Responding to pro-choicers’ views on abortion

[Erikaspirit16]

No woman is being prosecuted for abortion. That isn’t happening no matter what hysteria a left wing magazine wants to instigate. Plenty of DAs in Georgia have already said as much.

We’ll see. All you need is one gung-ho DA. And I think you’re missing the point–women shouldn’t have to rely on the good will / common sense / whatever of the DA. They should be protected by the law itself, which should be clear and unambiguous. This law is neither.

And, as many others have pointed out, the Georgia and Alabama laws are counter-productive in the sense they are provoking more pro-choice laws in more liberal states like NY, California, and Virginia. But we all know these laws really have one purpose: reverse Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court. Good luck with that.

Good night all. And doesn’t anyone want to have some fun and take my T-F test in post 99?

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

The fetus is a life and a human being. That’s a scientific fact. There’s nothing to debate or discuss further on that. I do not deny science.

Well, I see you’re trotting out “personhood” again. Fine with me. Please do a search on exactly what scientists (biologist, geneticists, etc.) say–not what you WANT them to say, what they ACTUALLY say.

I already am.

They say that a fetus (I’m using the term to describe any life in the womb from conception on) is certainly alive. No question about that. And they say that it has the potential to grow into a human being.

Sure seems to me you’re making the personhood argument using the term “human being”. Fair enough, same thing different terms.

The fetus is human. Not a “potential” human. Human. Scientific fact. Nothing further to discuss. Nothing further to debate. Done. The end. Finis. Move on.

But they do NOT say that the fetus is a “human being” in the sense that the pro-life movement uses the term. It should be obvious (?) that science can say nothing about the soul. Or about the legal rights that a fetus does or does not have. Or that aborting a fetus = murder. Or that it has any religious or ethical standing whatsoever. These are religious and/or philosophical questions, not scientific questions. So perhaps we agree on that–“personhood is philosophical and arbitrary and out of the realm of science.” I agree. And yet…you seem to be saying that the fetus is a “person” or “human being” with all sorts of connotations and consequences.

Ok. So you are making a personhood argument. Glad we cleared that up. Now- I say the unborn child is a human being/person from the moment of conception. Prove me wrong, keeping mindful of the logical fallacy you fell into several posts up.

Hint to save you time: you can’t. It can’t be done,

It’s funny that people thing pro lifers only care about one when they care about both [fixing the causes of abortion] all along.

So logically I should expect pro-life supporters to support free pre-natal care, free pediatric care, subsidies for having children, free day care for the poor, etc. etc., right? If so, terrific! And yet…I just don’t see that. I see the opposite. (And please don’t cite a list of religious/voluntary organizations who help mothers. That’s also terrific, but falls woefully short of what is needed. Only the government can provide the support they need.

Sure, we pro lifers do support those things, and other approaches as well, whatever way they may be implemented, government, religious organizations, private sector or otherwise. Get out of your left wing Democrat Slate magazine bubble - the real world may surprise you.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

No woman is being prosecuted for abortion. That isn’t happening no matter what hysteria a left wing magazine wants to instigate. Plenty of DAs in Georgia have already said as much.

We’ll see. All you need is one gung-ho DA. And I think you’re missing the point–women shouldn’t have to rely on the good will / common sense / whatever of the DA. They should be protected by the law itself, which should be clear and unambiguous. This law is neither.

And, as many others have pointed out, the Georgia and Alabama laws are counter-productive in the sense they are provoking more pro-choice laws in more liberal states like NY, California, and Virginia. But we all know these laws really have one purpose: reverse Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court. Good luck with that.

Good night all. And doesn’t anyone want to have some fun and take my T-F test in post 99?

Nah. It won’t happen. No prosecutions.

As for Roe- Casey will be challenged first and then Roe later. You do realize of course that a Roe reversal will not ban abortion in this country.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

We do have most of that care.

Where do you live? Obviously not in the USA.

What you want is unclear to me

I would be happiest in a world where there is no abortion. But not because it’s illegal, because there is no purpose in having an abortion.

It’s really not that black and white. For very practical reasons, human beings receive different treatment based on their level of development.

I realize that you think you have a real winner/“gotcha” kind of set-up here. But so long as you can’t see that A) human beings exist in utero, B) they undergo various developmental phases from embryonic to geriatric, and C) these different phases of development may entail different circumstances and treatment . . . your argument crumbles.

No, it’s not black and white. I completely agree. But saying “human life begins at the moment of conception” with all that implies is definitely a VERY black and white statement. I certainly see the logic in it, and I personally believe it, but it has implications no one here wants to admit. But I don’t agree with your “human beings receive different treatment based on their level of development.” Citizenship, legal rights, tax deductions, etc. do not depend on “level of development”–this is the 3rd time I’ve pointed that out. Saying “you can’t drive until you’re 16” has nothing to do with the rights of a fetus.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You do realize of course that a Roe reversal will not ban abortion in this country.

I do. But it will create a crazy quilt of pro-life and pro-choice states, cause the unnecessary deaths and injuries to countless women, and penalize poor women who are unable to travel to pro-choice states for abortions. And it will simply prolong this debate…for what? decades? centuries? I’m not sure that’s the result any of us want.

Again, good night, and this time I mean it!

 

[graciew]

Where do you live? Obviously not in the USA.

No…Life grows where it wills

I would be happiest in a world where there is no abortion. But not because it’s illegal, because there is no purpose in having an abortion.

You mentioned what could facilitate and help and provide consistency and I answered that we have it all.
What do you need? How can we help?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

"human being”

Define human being.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I would be happiest in a world where there is no abortion. But not because it’s illegal, because there is no purpose in having an abortion

Then have you done what a REAL person who wants to end abortion does?

 

[Ana_v]

All the doctors of the Church, especially major figures such as Saints Augustine and Aquinas, have agreed with the current doctrine of the Church on abortion (i.e., human life begins at conception, and any abortion = murder)

Logically, if you believe a human person is created at conception, it should have all the rights and privileges of any other human being. So do you agree with the following:

1. Embryos at any stage of development are human beings. As such, they have human souls.

"The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development…

In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous."

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), no. 6, 7.

 

[Ana_v]

I don’t think that embryos and born human persons deserve equal treatment in every respect, or have equal rights in every respect. But I do think they have an equal baseline right:

The right to life, here defined as a negative right to not be killed as a morally innocent human life.

By “negative right”, I simply mean, a right that something not be done to you. It requires inaction on the part of others, i.e. that others refrain from something.

“Positive right” would be the right to some benefit, good, or service. It requires action, i.e. that others give or perform something.

 

[blackforest]

But saying “human life begins at the moment of conception” with all that implies is definitely a VERY black and white statement.

It’s science. I don’t know what you think science “implies.” But it’s an indisputable fact.

But I don’t agree with your “human beings receive different treatment based on their level of development.” Citizenship, legal rights, tax deductions, etc.

First of all, legal rights absolutely do depend on level of development. There are many things one can’t do until reaching a certain age. As I mentioned before, I love the idea of supporting the unborn through some of your proposals, such as child support and tax deductions. But living inside the womb entails a unique environment that requires some policy-making to adjust itself accordingly. That does not, however, giving any tacit or overt bioethical justification to crush the embryo to death.

this is the 3rd time I’ve pointed that out.

Repeating a flawed argument doesn’t make it stronger.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Citizenship, legal rights, tax deductions, etc. do not depend on “level of development”–this is the 3rd time I’ve pointed that out. Saying “you can’t drive until you’re 16” has nothing to do with the rights of a fetus.

And I already said I’m fine with that, though some adjustments might be necessary. Do I get a medal or something now?

 

[Sbee0]

No, it’s not black and white. I completely agree. But saying “human life begins at the moment of conception” with all that implies is definitely a VERY black and white statement.

It’s a fact. Life of the human species from a biological sense, begins at conception.

Facts by nature are black and white, meaning you’re right if you agree, wrong if you don’t.

 

[Sbee0]

Erikaspirit16:

"human being”

Define human being.

She is using “human being” synonymously with person. That’s fine, hence the confusion last night.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I figured that’s the most likely option, but I want to make sure first.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But it will create a crazy quilt of pro-life and pro-choice states, cause the unnecessary deaths and injuries to countless women, and penalize poor women who are unable to travel to pro-choice states for abortions.

The alternative is not much better.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

And I already said I’m fine with that, though some adjustments might be necessary. Do I get a medal or something now?

Yes, you do. A gold medal for you.

 

[goout]

…
. But I don’t agree with your “human beings receive different treatment based on their level of development.” Citizenship, legal rights, tax deductions, etc. do not depend on “level of development”–

The rights you are considering are conferred based on their appropriateness to the human being at a certain stage of development.
And infant can’t drive a care, and neither can a nursing home resident. An infant can’t vote either.
But this is all secondary.

What is primary is this:
human rights presuppose living human beings.
Stages of development presuppose living human beings.
This conversation presupposes living human beings.

Human rights are proper to living human beings.
Not cats.
Not trees.
And not my dead gramma.

Living human beings. And so your position fails even to achieve liftoff because it fails to consider the obvious and essential reality that should form the basis for the whole of it.
It’s no different than any other well worn defense of abortion:
it’s simply an appeal to power cloaked in a bunch of equivocations.

 

[Annie]

My suggestion: If you choose to engage with the person who posted, be kind, and lead by asking a question.

“I was reading your comments with great interest. I noticed _____. Could you explain what you mean by _____?”

I think this is a really good way to start a dialogue, and worth repeating!