The argument that convinces me to be Pro-Choice

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. Protecting the unborn is also protecting ourselves, the day we will be old and sick and “useless” by this society’s standards.

Every time someone advocates something that infringes on other people’s rights, I tell them they have no right to say that.

When they protest and say they do so have a right, I say, “Yep. And if you defend everyone else’s rights, they’ll defend your rights.”

 

[goout]

goout:

This reduces the question to opinion.

I don’t think it does.

It’s one thing to say “these sample of opinions about abortion tell us _________ about the people who hold these opinions”.

It’s another thing to say “these sample of opinions about abortion establish what abortion is”.

My previous post has to do with the first.

I think that most people who assess the morality of abortion do so on extrinsic grounds, the way we would assess the morality of a particular war, for example.

Again, I’m not saying it is correct to do that, but that I think that’s how most people approach the morality of abortion.

And that is why I try to be very patient and give the benefit of the doubt to pro-choicers ( I don’t begin by assuming they are malicious or in obstinate denial). I try my best to assume they are people of goodwill, even if I think they are wrong (i.e. I err on the side of thinking they are sincerely mistaken, rather than unabashed defiance of truth).

Why are you focused on assessing malicious intent for pro choicers?

In a time when sane observation is difficult, maybe we should concentrate on simply pointing out the self evident and affirming it.

It is good to be alive. Human existence is good.
Not one thing has to be said about the intent of pro choicers.

 

[goout]

goout:

It is good to be alive. Human existence is good.

For whom? Was the existence of Jeffrey Dahmer “good” for the victims?

And the above is an example of what I am talking about…

 

[Theo520]

You got your analogy wrong.

As a society we do say it is wrong to drown someone else, that is the comparison to abortion.

I don’t see any parallel between abortion and the decision to stand by and watch someone else die.

 

[blackforest]

Even if it was your fault they were in the water eg. you accidentally nudged them in or even pushed them in as a joke.

I haven’t read the replies yet, so I apologize if this has already been covered. Your analogy collapses with this statement. If you caused them to fall in, you have a fundamental obligation to help them. If your actions cause a pregnancy, you have the same obligation to your offspring.

The analogy also flops because to be more on par with abortion, you’d notice the person drowning and then send someone in after them to kill them off (analogous to abortion), rather than provide care by rescuing them (prenatal care).

Finally, the analogy flops because unlike your drowning victim, the overwhelming majority of embryos and fetuses aren’t struggling for life and doomed to die unless someone intervenes.

 

[Theo520]

And that is the problem. It is not simply stay out and watch the outcome. It is that you could interfere and save the drowning victim, without jeopardizing yourself. The point is that actively doing something or passively allowing something are fundamentally the same. Calling them significantly different is incorrect.

If a mother drowns her newborn, or her 10 yr old, we see that as a crime
The mother took an action that caused death.

Whether I was watching her do it or not is irrelevant.
Whether I tried to stop her or not is irrelevant.

 

[GEddie]

It would not be criminal to not rescue a drowning person, but it would be murder to put your foot on his head.

Abortion is more akin to the foot on the head than to not rescuing. A drowning person will die if nothing is done; if nature takes its course. Whereas, a fetus will live, unless actively killed by abortion.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JimG]

No restrictions at any stage of development, at any time, for any reason? Sex selection abortion? Abortion at nine months? Or during delivery? Or post-delivery if the umbilical cord is not cut? Most nations have abortion laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws.

 

[Finn]

d like to know if you accept that others believe that there are rational and moral arguments for pro choice. If you do then I’ll continue. If you don’t then I’d be wasting my time and yours.

You’re already wasting my time, frankly. Yes, I accept that others erroneously hold many positions they consider well-founded. Abortion is no exception to this. Now are you finally prepared to express your views?

 

[YourNameHere]

The bottom line is that those who favored giving the woman the right to choose will always favor that, while those who dislike abortion will say that the procedure should be outlawed.
All of the talking points have been made time and again.
Nothing will change.
So do any of the actual arguments need to be made over and over and over and over again?

 

[Maximus_Power]

Let’s be clear, I am a Catholic. And I do find abortion utterly regrettable and a form of social ill. Nonetheless, I’m not in favor of governmental restrictions upon abortion.

It’s not lack of government restrictions that contradicts your faith it’s goverment support using our tax dollars.

Imagine the goverment took tax dollars from it’s citazens to ferry people babies into deep water and pushed them off the boat.

That doesn’t make you innocent of thier blood to just stand idly by and do or say nothing.

 

[blackforest]

I agree with your overall point about the quagmire of this debate but object to your wording.

The bottom line is that those who favored giving the woman the right to choose

Transitive verbs require objects. What is the intended object of “choose?” The right to choose . . . . college majors? Careers? Ice cream flavor?

will always favor that, while those who dislike abortion will say that the procedure should be outlawed.

The words “like” and “dislike” are referred to matters of preference. Pro-lifers don’t simply “prefer” that women don’t have abortions the way they may prefer Popeyes over Chick-fil-A; we consider abortion a human rights violation and want it to stop.

 

[goout]

The bottom line is that those who favored giving the woman the right to choose will always favor that, while those who dislike abortion will say that the procedure should be outlawed.
All of the talking points have been made time and again.
Nothing will change.
So do any of the actual arguments need to be made over and over and over and over again?

Unfortunately, repetition is necessary for the morally numb.
The guy who’s on the ground getting kicked to death would really like someone to reinforce the truth that
“hey, I’m a human being here!, and you should stop hurting me”
Why should we tire of observing that human beings ought not be abused and killed?
Should we tire of saying that?

And the voiceless need that voice also.

 

[Wozza]

So, let’s hear your argument #1, or, if it has already been posted, please rephrase it, or else restate it, because I must have missed it.

Than you, M (and this applies to @Finn as well). Too often I have been in these type of discussions and any argument is dismissed on the basis that ‘there are no arguments that are valid’ as opposed to ‘I understand what you say but I disagree’. If it’s pre-determined that no arguments will be accepted for pro choice then it’s a waste of everyone’s time making any. So…

The ‘dna shows it’s human’ argument is out of the window immediately. As I said, a toe nail clipping has human dna. The better argument would be ‘individual dna’ which is entirely accurate. Being accurate in these discussions is paramount. Which is why I pointed out that ‘a child’ is not aborted.

I’m going to show that we all consider what a woman is carrying during her pregnancy changes as the pregnancy continues from conception to birth. That we consider a new born baby to be something entirely different to a blastocyst in the earliest stages.

Consider a woman’s emotional state if she loses her pregnancy shortly after becoming pregnant and a few days before giving birth. Is there any argument that they are different?

Consider the old trope about the frozen embryos in the burning building. Does one save the baby or the dozen embryos? No sane person would sacrifice the baby. And why would that be?

Consider the greater outrage the late term abortions generate as opposed to early term abortions. They are considered to be a lot worse. Why would that be?

Consider anti abortion videos that don’t show a few cells being aborted but a recognisable foetus. Why show later term abortions as opposed to earlier term abortions?

All scenarios point to the fact that we all consider different stages of pregnancy in different ways. That as the pregnancy develops we consider that which the woman is carrying to be more of a person. ‘Look, it’s reacting to music. Look, it looks like it’s waving to us’. If it were available, no woman would keep an ultrasound of a few cells versus one of a late term foetus. Because late term it looks more like a person. Rather than a clump of cells.

This is why a woman would have no compunction about having an early term abortion but would baulk at a late term one. This is why most of us who are pro choice wouldn’t concern ourselves with an abortion a few days after a woman found she was pregnant because her financial situation was dire but would think it heinous if she had an abortion for the same reason a few days before giving birth.

(cont’d)

 

[Wozza]

(cont’d)

People are pro choice because they believe that there is a substantial difference between what we have a few days after conception and a few days before birth. And that a group of cells (yes, human cells) is substantially different from a full grown baby the moment before it’s born.

Yes, it’s a potential person. No argument there. But we value potential things a lot different to actual things. If van Gogh has just started a painting of some sunflowers and someone burns the canvass an hour after he’s started then big deal. It had the potential to be a great painting but nobody is going to lose any sleep. But the closer he comes to finishing it, the greater the loss if it’s destroyed (apologies for comparing an abortion to a painting being destroyed but I need to indicate how we treat potential from actual and the metaphor stands).

That’s why the vast majority of women have abortions. It’s the difference between a group of cells and a baby. It’s the frozen embryos versus the child.

 

[AlbMagno]

Human DNA isn’t the the only indicator. The zygote is totipotent, the only totipotent cell located in the mother’s body, which means that it has the ability to (and will naturally) become a grown human body. It isn’t an unitarian cell that’s part of a pluricelluar being.

That, and the fact that the DNA is human, and that it is 50% distinct from that of all its neighborhood cells, should be enough for understanding that the zygote is an independent human being.

If you insist with the dependence argument, remember that you and me and all of us need oxygen, water, and other resources from the earth to survive, and still, we are independent entities from the earth.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The ‘dna shows it’s human’ argument is out of the window immediately. As I said, a toe nail clipping has human dna.

But I posted a 3-part list of criteria:

1. Is it living? A toenail clipping is not living.
2. Does it have human DNA. Yes.
3. Does it have its OWN DNA? No – it has the DNA of the person who clipped it.

You have dismissed the argument without answering then other two questions.

 

[MiserereMei]

First, thank you for defining your use of the word “child” in the context of this discussion. I doubt either of us will “convert” to the other side, but I hope we can come to understand each other better.

Let’s keep in mind some of the arguments you mentioned in these posts. Many of the arguments you presented could be described as a cultural reaction or response. Unless you are coming from a place of some variation of moral relativism, I don’t think this doesn’t get to the substance of the issue, at least, not at first.

I think a bit of groundwork to do so we can more properly understand each other. We have to be sure we are speaking the same language.

I will accept your previously defined definition of “child” for our discussion. We have at least one further term to define:

Yes, it’s a potential person. No argument there.

Unless I am reading your posts inaccurately, we have a differing definition of personhood. In order to understand each other, we should work on defining the term for common use, or at least explicate our own usage of the term.

What is a “person”? How is personhood conferred? Is it an objective quality, or a subjective one—That is to say, for example, is personhood dependent upon, or granted by, culture or the State (subjective), or by some essence of the individual or by some supreme entity (objective)? Is personhood limited to humans, or could individuals of other species have personhood?

Correct me if I am interpreting your words inaccurately, but do you contend that personhood can be granted to some entity that previously has no personhood? If that is so, can personhood also be removed from the same entity at a later time, before biological death? If so, by what means?

Note: I am assuming that you believe that a prerequisite for something to be a person is that it is a biological entity. I know there are some philosophers who would grant personhood to certain more intelligent animals, but I do not know of any who would grant personhood to, say, a rock.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The ‘dna shows it’s human’ argument is out of the window immediately. As I said, a toe nail clipping has human dna.

But I posted a 3-part list of criteria:

1. Is it living? A toenail clipping is not living.
2. Does it have human DNA. Yes.
3. Does it have its OWN DNA? No – it has the DNA of the person who clipped it.

You have dismissed the argument without answering then other two questions.

I’m not dismissing it. After conception we have individual dna. A mixture of the father’s and the mother’s. An undeniable scientific fact. But simply saying that it’s ‘human dna’ isn’t enough. The female egg and the male sperm are alive and each have human dna. As I said, terms need to be very specific in how they are used.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But simply saying that it’s ‘human dna’ isn’t enough

I didn’t simply say that it’s human DNA.

I said that:

1. It’s living
2. It has human DNA
3. It has its own DNA

It is therefore a living human being, and entitled to all the protection that any other living human being is entitled to.

If you say no, then explain how you get the right to life. Why can’t someone who finds you inconvenient simply define you as non-human or not a person?