The pro-life common sense clincher

[Charlemagne_II]

SWAN

As to common sense, there are millions of people who find the equating of a fertilized egg with a fully gestated newborn the polar opposite of common sense.

Well, it appears that you too are a victim of the pro-abort propaganda machine. No one ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of the American public, as Bernard Nathanson proves here.

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

 

[Christopher68]

The quotation above from the Association for Objective Law regards abortion as an absolute and fundamental right, which ought not to be impeded by the state in any way whatsoever at any time before birth.

It goes on to say: “What of the fetus? Does it have rights which must be respected? The concept of rights is based on man’s nature and presupposes the existence of an actual, fully formed and separate human being. Fetuses and embryos are not actual human beings; they are potential human beings.”

And yet nothing in the nature of the fetus has fundamentally changed in the seconds before and after exiting the birth canal. At each of those times, it was a distinct individual of the human species. All that changed was its location. It seems a peculiar basis on which to grant or deny fundamental rights–the location of the distinct human individual determining whether or not he or she may be designated a human being.

Why do they not go further? The newborn is not really viable yet. It cannot exist on its own. Why not agree with Professor Singer that the parents ought to have a few months in which to decide whether the child should be accepted or rejected, whether it should live or die? He would not grant personhood right away but defer it for a some months. Perhaps they do agree with him, but it sounds as if they would be willing to “confer” humanity (as if it were ours to confer) immediately after birth.

Jim,

I don’t want to speak for them, but I am guessing that they would respond by saying they addressed this issue when they said “This is not to condone the morality of arbitrarily delaying an abortion until the last months of pregnancy–when the fetus is approaching humanness.” In their commentary, the Association for Objective Law obviously views ‘birth’ as a clear legal line when one has rights versus not having rights.

 

[JimG]

Jim,

I don’t want to speak for them, but I am guessing that they would respond by saying they addressed this issue when they said “This is not to condone the morality of arbitrarily delaying an abortion until the last months of pregnancy–when the fetus is approaching humanness.” In their commentary, the Association for Objective Law obviously views ‘birth’ as a clear legal line when one has rights versus not having rights.

Yes, I’m thinking that would be their position. Late term abortion is not particularly advocated, yet there remains no basis for its prohibition, since the unborn child is not considered a human being until immediately after birth. It just seems to me that location does not confer humanity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Christopher 68

*In their commentary, the Association for **Objective Law **obviously views ‘birth’ as a clear legal line when one has rights versus not having rights. *

But that is a purely arbitrary and subjective date assigned to the granting of rights.

 

[Christopher68]

Christopher 68

*In their commentary, the Association for **Objective Law ***obviously views ‘birth’ as a clear legal line when one has rights versus not having rights.

But that is a purely arbitrary and subjective date assigned to the granting of rights.

Charlemagne,

I am not certain if you were asking me a question or just making a comment??

Please note that I did not say that their position was my position. I always feel a bit odd trying to respond for someone else.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Just a comment.

The Association for Objective Law must have been truly startled by Scott Peterson’s conviction for the double homicide of his pregnant wife.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In case anyone missed the website reference in post 674, here is I think the most interesting part of Dr. Nathanson’s confession.

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

*THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation. *

Again, the absence of common sense about abortion is rooted in the fact that so many lies have been told for so long that the light of truth can barely penetrate the darkness surrounding this national tragedy.

 

[JimG]

In case anyone missed the website reference in post 674, here is I think the most interesting part of Dr. Nathanson’s confession.

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

*THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation. *

Again, the absence of common sense about abortion is rooted in the fact that so many lies have been told for so long that the light of truth can barely penetrate the darkness surrounding this national tragedy.

The campaign of lies was remarkable. Nathanson was on the forefront of the campaign, on the pro-abortion side, and explains the propoganda effort in his book “Aborting America.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nathanson, after he came to his senses, collaborated with Charlton Heston to produce a well made documentary on abortion, The Eclipse of Reason. The half hour film includes the depiction of an abortion. Should be viewed by anyone who thinks an abortion is not a savage and criminal act.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Hi Christopher!

I respect your initiative in picking up the torch for someone else. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is just too much for me (but, maybe that is because I’m sympathetic to Immanuel Kant ). The “Association for Objective Law” is, perhaps, more radical in its legal and ethical views than even some abortion proponents would like to go, but it’s fitting since we are talking about limited government.

My first criticism of the argument is primarily legal in nature. Under our current jurisprudence, the “strict scrutiny” or “compelling government interest” analysis exists for all suspect state actions like restricting protected speech and even discriminating against individuals. It would be a radical jurisprudential shift to say that abortion deserves more protection than any other constitutional right. The reason that “balancing” exists is to achieve maximal welfare and autonomy for citizens as a rule, and strict scrutiny is a high hurdle to jump. Moreover, these “state interests” that the AOL condemns can also be called autonomy promoting. The “what I do with my own body” debate is also seen in the movement to legalize drugs, but, remember, there is such a thing as positive and negative liberty. The barrier to using drugs might diminish negative liberty, but it enhances positive liberty and the ability to take ownership of one’s life. Every rule is part of a careful balancing act.

The AOL also gives little attention to the personhood inquiry and defining, rigorously, the distinction between born and unborn. Siamese twins, for example, are not “separate” from one another, but does that mean that they do not each have separate rights? Or what of people with severe developmental disabilities? They are not “fully formed.” And what does “fully formed” even mean? JimG has also hit it on the nose with the Peter Singer logical consistency argument: rationality, dependency, autonomy, physical form, and self-awareness all seem, individually, not to be what makes us “persons” at any given moment, for several groups of born people have at least one of these qualities missing. As Plato has said, we must look at a man’s whole life for the purpose of determining his qualities. We as persons value our future and potential autonomy quite highly, as evidenced by our experiences in everyday life. In fact, the only “given” is that fetuses are genetically distinct and biologically human. From a public policy perspective, it is a dangerous endeavor to say that some humans are not persons, as “speciesist” as it might sound to some.

This again, is only the personhood prong of the analysis. I will move on to the autonomy prong (Charlemange) at later time. Thank you for the counter-arguments, however. I am, as always, open to warm criticism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cato

I am, as always, open to warm criticism.

And I’ll be glad to offer it.

 

[BobCatholic]

Bob, you just don’t get it,

Right, I don’t get it why dehumanizing the unborn is a good thing.
I don’t get why dehumanizing ANYONE is a good thing.
Forgive me for being a Christian.

Force of personality does not constitute a formal argument by itself:thumbsup:

I wish I were a force of personality But alas, I’m not.

Please Bob spare us the popcorn. Life is an absolute value, but not an absolute right—no govt has the resources to guarantee such a thing.

The government can prohibit the taking of innocent life and make sure people are protected. Or should the government just open the concentration camps? If someone is being attached with a machete, the police should just sit there like a decoration since the government has no resources to protect her?

If a government will not protect its citizens, it will eventually kill its citizens. The 20th century is replete with examples. Dehumanize one group, and other groups get dehumanized out of existence as well.

Well, the Court did not see the early fetus as a " person" entitled to that protection.

And neither do you for some reason, not sure why. It can’t be science, it says the unborn child is a living human being.

 

[BobCatholic]

As to common sense, there are millions of people who find the equating of a fertilized egg with a fully gestated newborn the polar opposite of common sense.

As to common sense, there are millions of people who find the equating of a black man with a white man the polar opposite of common sense.

Doesn’t mean they’re right.

Dehumanize one group, and it doesn’t stop there. First they came for the Jews…

 

[Doc_Keele]

So commonsense is the arbiter when commonsense agrees with the conclusion of the arguer, but if it doesn’t then the arguer concludes that just because most people think something it doesn’t make it right?

Called having your cake and eating it:thumbsup:

 

[Doc_Keele]

Christopher 68

*In their commentary, the Association for **Objective Law ***obviously views ‘birth’ as a clear legal line when one has rights versus not having rights.

But that is a purely arbitrary and subjective date assigned to the granting of rights.

Not arbitrary and very definitely not subjective!

 

[Doc_Keele]

Charlemagne, this is a complex question so therefore there isn’t a straightorward answer. If you asked me (boring example but here we go) “Have you stopped beating your wife?”, there’s no straight answer I can give that denies that I have ever beaten my wife.
Do you want to ask a reasonable question that doesn’t suffer those problems?

To save a lot of horse trading, the reasonable version of the question you aksed me would something on the lines of “Is it intuitively immoral to allow abortion no matter what the particulars of the situation?” to which I and many others would respond “NO!”

Happy, Charlemagne?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Just for the heck of it, I’ll ask you two questions that I know you’ll refuse to answer.

Is it moral or immoral to kill our children?

Is it moral or immoral for the abortionists to butcher our babies for money?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Charlemagne, we’re back to these complex questions before. Have a look at my post above. It’ll save a lot of time, honest

There’s so many problems with that first question. You don’t differentiate the born from the unborn. You’ll say it doesn’t make a difference. Many people would say that it does. That’s just one example.

The second question follows on from the first, and the answer essentially depends on the answer to the first and so doesn’t really add any value.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6361440]Just for the heck of it, I’ll ask you two questions that I know you’ll refuse to answer.

Is it moral or immoral to kill our children?

Is it moral or immoral for the abortionists to butcher our babies for money?

No, of course it is not moral! Hello! Let us try it one more time–Charlemagne. The Court talk about a “zone of privacy”----a place where govt cannot go.

Let us take an example------there is a bunch of dirt and mold under your refrigerator, I mean it really looks bad. But you do not clean it. Why? Because, the refrigertor weighs a ton, it would take you and three other people to move it. Moreover, you just do not have the time given every thing else going on-----there is just other priorities. So you do not clean under the refrigerator------Because you cannot get there.

The above is an analogy only for sure. But the point is------govt can’t regulate the early fetus in the womb of the women…because to do so makes this govt not " limited" govt at all. It is too invasive. This govt is of limited power esp in such matters intrinsically connected to one’s body. That is what the Court was saying, or at least partially.

You are asking the govt to regulate in an area that it has no authority to regulate. The govt can use other methods to help address the problem other than the police power.

Hey, you have to have rigorous debate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

*You don’t differentiate the born from the unborn. *

The unborn is still a child. If you don’t think so, watch an abortion.

Here is the website that gives Charlton Heston’s 3 minute introduction to the documentary, “Eclipse of Reason.” At the time the film was made, there had been 20 million babies executed by abortion. That number has since risen to about 50 million.

youtube.com/watch?v=eyDxaQ4ZApA