Friday, March 2, 2012

The Heart of the Matter

Weasel words and specious argumentation cloud the abortion debate

When discussing abortion the concept of rights gets especially abused, and noisy side issues crowd out the key issue: Is a fetus human life?

The pro-abortion people throw around euphemisms like "choice," but particularly cowardly are evasions that dismiss the issue by impugning the character of those who hold the anti-abortion position. Worst of all is when someone cites a poll, as if enough of us voting to kill Hollywood stars for sport would make it ok...

Another troubling line of argumentation is "the life of the mother," which any medical doctor can tell you is a one-in-a-million given today's medical technology, and it is highly contingent given the variance in the technological advancement of the medical equipment available at different geographical locations.

Human Beings are Superior to Beasts

(I can't believe I actually have to make this argument... But here goes...)

The other troublesome aspect is that some attempt to conflate all life, human, animal and plant. They are clearly not equal.

Monkeys are not human, although it's cute when one smokes a pipe in a tv commercial, and the sight of dogs shooting pool is amusing, but it's only an artistic fantasy. Animal behavior is determined by instinct and rote conditioning; human beings reason, philosophize, ask questions and engage in what philosophers call transcendental activities. We possess "an awareness of and a desire for unconditional truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being." Put more simply, how many libraries have baboons built? We are complex beings, not bound by "algorithmically finite structures." (Spitzer, Robert J.)

I'm Anti-House Fire, But I Support the Arsonist's Right to Torch the Place...

My all-time favorite is "I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-choice." So you're anti house fire, but you support the arsonist's right to torch the place... It's not logical. You either believe abortion is morally ok (pro-abortion), or you do not (anti-abortion). You can't have it both ways. You can mumble out of the side of your mouth about the sanctity of life as the abortion counter competes with the debt clock, but whoever is not against it is for it.

The First Question: Is it Life?

The root of the issue is, "is a fetus a human being?" Is it a Life? A person? Before Roe v Wade, these words were synonymous and they all share a common etymology, with each word referring to the others in dictionary definitions.

So before proceeding to the question of whether it's OK to snuff it, when we can snuff it, and who is entitled to snuff it, we first have to define it. Is it life? Yes or no. It can't be two things at once.

If No...

Is it life, yes or no? If no, then have a ball and snuff the wad of tissue before she can get her cute little baby hands on a social security card.

If the being inside the mother is not life, then why jump through the justification hoops? Just kill it and walk away with a clean conscience. So at the root, even all but the most stone-cold pro-abortion people know it is taking a life, even though the act may be deemed legal. I can at least accept that distinction, with the caveat that what is legal is not necessarily moral.

If Yes...

If yes, it becomes more complex, which is why so many people fudge on the question, saying "yeah, it's life," but them damn this small life by demeaning it as just a blastocyst, embryo, zygote, non-viable life form, etc. All of these are distinctions without a difference, because all of these medically-defined entities proceed from human procreation and can be classified as either living or dead.

We argue over euthanasia, the death penalty, war, and other legal actions that result in the taking of a human life. I believe that is where abortion belongs. It's a life. The question now becomes, how, when, why and who may legally take it? Let's at least begin the debate by banishing the weasel words and honestly facing unpleasant facts.

Even then, when we say this particular action is OK but that one is not, we construct a slippery slope, where abortion for the right reason is ok, but wrong for gender selection:
So we really shouldn’t be a bit surprised if this particular slippery slope leads from guilt-free annual terminations – three for two, anybody? – to a “gender-balancing” service, which helps you plan the perfect family by vacuuming away infants of the wrong sex. There is a moral coarsening here that should concern us all. How desensitised have we become when an act of life or death – literally – is used as a tool to satisfy a curious desire to have one that you can dress in blue, as well as pink? (Allison Pearson-Gendercide)
That was not written by a moralizing rightwing Christian fundamentalist from Alabama, but rather by a liberal British columnist who two paragraphs earlier forthrightly declared "I support abortion."

* - For a much better more intelligent treatment of this issue, and some great back and forth in the thread, see Why There's no Point to Arguing about Abortion

114 comments:

Always On Watch said...

If the being inside the mother is not life, then why jump through the justification hoops? Just kill it and walk away with a clean conscience.

I know several women who had abortions for various reasons (in one instance, a medical abortion). Not a one of those women ever said, "I didn't end a life."

And each of those women also carried a burden of conscience. Each of those women also went on to have one or more children.

twoguys2012 said...

If one were to listen to the emotional rhetoric of the feminist witches on the pro-abortion circuit, you would believe that all abortions performed in America are due to rape, incest, or a medical reason.

The truth is, however, that abortion is done for convenience.

You're poor and can't support a baby? Kill it.

Your baby might be born with a mental/physical defect? Kill it.

You're in high school and are now pregnant? Kill it.

You don't want to be a mother? Kill it.

You want to show your support for women's reproductive health rights and have an abortion? Kill it.

Abortion, as desired by the feminist death-cult crowd, is foul, vile, repulsive, and horrid.

When done in a medical setting, as a medical procedure due to the health of the mother, it is heart-breaking.

There is no upside to abortion. None. No one applauds. No one cheers. No one says, "Yes! Good job! Way to go!" Well, unless you're Gloria Steinem or her cult, that is.

Abortion is not a social or political issue. It is a spiritual issue. It has its own false god, its own false prophets, and its own altar of sacrifice.

Anonymous said...

If there's no point to arguing about abortion, WHY do we keep on doing it?

As I've said many many times, the issue in my never humble opinion does not properly belong in the realm of politics and should never have been subjected to legislation. In my view it is a PERSONAL matter that should concern no one other than the woman involved, her family and her doctor.

Religious organizations have every right to condemn and proscribe the practice -- for their congregants -- and THAT is as far as their power to affect personal behavior goes.

That's what I think, and NOTHING will ever make me change my mind -- unless a three week old zygote gazes up at me plaintively from a petrie dish, and says, "Please don't kill me. I'm a human being just like you."

The rabid hysteria and entrenched polarity generated by this issue have had a terribly harmful effect on the political process. The issue DOESN'T belong there.

The ONLY thing that should matter to us in the realm of politics is whether we are to live as Free men and women -- or as slaves to Marxist Monstrosity.


~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

The "is the fetus a human life" question is answered daily in the work of pre-natal and peri-natal physicians and surgeons.

I'd add to that the criminal homicide charges one could face killing a pregnant woman or causing her to miscarry after a violent attack.

Abortion IS murder. Not because of any mumbo-jumbo religious belief, but because it actually does take a life.

Jack Camwell said...

Is war morally okay?

twoguys2012 said...

"Abortion IS murder. Not because of any mumbo-jumbo religious belief, but because it actually does take a life."
----------

And there it is. Can't get any simpler than that.

Bravo, Beamish.

beamish said...

FT,

As I've said many many times, the issue in my never humble opinion does not properly belong in the realm of politics and should never have been subjected to legislation. In my view it is a PERSONAL matter that should concern no one other than the woman involved, her family and her doctor.

My never humble opinion argues that you're justifying homicide as a "matter of preference."

Religious organizations have every right to condemn and proscribe the practice -- for their congregants -- and THAT is as far as their power to affect personal behavior goes.

I'm fairly certain religious organizations are free to condemn and proscribe murder outside their congregants as well.

That's what I think, and NOTHING will ever make me change my mind -- unless a three week old zygote gazes up at me plaintively from a petrie dish, and says, "Please don't kill me. I'm a human being just like you."

Because they'd be speaking, or because they'd be speaking English?

Let's keep mute people away from the psycho....

beamish said...

Is war morally okay?

Sometimes.

twoguys2012 said...

Jack,

"Is war morally okay?"
-----

I'd have to ask my WWII Veteran grandparents and their peers that question.

Jack Camwell said...

Really? Okay, so you're admitting to the occasional necessity of having to take a human being's life.

And, you're saying that sometimes it's morally okay.

News flash: taking a human life is never "okay." War is not morally okay just because you justify your cause for killing another person as being "good and true."

If that's the case, then killing an unborn baby must be okay so long as the woman thinks her intentions are "good and true."

What people like you don't understand is that you fall into the trap of rationalization. Instead of looking for what is objectively right and wrong, you rationalize all of your thoughts and beliefs to fit what you "feel" is right and wrong.

And Silver, I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases. If I were a woman, I'd never get one except for the big three reasons. I'd never get an abortion simply because having a baby would be inconvenient for my life.

Also, I would never tell a woman that she should get an abortion. I would never pay for a woman to have an abortion.

So explain to me how I am "pro-abortion."

Jack Camwell said...

twoguys: the best answer to the WWII question I've ever heard came from a WWII vet.

When he was asked if it was a "good war," he answered:

I don't think there's ever such a thing as a "good" war. Maybe a necessary war, but war is never a "good" thing.

Ducky's here said...

The fetus at an early stage is not viable outside the womb and is not self aware. Abortion is not murder.

twoguys2012 said...

Jack: You said-

"And Silver, I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases. If I were a woman, I'd never get one except for the big three reasons. I'd never get an abortion simply because having a baby would be inconvenient for my life."

Morally wrong in most cases? You said most. Except for the big three, as you said.

So by your rationale, there is a morally right reason for murder. There seems to be some wiggle-room in your premise.

Jack Camwell said...

Not morally right, but perhaps morally permissible. Maybe not even morally permissible, but rather understandable, in some cases justifiable.

Abortion is *never* a good thing. Maybe a necessary thing, but it's never "good."

The difference between me and a lot of people is that I understand that in this imperfect world we're given situations in which there are only imperfect choices. Sometimes the only options we have are bad options, and we just have to decide which option is going to be least destructive.

And Ducky is right, if we're basing what a human being is off of consciousness, then none of you should have a problem with aborting a baby before it develops consciousness.

Silverfiddle said...

You've got it backwards, Jack:

What people like you don't understand is that you fall into the trap of rationalization. Instead of looking for what is objectively right and wrong, you rationalize all of your thoughts and beliefs to fit what you "feel" is right and wrong.

You just described your "pro-choice" camp. If someone forcibly takes the fetus from the mother against her will, it is murder. If the mother does it herself, it is ok. That goes against objective truth and falls into the realm of rationalization.

Ducky: Congratulations, you just made the case for euthanizing whole categories of living, breathing human beings. I'll skip the trite historical comparisons.

Bunkerville said...

Is war morally okay? I really didn't want to speak German. How this equates to the topic dilutes the issue.

Bunkerville said...

Is war morally okay? I really didn't want to speak German. How this equates to the topic dilutes the issue.

beamish said...

News flash: taking a human life is never "okay." War is not morally okay just because you justify your cause for killing another person as being "good and true."

Spare us the sneering equivocation fallacy. Warfare is certainly justifiable under certain conditions and via certain methods. I'm sure you're aware of modern international law and its roots in Augustine's Just War Criteria.

Surely you don't want to get yourself knocked silly trying to apply Augustine's Just War Criteria justifications to the destruction and dismemberment of life in the womb.

twoguys2012 said...

"If someone forcibly takes the fetus from the mother against her will, it is murder. If the mother does it herself, it is ok."

This is akin to the whole Right to Die argument for assisted suicides. If you kill me, that's bad. If I have this guy kill me, with my consent, it's cool.

But I digress....

How many male pro-abortionists would be upset if their pregnant wife/girlfriend lost the pregnancy due to murder (of the woman), or say a car accident? Would it be a mourning for the life of their wife/girlfriend, or would there also be a mourning for the loss of their unborn baby?

This is why I find it brilliant to have a woman/girl see an ultrasound of this amazing human baby growing int heir womb before they can so casually kill it off in the name of convenience or female empowerment.

It is a life. It is alive. It moves, wiggles, kicks, pokes, pushes, and tosses about. How amazing!

Jack Camwell said...

If someone forcibly makes you donate to a charity, against your will, then that's wrong. That violates your freedom of choice. If you give to the charity of your own will, then there's no moral violation.

I don't have anything backwards, Silver. It's HER baby, and that baby is sustained entirely by HER body. No, the baby is not just an extension of her body, but she's the one that has to grow it, therefore it's her decision only.

Whether or not she's morally culpable for the *legal* decision she makes is between her and God. Her moral culpability is really none of your business. I mean, that is if we think conscience, morality, and religion are private matters, as many of you here are quick to assert.

Ducky's point (I think) was that your argument that consciousness is what separates us from animals, then your argument is weak.

dmarks said...

"Ducky's point (I think) was that your argument that consciousness is what separates us from animals, then your argument is weak."

I agree. Because it removes humanity from those who happen to be sleeping at the moment.

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "The fetus at an early stage is not viable outside the womb and is not self aware. Abortion is not murder."

Back before the 1860s, slave owners used similar silly logic to dehumanize slaves. And killing a slave was indeed legally not murder. It's quite similar.

twoguys2012 said...

"It's HER baby.."

Then this means she created it on her own, without any outside help, if the baby is HERS alone.

beamish said...

I agree. Because it removes humanity from those who happen to be sleeping at the moment.

Somewhere in orbit, DMarks' homerun just knocked a satellite off course.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack, now you appear to be purposefully obtuse. I'll proceed again with your comment:

What people like you don't understand is that you fall into the trap of rationalization. Instead of looking for what is objectively right and wrong, you rationalize all of your thoughts and beliefs to fit what you "feel" is right and wrong.

You have it backwards. We are arguing from a rational objective standard: A fetus is human life, and it is wrong to take it.

You are the one rationalizing it based upon whether it "feels" or whether the mother feels like keeping it or not. That is not objective; it is subjective, based upon emotion and weasely justifications.

And please go back and reread the part on what separates us from animals. You have grossly misstated what I said. My argument in no way hinges on "consciousness."

Your argument is incredibly weak. More so because you cannot properly restate what you are arguing against.

Anonymous said...

Haven't we just been through all this shit before -- several times?

Why are we going through it again just so all the vain, puffed up, self-righteous bigots have yet another opportunity to strut their stuff?

Haven't most of us agreed a long time ago that doing the same thing over and over in hopes of producing a different result is a good functioning definition of insanity?

I'd much rather talk about how we could ever find out for sure that Andrew Breitbart was, indeed, murdered.

~ FreeThinke

Jack Camwell said...

Then if someone is still human without consciousness, then there's something other than consciousness that makes us human.

This is where you all are screwed, because none of you can answer what it means to be human.

Is euthanasia murder? Is pulling the plug on a brain dead human murder? Is killing out of self-defense murder?

I'm not making any equivelancy arguments here. I'm not trying to say that "killing in war is the same as killing an unborn baby." My point is that life isn't always as simple as some of you black and white moralists want to think. It's easy for us men to sit here and say what we think is right and wrong in the situation considering we'll never, EVER be faced with the choice ourselves.

Also, stop trying to pretend that I just don't care about unborn babies. You can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make, so to cope with that you lump me into some category that you can understand.

If my wife aborted our baby, even if it was for a justifiable reason, I'd mourn the loss. I know, some of you like to generalize and keep your little worldviews intact, but I do believe in the sanctity of life, even if it's a 2 celled human.

What I find *hilarious* though is that you all completely fail to see that you're cherrypicking, even while you're accusing ME of cherrypicking.

Taking a life is only okay as long as you FEEL it's okay. I contend that taking a life is never "okay" in the sense that it's a good thing. I just don't lie to myself or others about it.

Silverfiddle said...

Why are we going through it again...?

Because it's my freaking blog, that's why!

You don't like it lump it, take it down the road and dump it!

Go listen to Rush Limbaugh if you want politics. I am freaking sick of politics!

If I want to blog on philosophical issues I will damned well do so.

Read the "pro choice" words here. They collapse into logical incoherence when confronted with the objective truth that an abortion is snuffing a human life.

This is instructive. If you don't like it go haunt FreeRepublic or World Nut Daily...

beamish said...

Well for God's sake, start a blog, FT.

twoguys2012 said...

FT makes a point. Pro-lifers and pro-abortionists have been speaking of this issue for hundreds of ears, but moreso within our lifetimes due to the feminist movement and the ill-decided Roe v. Wade travesty.

I will never be pro-abortion. I expect pro-abortionists will never be pro-life. Simple as that. I wonder though, how many pro-abortionist men aren't fathers? I have witnessed and have partaken in the births of my two daughters, both under the age of three at present. I know the feelings, the wonder, the amazing miracle that life is from a real hands-on experience. I doubt a man who has never been there when their wife has given birth can understand my pro-life stance.

FT also said:
"I'd much rather talk about how we could ever find out for sure that Andrew Breitbart was, indeed, murdered."

There's a blog post right there, waiting to happen.

beamish said...

none of you can answer what it means to be human.

Prove you're human, then. Go ahead.

Jack Camwell said...

Except for the fact that I've admitted, probably 87 times or so, that abortion IS taking a human life, and it IS always regrettable, and that it's NEVER a good thing.

The death penalty takes a human life.

War takes human lives.

Pulling the plug on a loved one takes a human life.

Allowing a person to be killed when you could have prevented it makes you indirectly responsible for taking a human life.

Killing someone in self-defense is taking a human life.

I will say this one. more. time.

Taking a human life is NEVER a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometime's it's murder. Sometimes it's just plain killing. No matter how you slice it, it's never good, and of course there are varying degrees of how bad it is.

The best thing that any human being can do is follow their conscience. In this imperfect world, that's all we can really hope for.

And as far as the consciousness argument, perhaps that was the wrong word. So lets break it down further. There is a clear difference between a human being who is capable of higher thought and a monkey.

What about a human who has the cognitive capacity of a monkey? Does that make the person less human? No. So again, what makes someone human?

Fredd said...

I will never to my dying day understand why some on the right are compelled to 'discuss' issues like abortion with liberals.

There is no middle ground, no meeting of the minds, no changing of hearts, no compromise available. There is good and evil here. Trying to persuade someone into not being evil is just not possible.

There is only one solution to an issue such as this, as was the case with slavery: the side that takes the evil position must be defeated. Just like the South during the 'War of Northern Agression' justified holding their fellow man in bondage for economic reasons, killing fellow humans under much the same reasoning is evil and supporters of attrocities such as abortion must be defeated.

Not argued with.

Abortion is just slavery all over again: we allow women possession of their unborn babies, to discard and destroy as they would any other property, without penalty, without conscience.

Monstrous. And everyone knows it.

Silverfiddle said...

No one is cherry picking, Jack. You keep confusing the issue

My point is that life isn't always as simple as some of you black and white moralists want to think.

That is squishy justification and you are all over the place. First you accuse of of not being objective and now call us punctilious moralists. Are you abandoning one line of attack for another? The two are not compatible.

OK, let's try to break this down into two parts.


1. Life is simple. Every human being has a fundamental right to life. I think we all agree on that.

2. When is it right to take a human life?

I think #2 is where the disagreement is, and btw, this is where I think this debate needs to be. Calling a human life in the womb just a glob of tissue or, God forbid, a woman's property, is skirting the issue.

Is it ever morally ok to take a human life in the womb, that is the question.

Silverfiddle said...

Alright Jack, I am guilty of deploying an argument without a hundred pages of justification. I am sorry you find it so hard to understand that human being are capable of transcendental activities that the animal kingdom is not.

Because of this human beings have intrinsic value and thus every human being possesses a right to life, regardless of whether they have actualized their full human potential. The state otherwise is to go the way of the eugenicists of the early 20th Century.

Go google "human beings transcendental" and you will see what I am talking about.

Silverfiddle said...

Fredd:

I engage in this apparent act of futility for two reasons:

First, to get the hardcore lefty pro-abortionists on record clearly stating that a baby's life means less that a mother's whims.

Secondly, to reach well-meaning people who have fallen for the 40 years of incoherent, feel-good claptrap.

"Facing unpleasant facts" as Orwell once said, is very important to gaining clarity.

twoguys2012 said...

Jack,

You said:
"Taking a human life is NEVER a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometime's it's murder. Sometimes it's just plain killing. No matter how you slice it, it's never good, and of course there are varying degrees of how bad it is."

So this means that in cases of proven rape and incest, it is necessary to kill that unborn baby, since by doing so it will remove the sin of said rape or incest? Kinda the whole 'shedding of innocent blood for the remission of sin' mentality. By killing, necessarily, that baby that is the fruit of such heinous acts, everything will be okay.

Hmm.

Now where have I heard that before?

In all honesty, Jack, I believe I have exhausted my ability to speak to you, kinda one-on-one, about the abortion issue. I'm tapped out.

You believe that abortion is permissible and necessary for The Big Three reasons, but even then you are not seeing the forest for the trees. That baby, now growing in the womb of the woman or girl that was treated so poorly, is innocent. It is not culpable. It did nothing wrong. But you would say it is necessary for him/her to die.

Jack, you're breaking my heart.

Jack Camwell said...

beamish: I never said I have the answer to what it means to be human. Some of the greatest philosophers were never fully certain. My guess is you don't have the answer either, based on everything you've said so far.

How is what I said incompatible? Many of you view things in morally black and white terms, but your determination of what's right and wrong is based heavily on subjectivity, ie it's based off of what you "feel" is right and wrong, rather than what might actually be right and wrong. Moral rightness and wrongness might be black and white, I'll admit that much, but when we start talking about necessity and justification, that's where things become gray.

Also, thank GOD we both agree that it's NOT just a glob of tissue or a woman's property. Maybe now we can move on from that argument?

Is it ever morally okay to take a life in the womb? I rightly don't know. Probably not. I mean, considering that I would likely ask God forgiveness even if it was to save my life, that's probably a good indication that it's morally wrong even then. But that doesn't mean that it's not justified.

twoguys2012 said...

Jack,

"Is it ever morally okay to take a life in the womb? I rightly don't know. Probably not. I mean, considering that I would likely ask God forgiveness even if it was to save my life, that's probably a good indication that it's morally wrong even then. But that doesn't mean that it's not justified."

Those comments are so rife with hypocrisy and double-standard rhetoric, it amazes me that you even said it aloud on this blog.

We're talking about innocent life, here. When is killing the innocent, the most helpless of all helpless, ever justified?

Jack Camwell said...

No, twoguys, I never said that it's necessary in rape and incest. I don't think that all rape and incest babies should be aborted, and certainly not out of a sense that they're somehow paying for someone else's crime.

It might be necessary if the mother feels as though she cannot emotionally and psychologically bear raising her rape baby. But that's for her to decide, not me. Sure, she could give the baby up for adoption, but she would still have to carry that baby for 9 months and give birth to it. She didn't ask for it, and in that case she was impregnated through no fault of her own.

The necessity is for her to decide. The moral culpability is between her and whatever god she believes in.

Don't think I'm unfeeling about this, or unempathetic to the little lives lost. It actually pains me a lot to admit that I'm pro-choice.

Jack Camwell said...

When is it ever justified? Well when it's to save the mother's life, for one. Maybe that's the only case.

And where have I espoused some sort of double standard? Like you've never had to do something immoral because you felt you had no other choice? If your life has been that easy, then I applaud your incredible luck.

No, there's no double standard. I'm just man enough to admit that I don't have all the answers.

twoguys2012 said...

Jack,

You said:
"No, twoguys, I never said that it's necessary in rape and incest."

Then what did you mean by this statement from earlier:

"If I were a woman, I'd never get one except for the big three reasons."

Jack, not looking for an argument, just some clarification. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous words.

Jack Camwell said...

That's just my own personal thought on it. I probably could not handle having a rape or incest baby, so for my own psychological health I'd probably think it necessary to abort the baby. I like being alive, so if my life were in jeopardy then I'd think it necessary for me to live.

I didn't mean that I think it's always necessary in every case, just for me. If a woman wants to give her life to give birth, then that's for her to decide. If she wants to birth and raise her rape baby, then that's up to her.

That's the whole thing with me, is that I can't decide whether or not it's necessary for a woman. It might be necessary, it might not be. I can't tell a woman that she MUST bear and birth her rape baby, because I can't possibly decide what's best for her. Just as well, I can't tell a woman that she MUST abort her rape baby.

Does that make sense? If not I'll try to clarify in some other way.

And Silver, you know I'm not an idiot, so the attacks against my level of understanding seem kind of pointless, don't they?

Yes, every human has an intrinsic value. But what is a human? Just some group of cells that happens to have the right genetic code? Not all humans have the ability to realize ANY potential for qualities that we deem to be transcendental. Some humans are born broken, forever incapable of being anything more than an infant.

So no, not all human beings are capable of transcendental activities. SO where does that leave us?

Jack Camwell said...

"First, to get the hardcore lefty pro-abortionists on record clearly stating that a baby's life means less that a mother's whims.

Secondly, to reach well-meaning people who have fallen for the 40 years of incoherent, feel-good claptrap."

I meet neither of these criteria, Silver. Do you think I feel good about being pro-choice? Do you think it provides me some sort of comfort knowing that life can be miserable and horrifying?

So in what category do I fit?

Always On Watch said...

FT said: Haven't we just been through all this shit before -- several times?

I say: No doubt!

I am of the view that women contemplating abortion should see the ultrasound. Full disclosure -- with no words from a medical person present one way or the other.

The number of abortions performed for medical reason -- minuscule. The same goes for cases of rape or incest. In fact, most raped women whom I personally know had a D&C or a dose of hormones to prevent conception as soon as the rape kit was complete -- before any pregnancy test was conducted (if such a test was even available decades ago).

And one more thing....Look at the sperm and egg under a microscope. Clearly, both are alive!

Silverfiddle said...

AOW: The very distinct difference between sperm and egg and an embryo, is that the sperm and egg are not human life, an embryo is.


Jack: I am not calling you dumb. I am saying you are all over the place. Read this:

Yes, every human has an intrinsic value. But what is a human? Just some group of cells that happens to have the right genetic code? Not all humans have the ability to realize ANY potential for qualities that we deem to be transcendental. Some humans are born broken, forever incapable of being anything more than an infant.

You make a declarative statement, and then equivocate.

Human beings are separate from animals because of actualization and transcendental activities. Even a human being who does not fully actualize is still a human being, and that puts you in a category of having a fundamental right to your life.

Some humans do not display "full actualization" (a subjective judgment), but we are all still in the category of human being.

So are human beings who cannot fully actualize still human? Do they still have a fundamental right to not be killed?

That is the issue. Answering in anything other than the affirmative would be chilling.

And speaking of "actualizing potential," based on subjective criteria, one cannot pass that judgment on a fetus, but one could on a severely disabled person. Where does that lead us?

When you abandon an objective criteria of what is human life, it gets very murky.

dmarks said...

"So are human beings who cannot fully actualize still human? Do they still have a fundamental right to not be killed?"

That's the Bill Maher logic. That handicapped people who don't "Advance" aren't even human beings. To be treated like dogs, and killed and abused at will.

Jack said: "Do you think it provides me some sort of comfort knowing that life can be miserable and horrifying?"

And your attitude in favor of abortion makes life more so.

dmarks said...

Fredd said: "Abortion is just slavery all over again: we allow women possession of their unborn babies, to discard and destroy as they would any other property, without penalty, without conscience."

And it is also about money (there's a lot of it in the abortion industry) and the sick thrill some of the strong have for killing the weak to feel good about having that power.

Hack said...

The mere fact that this discussion is even needed tells me one thing. That there truly are evil people and there will always be evil people in this world. By my estimation, abortion rights advocates, abortion doctors, and anyone who supports the practice of abortion in any way shape or form is absolutely no different from any mass murderer in world history.

Silverfiddle brings up a good point. If it isn't life, why not just kill it and walk away with a clean conscience? Why do we see most women who have had abortions suffer from depression and psychological conditions later in life?

Deep down, everyone knows abortion is snuffing out a human life. Even the most callous of leftists have some strand of humanity left in their souls and that small remaining piece of humanity always tells them that abortion is wrong.

Jersey McJones said...

You cons have got to get it through your head that most people do not consider a blastocyst, or an embryo, or whatever stage of pre-sentient, pre-human, is not a human life on par with a woman. And therefore abortion, to most developed, modern people, is not murder. Period.

You are not going to convince us otherwise, so grow the fuck up and get over it and get your stupid fuckin' noses out of other people's business, you nosy screwballs.

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

@twoguys2012(aka Samuel Huntington)So this means that in cases of proven rape and incest, it is necessary to kill that unborn baby, since by doing so it will remove the sin of said rape or incest?

------

Are you insane?
First, the main argument against birth control is that the act of sex within marriage should allow for the divine act of creation. Okay, that doesn't mangle reason.
However to move on to rape there is clearly no loving act of creation. We've moved into a serious gray area.

Women should have the right to control that gray area. That's what's being said. It isn't necessary or ordained that the fetus be aborted but it is not your choice.

Ducky's here said...

@Silverfiddle - First, to get the hardcore lefty pro-abortionists on record clearly stating that a baby's life means less that a mother's whims.


-----

No, first it is necessary to debate and not allow you to control the language. The fetus is not a baby in the most common usage.

Now, the fringe right short bussers are going to try to control the conversation with "kill babies" and they're going to get stuffed. Simple.

It's a tough issue and it deserves honest debate.

twoguys2012 said...

Samuel Huntington? Sounds like an awesome fella.

I'm just waiting breathlessly for the moment you lose it and begin to type hateful and vile emotionally-charged rhetoric that is so common to your presence here.

Abortion stops a beating heart. If I stopped a person's beating heart, outside of the womb, it's called murder. Yet, in a womb, it's applauded as female empowerment/population control/choice/ethnic cleansing, all by the misanthropic left.

Shame, that. The irony, of course, is that your mother chose life.

Silverfiddle said...

Congratulations Jersey. You just made an excellent argument for mob rules. If a majority thinks it OK to kill you, bye bye!

@ JacK: I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases.

What objective criteria do you use to judge the moral rightness or moral wrongness in each case?

OK Ducky, here's an update:

First, to get the hardcore lefty pro-abortionists on record clearly stating that a fetus's life means less that a mother's whims.

Change the name, you're still killing a human life.

And I doubt Two Guys is Sam Huntington. Different styles of writing.

Trestin said...

Ducky, if killing a fetus is not murder, why does the law rule killing a pregnant woman a double homicide?

Ducky's here said...

Because the law is an ass to quote Dickens.

Just an activist legislature's desire to have their dogma supreme rather than accept choice.

Anonymous said...

Jersey: You cons have got to get it through your head that most people do not consider a blastocyst, or an embryo, or whatever stage of pre-sentient, pre-human, is not a human life on par with a woman


Careful fella, you're on the same slippery slope that led these Oxford trained "ethicists" ( and I use the term grudgingly ) right over the edge. In their view, and to use their term 'post-birth abortions", infanticide to those of us in the civilized world, are fully justifiable since newborns are "morally irrelevant".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

When I first read that article it was with stunned disbelief, followed by outrage. However, after several days to think about it I've decided that these two may have given yeoman's service to the pro life movement by displaying to the world the philosophical underpinnings of the pro-abortion argument. Stripping bare the trappings of choice and privacy and all the other specious excuses they reveal a barbaric, callous, depraved indifference to human life in its most helpless and innocent state.

Finally the news is out, and all the scrambling of the "pro-choice" folks to walk it back and disassociate themselves from such a blatant statement of their 'ethics' is going to sound like the wizard telling Dorothy "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'

viburnum

beamish said...

beamish: I never said I have the answer to what it means to be human. Some of the greatest philosophers were never fully certain. My guess is you don't have the answer either, based on everything you've said so far.

I'm fairly well read on philosophers, and I can't name one that doesn't know what a human is.

Further to my point, there's nothing about a human in the womb that causes me to "philosophize" that that human is not a human.

How is what I said incompatible? Many of you view things in morally black and white terms, but your determination of what's right and wrong is based heavily on subjectivity, ie it's based off of what you "feel" is right and wrong, rather than what might actually be right and wrong. Moral rightness and wrongness might be black and white, I'll admit that much, but when we start talking about necessity and justification, that's where things become gray.

I disagree. Once you admit the humanity of the human in the womb, arguments to make killing that human "necessary" or "justifiable" require addressing the ethics and morality of doing so. Aborted or not, that human in the womb at no point loses its humanity.

Which is why the pro-abortion side wants a moral language pass on killing another human being. They want to call a human something else because their efforts at dialectical materialism still have not been able to redefine murder of innocents as a "good and true" thing.

Finntann said...

To illustrate Viburnum's point, I'll ask Jack:

Is a newborn viable or self-aware?

And Ducky's "Because the law is an ass" and Jersey's pure democracy majority rule is just as absurd...

Why did they free all those black people? "Just an activist legislature's desire to have their dogma supreme rather than accept choice".

There is a distinct difference between law and morality. After all, it was legal in Nazi Germany to burn Jews like cordwood, nevertheless it was still immoral.

Now don't be cluttering up my woods with your unwanted offspring, the wolf population is down.

Cheers!

beamish said...

You cons have got to get it through your head that most people do not consider a blastocyst, or an embryo, or whatever stage of pre-sentient, pre-human, is not a human life on par with a woman. And therefore abortion, to most developed, modern people, is not murder. Period.

I don't think you're speaking for the 6 billion people on out planet. Certainly not speaking in legal terms for the vast majorities of humans living under national jurisdictions around the world where abortion is illegal in most cases.

Not that decriminalization of abortion on demand was ever put on the ballot in America for a decisive popular vote, or anything. Probably because posing the question in a democratic fashion would have abortion on demand illegalized in total by the next day.

In Roe v. Wade (1973), seven out of nine male humans imposed that ruling on the rest of the nation. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supremes voted 5 to 4 in favor of upholding a state's right to restrict abortions under certain circumstances while striking down other restrictions imposed by Pennsylvania. In both cases, you have nine people voicing their opinions on abortion. You don't have a consensus even at that small sample of Americans who have power in judicial matters. I'm failing to see how you'd sell abortion on demand as a "woman's right" to the vast majority of humans outside America that legally disagree, none really so different in modernity or development.

Unless of course, you're one of those silly Nazis that imply that legalized abortion on demand makes a nation more "modern" and "developed" than nations where the practice remains both illegal and viewed as barbaric.

You are not going to convince us otherwise, so grow the fuck up and get over it and get your stupid fuckin' noses out of other people's business, you nosy screwballs.

You're supposed to end such exhortations with a hearty "Sieg Heil!" Be that as it may, abortion on demand is illegal in most of the world. You are the minority, not us.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

...And Jersey, you're still not touching whether or not you believe the pre-natal / peri-natal medicine and surgery professions are "quackery," and what that does to your "modern, developed people" abortion on demand argument.

twoguys2012 said...

I'd like to take a moment and just give Planned Parenthood a heartfelt and much-needed bit of congratulations:

"Your services are making a killing! Here's to another profitable year in the (wink-wink) women's reproductive health field! (snicker)"

Thank you. That is all.

'Hark the herald angels sing,
glory to the newborn...'

...unless that damn thing will be an inconvenience, of course. Then it's off to the chopping block with you!

Jersey McJones said...

I love these "scientific" arguments about "when life begins" and these fun comparisons to Nazi eugenics and "mob rules" made of people who simply do not agree with you. Most people. You know. MOST PEOPLE. You are the loonies on this one. YOU are imposing YOUR will and "truths" and "facts" on everyone else. I mean, how the fuck do you prove the moment when a human is a human??? You have no scientific control! You ARE a friggin' human! Shall we just let the mice make their own mazes from now on???

Look, abortion is very unpleasant subject (which is why you cons love it), but we can't go around forcing poor women to have kids. I just don't see how that helps anyone involved, them, the rest of us, and the unlucky embryo.

JMJ

Lisa said...

"but we can't go around forcing poor women to have kids."

Jersey here a pretty good responseto that statement

Silverfiddle said...

How about a beating heart, Ducky? IS that human enough for you?

beamish said...

I love these "scientific" arguments about "when life begins" and these fun comparisons to Nazi eugenics and "mob rules" made of people who simply do not agree with you. Most people. You know. MOST PEOPLE. You are the loonies on this one.

Despite my personal full rejection of the easily refuted and absurd belief that leftists are actually capable of rational thought, I've been very polite in catering to your special needs, Jersey.

I now hereby rescind that courtesy. Openly considering you to be an imbecile is no more objectively or subjectively insulting than considering a couch to be a piece of furniture.

So drop your "most people" imbecility. Most of the over 6 billion people on Earth do not share your delusion that a human in the womb is not alive, seeing that they all began their lives in the womb at conception. This has produced a planet with a variety of cultures and beliefs, the overwhelming majority of them with laws that recognize fetal humans have a right to life and the overwhelming majority of them outlawing or restricting abortion under most circumstances. Legal abortion on demand for any reason upon the whims of the mother is a rarity on our planet. Abortion on demand for any whimsical reason whatsoever - the so-called "woman's right" - is legal in only 32 of Earth's 196 countries. Add 30 more countries to that tally if you want to include countries that allow for abortion on demand in the first trimester. Your "most people" have only successfully legalized the murder of people in the womb in 62 of 196 countries. In those remaining 134 countries that outlaw abortion on demand, their local cultures that find abortion abhorrent and barbaric keep abortion on demand illegal and largely unthinkable. These are not "loonies." Nor are the quite sizeable contingents of people opposed to abortion in countries where abortion on demand is legal "loonies."

Even if you charitably grant that the abortion on demand advocates in countries where it is legal represent a slim majority of 51% (a much higher rate than even in the world's abortion capital of the USA) in all of those 62 or 196 countries, you're not going to get anywhere near "most people" on our planet.

As I said before, YOU are the minority. Thinking you're "most people" makes YOU the "looney."

beamish said...

..and pre-natal / perinatal physicians and surgeons are also not "loonies."

If the imbecilic Left can't even get the basic, settled science of human life in the womb correct, why should we tolerate their farcical claims to have settled the science on anthropogenic climate change.

Then again, we're talking about people okay with the math of government spending $1.45 when they only have a dollar, so the wholesale scientific and logical illiteracy endemic on the Left is just rearing its drooling head again.

Anonymous said...

Jersey: I mean, how the fuck do you prove the moment when a human is a human???

A human is always a human. Even before fertilization/conception. Sperm and egg of H. sapiens have never combined to produce a whale, a wildebeest, or a wombat. Being human is in your genes as it was in those of your parents.

Given that, the question is more properly when does it become an individual? That occurs at conception when the genes of the parents combine to produce an organism genetically distinct from it's parents.

This isn't religion, or politics. It's science. There simply is no point in a persons development from egg to embryo, from fetus, to infant, from child to man at which it is NOT human.

So now you're back at making a subjective judgment concerning at what point you're comfortable with killing another human being. Enjoy the internal debate.

viburnum

twoguys2012 said...

Jersey,

You said:
"YOU are imposing YOUR will and "truths" and "facts" on everyone else."
--------

That would be a true statement if abortion were illegal. But, as it stands, it is not, so in reality it is folks like YOU who are imposing YOUR will upon the people.

YOUR Supreme Court ruled that a human baby isn't. YOUR feminist organizations desire death of the unborn. YOUR political party applauds abortion under the false umbrella of 'freedom of choice'.

For thousands of years, babies were born to billions of women,and no one complained. Men and women had families together. It's how it was. This 'abortion rights' mantra is still in its newborn stages when you look at the big picture of human history. It is YOUR people who are whining and fussing and screaming and complaining about that which is easily the most natural thing a woman could ever do, seeking to buck the pure biology of womanhood.

And all because YOUR people made the decision that a woman should be a sperm-donation station and have the right to tear that baby from her womb, lest she be 'punished' with it, and thereby exert her femininity.

YOUR people are forcing YOUR wills upon the American people, and you have the blood of millions on your hands and heads.

Enough of this thread for me. I have wallowed in sin too long with it. I desperately need a spiritual shower.

twoguys2012 said...

beamish,

"If the imbecilic Left can't even get the basic, settled science of human life in the womb correct, why should we tolerate their farcical claims to have settled the science on anthropogenic climate change."

Brilliant, sir. Nicely said. And so, so true.

jez said...

Seems to me the more productive line of questioning is "why is it wrong to kill?" The two top reasons are imo 1) suffering and 2) violation of freedom, negating the hopes and plans that your victim has built up.
I don't have many strong opinions on abortion, but I do feel inclined to defend contraceptives such as the coil which "murder" blastocysts, which I really don't care about in the slightest. No brain => no suffering, hopes or dreams. What's the problem?

I expect you military folks have pondered the morality of killing more deeply than I, so I'd be grateful for your takes on it.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

@Jack - "Taking a human life is NEVER a good thing."

Gee, i thought that killing osama and mass murderers, serial killers, pedophiles and child killers was always a good thing. Every time i hear of one such killing, i feel the urge to have a celebratory drink.

@Jersey - "I just don't see how that helps anyone involved, them, the rest of us, and the unlucky embryo."

Why does allowing a baby to be born have to help the rest of us, i'm referring to people unrelated to the baby?

If the criteria for escaping the abortionists blade is providing some sort of 'help' to the general public, isn't that justification for executing the homeless, welfare queens etc. And what about drug dealers, pedophiles, rapists etc, they're definitely not helping. They're not helping us, so just shoot them, yes?

As for the embryo, why is it unlucky for it to be born, why do you automatically assume that all the unwanted unborn are doomed to a life of misery and hopelessness, and are better off sliced up and tossed out? Why must they be denied a chance, no you won't amount to anything, you'll just be a useless pustule, so we'll save everyone the trouble and get rid of you.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

@Jack - "I can't tell a woman that she MUST bear and birth her rape baby, because I can't possibly decide what's best for her."

Would you tell a woman who wasn't raped or isn't in danger of death that she cannot abort her baby? If not, where do you draw the line, at what point in the pregnancy should it be illegal to have an abortion? Apologies if you've already answered these questions.

twoguys2012 said...

jez,

"I expect you military folks have pondered the morality of killing more deeply than I, so I'd be grateful for your takes on it."
--------

I'll drive that tanker. jez, here's 'my take'.


-A hero doesn't die for his country, but he makes the other guy die for his.

-Bravery never caused me to squeeze the trigger, but fear sure motivated the shit outta me.

-As to the morality of killing, what can one say? It was either that guy or me, and there was no way I was going to die at the hands of a Muslim extremist.

-Yes, these were sons, brothers, and fathers that were killed, but we had orders and we had training and we didn't struggle with the morality of our actions, since it is a sure fact that killing is not the same as murder. As mentioned before, it was them or us and we were not going to give them a drop of our blood.

-I cannot speak (and am not speaking) for the whole of any present or former military men, but I had no issue with the morality of killing for our Nation, and in obedience to my orders. I will openly admit that after the first time I took another's life, I vomited. I did not thump my chest, or grab my crotch, or parade about like some conquering hero. I vomited. But I got better as time progressed.

Anonymous said...

Two Guys,

I'm sure you didn't intend it, but you just gave a most eloquent defense to the plight of German Soldiers and other German nationals caught up in the vicious machinations of the Third Reich.

I have always sympathized with the victims of rotten leadership who literally have no choice but to do the bidding of whatever Authority commands them, or be killed.

Thanks.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

FROM ANOTHER BLOG on the SAME SUBJECT

The relevance should quickly become clear.

Black Sheep,

I am religious, but appreciate your tolerant sentiments and understanding of the implicit subtleties and complexities surrounding abortion, and largely concur. 

I am sick to death of this particular subject, because I truly believe that a fanatical obsession with it as The Paramount Issue of our Time acts as a red herring leading us away from dealing with problems even more fundamental to the future well-being of humanity.




Also, it gives ferocious bigots who live primarily to denigrate, discredit and verbally abuse others a great opportunity to strut their stuff and still appear -- God help us! -- "righteous."




The impulse to dominate and micromanage OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES is rooted in humanity's regrettable capacity to indulge in the practice of SADISM -- a perversion that has found infinite ways to cloak itself in the guise of Respectability since time immemorial.


What ELSE do you think Slavery, The Colosseum, The Crucifixion, The Crusades, The Inquisition, Cromwell's Persecutions, the dreadful deeds of Hernando Cortes, The Salem Witch Trials, The Bolshevik Revolution, and The Third Reich could have been about?




The answer is NOTHING.




Not the love of money but the desire to beat others down, and subjugate them to our will is the Root of All Evil.


"Beware of those in whom the will to punish is strong.”

~ Nietzsche


I know little of Nietzsche. I’ve heard he has a bad rep, but I certainly agree with his statement there.


~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: The problem with your criteria, or any of the criteria posited here, is that is essentially human being passing judgement on other human beings who cannot defend themselves.

Why not kill the blind deaf mutes who just sit all day and must be taken care of? You see where this leads.

If human life is sacred, or a fundamental right of the individual, then it may only be taken in the most serious of circumstances such as a just war or in defense of the life of others.

Making exceptions is a slippery slope that demeans the intrinsic value of human life and eventually leads to greater and greater inhumanities.

Anonymous said...

FT: I know little of Nietzsche. I’ve heard he has a bad rep, but I certainly agree with his statement there.

I've always gotten a chuckle out of the sentiment expressed by William James who likened the writings of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer to "...the sick shrieking of two dying rats."

A bad rap indeed!

viburnum

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure we ought to regard William James as the ultimate arbiter in the matter. He seems more than a wee bit biased from the tone of the quotation you cited. I am a great admirer of William's brother Henry, whose writings are frankly superb, even if his sentence structure is enormously complex and convoluted.

At any rate, I should think the small-but-profound observation I quoted from Nietzsche hardly deserves to be categorized as "the shrieking of a dying rat."

But, perhaps that's only because I agree with it? ;-)

~ FreeThinke

twoguys2012 said...

Abortion on demand, and for convenience, cheapens all human life.

Let's take this to its logical conclusion.

Start:
Babies...dead. (They're not really human, after all.)

Elderly...dead. (What do they really do for society any longer? Just leeches on our time and finances.)

Handicapped...dead. (It's for the best, since we all know the mentally handicapped and physically-challenged will never rise to proper societal enrichment.)

Minorities...dead. (It's not racism, it's weeding out undesirables and criminals.)

Homosexuals...dead. (Sure, we all love us some homosexual men for their comedic contributions, but deep down inside we all know they are worthless as contributors to our daily living and to The Big Picture of Utopia.)

Scoff if you wish, but this is the path that will be followed the longer human babies are looked upon as less than human.

And I guarantee it will not be the rightists who espouse or push for these mandates.

Anonymous said...

Give this a gander. It's sure to get your glands gasping:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/dutch-mobile-euthanasia-units


An enlightened approach?


Or a sign of Ultimate Deterioration to Civilization?


YOU be the JUDGE.


~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

I hate this stupid subject. It's such a stupid, divisive distraction.

We pro-choicers tell you guys, look, there are many, many people, like us, out there who do not find your arguments compelling, and we feel that safe, legal, early-term elective abortion is a necessity in this modern civilization of ours. That's it. Thus far, over these past few decades, you have not convinced most of us that we should change our minds. So, what do you want to do? To force the issue against the wills of most us? To force poor woman and girls to have babies?

What do you want?

Why can't you see what a stupid, divisive issue this is and leave it alone???

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
-- Mahatma Ghandi

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Why can't you see what a stupid, divisive issue this is and leave it alone???

I find it a fundamental question of philosophy which has obvious broad ramifications in society, politics, and law. So how can it be stupid?

Our host invited us to a philosophical discussion and you freely joined in. Expressing your opinion carries a concomitant responsibility to defend it. While I’ll grant you some of the entries here on both sides contain more heat than light, it need only be as divisive as we make it.

viburnum

Z said...

Z said...

SF, AMen to Ghandi's quote.
Jersey...the point isn't about changing the law, sadly; I don't believe that will ever happen. The point is the preciousness of all life and how there is news coming out of Europe now where people are saying "If abortion is okay, not allowing a newborn to live is okay, too". You must have seen those reports from hospitals in Scandinavia, I believe. NOt sure where it was, but it was this last week. We're going down a slippery slope..and fast.

SF...I hope you saw Kirk Cameron on Piers Morgan last night. Amazing truth...unafraid. Another hero of our day from the faith standpoint.

Finntann said...

Here is an interesting legal twist for this argument:

"en ventre de sa mère" or "in the belly of the mother" under the Uniform Probate Code.

If an unborn baby is not a person, how come it can inherit property?

There have been many cases in both civil and criminal law at both the federal and state level in which the rights of the unborn have been established by precedent and preserved by ruling.

And would you believe there are states where a 15 year old can get an abortion without the legal consent of the parents, but can not get her ears pierced without consent.

http://www.paulstam.info/pages/articles/unborn_children.html

Cheers!

twoguys2012 said...

JMJ,

I can understand your beliefs regarding what you referred to as 'early-term' abortions.

How do you feel or what are your thoughts on 'partial-birth abortions'?

To abort a growing human being is one thing, (early-term), but to slay the baby as it is coming out of the womb is quite another.

Just in case you do not know of which I speak:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/partial_birth_abortion.jpg

Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

twoguys2012 said...

This is older news, but worth another look.

Does an unborn baby have rights outside of the mother's? Let's see- This is from GMA website from years ago.
-----

"Federal lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would make it a crime to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a federal violent crime against a pregnant woman.

The bill, which sponsors are calling "Laci and Connor's law" is backed by Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant when she was slain in California in 2002. Scott Peterson, her widower, is being charged both with Laci's slaying, and the slaying of their unborn son, Connor, because California is one of 29 states with so-called fetal homicide laws.

Supporters of the federal bill say that it helps tighten up federal criminal code. But opponents charge that the bill is all about abortion politics and that supporters are exploiting the Peterson murder. The proposed law grants "personhood" status to a fetus, and would be the first time that federal law established individual legal rights for a fetus, separate from those enjoyed by the mother."
-----

Hm. If there are 'fetal homicide laws' already in place, does this mean that a fetus is a human being with inalienable rights? If so, well, then purposely removing by force a fetus from his/her mother's womb so it will die and go away, should be a crime, right?

Jersey McJones said...

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
-- Mahatma Ghandi

Silver, you are not going to convince me or any other pro-choicer that an embryo is a member of a nation.
___

viburnum,

'I find it a fundamental question of philosophy which has obvious broad ramifications in society, politics, and law. So how can it be stupid?"

Because the argument just goes around and around and goes nowhere. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers are still pro-choicers and pro-lifers. There is little middle ground, and it is only the pro-choicers who have any right to lose, unless you believe embryos have rights equal to born, living, breathing citizens, which of course, pro-choicers, like me, do not.

In other words, this argument is going nowhere. And that's why it is stupid.
___

Z,

I don't think "preciousness" should be a legal concern.
___

FT,

"If an unborn baby is not a person, how come it can inherit property?"

It can because that is the intent of the grantee. A private library is not a person, yet it too can inherit property.

"And would you believe there are states where a 15 year old can get an abortion without the legal consent of the parents, but can not get her ears pierced without consent."

Yes, and that's good. We don't want 15 year old girls being forced to carry what would legally be their rapists babies, FT.
___

twoguys2012

(I love that moniker, by the way. I have fond memories of shopping with my family at Two Guys when I was a kid)

"How do you feel or what are your thoughts on 'partial-birth abortions'?"

Well, I can only hope that the law is enforced and we don't have any elective late-term abortion. I doubt most doctors would do that anyway. Late-term abortions are supposed to only be done for serious medical reasons. That being the case, I defer to the experts. All I know is if my wife needed, for the sake of her health, a late-term abortion, I would support her all the way. The particular method of the abortion should be whatever is medically necessary to perform the procedure. Some procedures are pretty disturbing. Such is the nature of medicine.

As for harming a fetus in the commission of a crime, that has always been considered both an aggravating factor and a crime unto itself for thousands of years, makes perfect legal sense, and really has nothing to do with early-term elective abortion.

There's an easy way of seeing this: Imagine a woman in her early pregnancy, but doesn't know it yet, is criminally assaulted and loses the child, but never knows it? Get it? It would be a tree falling in the woods. That's the difference between an embryo itself, and a woman or a known fetus being carried to term by a mother.

JMJ

Z said...

JMJ, I didn't say it was.

Anonymous said...

JMJ: "Because the argument just goes around and around and goes nowhere."

Unfortunately it isn’t just going nowhere. It’s progressed from a first trimester limit to the point where supposedly educated individuals specializing in the study of ethics can proclaim in a serious medical journal that infanticide should be acceptable since newborns are “morally irrelevant”. And there’s the rub. If that isn't a reductio to the entire premise, what is? Where does it stop?

viburnum

viburnum

Jersey McJones said...

Well then, Z, what else is there to say on that subject? Your philosophical interest is all well and wine, but at Silver's real "heart of the matter" this is a legal matter, be you pro-choice or pro-life. This is a regulated, medical procedure.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

The Wages of Sin

Dreary and confounding though it be
Each nubile female must be made to face
A battery of choices seriously ––
The wrong one could bring sorrow and disgrace.
Harvesting the crop from seeds we sow
Our choice to gratify ourselves might win
Fearful consequences, if we fail to show
Awareness of the pain that follows sin.
Zygotes inadvertently conceived
Yield far-reaching complications dire.
Gestation offer duties unrelieved,
Or the alternative the prospect of hellfire.
The choice to live life loosely takes a toll
Excluding most things charming, fun and droll.


~ FreeThinke - 3/3/12

Right Wing Theocrat said...

@Jersey - "Why can't you see what a stupid, divisive issue this is and leave it alone???"

If you don't like talking about it, then don't comment about it, just close the internet window and go for a walk or something. It's stupid to jump into a conversation that you're not interested in and don't want to participate in and then run around wailing and waving your hands around in the air.

"Well, I can only hope that the law is enforced and we don't have any elective late-term abortion."

I'm 99% sure you're not in favor of late-term abortions for non-medical reasons based on that, good to see you at least draw the line somewhere.

twoguys2012 said...

JMJ,

"This is a regulated, medical procedure."

Now we're getting somewhere.

I cannot speak for the whole of the pro-Life movement, but abortion as a true medical procedure, as in saving the life of the mother, is a distasteful yet at times necessary procedure.

My bride and I discussed at length this scenario when she became pregnant with our firstborn. Truth be told, I would choose my wife over my child, but it would not be some kind of liberating or empowering decision. It would be heart-breaking.

Therein lies the biggest part of the whole pro-abortion/pro-Life confrontation:
You and I both know that when the left speaks of abortion it is not in the context of an actual medical procedure, but in the form of convenience and liberation. Statistically speaking, less than 3% of all abortions performed are due to rape/incest, leaving 97% done for other reasons. Out of that 97%, only 8% are done for the saving of the mother.

To make the decision between the life of the mother or the child is not easy, casual, or flippant. It would be easily the hardest choice any couple would have to make. That's the difference between a medical procedure and an abortion for convenience.

Again, speaking for myself, I can say that my pro-Life stance is adamantly against abortion for female empowerment, liberation, or convenience. But I do know that situations will arise where the mother and father must make that hard choice when all other options have been exhausted and there is no time left, in the medical application of abortion.

Big difference.

Thanks for reading.

Jersey McJones said...

Twoguys,

"My bride and I discussed at length this scenario when she became pregnant with our firstborn. Truth be told, I would choose my wife over my child, but it would not be some kind of liberating or empowering decision. It would be heart-breaking."

If you believe "liberal" or "progressive" people would be any less heart-broken than you, then you must think we are dogs in the woods. We're not, by the way.

JMJ

Finntann said...

Jersey,

"It can because that is the intent of the grantee. A private library is not a person, yet it too can inherit property."

You miss the point.

An unborn blastocyte, zygote, or fetus has a legitimate legal claim against the estate of the father, with or without his intent, and even against his intent.

Can't say that about a library.

"Yes, and that's good. We don't want 15 year old girls being forced to carry what would legally be their rapists babies"

Who said anything about rape? And do you not realize that in the majority of states, consensual sex between two fifteen year olds is not considered rape, statuatory or otherwise?

Jersey McJones said...

Finntann, in many cases, sex with a 15 year old girl would automatically be rape

JMJ

beamish said...

Why can't you see what a stupid, divisive issue this is and leave it alone???

Probably for the same reason we tsk tsk other people who have a cavalier attitude about killing people.

Finntann said...

Jersey, Since you seem so fond of using the Guttmacher Institute to scream the majority of Catholic women use contraceptives.

Here are their figures on Rape:

No ready/Bad Timing 25%
Can't Affort 23%
Done Childbearing 19%
Don't want to be single Mom 8%
Not mature enough 7%
Interfere with plans 4%
Health 4%
Fetal Health 3%
Rape <0.5%
Husband/partner wants <0.5%
Parents want <0.5
Don't want people to know <0.5%
Other 6%

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

So, it seems rape and incest isn't the issue you'd like to make it out to be.

Given your argument, and the incidence of health, rape, and incest related abortion being around 8% of all abortion cases. That would put the other 92% as "convenience".

Health, Rape, and Incest are a convenient distraction for your argument, but are the minority of the cases. Besides, the majority of people who have a problem with abortion don't have a problem with those three cases.

So why don't we get beyond strawmen and deal with the 92% of abortion cases that are for personal or financial convenience.

Anonymous said...

beamish: "Probably for the same reason we tsk tsk other people who have a cavalier attitude about killing people."

That's what concerns me. Looking back at the changes in society since Roe I can't help but think that treating life with casual disregard leads to treating life with casual disregard.

Microscopic, macroscopic, what's the difference. It's all disposable.

viburnum

jez said...

Well you can view almost anything as the thin end of some kind of wedge, but I'm completely comfortable with a coil or pill "destroying" a few dozen unspecialised cells. Or with using those cells for research.
Honestly, what ransom would you pay to retrieve s kidnapped blastocyst? If any? How does that compare with what you'd pay to save a real living person?

Anonymous said...

PART ONE

" ... what ransom would you pay to retrieve a kidnapped blastocyst? If any? How does that compare with what you'd pay to save a real living person?"

Excellent point, Jez, and one with which I heartily concur. In fact I agree with your entire post.

All the self-righteous, doctrinaire bullying we see on this issue only serves to drive me farther toward the liberal camp.

We can argue that "Abortion is murder" till the cows come home. Of course it IS, but murder of WHAT?

There's no doubt in my mind that the moment the sperm penetrates the egg all the ingredients necessary to form a human soul are present. HOWEVER, in the early stages of pregnancy the potential baby has no ability to feel anxiety, fear, curiosity or affection. Neither is it able to learn to understand, to express hopes, dreams, desires and preferences, etc. It is to all intents and purposes an insensate mass with no more awareness of self and its position in the Cosmos than an amoeba.

As you intelligently point out, there is nothing appealing or endearing about a blastocyst, blastocyte, zygote, embryo -- or whatever you want to call it.

~ FreeThinke

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

PART TWO

To be fully human one must have cognition -- awareness -- an ability to interact -- respond, learn and above all FEEL -- in other words one must have a personality and a at least the beginnings of a sense of responsibility.

To equate a group of cells that make up a POTENTIAL human being with the fully developed mother whose entire life will be forever changed -- usually for the worse -- by the fact of her unwanted pregnancy strikes me as not quite sane.

I see a great deal of disingenuousness in many of the more rabid Right-to-Life types anyway. As you well know, there is a strident segment in the blogosphere who delights in provoking pointless quarrels, because he (or she) gets his (or her) kicks from spouting endless eruptions of vitriol and vituperation -- a pathological form of conceit I call vomitus volcanus peccata in arguendo perpetua. };-)>

The true concern of these types is not for the rights or wrongs of the issue at hand, but to use whatever issue may be at hand as a "good excuse" to indulge their penchant for sadistic bullying -- a relentless, unmerciful "in your face" attempt to shame or humiliate others into bending to the bully's will.

I've seen this phenomenon over and over again everywhere on the net. The subject doesn't matter at all. It serves only as a platform on which these campaigns of hunting intellectual prey may be mounted.

It never ceases to amuse and amaze me that most of the more vociferous exponents of Womb Invasion, Conquest and Supervision happen to be men -- or unmarried women -- who simply like a good excuse to boss others around -- a facet of that peculiar type of sadistic personality I outlined above.

Of course there many good women who are perfectly sincere in their insistence that all life is sacred no matter what, and THOSE women should be free to carry THEIR babies to term and devote their entire lives caring for them, if that's what they want to do. However, not every female is cut out for the life of a brood mare.

I hasten to add, however, that abortion -- once the fetus is fully formed and starts to look like a baby -- is abhorrent to me, and infanticide is -- and always should be regarded as -- UNTHINKABLE.

That said, girls who get themselves pregnant without being prepared to suffer the long term consequences are just plain stupid.

The well being of victims of rape and incest should be considered of paramount importance -- more vital concern than the future of the unwanted child they are carrying, which will live as an emblem of their victimhood -- Johnny Belinda notwithstanding.

Also, potential parents should be free to abort nascent human beings with monstrous defects -- three heads, four arms, no limbs, no facial feature, no brain, etc. -- without fear of reprisal.

If a set of parents already have three or four healthy children, the effect on those children of the entrance into their lives of a monstrously deformed, grossly deficient sibling ought to carry a great deal of weight.

Like Jersey, I find this subject exceedingly tiresome and unprofitable, but in the welter of righteous wrath -- pseudo and otherwise -- that constantly surrounds it I feel questioning and opposing views ought to be expressed and duly considered. The absolutist rhetoric on this touchy subject is in truth little more than yet-another-form of bigotry.

~ FreeThinke

Jim ar Conservatives on Fire said...

Conception is never the fault of the baby!

twoguys2012 said...

FT,

Then I am presuming that the killing of newborns,seeing as how they cannot express themselves save for screaming, is acceptable as well?

http://whatandwhy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/oxford-experts-say-killing-newborns-is-ethical/#comments

Anonymous said...

You did NOT read and digest the contents of my post, Two Guys.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

All the self-righteous, doctrinaire bullying we see on this issue only serves to drive me farther toward the liberal camp.

For you, that's not a far "drive." You could probably scoot your chair a little and be there. ;)

That's not a slam assessment on you, Freethinke. Some people just simply lack the intellectual prerequisites for right-wingdom.

If religious assessments don't get you to acknowledge that human life begins at conception (Jeremiah 1:5) and secular scientific assessments don't get you to acknowledge that human life begins at conception (they were detecting EEG brainwaves and observing fetal responses to external stimuli as early as 40 days after conception in the mid-1960s and the detection technology has only gotten better since) and occupational assessments don't get you to acknowledge that human life begins at conception (the practices of pre-natal and perinatal medicine and surgery), the only reason for your paradigm of denials become one of convenience. By that, I mean you find facts that undermine your position inconvenient, and shove them aside so you can be emphatically wrong.

You feel "bullied" by people opposed to justifying murder with euphemisms? Good!

I don't feel dissuaded, at all, by your complaints. Exhaust your thesaurus at will with your babbling mealymouthedness. At the end of each exasperated stab you take at your detractors, you're still trying to defend the murder of humans as a matter of convenience.

Anonymous said...

Beamish,

Haven't you figured out yet that I take every one of your insults as a compliment?

I would feel unclean if I were admired by a person of your type.

I know who and what you are.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Here's MY candidate for The Most Trenchant Comment of the Thread:

"He who knows does not speak.
He who speaks does not know"
.

~ Lao Tse

Thank you, Viburnum, for finding such an elegant way to tell us all what fools we are without stooping to insolence and vituperation.

Truly a Master Stroke!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A favorite poem, AOW? What an impossible request!

I believe that for me it may be the following:

Pickles and Tea

There was an old woman
Who lived in Dundee
She dined upon nothing
But pickles and tea.

Of course on a diet
As silly as that
This foolish old woman
Could never grow fat.

As a matter of fact
She stuck to her whim
Until she at last
Grew exceedingly slim.

And one day a high wind
That chanced to blow by
Blew this silly old woman
Right up in the sky.

She was blown up and up
Right into the blue
Until she just vanished
Entirely from view.

But while her relations
Bewailed her sad loss
Down dropped the old woman
Exceedingly cross.

And she said, “There’s two things
Don’t mention to me,
And one of them’s pickles
The other is tea.”




from Runaway Rhymes

by Alice Higgins

Copyright 1931 by P.F. Volland Co.
Joliet, Illinois

I believe that may well be "What Started It All" for better or for worse. I had a wonderful mother.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My dear, Ms Shaw,

I share your love for Mozart. If I had to choose but one opera to keep with me always, it surely would be one of his. I'm unprepared right now to choose among them, however. Le Nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni, Die Zauberfloete, and Cosi fan tutte all carry a great deal of weight with me.

Oddly enough after being treated recently to a particularly fine, well-integrated production, I've just come to a new level of respect and admiration for Bizet's Carmen.

I'm mad for Wagner and Strauss. Tristan und Isolde and Die Meistersinger still raise goose bumps every time I so much as think of them.

Such disparate offerings from Richard Strauss as Der Rosenkavalier, Salome and Elektra never fail to stir me.

I enjoy Italian opera, of course, but with the possible exception of Verdi, I can't take it as seriously as I do the others. I'd have to claim Madama Butterfly, however, as my favorite Italian Opera.

Best regards,

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

FT,
Well, respondents to the question about favorite poems could classify them: favorite love poem, favorite poem for whatever holidays one cares to name, favorite war poem, etc.

I love Poe's "The Raven" and Dickinson's "Hope." For different seasons, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

Well, AOW, talking more about poetry will be something pleasant to look forward to.

There's still an awful lot of it I haven't explored yet -- and may never get to.

We really need several lifetimes to be able to connect with the vast store of treasure literary, musical and otherwise that's been bequeathed to us. I'd say seven-hundred years minimum. ;-)

~ FT