’ I don’t know that Catholic moral teaching obliges someone in that circumstance but I’d need to do more reading on the subject.

Honestly, I’m confused here. Why? The question seems fairly simple. IF giving up the child were no option, and your choices were raising the child and abandoning the child, yould you abandon the child?

I don’t see how this is compromising you. It’s like abortion. Your choice is between carrying the child and aborting the child. What do you choose?

Your choice is between raising the child and abandoning the child. What do you choose?

I’m not saying the question is difficult; I’m saying it’s specious. It’s like, as I said above, ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’

 

[pete_29]

Preventing a life from existing is–depending on whom you ask–only available by preventing on conception or (as you’ve indicated) having an abortion. Of course I don’t think murder is blessed but if you truly want to argue that no one has the right to prevent a human life, as opposed to end one, then shouldn’t everyone be having unprotected, penetrative vaginal intercourse as often as possible?

Umm what part of fertilized egg don’t you get. Your premise is ridiculous in that a sperm cell or unfertilized egg will never be anything else by themselves. However, once the egg is fertilized it will become a human being.unless acted upon by outside forces. One person can’t prevent a human life to exist by themselves because one person lacks the ability to procreate by themselves. Therefore, one person cannot prevent a human beings existance by not fornicating. A person can prevent a human beings existance by aborting a fertilized egg.

 

[ThomasToo]

Umm what part of fertilized egg don’t you get. Your premise is ridiculous in that a sperm cell or unfertilized egg will never be anything else by themselves. However, once the egg is fertilized it will become a human being.unless acted upon by outside forces. One person can’t prevent a human life to exist by themselves because one person lacks the ability to procreate by themselves. Therefore, one person cannot prevent a human beings existance by not fornicating. A person can prevent a human beings existance by aborting a fertilized egg.

What I don’t get is that most Catholics–especially around here–don’t think a a fertilized egg ‘will become a human being,’ they think it already is a human being (and a person) for all moral, legal and ontological purposes. As such, abortion wouldn’t be preventing (i.e. to keep something from arising) but killing a human person.

I don’t know if you don’t agree with them, although that seems unlikely,or what but when I hear ‘prevent making human beings’ the only place my mind goes is ‘not having sex’ and no amount of mental gymnastics can make sense of what you’re saying and what it seems you’re trying (or wanting) to say.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

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.

Without doing a formal count, it seems to me that most anti-abortion leaders are women. The following names come to mind:
Dr. Alveda King
Wanda Franz
Judy Brown
Phyllis Schlafly
Gianna Jessen
and not to forget…Susan B. Anthony

So men cannot care about their children?

So if a bear takes my child and is about to chew it, I should ask the bear?

Surreal!

It’s a human life. There is no need to kill it if the mother doesn’t want it. If the woman cannot tolerate the mere existence of her son/daughter living in an adoptive family for instance, she has a big emotional problem there. It’s beyond the question of an absence of love, that strikes me as hate.

If I don’t love you, I just let you be. Goodbye. But it takes real death-wish not to tolerate someone living even if you will never see them again. Jeez even when I abhor someone I just think “Sayonara, I hope I don’t see you again, have a nice life AWAY from me!”, without death wish. Killing an unborn strikes me as way beyond that, inhumane and quite sick.

 

[pete_29]

What I don’t get is that most Catholics–especially around here–don’t think a a fertilized egg ‘will become a human being,’ they think it already is a human being (and a person) for all moral, legal and ontological purposes. As such, abortion wouldn’t be preventing (i.e. to keep something from arising) but killing a human person.

I don’t know if you don’t agree with them, although that seems unlikely,or what but when I hear ‘prevent making human beings’ the only place my mind goes is ‘not having sex’ and no amount of mental gymnastics can make sense of what you’re saying and what it seems you’re trying (or wanting) to say.

I agree with them but you don’t, so saying a fertilized egg or fetus( I don’t know if you would consider them the same) is a human being to you would be a waste of time, and since I’m a poor typist that almost an eternity. Basicly it goes like this. Before sex,(or fertilization, whichever term you prefer) No human, just cells. After sex, (or fertilization) human, or at the very least something that if left alone by nature or man will become a fully functioning adult human being. By aborting it, you prevent something that, at the very least, is well on it’s way to becoming a fully functional adult human being. You are ending a human existance. If anyone has the right to do that then I can’t understand how they wouldn’t have the right to end anyones existance at any point in that existance. The only safe choice is to assume human existance begins with conception. I’m sorry but my poor language skill don’t allow me to make it any clearer to you.