H
hoosiertoo
Guest
From the OP -
Feel free to chime in.
Added: Although, given the thread title, perhaps we should be discussing the totalitarian inclinations of “progressives.”
- Status
Added: Although, given the thread title, perhaps we should be discussing the totalitarian inclinations of “progressives.”
M
Mirdath
Guest
I have been. As it stands now, Holocaust similes are tired and inaccurate, and I’m completely missing the connection between the 3/5 Compromise and abortion.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How are Holocaust references “tired and inaccurate?”
Did not the Nazis de-humanize their victims? Did they not use that to justify the killing of millions of innocent people?
The only “inaccuracy” I see is that abortion has dwarfed the Holocaust, killing about four times as many innocent people in this country alone.
Every living human being has a right to life. This sets up a three-part test:
- Is it living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate.
- Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has mouse or lizard DNA, it’s not human.
- Is it a being. Check the DNA again. If it has its own DNA, then it is a separate being.
H
hoosiertoo
Guest
Grok “personhood.” It fits.
You’ve made the claim that a human being isn’t a human being - “person” - until it is separate from the womb.
I posit that a person is legally whatever we decide it is - a position with which you seemingly agree.
The point that vern and I were making is that at various times in history, “personhood” has been defined differently, with catastrophic results for those relabeled.
The real question is, of course, “Who gets to decide?” Unless it’s God, it’s whoever gets control of the ovens.
Legally, one may define a person any way that is politically palatable.
“Legal” is not synonymous with “moral.”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Amen. And with that principle established in law, those who support abortion today may one day find themselves, old and infirm, being pushed into those ovens.
Nor is “choice” a synonym for “moral.” Rape is a choice. Bank robbery is a choice.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Tired because it’s been the refrain of the pro-life movement for decades, because it’s been drilled repeatedly into the ears of anyone who listens to pro-life arguments, because debate never seems to really get any farther than that. We were managing it for a while here, at least, and for that I’m grateful; why come in and drag the quality of discussion back down to the playground?
Inaccurate because here is no systematic conspiracy at the highest levels of our government to terminate every pregnancy that occurs. There are no cellars with hidden floors beneath which pregnant women hide from secret police. You might be able to make a case for China, but I am not in China, I do not support the one-child policy, and they aren’t trying to exterminate all the young anyway.
A baby is not separate until it has exited the womb. Until then it is a part of the mother.
Legally? Perhaps, but that doesn’t make the legal definition right. Philosophically, I believe there is an absolute definition of humanity.
Next time can you make it once instead of 4 and 3 times respectively in direct succession please?
Agreed, in principle. I’d submit that we are not dealing with a question of morality so much as one of ethics.
vern humphrey:
And, if I may ask, what would your reaction to that be? Would you be glad? Would you laugh? Would you point and say ‘I told you so!’? Would you loudly proclaim your ‘pity’ for them, then say ‘they brought it on themselves’? Or would you feel saddened at the loss of life?
It does not seem, from your phrasing, that you would truly mourn them.
H
hoosiertoo
Guest
I can’t remember the last time I discussed abortion or genocide on a playground, but then I’m getting older. It’s been a while since I’ve been on a playground with anyone other than a toddler.
I don’t believe that the government of Rwanda had to set up ovens or or organize a conspiracy.
I disagree, but make your case.
Go for it. Start a different thread if you must, but this is already on topic, so why not here?
I’m sorry our conversation style doesn’t suit you. I’ll try to do better.
Ethics sans morality. Another interesting topic, but this one really would need a new thread.
I’d participate.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ah, the old “I can’t answer your argument, so I say you can’t make it” ploy.
When you try to blow smoke up me kilts like that, it tickles.
No one said “there is systematic conspiracy at the highest levels of our government to terminate every pregnancy that occurs.” What we say is:
- Certain human beings are being de-humanized – just as the Nazis dehumanized the Jews.
- Those de-humanized human beings are being killed in huge numbers – about four times as many as were killed in the Holocaust.
- It is being done under the protection of law.
It is nevertheless an individual human being, with its own DNA.
Yup – and I just gave it to you. A living human being has it’s own human DNA.
Ah, they old “You didn’t do it, or say you would, but I think you would, so that makes you bad” arabesque.:whacky:
H
hoosiertoo
Guest
I parsed vern’s statement several times and failed to come up with that interpretation, but vern can defend himself.
Glad? No. Laugh? No -although I do appreciate irony. “I told you so?” Yep. Pity? Yep. Would I acknowledge their complicity? Probably. If nothing else, it might be valuable as an object lesson. Would I feel saddened at the loss of life? Most certainly. In short - I’m a human being.
M
Mirdath
Guest
What can I say, I’ve been on some very interesting playgrounds
Ovens no, conspiracy yes.
It derives sustenance entirely by leeching nutrients through the umbilical cord, is protected and sheltered by the body of the mother, and is literally attached to and inside her. If removed from the womb before labor, it will die (usually).
Can you make the case that a teratoma isn’t human and should not be protected?
I have given what I believe to be the correct definition earlier in this thread.
As would I
vern humphrey:
That’s not an argument, it’s name-calling, which has no business being in a civil debate.
See, the problem here is that the Nazis did have a systematic conspiracy at the highest levels of government to exterminate the Jews. There is, as you said, no such conspiracy to abort all children! So much for the comparison.
An individual human creature with its own DNA, yes – and one that is wholly dependent on (one might even say parasitic) a human being. I favor the human being when the survival of one or the other is called into question.
That’s a scientific definition, not a philosophical one. It’s true in scientific terms and not open to debate. I posted the philosophical definition as I see it earlier in the thread.
Please now, I stopped short of the last phrase. It’s a genuine question.
Still, I note you haven’t seen fit to disabuse me of that notion :whacky:
J
Jennifer123
Guest
I think Vern and hoosier are doing a great job here, I just wanted to address this specific issue.
It’s not accurate to speak of the baby as a “part” of the mother. One’s own body parts have the same genetic code as its “owner”. The baby’s genetic code is entirely different and entirely unique therefore it is not accurate to just label it a “part” of the mother.
The baby is dependent on the mother for certain things for survival inside the womb, but so is my 2 year old outside the womb. I doubt very much my 2 year old could survive very long without me helping to feed and clothe him. I also very much doubt a 85 year old inflicted with Alzheimer’s could live very long on its own without assistance. Certainly though my 2 year old and a sick 85 year old, still needing assistance, are still part of the human race.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If by name-calling, you mean attempting to marginalize an argument that you can’t answer, I agree.
You just set off me smoke alarm again.
The comparison is:
- Certain human beings are being de-humanized – just as the Nazis dehumanized the Jews.
- Those de-humanized human beings are being killed in huge numbers – about four times as many as were killed in the Holocaust.
- It is being done under the protection of law.
But what about cases when the survival of the mother is not in question? Abortion to save the mother’s life is very rare. Abortion for the convenience of the mother is the most common form.
No, it’s not – it’s a nasty insinuation. If you say I would somehow rejoice at another human’s death, the burden of proof is on you.
And if I had a notion that you practiced cannibalism, would it be up to you to “disabuse me of that notion?”
The burden of proof is on you.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Of course! However, they are not necessarily directly dependent on you (someone else could ensure the 2-year-old’s survival) and do not derive sustenance from a cord attached to you. That’s the distinction I was making.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
A meaningless distinction. You are begging the question here, asking us to accept that some physiological facts of development make the baby “not a person.”
We reject that.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
You sure seem quick to dismiss something that is factual and relevant to the debate. To get an understanding of the ugliness of war, sometimes we need to see the results. This my friend is what happens to these “fetuses” as you like to call them.
The quote below is why it is relevant. You above define what is in the species using your opinion (totally misusing science terms) to fit your own personal views. That is why it is relevant: You define what is a human just like Hitler and the Consitutional Congress.
While I’m at, how do you feel about my severely Down’s cousin or my invalid Grandmother? You seem to have alot of omniscience.
I just wish the pro-abortionist would be honest and say the following:
The choice of the mother usurp any rights of her unborn child and the father.
Reason:
They can’t use science to defend their position as there is no clear line of distinction except conception.
They can’t use morality (doing what is right for yourself in relation to what is right for others).
They can’t use logic as Mirdath has proven because she rejects the logical conclusions of her own statements (see the above regarding Hitler, slavery and abortion).
J
Jennifer123
Guest
I have to agree this is a meaningless distinction with all due respect. I don’t mean to sound disrespectful. You are only trying to make the point you feel strongly about and I am grateful for the opportunity to use my brain to find ways to tell you you’re wrong.
The point I think here is location and viability. A “fetus” is only a “human person” once it’s delivered. But even 10 minutes before birth, it is still a “non-person” according to US law via Roe v. Wade? And even though the newborn baby is sometimes just as dependant outside the womb as it is inside because of health issues, it makes that much of a significant difference? It’s completely illogical IMHO.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Comparing pro-choice (gah, even I hate that term) people to Nazis isn’t name-calling? Sure…
Looks like we’ve got two related but slightly different arguments :whacky:
Okay, here goes on yours:
- If one begins with the premise that humanity is merely an accident of genetics, not a philosophical definition as I base my argument on.
- Aside from the ongoing quibble about ‘what is human’, yes.
- It is done without the protection of law as well, and were it made illegal in the US it’d be right back to the alley for abortions in unhygienic conditions, with non-sterile tools, no protections for the mother against disease, trauma, and bleeding to death, and prison time for the ‘doctor’ and the woman if she survives. You’d take that in preference? No thanks. Further, the law of the land is permissive, not encouraging. One is allowed to have an abortion; Nazis actively made it illegal to be Jewish, gay, retarded, etc.
I don’t like it, and I just answered it – your version, not mine, even.
‘Convenience’ is a nice word over what can be a very nasty situation. Sure, you can say ‘put it up for adoption’ and try to smooth it over like that, but it doesn’t make it any easier for someone who’s not prepared physically, emotionally, mentally, or financially to have a baby (not just raise, have).
I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m asking how you would feel if, say, Norma McCorvey, had she not gone to the ‘pro-life’ side, were euthanized. I am genuinely curious.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If your eye cannot bear to see what you hand has done, you should have stayed your hand.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Talk about proving my previous post. It is all about you and what you feel. I’d love to hear your response to my post.
Quibble? Talk about a dismissive term about something so fundamental. Nazi’s quibbled about whether you had to have two Jewish parents, or if you just had to have one, or if you just had to have one Jewish grandparent. I think the “quibbling” didn’t go into great grandparents.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Nice try but no cigar.
I assume you took English in school and know the difference between a simile and a metaphor?
I have a right to use comparisons in argument – and the reason you object to this one is you can’t answer it.
It’s a matter of fact. I realise you want to dispose of inconvenient facts, but I will not accept that.
And there were murders committed in Nazi Germany without the protection of law, too. How does this affect the issue?
No, I would choose eradication of the practice. Those who practice such an evil trade should be incarcerated – put where they cannot harm others.
Your argument would legalize murder, rape, and bank robbery, too – “Why outlaw these things? People will still do them, and somebody might get hurt in the process.”
It is more than permissive – in fact, you will soon see proposed legislature to make the taxpayers fund abortions.
And the current law makes the unborn not-human. It discriminates – to the point of mass killing – against a particular category of human being.
No, you didn’t answer it – you tapdanced, but never came up with an answer.
No one ever said doing right is easy. The fact is, most children are aborted for convenience’ sake.
True – you’re trying to make a nasty insinuation.
I feel about those who have and support abortions the same way I feel about all other human beings:
– John Donne
- Status