You are conceding my point. Policy advocacy is the primary framework for a discussion of the comparative merits of pro-choice and pro-life ideologies. The questions you bring up, such as those about human dignity, do not necessarily bear on the larger question of whether abortion should or should not be legal. It is your burden to establish why conferring human dignity on a fetus at conception means that women should not have the legal choice to have an abortion. Sorry, but that response doesn't address my concern that a pro-choice invocation of a certain sense of personhood is no more problematic than a pro-life one. I argue that personhood itself is the operative legal fiction in this discussion, meaning that the idea of personhood does not bear on the primary issue of the legal status of abortion. I don't know who that is, nor do I care. Your answer makes no sense. What the **** is a "separate, distinct group of cells"? "What is happening, science-wise"? Again, what the **** does that mean? . Fortunately, as I've shown above, the real question is about whether one has the legal right to abortion. The fact that you ignore the problem of pregnancy by rape reveals that you are using "human dignity" as a pretext to justify your pro-life stance without actually considering the reality of human dignity. How can you draw any policy consequences from your assertion that human life has value from conception without considering the competing interest of the value of a rape victim's life? You seem to suggest that the value of life is some independent entity, floating around in the ether, that trumps the real things that people value in their lives (like being able to move on from the horrible trauma of rape). This is a losing move for your position. The only way my position posits a contradiction is if the act of a mother making a value judgement on the question of human dignity bears on the objective definition of the term 'fetus' (which is a ridiculous position in itself, but whatever). In that case, whoever makes such a value judgement has the power to determine whether a fetus really possesses human dignity or not, which once again begs the question. You still aren't making any sort of indictment of the pro-choice position because you refuse to tie your various positions on human dignity to the policy framework that forms the real ground for this debate. Yes it does. See above and my posts responding to giddyup on pages 3 and 4.
No, actually I was just mocking the argument that with enough sex education the need for abortion will be reduced and it will all be tolerable. As my suggestion proves, we would never tolerate legitimizing rape or murder or drunk-driving and then doubly working hard on preventive education and pretend to be satisfied-- even if the rate of rape or murder or DWI were to drop dramatically. Of course, as I've said hundreds of times I'm all in favor of increased sex education in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I've also said that I would compromise my beliefs in the case of unwanted pregnancies due to rape and incest. And of course cases where the life of the mother is seriously in jeopardy: she has a decision to make. There is no perfect solution. To me it is a matter of what is paramount. When you give no value to fetal life, you have no dilemma. Hell, you offer no room even for discussion, i.e. remarks such as you're talking to the mirror. That is the uphill battle that my side must fight. You call it moralizing and slink off with your "victory." :grin:
While I haven't seen her birth certificate, she says that her abortionist signed her birth certificate (that's how she tracked him down) and her birth is described on the certificate as ~ "survival of saline abortion."
Is there anything I said there that is factually wrong? Yeah, it's hyperbole-- an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally. It is but a way to remind us all that that blob of cells always turn out human in the end so then the question is "where is the beginning?" Can you argue with that? Why do you feel the need to demean the opposition in this discussion?
Try what? And to everyone else - good grief. We've had this exact same discussion at least five, possibly ten other times here. With the same folks no less.
and the op is not at all interested in debate. he's only interested in acting morally superior to anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his views.
I'm not conceding anything. You are jumping to point 2 in the discussion. Policy really can be set aside in determining the question of whether a separate and distinct organism exists and whether that organism is a human being. What do you say it is? Simply calling it an embryo, or a clump of cells, is not enough science-wise. It is the embryo, of a human being. You really don't have any science on your side to back you up and maybe that's why you are inclined to overlook the first part of the argument and jump straight into policy. Let's not beat this legal fiction thing into the ground, its really a sidetrack from the primary discussion. Obviously the meaning of personhood becomes important to the discussion, but once again, I think that's more related to step 2. To be clear, I think what you have going on is 2 points in the argument: 1) determining what the fetus is. 2) Justifying or not justifying its destruction in the termination of pregnancy. For simplicity's sake call point 1 determining if a fetus is a human being, point 2 determining if that human being has personhood status in the law. Basic embryology, when the sperm and egg meet, they form a separate and distinct human organism from the mother. IF you are arguing that then this discussion can't really go anywhere. How do I ignore the problem? See above for what I mean by science-wise, you know science saying there is a human organism at conception and all. Your argument isn't really making any sense. You seem to be conflating values people have in their lives, i.e. not to get raped, or dealing with the suffering of rape; with the value we hold as a society of upholding life. I'm saying the latter is what applies, and is pre-eminent, even to the suffering a rape victim might have faced. Once again, that is getting partly into the policy arguments. So you are arguing that the mother's choice to keep the child or not somehow changes whether the fetus has human dignity or not. Thanks for taking the position you say is ridiculous. And I'm saying you're wrong. Anyway, I know I get snarky, but I appreciate the dialogue. I'm in class all day and probably won't be responding, so good luck giddyup, you're going to need it.
Just cut out the ad hominem attacks. Even if that is what is going on, what good does it do to say it?
I asked for feedback (a reaction or response to a particular activity). I didn't ask for someone to change my mind. I know my heart on this and because my heart is not yours, you guys want to obstruct me and the other pro-Lifers from discussion. You seek to squelch the discussion. You want to mock a young woman who survived a legitimized attack on her life. She had the moxy to confront her attackers. She has a powerful life story that is admirable to anyone.... but it's just easier to doubt, belittle and minimize her. The other issue is that: A) anyone can change their mind anytime a light goes on, B) new people come to this board on a pretty regular basis I would say, C) we never know who is just reading without posting. I expect the same opposition from the same entrenched people, yet I don't mock you for not changing positions. The cadre at work: they expect to exercise a right to change someone, period, end of subject. I have no expectation of that. I try to tell the truth that I see for anyone to read because anyone can become receptive. Do you not see the arrogance in challenging the legitimacy of this discussion?
nobody has doubted, belittled or minimized her story. Except perhaps wiki -- which was a fair bit more innuendoed then it usually is. I linked the wiki bit, while recognizing her amazing story. But nobody's really discussed it either. Even you. You've posted the story of someone who lived through an intended abortion at 30+ weeks. Again...per wiki ... abortions past 24 weeks are estimated at 0.08% or about 1000 per year. At 30 weeks that number will be significantly less then that. And you've tried to extrapolate that to all abortions. Where's the legitimacy in that argument? Peppering the discussion with 'attacks on her life' and 'the Abortionist' aren't any more honest. Of course 'her Abortionist' signed her birth certificate. He's a medical doctor. They do that. And, naturally, no context to any of the other factors that may have played a part in the abortion decision. I love stories like hers. Overcoming the odds and living a life with passion. I don't share her views on abortion, or George Bush -- but I can appreciate her story. I suppose someone could have posted a story about a girl who was refused a late term abortion and died. Would that be representative? How about a story about the kid of teen mother who turned out to be an amazing person? Should we ban birth control? He or she might not have been born otherwise. And the morning after pill? Ban that too? Some say it's a form of abortion. As are some types of birth control pill. Shift the discussion to beginning of the pregnancy and your indignation is harder to defend. So what did you really want to discuss? What kind of 'feedback' are you looking for?
(1) We've established that the policy question is primary. Therefore, you must show how your arguments about human dignity and personhood bear on the question of policy. I'm not willing to invest in a discussion of human dignity and what that means "science-wise" without a demonstration of why that discussion is relevant. (2) You should be more careful about claiming science as an authority to support your position. An embryo is a clump of cells. That's a fact (science-wise). Whether or not that clump of cells constitutes a human being is a question loaded with metaphysical complications, to which science does not give a clear answer (I'll say more on this below). No, it's not obvious that the idea of personhood is important to the discussion. Considering your claim that we should look to science for our answers, I really don't think you want it to be, either. There is no known scientific entity, 'personhood'. You failed to address my point that the legal fiction of personhood is more problematic for the pro-life side. To elaborate, your position (pro-life) requires conferring a special status on the moment of conception, while mine (pro-choice) can be grounded on purely pragmatic terms. Perhaps this is why you continue to avoid the policy question; you can't win on that playing field, so you try to introduce a transcendent element. (1) This is way too vague and open ended. The fetus is lots of things, but none of those things necessarily bear on the question of policy. Every description of the fetus in this discussion should be predicated on its relevance to the policy framework. Otherwise it is too easy to introduce emotional appeals that do nothing but obscure. (2) Your strategy of subordinating the question of policy reminds me of pro-lifers I used to see at UT holding giant posters with horrific depictions of aborted fetuses. The shocking nature of the images demands our attention and distracts us from making progress and finding common ground. This is the same thing giddyup does with the OP. When our side points out, in an attempt to reground the discussion in policy terms, that late term abortions are extremely rare or that they are often the result of a threat to the mother's life, you guys invariably accuse us of not valuing life. As I said before, my side doesn't have to justify the termination. We defer that issue to the mother. It really is funny how much you strain to avoid the policy question. And no, you don't access the policy realm by appealing to legal personhood. You're conflating science with metaphysics and confusing the original issue, which was how to distinguish a group of cells with human dignity from one without it. Science does not say anything about human dignity, so you don't get anywhere by citing embryology. See the answer immediately above as to why science doesn't say what you want it to. You are making a value claim that one form of human dignity (that possessed by a fetus from the moment of conception) is to be preserved over another form of human dignity (that possessed by an adult human being who is impregnated by rape). First of all, that claim requires a lot more work than you are doing. Secondly, far from being a peripheral concern, this question goes directly to the issue of how we are to weigh the value of human dignity within the constraints of the choice/life debate. You can't separate out the policy arguments. No, my friend, that's actually what you were arguing. I said that the mother is best suited to make a value judgement on the question of human dignity. You countered that my position implies a contradiction because mothers can choose to value human dignity differently, thus making a fetus not a fetus. Well, the only way a fetus really isn't a fetus is if one has dignity by virtue of the value judgement itself. This is clearly absurd, and furthermore invalidates your assertion that human dignity is conferred at conception. You must now withdraw your accusation that my position violates non-contradiction or continue to defend the aforementioned absurdity. Yeah...but the thing is, I'm not. You admitted as much when you said that the dignity of an unborn fetus is paramount, even in light of the concerns over the loss of dignity faced by a rape victim forced to carry her pregnancy to term. This is tantamount to invalidating the suffering of rape victims because your position directly causes their revictimization. If you have your way, you will essentially be raping these women over and over again.
And if you think that the fetus trumps a woman's right to choose whether to use her uterus to bring it to term and bear it or not, you are just as big an idiot. It is her body, she can choose whether to use it to bear children.
thats not my argument. that is a waste of time. my point is that @ 6-8 weeks, when an embryo enters the fetal stage, and I believe that is when most abortions are induced...its more than just a clump of cells and science has proven that. I dont understand how some of you can deduce it to a clump of cells. oh yeah, because it fits your argument better.
same could be said here about your rape argument and us not being sensitive to the mother. abortions carried out as a result of impregantion via rape pale in comparison to those carried out because of inconvienence and irresponsibility.
Again, nobody is in a better position to make the determination of whether an abortion is justified or not than the mother. The vast majority of rapes are unreported, so many of these irresponsible and inconvenienced women that you so love to hate may actually be rape victims themselves.
It is the crux of the argument for me. A woman has the right to choose whether to use her uterus to bring a fetus to term. I would prefer that the choice is made as early as possible, but it is a choice between the woman, her doctor, and her God.
first, I dont hate them. you are being a petulant knob. secondly, they may be rape victims? okay. how about this for a solid rebuttal...they may not be rape victims.
Yeah...so you didn't answer my point, which is that women seeking abortions are in the best position to determine the legitimacy of their own decision. The possibility that there are more rape victims than you think seeking abortions merely provides further illustration of that point.
