"And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing."Mary Elizabeth doesn't come exactly clean; for her, the "life of a mother" is actually the "convenience of the mother", not the endangerment of the mother's existence as a living human. In other words, the mother has the desire, the emotional need, to destroy what Mary Elizabeth agrees is a human life; this makes killing the fetus OK.
Now she thinks that this closes the conversation about the valuing of the lives of certain individuals over the lives of others:
"We’re so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations. We let the archconservatives browbeat us with the concept of “life,” using their scare tactics on women and pushing for indefensible violations like forced ultrasounds. Why? Because when they wave the not-even-accurate notion that “abortion stops a beating heart” they think they’re going to trick us into some damning admission. They believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that’s what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom.""Unrestricted reproductive freedom"? That phony terminology is exactly why abortion should be called exactly what it is: choosing to kill one's progeny.
And what about the total reproductive freedom of the new human? No, that is not a consideration at all. The fetus cannot make a case for its own freedoms, or rights. Only the self-involved women who don't like the predictable consequences of their sexual behaviors matter.
At another point Mary Elizabeth claims,
"It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina."While this is exactly right, it brings to the logical mind the following issue: why not abort one's progeny at any age, whatsoever, if it is for the convenience of the parent (either male or female parent - equality, doncha know)? The logic applies perfectly under Mary Elizabeth's process of rationalization, and in fact it could well apply to one's grandchildren as well.
And although Mary Elizbeth denies it, it does logically apply to any human life which is devalued as inconvenient. It is a brutality which brutalizes the proponent's into a moral abyss and opens the possibilties of other brutalizations which are suggested by the likes of Peter Singer and legitimized by the likes of Richard Dawkins. Singer endorses post-natal abortions, and Dawkins finds no moral objections to Hitler's actions, for example.
When human life is denigrated to a level determined by mere convenience, civilization has rotted and humans are endangered. Mary Elizabeth is immune to being aborted, at least for the moment; her progeny are not.
131 comments:
"Unrestricted reproductive freedom" does NOT mean the "unrestricted freedom to reproduce" in the Atheo-Leftist (non-existent) mind, since the euphemism actually means (in the vast majority of cases) the absence of any constraints on any and all means of terminating the reproductive process at any stage for the convenience of the mother.
That there are rare cases in which the life of the mother must be balanced against the life of the developing baby for health reasons does not confer an unconstrained "right" to kill a baby for mere convenience.
That thorny moral issues are associated with abortion in cases of rape and incest (rarely applicable in the majority of abortions) does not confer an unconstrained "right" to kill a baby for mere convenience.
If it is morally reprehensible to torture a baby for fun, what makes it morally acceptable to kill a baby for the mere convenience of the mother?
As for the "magic" property of vaginas to confer "fully human" status by merely passing through: I presume that means anyone born via a C-section is NOT "fully human", according to that illogic?
Part II:
On the other hand, if it is conceded that the baby (prior to passage through the "magic" vagina) is "fully human," then (preceding backward in time) at what point does it cease to be "fully human"? No matter what arbitrary criteria are devised to allow abortions to occur, one must address the issue associated with this question. One second PRIOR to that "magic moment," it (whatever "it" might be) was NOT a baby and therefore NOT "fully human" and therefore the mother can do as she wants with it for her own convenience. One second AFTER that "magic moment," the BABY is FULLY HUMAN. I know of no objective criteria that would definitively establish that moment. Viability is an amorphous concept, at best. A number of weeks of pregnancy (which are uncertain in most pregnancies) seems totally arbitrary and as equally likely to kill a "fully human" baby as not.
For those of us who hold that the human fetus is "fully human" at every stage of development (from conception onward), abortion is killing a baby. It doesn't matter how many euphemisms are used to disguise that fact, or how many evasions are generated to avoid that (to me) morally reprehensible fact, and the moral guilt associated with an abortion.
Perhaps we should re-visit the ancient questions regarding actuality and potentiality. Certainly any "fully human" being is a mixture of actuality and potentiality. Since that mixture continues for the entire life cycle of human beings (from conception to death), what combination of actuality and potentiality confers "fully human" status? What combination of actuality and potentiality would NOT confer "fully human" status?
The Left has all kinds of definitions of who is human and who is a person. In fact, most AtheoLeftists have several such definitions. Defining the instant that a developing human is a "person" is a favorite.
But that is all a Red Herring.
The real issue is the Right to kill, and who gets to decide which human can be killed and when.
No AtheoLeftist can argue against the concept that every human necessarily passes through many stages of development... even them. And that killing a human at any stage of development stops access to further stages of development. Moreover, the embryo, which is genetically a unique human, is innocent of any purposeful infringement upon either the mother or society.
Therefore, killing any human at any embryonic or other stage of human development purely for the convenience or satisfaction of the mother or anyone else is the purposeful killing of a unique human who is innocent and unable to defend him/herself from the attack.
Besides being immoral by rational standards, it is also cowardly. I say this knowing full well that members of my extended family have aborted their progeny.
The Right To Kill is exactly the issue for the totalitarian Left; they are jealous of this new Right with which they are self-imbued. It complements their own messiah god-hood; it is a necessary precursor to pogroms against the Class of Oppressors which they designate. There is massive ego-centricity involved with the Right To Kill, even if it is only a defenseless preborn human. And finally, it is convenient to the destruction of the old moral order which inconveniences the march of the Messiahs.
Maybe Mary Elizabeth can give me a concise list of what attributes are required to be human. I have a feeling as I get older and society gets coarser, that I will lack the necessary attributes to maintain "person-hood" and will need to be eliminated.
The bolder among the ranks of eugenic ethicists have already asserted that newborns should not be given any special right of person hood. They go so far as to use almost Orwellian language in describing that a person is something who can appreciate their own existence.
It like two trains coming at each other on the same track. The Eugenics Express and Abortion Railways. Pretty soon they are going to crash in a conflagration of mass execution, all in the name of science.
Sorry for the analogous prose.
Something wicked this way comes...
If you are younger than 14 and older than 40, be afraid, be VERY AFRAID!
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676
Dr Ezekial Emanuel, Chief Architect of Obamacare, a bioethicist(?!?), and brother of Rahm "Never let a good crisis go to waste" Emanuel:
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).
It's all just a cost/benefit calculation based on the needs of the collective, NOT the needs of the individual. "To each according to his needs (as determined by the Messianic Class), from each according to his ability."
Anonymous jpeger0101 said...
(1) Should women who are forcefully impregnated (ie rape) be forced to carry the fetus full term?
That thorny moral issues are associated with abortion in cases of rape and incest (rarely applicable in the majority of abortions) does not confer an unconstrained "right" to kill a baby for mere convenience.
(2) Should women be denied abortions when carrying the fetus full term will result in the death of both the woman and the child?
That there are rare cases in which the life of the mother must be balanced against the life of the developing baby for health reasons does not confer an unconstrained "right" to kill a baby for mere convenience.
Perhaps "reading" is one of those required skills that should be taught in government skrools...
The argument from extremely exceptional cases does NOT make the case that in general abortions should be available for mere convenience. The mantra "safe, legal and RARE" implicitly endorses that idea. Otherwise, why "RARE" if it's just "business as usual, no big deal"?!?
I'll leave unaddressed the question of responsibility for sexual behavior that results in (obviously) unwanted pregnancy. However, if you want to make "responsible choices" PRIOR to getting pregnant, then pregnancy CAN be avoided in the vast majority of cases. "Unrestricted reproductive rights" does not confer nor equate to "unrestricted sexual license".
What percentage of abortions do you think are done for no reason but "mere convenience"?
"...responsibility for sexual behavior"
And here we come to the crux of the issue, it's about punishing behavior that you disapprove of.
Regarding the usual shibboleth regarding the desire to "punish" behavior I personally disagree with:
I do not think that killing a defenseless "fully human" being is an appropriate "punishment" for having committed NO CRIME, NO OFFENSE.
The "crux" of the issue is NOT whether a person has a "right" to engage in any behavior whatsoever without consequences, but instead whether any "fully human" being has any right to life or the expectation of safety from being killed at any stage of development. If a "fully human" being can be killed for the convenience of others, then ultimately no one is safe.
As for my assertion regarding "convenience" as a primary reason for the majority (please note: I did NOT state "all"), here are the statistical reasons gathered by the Guttmacher Institute (hardly a "right wingnut pro-life" organization) via surveys of women aborting:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
Having a baby would dramatically change my life - 2004: 74%; 1987: 78%*
- Would interfere with education - 2004: 38%; 1987: 36%
- Would interfere with job/employment/career - 2004: 38%; 1987: 50%***
- Have other children or dependents - 2004: 32%; 1987: 22%***
Can’t afford a baby now - 2004: 73%; 1987: 69%
- Unmarried - 2004: 42%; 1987: na%
- Student or planning to study - 2004: 34%; 1987: na%
- Can’t afford a baby and child care - 2004: 28%; 1987: na%
- Can’t afford the basic needs of life - 2004: 23%; 1987: na%
- Unemployed - 2004: 22%;1987: na%
- Can’t leave job to take care of a baby - 2004: 21%; 1987: na%
- Would have to find a new place to live - 2004: 19%; 1987: na%
- Not enough support from husband or partner - 2004: 14%; 1987: na%
- Husband or partner is unemployed - 2004: 12%; 1987: na%
- Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance - 2004: 8%; 1987: na%
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems - 2004: 48%; 1987: 52%*
- Not sure about relationship - 2004: 19%; 1987: na%
- Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married - 2004: 12%; 1987: 30%***
- Not in a relationship right now - 2004: 11%; 1987: 12%
- Relationship or marriage may break up soon - 2004: 11%; 1987: 16%*
- Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children - 2004: 2%; 1987: 3%
Have completed my childbearing - 2004: 38%; 1987: 28%**
Not ready for a(nother) child† - 2004: 32%; 1987: 36%
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant - 2004: 25%; 1987: 33%*
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child - 2004: 22%; 1987: 27%*
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion - 2004: 14%; 1987: 24%***
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus - 2004: 13%; 1987: 14%
Physical problem with my health - 2004: 12%; 1987: 1987: 8%**
Parents want me to have an abortion - 2004: 6%; 1987: 8%
Was a victim of rape - 2004: 1%; 1987: 1%
Became pregnant as a result of incest - 2004: <0.5%; 1987: <0.5%
Please read those statistics (in bold italics regarding the health of the mother, the health of the baby, rape and incest.
Caveat: I have no way of knowing if the statistics resulting from surveys are applicable across all abortions or not. I do think that the statistics demonstrate that a majority of the reasons for aborting are for the "convenience" (or avoidance of inconvenience) on the part of the aborter.
More than 80% of abortions according to your own statistics are not "mere convenience".
Why don't you look up what the word means.
"Having a baby would dramatically change my life - 2004: 74%; 1987: 78%*"
So murdering a baby would be convenint to avoid dramatic change.
"Can’t afford a baby now - 2004: 73%; 1987: 69%"
So murdering a baby would be convenient to avoid money.
"Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus - 2004: 13%; 1987: 14%"
Avoid having to care for a disable or a retard. More convenience.
"Physical problem with my health - 2004: 12%; 1987: 1987: 8%**"
Avoiding problem is convenience.
"Was a victim of rape - 2004: 1%; 1987: 1%"
Convenice of avoiding the consquences.
100 % of reasons are convenience,
I concede that there was no explicit category referenced in the statistics identified by the literal term "mere convenience." So what?!? The highest percentage categories given are "for the convenience (or avoidance of any inconvenience) of the aborter" issues.
Perhaps you should try to understand that your original objections, which were presumed by you to be sufficient justification for ALL abortions based on the potentially deleterious health impact on either person involved, or on incidents of rape and incest, are not supported by the statistics given. Excluding those categories (which I presume you consider as mandatory for continuing to allow unrestricted abortions for any and all reasons) leaves the MAJORITY of the reasons for the "convenience" of the aborter. By the most liberal ("progressive"?) interpretation of the numbers, you only get approximately 15% for those limited cases by mere addition.
Why don't you look up the meaning of the word "majority" to see what THAT means?!? I suspect most people (other than Atheo-Leftists with a passion to kill "fully human" beings) would consider that remaining 85% a "majority".
That you personally do not consider that 85% to be merely "convenient" reasons is irrelevant.
Let the name-calling begin...
Convenience:
"the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty."
If abortion is to avoid something major then it is not for convenience - unless your definition of convenience is so loose that everything falls into it like the anonymous comment before yours. So according to your table, the majority of abortions are not a matter of "mere convenience".
"your original objections"
If you re-read that comment, you will see that they are actually questions.
"Let the name-calling begin..."
I don't think you should resort to name-calling. It's pointless.
"For those of us who hold that the human fetus is "fully human" at every stage of development (from conception onward), abortion is killing a baby."
This is not a baby. It's a fertilized ovum. I dare you to look at it (Yes, it) and tell me you think this is a baby. No, I dare you to tell me that this is even full human. Look at it. You know I'm right. You wouldn't save a bucket of ten of these instead of a toddler.
I accept your idiotic "dare." In looking at the results of an ultrasound at the earliest possible point in a pregnancy (which, unfortunately and sadly, my daughter just miscarried), I see it as a "fully human" being (A BABY) at a very early stage of development. I was very excited by the prospect of having another granddaughter (that would be a "fully human" being (A BABY), in case you aren't paying attention) to love and play with, and am saddened that she lost this developing "fully human" being (A BABY). If it was just a "blob of tissue" (prior to losing it) to be torn out as a parasite and discarded in the garbage, then why would my daughter be so sad about losing it?!?
What did you think I would see on the ultrasound: a miniature Flying Spaghetti Monster?
If the developing "fully human" being (A BABY) in the womb is NOT specifically THAT, then what the heck is it?!?
What "magic" occurs to distinguish and convert this "non-human" blob of tissue into a "fully human" being (a baby)? At what stage of development does this "magic" occur? If this "magic" really does occur, why does it only occur when the woman CHOOSES NOT to abort? What distinguishes between the "thing" that is aborted and the "fully human" being (a baby) at the same period of gestation in two separate cases? One lives (and "magically" becomes a posteriori a "fully human" being (a baby) and one dies a priori (a useless piece of garbage tissue); WHY?!? Can you provide any empirical data to support the occurrence of this "magic" conversion from "The Blob" or "The Thing" to "fully human" being (A BABY)?!?
As for your "save a bucket of ten of these instead of a toddler": that is a false alternative and as callous a comparison as could be made. There is no "toddler" in mortal danger standing beside the aborter that forces a Catch-22 choice to save the toddler or to abort her own progeny.
Attempting to redefine the "fully human" being (a baby) developing in the womb as just a disposable piece of garbage tissue is nothing but a blatant attempt to evade the moral ramifications of what is being done by the choice of the aborter and for the profit of the so-called "physician" who is performing the abortion. That it has been made legal for any and all reasons will never make it morally right.
I already stipulated that there are very difficult moral decisions that have to be made in the cases involving a threat to the health and life of the potential mother, the health and life of the developing "fully human" being (a baby), and rape or incest. I have NO desire to make those kinds of choices for anyone, but I am sympathetic to the difficulties involved.
The "reasons" given in the Guttmacher Institute study do not constitute "something major," IMHO with the exceptions noted; you obviously disagree. Which (if any) of the stated reasons would not be "major" in YOUR opinion? Or, is any and every "reason" given a major reason by definition, thereby sanctioning abortion for any reason or no reason at all?
As for "name calling": if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I haven't engaged in name-calling; I agree that it IS pointless. My statement was sarcastic and in anticipation of the inevitable ad hominem attacks that usually occur at this point in the discussion. To your credit, you have not done so. Thank you!
"I accept your idiotic "dare." "
Um. No, you didn't.
She posted a picture of a fertilized egg. Something that you said was fully human. You are talking about ultrasounds. That is much much later then conception.
I don't know how to make links but this is the picture:
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repository/calag/img5404p60b.jpg
If the developing "fully human" being (A BABY) in the womb is NOT specifically THAT, then what the heck is it?!?
Zygote, blastocyst, fetus... Anne's picture was a zygote. Look at it. It's not a baby.
"save a bucket of ten of these instead of a toddler"
Inside you know that a toddler is more human than ten zygotes. That's why you don't want to think about it.
"I already stipulated that there are very difficult moral decisions that have to be made in the cases involving a threat to the health and life of the potential mother, the health and life of the developing "fully human" being (a baby), and rape or incest. I have NO desire to make those kinds of choices for anyone, but I am sympathetic to the difficulties involved."
Are you going to be consistent and say abortion in the case of rape or incest is immoral? Or are you just going to avoid the issue...
"The "reasons" given in the Guttmacher Institute study do not constitute "something major,"
Moving the goalposts. It's moved from inconvenience to "something major".
What I take from reading this is that a pre-born child can be murdered should the mother deem it convenient. Irony alert: these are by-and-large the same people whining and moaning about equal rights for all. Some are more equal than others, I suppose.
jpeger0101 is engaging in the usual leftist intellectual dishonesty whereby s/he frames the argument to suit the conclusions. They don't get to decide whether a fetus is a human life, because obviously it is one at the earliest stages of development. If someone kills a woman who's pregnant, does that not constitute a double murder? Would you be willing to tell the victims' families of such horrendous crimes that they didn't lose a new family member?
Given that there was NO picture attached AND no reference to a picture being attached, it is rather pathetic that you would then claim I "avoided" the dare by not looking at what wasn't there.
You continue to miss the point (obviously intentionally). From the moment a fertilized egg occurs, all of the genetic materials that constitute a "fully human" being are contained within it. From that point going forward, the only things needed for the realization of the inherently "fully human" potentiality is a safe environment and nourishment. If nothing interferes with the development process, then some of the potentialities will be actualized - while remaining as a "fully human" being. At no stage during its development will it be something "other" than a "fully human" being. Contrary to myth, there are not stages in which it morphs into a fish, then a pig (or is it a monkey?) and so forth. Ij its potentiality and its actuality, it consistently remains a "fully human" being.
As for being consistent, I acknowledged the difficult moral decisions that arise when a conflict between the life of the mother and the life of the child occurs. My personal choice in those specific situations would not necessarily be the same as someone else's decision, WHICH I DO NOT HAVE ANY DESIRE TO MAKE FOR THEM. I would not make the judgement that the other person was being immoral, even if it was different from my choice.
However, with regard to the reasons for abortion given (with the already stipulated exceptions), I do consider it immoral behavior to engage in sexual behavior that results in pregnancy without taking any reasonable precautions to avoid it (which are readily available), and then killing the resulting progeny.
You "moved the goalposts" from a matter of "convenience" or "inconvenience" to "something major". Re-read your own statement:
If abortion is to avoid something major then it is not for convenience - unless your definition of convenience is so loose that everything falls into it like the anonymous comment before yours. So according to your table, the majority of abortions are not a matter of "mere convenience".
The abortionistas have always placed these logically fallacious arguments in the defense of their Right to Kill, and Right to Specify Who They Can Kill.
First Fallacy: False dichotomy. By pretending that there are only two choices to their false "dilemma", they think they can force a moral choice which denigrates one of the parties. This is commonly done in ethics classes, where students don't realize that there are more than the two choices which they are allowed. In this case, two other choices are obviously omitted: (1) Save both parties; (2) Save neither party. This is merely a freshman logic truth table. The obvious choice is to save both parties, or die trying.
Fallacy of Appeal to Appearance rather than Substance; and Fallacy of False Definition. The appearance of a thing is not a firm indication of the true nature of the thing. The argument from appearance is the source of racism, for example. And the Fallacy of False Definition is another racist technique: I define your type as non-human, purely because I have the power of definition. This is circular and abuse of tautology.
The fallacy is applied thus: I define the preborn as non-human therefore it is non-human. As a tautology it is circular, not factual. If it is declared to be factual, then the circularity shows it to be noncoherent, and therefore irrational.
Thus it is with all abortionista arguments in support of their Right To Kill preborn humans.
This is not a baby. It's a fertilized ovum. I dare you to look at it (Yes, it) and tell me you think this is a baby. No, I dare you to tell me that this is even full human. Look at it. You know I'm right. You wouldn't save a bucket of ten of these instead of a toddler.
A baby is not a full human. A toddler is not a full human, but like the fertilized Ovum, they are all going to grow into full humans over the course of their development, unless interrupted by an awl and a shop vac.
The fertilized ovum of a human female is not going to ever turn into anything other than a full grown human unless it is otherwise interrupted.
The question is, when is it acceptable to destroy this human. Is it 20 weeks, 40 weeks, 41 weeks, 92 weeks?
I missed the link provided by Anne. I just looked at it. It does not change my position whatsoever.
Fertilized egg to just deceased: a "fully human" being from start to finish. A "human life", conceded by Mary Elizabeth, in the referenced article on Salon.
A very calloused response on her part: "A life worth sacrificing."
Not exclusively for the health of the mother or the baby, but because she "believes" in the "unrestricted" right to do whatever she wants to do with that "human" life. It's growing inside of her, if she wants to kill it, then she has a "right" to kill it, whenever, wherever, however for whatever reason she wants.
If that is not immoral, then nothing is.
The abortionist Right To Kill argument works equally well for women:
"Look at this picture/evidence! This is not a human, it is just a woman! How could you say otherwise!"
It also works for the mentally retarded, Jews, Gypsies, Gays, lawyers, intellectuals, religious and dissenters. It's been done literally to death: the Atheist experiments of the 20th century have demonstrated this mindset in massive scale and great detail.
It's actually a bovine zygote, Robert.
I think I've made my point. You can't tell the difference.
A fertilized egg is not a baby. No matter how many times you declare it is.
Anne,
Your persistence in this "not a baby" definitional battle is useless. It is a fully differentiated and unique human being at a necessary stage of human development. If you deny that then you are purely ideologically bent and without any rational views into the issue.
Let's go directly to the centroid of the matter: how did you acquire the Right to determine who lives and who can be killed? And if you have that Right, then so do I, and I can designate anyone I wish to be killed, so do you not feel fear at that prospect? If killing is a satisfactory solution to the discomfort someone feels, why are we all not enabled with that Right? Why are you special, or at least think that you are?
"It's actually a bovine zygote, Robert."
This is why Atheists are not trusted: they are liars. Under Atheism there is no truth, so there are also no lies, and any sort of deception and trickery and lying is part of their character. It's all acceptable under Consequentialism, which is the "end justifies the means", will to power approach to their corrupt worldview.
Far from truth and logic, which they deceptively claim, Atheists and AtheoLeftists are merely emotional and intellectual deviants. Killing one's progeny and the salivating support for such killing is a perfect demonstration of that. Especially when using trickery which, when revealed, proves only the degree of corruption (rhetorical in this case) which possesses these people.
Bovine means cow. The picture that Robert calls obviously fully human is a picture of a cow zygote.
A zygote is not a baby. It's not even a calf. Robert attempted to define a fertilized egg as "a fully human baby."
I've demonstrated that it is not.
The fact that not one person will acknowledge that a cow zygote is not a human baby is frankly insane and I'm done for now.
Anne,
Robert did not say that it was a human; he said that the picture did not change his mind. You are reduced from deception to lying. I did not even look at the picture, because of the intellectual fraud that involved.
You say,
"A zygote is not a baby. It's not even a calf. Robert attempted to define a fertilized egg as "a fully human baby."
I've demonstrated that it is not."
You have demonstrated only desperate word games, and ignored the actual issue: killing humans. No one was equating cattle to humans, and that claim is just... stupid.
Your accusation is disingenuous and is without any pertinence to the issue, which you dodge. You have been directly addressed with questions.
Answer them.
Anne,
You "dared" me to look at it; I did. I made no assumption that the picture was specifically of a human zygote, nor even of an AtheoLeftist ovum (given the bullsh*t you keep shoveling and the games you seem to think "prove" something).
I simply reiterated my position, which was also explicitly acknowledged as CORRECT by Mary Elizabeth Williams in her Salon article, to wit: IT IS A FULLY HUMAN LIFE. That the fertilized egg is one form (of many forms) that a "fully human" being takes during normal development is not in question by me nor by Mary Elizabeth Williams.
On the contrary, it DOES appear that you view it as "something" other than a "fully human" being, by your repeated attempts to redefine it through terminology to be something other than a "fully human" being, thereby giving you the "right" to dispose of it in any manner you may decide, for any reason (or no reason) whatsoever, without any adverse legal consequences, and also without any moral opprobrium.
Although there is no such thing as "settled law" (consider the Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned centuries of "settled law"), the LEGALITY of abortion was NOT questioned by me. I DO question the MORALITY (more specifically, the IMMORALITY) of an unrestricted "right" to kill one's progeny at any stage of development. You fail to address that moral issue at all. Why do you avoid it and merely play games?
It is what it is: a "fully human" being, from the fertilized egg to the immediately deceased corpse. Naming it something different does not make it any less a "fully human" being.
As Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said — 'How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.'
Calling a "fully human" being a zygote, fertilized ovum, or fetus is descriptive terminology associated with specific stages of development of that "fully human" being. At no time or point in that process does the "fully human" being cease to be THAT, and to become something other than a "fully human" being.
Once that FACT is acknowledged, we can then move on to consider the morality (more specifically, the immorality) associated with an "unrestricted right" to kill that "fully human" being.
Although it should not be necessary to spell this out, please look at the terminology I have used consistently regarding the "something" in question: a "FULLY HUMAN" BEING.
There is a reason for using the quotation marks around the descriptive qualifier "FULLY HUMAN". There is a reason for using the term "BEING" rather than "baby."
Anne, here's a word game for YOU. (It's called the literacy game.)
See if you can figure out my reasons for using "FULLY HUMAN" BEING without further explanation.
Here's a hint to get you started: there is nothing "deceptive" about it.
"There is a reason for using the term "BEING" rather than "baby."
These are quotes from one comment by Robert Coble:
"I see it as a "fully human" being (A BABY"
"(that would be a "fully human" being (A BABY), in case you aren't paying attention"
"developing "fully human" being (A BABY)."
"If the developing "fully human" being (A BABY) in the womb is NOT specifically THAT, then what the heck is it?!?"
"... into a "fully human" being (a baby)?"
"...the "fully human" being (a baby)"
"...a "fully human" being (a baby)"
"..."fully human" being (A BABY)"
"...the "fully human" being (a baby) developing in the womb"
"...the developing "fully human" being (a baby)"
That's from ONE SINGLE COMMENT. So thanks for being so careful not to use the term "baby".
30 second definition check on BING:
Definition of baby (n)
Bing Dictionary
ba·by[ báybee ]
1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk
2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb
3. childish person: somebody regarded as childish or overly dependent
I submit that (a) the second definition applies; (b) the constant quibbling over wording is a blatant Red Herring to avoid the discussion of culpability for assuming the Right To Kill one's progeny, and for that, the third definition applies.
Now THAT response was FUNNY!
Every single example you gave STARTS with "fully human" being, followed by (in parentheses) the term "baby". It is obvious that your understanding of literary convention is as deficient as your faux morality.
You have not engaged the primary issue:
By what moral authority do you arrogate to yourself the power of life and death (without ANY restrictions) over another "fully human" being?
"By what moral authority do you arrogate to yourself the power of life and death (without ANY restrictions) over another "fully human" being?"
I don't.
It's just another part of the anti-choice crowd's dishonesty - asking you to defend positions you don't hold.
"avoid the discussion of culpability for assuming the Right To Kill one's progeny"
The anti-choice crowd avoids discussing the fact that 5-week embryos can hardly be called progeny. No rational argument, pure emotional reactions and moral high ground base on nothing but personal opinions.
The anti-choice crowd avoids discussing the fact that 5-week embryos can hardly be called progeny. No rational argument, pure emotional reactions and moral high ground base on nothing but personal opinions.
em·bry·o [em-bree-oh] noun
1. the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.
If the development of a human embryo is not interrupted, will it grow into anything other than a grown human? The question is not if it is a human, but at what stage do you; the person advocating this humans destruction, feel it is morally acceptable to kill it, and what moral standard to you apply to justify it?
Is it 20 weeks, 40 weeks, 41 weeks, 92 weeks? Please enlighten us as to when it is appropriate. Obfuscation is not a rational argument.
If I were ever in a burning building, and standing before me was a crying five-year-old girl and a canister of 100 frozen, viable embryos, and I could only save one, I would save the girl. And so would you. So would anybody with a modicum of decency.
The question of abortion's morality comes down to where one draws the line that makes the difference whether or not the life of a fetus is worth as much as that of a person. I'm assuming you draw that line (arbitrarily) at conception. Personally, I see no logical reason to draw it there, not even in the religious context of this website.
What is the magic that makes a sperm-fertilized egg a full human being? Anyone want to explain it?
@CSS: ay, geez, are you wonderful people EVER gonna stop with the False Dichotomy? Ever? If we agree with you, we're 'decent'. If we don't, we're condemned (gasp!) as 'indecent' and everything we say, think and do is forever tainted.
What a load of hooey.
I think I behave decently whether you agree or not. You don't get a say in it. How's that? You like that? Set up some stupid 'If I was ever in this position, I would do this. If you don't agree with my choice, you're a bad person and we should disregard everything you have to say'.
For the love of God, do you really think everyone here is as foolish as you appear to be?
@ Anne Micallef: you're not here to discuss, or even disagree... your responses demonstrate you are here to *stir up shit*. Congratulations. You join the ranks of the other fools wasting their precious lives on garbage.
"I think I'm done here". Heh. That's the first truthful thing you've said since you arrived. And you know what? I agree!
123 alcohol: you come here and start slinging insults and assumptions like you always do. I thought you might celebrate the new year by pulling your head out of your ass, but it would appear you have not yet found a real hobby for your spare hours.
So you come here and drop turds. Thanks, buddy. Knew I could count on you.
@Pro-choice: what, did a bunch of you wonderful people from an atheist blog decide all at once to try spamming Stan's Place? Gads, we're not even into the third week of the new year and you're already spouting off about how "Anti-Choice" people offer "No rational argument, just pure emotional reactions and moral high ground based on nothing but personal opinions."
Did you think that up yourself or did you cut and paste it from your fave atheist blog? This is all true because... because *you* say so? Who the hell are you? Thanks for judging folks you've never met and whose arguments you routinely ignore.
You probably just described most "Pro-Choice" people, including yourself, to a tee. After all, what sort of reasoning have you invoked for killing a human being at any stage of development, beyond that of 'because I said so; because that's what I want. And I will make sure the goverment will guarantee I get what I want?'
That's not a reason. That's an excuse - pure ego and emotion.
Abortion?
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/massacre.html
READ THIS.
"Choice" is the perfect description of the intellectual and moral void that infects those who have given themselves eliteness and powers to choose... choose... to kill those who they choose... choose... to define as killable. They are now moving toward post-natals.
Their only restraint is their own choice: to kill, or not to kill. The arrogance is breath taking; the intellectual void is vast.
But it is not new. History is strewn with the corpses of the victims of these same self-endowed elitist "kill/not kill: my choice" types of moral voidists.
CSS
The false dichotomy of your tired old trope is this: there are not just two choices, as you try to pose. There are four:
1. Save A.
2. Save B.
3. Save A and B.
4. Save neither A nor B.
The False Dichotomy Fallacy is commonly used in these cases in the attempt to fool the reader into making an immoral choice (all choices but 3 are not moral in any system of morality, except under Choice - which is anti-moral).
The fact that you don't see that and that you actually attempt the False Dichotomy Fallacy says a lot about who you are in your own mind.
You would not be here, were you not once necessarily a fertilized egg, just as you were once a baby, once a child, perhaps now an adult. A fertilized egg exists for one purpose only: it is a necessary human state of development.
And then you go ahead with your own personal definition of who can be killed, and demand to know why not. Here are some interesting questions: why should all the killers not be killed? Under what system of justice are they running free? Why should guilty killers not be served justice? Why are innocent humans fair game to kill at will?
Moral dilemmas are thought experiments that involve conflicts between moral requirements.
They ask you to consider and compare two different moral imperatives and choose which one you feel is most important.
@Steven, where are your arguments against 5-week abortions?
ANY argument actually?
@Stan,
In REALITY, you don't always have 4 choices. Hence, you refuse to even theorize on REALITY. That's denial. No arguments.
CSS,
You said,
"They ask you to consider and compare two different moral imperatives and choose which one you feel is most important."
That is exactly right. The attempt is to force a decision that does not occur in real life: you must confer differing moral values on humans in a manner which devalues one human in favor of the other. In actuallity this is designed to "prove" to the participant that humans can, in fact, be devalued, and that the participant can be the one to do it. In other words, the participant devalues himself by allowing himself to particpate in the False Dichotomy challenge. Further, it devalues whoever insists on making the challenge, because they have already made the decision that certain humans may be devalued, and are attempting to add the next participant to the list.
In real life there is no such forced moral choice to be made; the "choice" being made is between (a) nurturing the young human life at the inconvenience of the human which facilitated its formation vs. (b) killing the young human for the convenience of the human which facilitated its formation.
In the most perfect sense, the abortionista argument is an argument for slavery: it asserts ownership of the human embryo, which is merely property, not human. Abortion is a form of slavery combined with the ultimate abuse of the slave: death for the convenience of the slave owner.
Moral dilemmas have been a part of debating philosophy for centuries.
"In real life there is no such forced moral choice to be made; the "choice" being made is between (a) nurturing the young human life at the inconvenience of the human which facilitated its formation vs. (b) killing the young human for the convenience of the human which facilitated its formation."
Real life is more complicated then that.
Choices,
My response to CSS applies to your assertion as well. Except that in reality no one faces the challenge as it is presented. The manner in which it is presented is purposefully designed to force a decision no one ever has to make, in order to force human devaluation to occur artificially. This is not an intellectual "thought experiment", it is a forced deception into immorality. So your claim to "reality" is a non-starter.
FYI Searle's Chinese Room is a legitimate thought experiment.
Prestigitation and deceptions of all kinds have long been a part of human history. Even the Euthphro "Dilemma" is a false dilemma, and proves nothing because the truth table has been stripped of half of the elements available to the actual logic decision.
So the false dilemma is not a logic device, it is anti-logic and is actually a rhetorical device used specifically for deception in the form of a logic trap. A common example of a rhetorical device used as a trap is the old "when did you stop beating your wife?", where the only rational position to take is the denial of the validity of the rhetoric itself, because it is logically false.
The purpose of the thought experiment is to weigh whether you really believe a fertilized egg is equivalent to a toddler.
It assumes that you wish to minimise death and suffering.
So instead of thinking about the thought experiment, perhaps you can answer a questions.
From a moral standpoint, is the life of a fertilized egg exactly equivalent to the life of a toddler?
C.S.S,
"It assumes that you wish to minimise death and suffering."
WHY would assume Stan would want to minimise death and suffering?
And how could a thing with no brain and no nerves suffer?
We can play false dichotomy all day long. If we are in your hypothetical, oh so hypothetical, burning building, and there are two persons, and we use your hypothetical "can only save one" rubbish question with no amplifying data, then what criteria would you use to decide? I don't even need to give you a false choice because as Stan already pointed out, you must devalue one human over another. Without all the facts it is just childish mental masturbation and nothing based on reality.
So let's review the question at hand. Would I save a child over tube of frozen fertilized eggs? Yes. Does that now mean that A) humans aren't being destroyed, or that B) I must accept a woman's "right" to destroy her progeny at any given time just because she feels like it? No it doesn't. Your silly quasi-philosophical question might have validity if we didn't already know that more than 98% of abortions are a matter of convenience and not rape, incest, death of the mother, or conflagrations of fertility clinics.
Now, please tell me at chronological milestone you think it is no longer okay for a women to destroy her progeny?
The fact that the abortionistas do not relent in the face of their own fallacy having been revealed indicates that false logic is not a priority to them or a problem for their worldview. They consistently want the human type (A) to be devalued in a manner which fits into their scheme of kill priorities.
This is absolutely essential to the maintenance of the AtheoLeftist elitism self-image which must be maintained in order to mask their personal ordinariness, which they reject.
However, using irrational means to obtain a false moral authority to kill certain humans is a cheap pursuit, and is not indicative of any real elitism. Personally presumed elitism is just as false as the illogic they use. True elitism is earned - just like true character, and trust.
Killing requires weakness of character, and certainly does not engender trust. The use of irrational logical fallacies to justify it further degrades any semblence of character, trust, and rationality in these folks. And that is why such folks demand respect when they can't earn it, demand trust when they can't demonstrate it, and claim that deductive failure and fallacy is logic in their universe.
WHY would assume Stan would want to minimise death and suffering?
That's a good question. Some people may consider obedience to rules to be a higher form of ethics than minimising suffering. For the purposes of the question, assume that you want to minimise suffering and death.
And how could a thing with no brain and no nerves suffer?
I originally wrote the question as "minimise suffering" and then realised that zygotes would not suffer so I added "death" as a concession to Stan. I'd like to be as fair as possible.
"(a) nurturing the young human life at the inconvenience of the human which facilitated its formation vs. (b) killing the young human for the convenience of the human which facilitated its formation."
You accused CSS of false dichotomy and created your own. The thought experiment which you avoid serves to prove that you would never consider embryos as 'human lives', yet you now put the thought decision of aborting or not as if it were a decision of killing any 'human life' or not. That's a falfalse dichotomy, abortion is not about saving a 'human life' or not. Pure emotial arguments based on no scientific facts, no grounded moral principles, just subjective morality backed by an imaginary god.
Atheists are Satan incarnated!! They want to kill kill kill much as possible! God bless all those who resist tthere temptation
Choices said,
”You accused CSS of false dichotomy and created your own.
You do not comprehend the logic of dichotomy, which is a choice between X and !X. False dichotomy is a forced choice between only X and Y, which ignores the other options as stated above. What I stated was the choice between [kill] and [!kill], which is the logical choice which a woman makes when “choosing” to kill her progeny.
”The thought experiment which you avoid serves to prove that you would never consider embryos as 'human lives',…]
You did not prove it and cannot prove it with false logic. “When did you stop beating your wife” does not prove that you beat your wife. False logic cannot lead to truth, yet that is what the AtheoLeftists persist in, and insist that such fallacious reasoning proves their case.
…” yet you now put the thought decision of aborting or not as if it were a decision of killing any 'human life' or not.”
Yes, because that is precisely what it is.
” That's a falfalse dichotomy, abortion is not about saving a 'human life' or not.
Abortion is about killing a human in a specific, necessary stage of human development.
” Pure emotial arguments based on no scientific facts, no grounded moral principles, just subjective morality backed by an imaginary god.”
The facts are quite clear: no adult human exists who did not necessarily exist at one time as a human egg, a human embryo, a human preborn, a human neo-nate, a human child, a human adolescent. Each stage of human development exists as a necessary state of being human.
The morals are quite clear: killing humans is immoral; even AtheoLeftists do not encourage the killing of neo-nates, babies, children, adolescents, or adults. However, they do approve the wanton killing of preborns. That is their current limit, set by their own self-derived moral authority, and which limit is thus subject to change upon any whim – as was thoroughly demonstrated in the AtheoLeftist sociopolitical experiments of the 20th century, where the limits were more liberally interpreted to include far more individuals than merely preborns.
The fatuous accusation of “just subjective morality” is laughable on its face. The only subjective morality is whatever the individual Atheist makes up for himself, making himself tautologically moral by designing his temporary morality to suit his current predilections – and changeable at a moment’s whim. Such an absurd argument made in the defense of moral killing of humans demonstrates the dire straights you find your arguments to be in. So what do you have left to offer after that? Let’s have a go at it.
"The facts are quite clear: no adult human exists who did not necessarily exist at one time as a human egg"
I guess that raises the question: so what?
"The morals are quite clear: killing humans is immoral"
Is killing a human always wrong?
I haven't seen anyone use logic to explain WHY abortion is wrong.
I've seen a lot of assertions. A lot of insults.
I've seen a lot of questions that assume their own conclusions: "what makes it morally acceptable to kill a baby for the mere convenience of the mother?"
Lots of arguments based on emotion: "why would my daughter be so sad about losing it?!?"
But no arguments against abortion yet.
The arguments against killing one's innocent human progeny have been given; purposeful obtuseness can and will deny that.
I will give the argument FOR abortion:
P1. Atheism has no principles attached to it.
P2. Atheism has no morals attached to it.
P3. Every Atheist is his own moral authority.
P4. Every Atheist may give moral value to other humans.
P5. Humans which are devalued for any reason are no longer considered human.
C. Devalued humans may be killed for any reason whatsoever.
Note that in the above syllogism, as in all arguments for abortion, the preborn human is always devalued. The devaluation takes many forms, but the most common are:
1. Mother's privacy has more value than the life of the preborn; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
2. Mother's inconvenience has more value than the life of the preborn; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
3. Mother's "reproductive Rights" have more value than the preborn; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
4. A preborn is not a person as I personally define "person", therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
In this thread:
5. The preborn doesn't look much like an adult; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
6. There is a false dichotomy which always devalues the preborn by its very design; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
7. A preborn is not a "baby" (regardless of dictionary contradictions); therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
8. "...the fact [is] that 5-week embryos can hardly be called progeny" as I redefine the term; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
9. "...So what?"; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn. (see 142alcorol above).
10. Suffering must be reduced; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn.
The entire abortion issue hinges on the abortionista's claim to have the right to devalue human life. The excuses for the devaluation are completely extraneous to the issue. If the abortionista does, in fact, hold the moral authority to devalue the life of other humans, then the reasons/excuses are merely procedural rationalizations in the killing process.
If one can arbitrarily devalue, then one can decide arbitrarily how to justify it.
Arguing against abortion is actually arguing against the presumption of elevated moral authority of the self-endowed elites. That's why there are so many jury-rigged protests: they are necessary in order to salvage their presumption of moral superiority, and hence their presumption of personal elitism.
Once you establish the governmental right to interfere in decisions about pregnancy, then the government has the right to not only to force pregnancy but also to force abortions. Depending on the circumstance, a government’s compelling interest in mandating pregnancy could be overtaken by a compelling interest in reducing population (see, of course, China).
""...So what?"; therefore it is OK to kill the preborn. (see 142alcorol above)."
Asking you to explain your argument is not an argument and it is dishonest to pretend it was.
How is the the existence of ovums an argument against abortion?
Part I:
Essence: WHAT a thing is ["fully human"]
Existence: THAT a thing is [being]
The logical argument (not "magic") is simple: a "fully human" being (with all of the potentialities and actualities associated with being "human") has the same rights as any other "fully human" being, at every stage of life, the most fundamental of which is the right to life. Without that fundamental right to life, there are no other rights. Since those potentialities and actualities reside in a unique "fully human" [ESSENCE] being [EXISTENCE] from the moment of conception, those rights are inherent in that "fully human" being at the moment of conception. It is NOT "arbitrary" to pick the moment of conception (the beginning of a "fully human" [ESSENCE] being [EXISTENCE]) as the moment those rights inhere.
On the other hand, it IS "arbitrary" to pick some amorphous time period and deem that "fully human" being as possessing the fundamental right to life only AFTER that arbitrarily chosen time period but NOT possessing the fundamental right to life PRIOR TO that arbitrarily chosen time period. That the time period in question is amorphous cannot be logically denied. The moment of "viability" cannot be established scientifically at a specific moment, but only within a range of a time period. It "might" be 5 weeks gestation, 20 weeks gestation, 22 weeks gestation, or (as some would have it), 92 weeks of gestation. (The medical profession has no way of pinpointing that moment of so-called "viability.") As a consequence, in an abortion there can be no certainty on the part of the "host" nor the so-called "medical provider" whether they are terminating the existence of a "thing" rather than ending the life of a "fully human" being.
Part II:
That there is a "claim" by a different "fully human" being to possess an "unrestricted right" to end the life of the Other (a "fully human" being) without moral or legal consequences does not validate that claim nor that "right," much less make it a valid moral claim.
Why is it objectionable to respect the claim to have an "unrestricted right" to terminate the existence of another "fully human" being, for whatever reason or non-reason that might suit the one doing the terminating?
Simply because once such a "right" is acknowledged as morally valid, the terms and conditions of that "right" can then be arbitrarily changed to suit the convenience of any third-party with sufficient power to enforce that "right" or to modify the terms and conditions of that "right." (The example regarding the Chinese government is apropos. So is Dr. Ezekial Emanuel and his range of "viability" of between 14 and 40 years of age. If you can just manage to survive to 14, you've got access to all the health care government can provide - until you turn 40; then, a government panel will decide your right to medical care [and thus your "right to life"] based on economic factors and cost/benefit ratios on the value of your contributions to the Collective.)
In short, "fully human" beings can then be devalued and disposed of at any time during the life of that "fully human" being by third-parties. It becomes a moral and legal requirement to first devalue that "fully human" being into some inferior category of "thing." After the devaluation process is completed, then literally anything can be done with that "thing."
If you doubt this, or think it is a far-fetched improbability, consider recent history and the current Chinese "experiment."
I do not believe in "slippery slope" arguments. If one group of people can arbitrarily define a "fully human" being to be a valueless and non-human "thing", then that same group can apply the same logic to any stage of life of anyone that does not meet their self-declared criteria. It is an all-or-nothing proposition: either such a right to make life-and-death decisions for "fully human" beings exists and resides in some "special" group of people OR it does not; there is no "slippery slope" between those two alternatives.
Stan: as always, if I have written something illogical or contradictory, I would greatly appreciate correction. TIA.
Thank you, Robert.
"It is NOT "arbitrary" to pick the moment of conception (the beginning of a "fully human" [ESSENCE] being [EXISTENCE]) as the moment those rights inhere."
Your argument hinges on this unsupported assertion so you may have to expand and explain WHY it is not arbitrary to pick the moment of conception and not some other time.
Still no argument... but attempts to show why the pro-choice position is wrong:
"4. A preborn is not a person as I personally define "person", therefore it is OK to kill the preborn."
Oversimplified, but close. However,
Pro-lifers (who are actually less 'pro-life' in reality) say the same, but worst:
'A preborn is a person as I personally define "person", therefore it is OK to force everyone, not only myself, to reject abortions.'
You can't justify that position. Choicers can and do. Logic, science, history all support the pro choicr movement. You are on the wrong side.
ATHEISTS WILL BURN their killings of preborn humans is evil and they know it!! they choose to continue their evil deeds because they are tools luredd by great satanic forces!
Wow, almost an instant response... I hope you guys here dissociate yourself from that kind of, hum... crazy person?
Crazy is the one who reject the offfer of salvation of our LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST!! ! you are SATAN tools!!
C.S.S.:
First of all, thank YOU for a reasonable response.
If certain "natural rights" (such as the fundamental right to life) inhere in each and every "fully human" being, then those natural rights inhere unconditionally from the beginning of existence of that "fully human" being, i.e., from the moment of conception. If the fundamental right to life does NOT inhere unconditionally from that moment, then it does become arbitrary (based on the chosen conditions) as to when those "natural rights" do inhere. Given that there is no possible way for any third-party to set that moment specifically, it then follows logically that setting a moment in time after the beginning of existence IS arbitrary, conditioned by whatever reasons (or no reason) may be deemed appropriate by that third-party.
If we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (borrowing form the US Constitution), then it should be obvious that if the fundamental right to life can be arbitrary denied to and removed from a "fully human" being for any reason (or no reason) based solely on the desire of and at the diktat of a third-party (no matter how intimately involved in the development process), and that the only "offense" that "fully human" being has committed is to merely begin to exist, then I submit that any deferral of those fundamental rights to some later date chosen by a third-party IS "arbitrary" by definition.
If, on the other hand, one takes the position a priori that each and every given moment is "arbitrarily" set, then, of course, the moment of conception will be assumed to be arbitrarily set. That it is not arbitrary is based on the notion of "natural rights" inhering from the beginning of existence. That moment can be clearly established precisely - the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, i.e., a fertilized ovum. At that moment, the life cycle of a "fully human" being begins.
I hope that it is clear that I am NOT going to spew "hellfire and damnation" as a method of discourse.
Choices,
Yes; warrior's response is not useful to a rational debate.
Warrior,
Your commenting is over the top and is unwarranted. Your statements appear to be cartoonish rants and threats. It is not appropriate to this discussion or this blog. If you wish to comment here using your opinion, that is fine, but do it without the attacks and provide some sort of reasoning other than appeal to authority.
If you cannot do that, then your comments will no longer be accepted.
Choices said:
”'A preborn is a person as I personally define "person", therefore it is OK to force everyone, not only myself, to reject abortions.'
You can't justify that position. Choicers can and do. Logic, science, history all support the pro choicr movement. You are on the wrong side.
Actually, Abortionistas rationalize the definition of “person” to mean whatever they want in order to justify killing that particular category of humans. The issue of course is not the particular definition itself, which may be placed on any category whatsoever (as has been done in the past by AtheoLeftist governments); the issue is whether any third party has the moral authority over innocent humans sufficient to order their killing.
The fact that the AtheoLeft uses so many rationalizations – such as redefining personhood to their own satisfaction – indicates both the level of irrationality which inheres, and the desperation they feel regarding protecting their own perceived, self-anointed moral authority over other classes of innocent, defenseless humans.
The class of AtheoLeftist abortionistas, along with “progressives” are the first to object to the Slippery Slope, aka Hegel’s well known thesis/antithesis/synthesis progression away from principled social norms. They are fully invested in this sort of “progress” toward total destruction of the existing society which they hate, but will not leave, preferring to destroy it. Of course they deny it, to admit it would be to allow a view into their abstruse “change” and “progress” mantras, which are slogans with no goals ever admitted.
Keep in mind that in a culture which admits to no truth, there are therefore no lies. So the only improper statement is the one not used to further the Consequentialist objective (Alinsky).
Any claim is justified, if it furthers or protects the AtheoLeftist self-vision of moral authority sufficient to kill whatever class of humans they define as killable, using rationalizations such as confer "non-human" and "non-person".
That these folks exist so close to the AtheoLeftist slaughters of the 20th century, yet ignore them studiously, is an indicator as to the problematic worldview which has captured them, no different from reality-ignoring cult worldviews.
Consider this "slippery slope" to the uterus through the vagina.
By granting to government the "right" (more correctly, the "power") to make arbitrary decisions regarding the fundamental right to life of a "fully human" being, those who are "pro-choice" have already conceded (in principle, if not in fact, at this particular point in history) that government has the "right" and the "power" to intervene in and dictate what can be done in the uterus and when it can be done and who can do it.
That the "pro-choice"advocates are at least dimly aware that what government grants at one time can be also be taken away by government at another time, they are "uneasy" and "fearful" of reversals of the government diktat controlling abortions to date. This is evidenced by the screams of anguish over "slippery slope" descents backwards to the "Dark Ages" (pre Roe v. Wade) whenever government attempts to "restrict" or constrain the conditions or times under which it is legal to have or perform an abortion.
Thanks for acknowledging Stan, none of you here sound remotely as 'intense' as warrior...
Robert said: ...then those natural rights inhere unconditionally from the beginning of existence of that "fully human" being, i.e., from the moment of conception...
That's the best summary of the issue. Stan, your statements can be summarized by that too I think.
There is no rational argument supporting this "line". We, as human beings, now understand conception very well. It's nothing more but random cells from 2 people forming a new random set of DNA. Why should we care about that DNA? Why consider this to be alive/progenity/human/baby/etc... it's nothing but a few cells, 1/5-1/10 of which will not yield a full human being, for purely natural reasons!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdra.23014/abstract;jsessionid=6B6DADD7EF5DC64C058B2F4C814F5BED.f02t01
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage
From the pro-choice perspective, the question is about women's health, independance, timing for raising a child, society benefits, but most importantly, what doctors who specialize in the field think! They know best when a bunch of cells should be considered viable.
A correction: the referenced source for the phrase "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was "borrowed" from the US Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Mea culpa; my apology; I can only plead encroaching senility and "all the flesh that heirs are ill to..." and continual interruptions while trying to type in a very tiny text combox.
Choices:
Please note an important distinction in our terminology: there is a difference in terminology between "full human being" and the term I have used, to wit, "fully human" being. Not the same connotation nor the same denotation, as I previously explained.
You have defined away the humanness [ESSENCE] of ANYONE, at any stage of the life cycle, by your definition. Under that definition, why care about any "random cells from 2 people forming a new random set of DNA" at any stage of life, regardless of how many cells there might be? You have devalued any and all "fully human" beings under that definition to being mere random collections of matter and energy, with no rights whatsoever.
The nine black-robed oligarchs on the Supreme Court had no problem arrogating to themselves the authority to make decisions about when the fundamental right to life inheres in a "fully human" being, without any specific medical training.
An appeal to medical authority in an area that they do NOT and cannot have definitive information (the amorphous date associated with "viability" previously pointed out) does not confer legitimacy on the pro-choice position.
Out of time...gotta go earn my contribution to the Collective.
Choices,
I disagree completely with your summary of what the question is "about". Your list is a list of false excuses, let's take them one at a time:
Women's Health. If women's health were a real concern rather than a flimsy excuse, then Gynecologists and hospitals would be the proper place to address it. Abortion abbatoirs are specifically NOT dedicated to women's health, they are dedicated to "two humans in, one human out, maybe to the hospital". Further, they would welcome oversight by health officials.
Independence. Becoming independent by killing your children is not allowed. Why is becoming independent by killing pre-children? The Left screams and faints at the sight of children killed in the target zones where children are not protected except by dogma - but they fully support the carnage of preborns sequestered into private killing zones, and fight mightly to keep those killing zones open, and the killing perpetuated.
Timing For Raising a Child. This excuse could apply to killing neo-nates and other children. This situation in no manner confers the right to kill.
Society Benefits. Seriously? Becoming a killing society is a benefit only to those who crave the power to kill those who are inconvenient to them. A killing society is much closer to stone age than to civilized society. What this is really saying is that unprotected screwing is more important than the human it generates. It is a degradation on all involved.
What doctors who specialize in the field think! This is listed last due to it's absurdity no doubt. Aside from the direct connection to Mengele, this is a Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, which points to the wrong authority: medical physicians are not moral authorities, and the question is precisely one of morality vs. abdication of morality in favor of killing power. It is not a question of saving lives, it is a question of desiring the power to take lives. Abortion is not about saving the mother; if it were, then the mother would go to the hospital, not to an abbatoir.
There are multitudes of other excuses for demanding the power to kill: "privacy" comes to mind, which is absurd on its face - is privacy all that is required to kill your progeny? All of the excuses are logically phony; they are used to cover up and deny the real issue, which again is the AtheoLeft's desire to convey upon themselves the moral authority to define who is human and who may be killed.
The Left has always pursued this, from the French Revolution on to the present time. They will not EVER stop their pursuit, but perhaps their faux moral authority can be denied them.
I oppose enforced pregnancy. The government should not force any woman to bear a child against her will.
Sex is not a crime and pregnancy is not a punishment.
Now let's discuss this assertion:
"There is no rational argument supporting this "line". We, as human beings, now understand conception very well. It's nothing more but random cells from 2 people forming a new random set of DNA. Why should we care about that DNA? Why consider this to be alive/progenity/human/baby/etc... it's nothing but a few cells, 1/5-1/10 of which will not yield a full human being, for purely natural reasons!"
Let's list the incorrectness inside this statement:
1. Random Cells: The cells which are involved are highly specialized specifically for human reproduction; they are decisively NOT random cells. Your comment is designed once again to devalue by denigration, and it fails logic. Without those specifically purposeful cells, human reproduction would not exist, and neither you nor I would be here. So calling them "random cells" fails logic.
2. Why should we care about that DNA? It should be obvious, but apparently isn't, that the new DNA completely and uniquely defines the new human being which has been launched into the developmental process. If you don't care about the uniqueness of your DNA, that's up to you. However, the new, unique individual is helpless at this point and requires outside defense against the attack upon him. That's why.
3(a). And this most egregious claim:
"Why consider this to be alive/progenity/human/baby/etc..."
Because it is fully in the human process of development.
3(b)...it's nothing but a few cells, 1/5-1/10 of which will not yield a full human being, for purely natural reasons!"
Double discrimination:
(i)First the number of cells is used to determine who can be killed.
(ii)Second, the idea that some of them don't live justifies killing any or all of them. This same thinking is being used by Singer et.al. to justify killing babies up to an arbitrary age he has set using his extraordinary moral authority to designate who can be killed.
My speech is offensivee because it's TRUE!
STAN is close ti SATAN, maybe you are in their camp after all!! Repent and accept Jesus Christ before it is tooo late
REAL warrior gives us another hoot:
Killing one's progeny is justified due to not supporting "forced pregnancy".
To wit:
The government should not force any woman to bear a child against her will."
Or not force her against her will to not kill her existing children, or not kill her husband or not kill her parents, or not kill her neighbors?
"Sex is not a crime and pregnancy is not a punishment."
This is of course true, but the conclusion is wrong: you are claiming that pregnancy IS in fact a punishment, just as Obama claimed that a baby would be a punishment for his own girls. That conclusion is valid only in an irresponsible society, where life itself is subordinate to sex. So subordinate that it can be killed at the whim of the inconvenienced irresponsibles who generate that life.
Free sexual activity is now considered more important than human life, a definite reflection on society and its self-centered denizens. Nearly all abortions are the killing of life generated by irresponsible sexual activity. Irresponsibility in sex generates killing. Sometimes a boyfriend demands the killing; again irresponsibility generates killing.
Irresponsibility and killing; that sums up abortion.
The government should not force any woman to bear a child against her will.
Just that.
Warrior,
Your comments are offensive because of the violations of the rules of this blog. You are aggressively hurling threats, without any logic or rational reasoning attached to your position.
Your position is hostile.
This is your last warning.
REALWarrior,
Killing is killing. Just that.
What about denying something access to resources?
Why should the government force women to bear children against their will?
REALwarrior tries harder:
"What about denying something access to resources?"
Do you mean in the sense of denying a human access to the continuation of his/her development? By removing his/her life by ripping apart his/her body? Is that what you mean?
"Why should the government force women to bear children against their will?"
That is not the case, pure and simple. These folks have engaged in procreative activities and procreation resulted; they engaged willingly. They were not forced against their will to engage in procreative activities (that would be rape, and that is not the case in the huge preponderance of killings). The government did not force them into the mode of child bearing. So your accusation that the government forces women to bear children is wrong and false. It is a poor attempt to lay blame on someone else, someone other than the actual actors in this killing.
It is within the government's venue to make the killing of humans illegal. That is a common feature of civilized cultures. That is necessary in order to delegitimize barbarism within a culture.
Deligitimizing barbarism is not the same as forcing a female to procreate. That suggestion is a Red Herring.
Feel free to keep trying. It is very difficult to justify the wanton killing of innocent humans.
In "A Defense of Abortion", Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body—to which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations
(From the Violinist Wikipedia page)
The violinist trope is an old one too. But it has a major defect: the person who is attached to the violinist did not engage in the activity which created either the violinist or his disability; the analogy fails before it even starts.
The pregnant woman is not hijacked by her pregnancy: she caused it.
As for the Right To Live, the fetus has as much right in the female's body as did the penis which ejaculated therein, and which enabled the creation of life. The female forfeited the right to determine the life or death of her procreation when she agreed to irresponsible procreative activity. The claim that the fetus has no claim in the matter is just another ploy to devalue human life by the personal definition of someone who presumes the mantle of moral authority to kill upon himself. I.e., the justification to kill defined classes of humans, as determined by the AtheoLeftist himself.
Sex is not without consequences. Killing the life resulting from procreative activity is the worst of the denials of responsibility for personal consequences that can be conceived of. It is amplifying irresponsibile behavior with the further irresponsibility of eliminating personal consequences of that behavior, by killing the innocent and defenseless human which proceeds from sexual activity: an immoral and cowardly conclusion to personal irresponsible recreational procreative activity.
Protecting an individual from the consequences of their actions serves only to perpetuate the irresponsibility in further similar actions, and is therefore irresponsible in and of itself.
Part I:
May I suggest a reexamination of the Salon article which was the impetus for this blog post? The title seems to sum up Mary Eliabeth Williams' viewpoint overall:
"So what if abortion ends life? I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice." [She makes my point, but for a totally different reason. I am distinctly NOT "pro-choice."]
Throughout the article, Mary defends the very point that I have made repeatedly: that the "fully human" [ESSENCE] being [EXISTENCE] is created at the moment of fertilization of the egg by the sperm.
She acknowledges the primary reason that almost all "pro-choice" advocates veer away from confronting this stark reality, using various euphemisms to devalue the "fully human" being or defining various time periods within which it is acceptable to eliminate that "fully human" being:
"When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.
When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?"
In my opinion, it not only makes the pro-choice advocate look "illogically contradictory;" it makes the case that it is an immoral position.
The devaluation of the human which results from the violinist false analogy is this: the human is not more than a tumor, and may be killed on that basis.
The theory remains the same, after the deflections are removed: the AtheoLeftist theorist who created the false analogy is the one who presumes the superior morality to enable himself to justify - using whatever story - to devalue humans into categories which allow their killing.
The use of this faux logic indicates the desperation which the clan of killing feels when they receive principled arguments against their Right To Kill whatever humans they currently devalue.
Part II:
Her final conclusion is simply stated - and (im)morally stunning:
"And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing."
I'm going to be charitable and ASSUME that she is referring to the very real choice that MIGHT have to be made in some cases between the life of the mother and the life of the "fully human" being undergoing development, AND that it is truly a situation of "either-or" and not "both" and not "neither."
Unfortunately for those who assert an "unrestricted right to kill at any time" a "fully human" being, according to the survey results from the Guttmacher Institute (previously cited and included), that situation only applies in a MAXIMUM of approximately 15% of the cases of abortion. That leaves a staggering 85% of all abortions committed for specious reasons having NOTHING to do with the "health of the potential mother." Since the "health of the mother" fails to apply in the majority (85%) of cases, the pro-choice advocate is only left with the option of devaluing the "fully human" being to the status of "thing," "random bunch of cells," random DNA," etc., in order to try to salvage some semblance of morality from that illogical "bloody" mess.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't work.
Sadly, you also know deep down inside that it doesn't work, but you persist in pursuing that ideology, because to admit that a "fully human" being has been destroyed simply because it "inconvenienced" the potential mother in some way is to admit to being morally bankrupt. To realize that 50 MILLION "fully human" beings have been killed by this "medical procedure" (another euphemism to avoid calling it what it is) is horrifying.
If you consistently apply this process, you can apply it to any "fully human" being at any stage of life. Recent as well as ancient history is replete with examples of what occurs when this process is taken to its logical conclusion: MILLIONS of innocent "fully human" beings get KILLED.
Running in circles... a lot of emotional charge of irrationality, yet still no defense of why we should consider a 5-week (or day!) old lump of cells 'progeny'. ALL points made by Stan/Robert are based on the faulty assumption that we must consider life at conception.
"Why should we care about that DNA? It should be obvious, but apparently isn't, that the new DNA completely and uniquely defines the new human being which has been launched into the developmental process."
Mary does a DNA test, her chromosomes are A1, A2, B1,B2... John does a DNA test, his chromosomes are A3, A4, B3, B4... if we use one of each A from Mary and one of each B from John, we have a full set of DNA for what could be their child, minus a few normal natural mutations. Did we just think about a new "fully human" being? Did we just kill it by not actually letting some cells develop using it? What's the difference between that thought experiment and a real life conception?
"Nearly all abortions are the killing of life generated by irresponsible sexual activity."
No contraception method is 100% effective and why would your opinion on what sex should/shouldn't involve matter? That's more telling than everything else. It's not really about saving humans. It's about imposing subjective moral opinions on others because sex has to be controlled. A big red herring that inform on the real intentions of the self labelled pro-life who actually favor control of other humans, hence are anti-free-life.
Let me add this regarding DNA, to be even clearer: conception is nothing more than a well understood natural process. We alter such natural process all the time. Killing viruses/bacteria, surgery to remove body parts (including stopping reproduction capabilities), drugs that affect mood swings or entire personality, etc... why draw this arbitrary line at conception just because it could potentially lead to a baby 40 weeks later?
Stan said: "The female forfeited the right to determine the life or death of her procreation when she agreed to irresponsible procreative activity."
See, if you wait long enough, the forced-birth crowd eventually spill the real reason: Forced pregnancy to punish the sluts.
Stan continues: "Sex is not without consequences. Killing the life resulting from procreative activity is the worst of the denials of responsibility for personal consequences that can be conceived of. It is amplifying irresponsibile behavior with the further irresponsibility of eliminating personal consequences of that behavior, by killing the innocent and defenseless human which proceeds from sexual activity: an immoral and cowardly conclusion to personal irresponsible recreational procreative activity.
Protecting an individual from the consequences of their actions serves only to perpetuate the irresponsibility in further similar actions, and is therefore irresponsible in and of itself."
What I take from the left's arguments is that whatever is in the development stages, including particularly a human life, terminating it isn't one and the same as terminating the *actual* thing. Using that (suspension of) logic, if someone is writing a novel, building a house, developing a game, et al. and their work gets ruined/destroyed during the development stages, whether intentionally or not, as it was incomplete, the final aim of the development (e.g. novel, house, game, etc) has not been destroyed. Therefore the same applies to human life.
Do not all of us continue developing well after having exited our mothers' womb? Technically what's stopping the pro-abortion crowd from 'stretching the distance,' so to speak, in order to allow for murder further into one's life-span?
Moving into theological territory, our lives are not ours to take -- we are God's property through and through, both body and soul.
Choices says
” Mary does a DNA test, her chromosomes are A1, A2, B1,B2... John does a DNA test, his chromosomes are A3, A4, B3, B4... if we use one of each A from Mary and one of each B from John, we have a full set of DNA for what could be their child, minus a few normal natural mutations. Did we just think about a new "fully human" being? Did we just kill it by not actually letting some cells develop using it? What's the difference between that thought experiment and a real life conception?”
You have invalidated your entire argument, with a fake analogy. The DNA in a viable egg which is part of the living procreation process is the issue, not some petri dish nonsense. You cannot make a viable point by changing the situation. If that is all you have, then you need a new approach.
” No contraception method is 100% effective and why would your opinion on what sex should/shouldn't involve matter? “
What I gave are facts: sex is an act of procreation (at least male-female sex). It's purpose is just that. Recreational sex has perverted that purpose. Are you denying that?
” That's more telling than everything else. It's not really about saving humans. It's about imposing subjective moral opinions on others because sex has to be controlled.”
And here you attempt to change the subject with a false Tu Quoque charge of presumptive morality which does not exist. Nice try.
First the Tu Quoque: irresponsibility is the issue, not controlling sex. You made that up out of whole cloth as a Red Herring. But we will stay with the actual issue.
Second: if you intend to defend your moral authority for killing, then specifically and fully do so: what gives you the right to classify certain humans as “killable”? That is the issue here, and it needs to be addressed. So I will state it again:
What gives you the right to devalue humans in order to classify them as KILLABLE?
” A big red herring that inform on the real intentions of the self labelled pro-life who actually favor control of other humans, hence are anti-free-life.”
Pure simple false projection. If there is one thing that is clear in the above thread, it is the elitist claim to have the ability to destroy life, a moral superiority which allows any rationalization to serve as devaluation of certain categories of humans in order to facilitate their destruction as is found convenient. The rationalizations take many forms. What is consistent is that the fetus may be killed and that the elitist is the one to define the moral reasoning for why the fetus may be killed. Thus the elitists have presumed for themselves the moral authority to kill as they see fit.
Obviously, civilization does require certain basic controls on its people. Not killing other humans is one of those basics of civilization. The destruction of civilization, which is being replaced with lawless (and lawful) barbarism from the top down (“Change”), is well under way.
” Let me add this regarding DNA, to be even clearer: conception is nothing more than a well understood natural process. We alter such natural process all the time. Killing viruses/bacteria, surgery to remove body parts (including stopping reproduction capabilities), drugs that affect mood swings or entire personality, etc... why draw this arbitrary line at conception just because it could potentially lead to a baby 40 weeks later?”
And here you have reverted to the comparison of destroying human life at will to procedures which are not destructive. Black and White Fallacy. And the final sentence is breath-taking in its callousness: the baby obviously has no value either. Wow. Perhaps you would care to restate that sentence?
REALwarrior interprets responsibility as punishment:
”See, if you wait long enough, the forced-birth crowd eventually spill the real reason: Forced pregnancy to punish the sluts.”
So if they take the risk, and lose the bet, then THAT makes it OK to kill their offspring? And it is justified as a government forcing them not to kill? Gotcha. At what arbitrary age limit would you set that final day for killing? 3 months? 9 months (Tiller’s fave)? 15 months? 36 months (Singer’s fave)? 360 months? 1200 months (Stalin’s and Mao’s fave)? Give us your moral date cut-off for killing, so we can discuss that.
REALwarrior,
After looking one more time at your comment, it is apparent that you decry consequences and being responsible for them (you bolded them as if they were indicative of something evil to you).
The fight against principled acceptance of the consequences of one's actions is a dominant element in the Leftist theory of Messiahism: egalitarianism of consequences (equal outcomes) are to be dictated by the uber-elites as a palliative to the evil of discrepancy in outcomes which exists. This of course obviates any need to accept the consequences of one's actions and replaces that with guarantees of congenial outcomes regardless of the nature of the activities of the individual. This is utopia.
Utopia does in fact require killing those who fail to measure up to the needs of the utopians. It has been done to death, and very recently in the 20th century.
One of the Atheist claims I see a lot of is this: At least Atheists don't have a crusade, and they don't kill people like religions do. Of course they don't; they are much, much worse, by many orders of magnitude, both in numbers and in viciousness. Atheoleftism is to be seen clearly when it starts to justify killing those who they devalue. There is nothing benign about it.
It's interesting that Choices "chooses" to ignore the point made by the original author, Mary Elizabeth Williams:
A "fully human" being begins life at conception.
Mary Elizabeth Williams is NOT a "self labelled pro-life(r) who actually favor(s) control of other humans, hence are anti-free-life.” She explicitly favors co-opting the "pro-life" position that life begins at conception into the "pro-choice" lexicon, while continuing to adamantly insist on an "unrestricted right to kill" that "fully human" being's life at any point in the development process for any reason whatsoever.
Quoting:
"Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."
After striving mightily to get across the notion that it IS a "fully human" being that is conceived, she then resorts back to the devaluation of that "fully human" being by labeling "it" a "fetus" and a "non-autonomous entity", trumping the fundamental human right to life of that "fully human" being simply because "She's the boss." (The last time I checked, no "boss" I've ever had was morally bankrupt (or stupid) enough to assert the right to make life and death decisions over me. Oh, wait a second: isn't that the same argument that slave owners used to justify killing those uppity slaves when they got out of line?!? Wasn't that the same argument used for breeding the slaves to each other [and occasionally with De Massa] in the interests of improving the "stock" of the (at best) sub-human and at worst, non-human slaves?!? And if it interfered with business, well, hell, just kill it; it's not really a "fully human" being anyway.)
On whose authority and subjective moral opinion is another "fully human" being's life being subjectively devalued? Please note that the "health" issue comes in LAST in her considerations of "Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health."
Mary Elizabeth Williams gives it all away in her final statement:
"A life worth sacrificing."
Whose life is she sacrificing? Surely not her own, so there is no "nobility" involved in sacrificing another "fully human" being's life. Why is she assuming the high moral ground by "sacrificing" another "fully human" life? For whose benefit is she willingly sacrificing another "fully human" being's life?
What "god" is she sacrificing to, in the hopes that thereby she will have a better life as a result: the god of convenience, the god of political correctness, the god of solidarity with the Sisterhood, the god of "Just because I can!"?!?
Robert,
Your comment brought back to my mind the issue that the killing is a feminist imperative, one which denies any input from the male parent. The father of the new human progeny is devalued to zero, which is a common feminist objective.
It is quite interesting that so many males submit to and even support their own devaluation. It is actually an indicator of massive irrationality in the form of the child-man, the female-educated male which has been totally defeated by the guilt instilled by his female parent/teacher - the male child is guilty of being male. He must make up for his guilt by supporting feminism as a denial of his own (evil) masculinity.
That results in internal emotional non-congruencies and logical non-coherent, paradoxical opposing needs: the biological need to be male and masculine, v.s. the need to satisfy feminism which devalues maleness and masculinity. For many, the latter wins out overtly, but the internal conflict remains.
For an interesting article on this go here.
"What gives you the right to devalue humans in order to classify them as KILLABLE?"
What gives you the right to label a 5-week old embryo as human?
But please, go on about how horrible pro-choice people are for killing 'humans', you guys seem good at writing multi-paragraph comments on that topic!
Thanks for confirming what your understanding of DNA is, my impression was correct.
Impossible to discuss with people who reject natural sciences.
"Impossible to discuss with people who reject natural sciences.
The only rejection of living biology has been by those of you who deny that a fertilized egg is anything more than random tissue. That is incorrect by any rational standard. All of the attempts here are to redefine the unique human developmental stage for purpose of killing it; they are so easily defeated using just facts that it seems like it would be completely unnecessary in a rational group discussion. But the ideology and necessity of killing for the AtheoLeftist is much stronger than any rational case made against it.
So certain classes are declared non-human by fiat, and thereby killable. That's the entire gig. The arguments are ginned up out of no rational content merely because there is a need to protect the elitist claim to superior morality and superior existence above those classes which are redefined by their own fiat declarations (as if those declarations are meaningful).
Your continuing Tu Quoques are, of course, continuing without rational value. You think you can avoid answering the question merely by issuing a counter claim which has no rational basis. But you are caught out by the question, and it sums up the moral problem for all AtheoLeftists.
Here's why:
It is not a moral decision to observe that a fertilized egg is a necessary stage in EVERY human's development. This is not arguable in biology of animal husbandry; it is only argued by AtheoLeftists pursuing their right to kill.
The only moral decision being made is yours: that you have the uber-moral authority to decide who to kill. That is the sole moral issue involved in the killing of humans.
You don't like having it called what it is? The AtheoLeft prefers to call the killing something else, purely to mask its reality. That is dishonest by any standard.
But the reality is that Choice means choosing to kill. It's just that simple.
We have discussed all of those AtheoLeftist deceptions. Unless you have more to discuss, we are probably done here.
That comment from Real Warrior where he just quoted Stan really should have ended the whole thread. It just really got down to the attitude behind his thinking. Women are having sex and they must suffer because of it or else they'll have more sex.
I guess he hates contraception too. It might also encourage recreational sexual activity by stopping the consequences...
I love it when he says "protecting an individual from the consequences of their actions" is irresponsible. Think about it.
Stan:
Please check the following for logical inconsistencies, correcting as needed:
1. A woman is a "fully human" being, a "given" properly basic fact, without argument (I certainly hope that is the case!).
2. Species propagate their own species, and NOT something "other than" the same species.
3. If a woman as a "fully human" being propagates, she propagates a "fully human" being. At every moment of the existence of that propagated "fully human" being, it is specifically and solely a "fully human" being.
4. Assume (on the viewpoint expressed by "pro-choice" advocates) that the propagated species is NOT a "fully human" being but something else, for at least some part of the life cycle, from the beginning (moment of conception) to some later stage of development (20 weeks, 22 weeks, 40 weeks, 156 weeks, ???). (For purposes of argument, leave aside the consideration of the "magic" that transforms "it" (whatever THAT might be) into a "fully human" being.)
5. But then, by modus tollens, if step 4. is true, it would mean that the woman is NOT a "fully human" being because she did not propagate a "fully human" being. She would not become a "fully human" being until such time as the propagated "it" became a "fully human" being.
6. THAT in turn is a contradiction of the "given" in statement 1.
7. Therefore, it necessarily follows logically that the propagated species IS a "fully human" being at all times and at all stages of development beginning at the moment of conception AND that the viewpoint that a "fully human" being is NOT present at the moment of conception is WRONG and logically incoherent.
I think you might be assuming your own conclusion in statement 3 and 4.
I can't read everyone's comments at the moment. The heatwave here is making it hard.
C.S.S.:
Thank you for the observation. I often get wrapped around the axle trying to be as explicit as possible without making unjustified assumptions.
142 alcorol
You have made it obvious. You cannot conceive of taking responsibility for your actions can you? That was the topic of the comment. That a woman (the dominant feministas and their apologists especially) should be exposed to no consequences for her actions is exactly the AtheoLeftist Utopia in a nutshell.
Do anything - anything whatsoever - and we of the Leftist Messiah Class will guarantee that there will be no discomfiting consequences.
"I love it when he says "protecting an individual from the consequences of their actions" is irresponsible. Think about it."
I should put this in bold (Ok I will). This is the exact Messiah complex which infests the AtheoLeft.
This is the attitude which demonstrates the radical departure from cause-and-effect rationality, and which procedes deeply into codependent disorder.
Do you really want to live in a world where assistance is doled out based on how morally correct you feel a person acts?
Oh, I guess you do.
Correct, nothing more to discuss:
"So certain classes are declared non-human by fiat, and thereby killable."
You wish to declare a few cells as human, by fiat, regardless of what we understand about these cells.
REALwarrior,
The world you are proposing removes all chance for character development, because dealing with consequences for your actions is the mark of good character and is the manner in which it is developed.
Further, the world you are proposing is tending evermore toward barbarism disguised as benificence - the ultimate self-deception.
Choices,
"Correct, nothing more to discuss:
"So certain classes are declared non-human by fiat, and thereby killable."
You wish to declare a few cells as human, by fiat, regardless of what we understand about these cells."
You have the emprical studies which show conclusively that the fertilized egg is non-human? Of course not; it is not the case.
The absurdity of that is drowning this conversation in its irrationality.
Robert,
CSS is incorrect. You have made two arguments; the first concludes at step 3. The second starts at step 4, and is the Reductio Ad Absurdum which validates the first argument. This makes the first argument complete and validated. I see no errors.
Ideologists will not be convinced because they do not accept logic as a critical factor in their acceptance of their conclusion. They have adopted the conclusion as a necessary feature of their emotional projection of personal elitism, and the conclusion is a feature of their moral elitism which is necessary to their continued emotional superiority.
So the counter argument will be in the nature to assert the fallacy of false redefinition, and will be aimed at step 2. However, this is a fallacy and not a logical attack. It is in fact a false rhetorical device which is asserted to deviate the issue away from logical analysis. That’s what we see going on in this thread, where a number of redefinitions are tried out as potential rhetorical “wins”, but are actually found to be logical, rational failures.
Logic doesn’t work with those who are deeply emotionally invested in their own self-endowed superiority and the urgent necessity of its protection.
"You have the emprical studies which show conclusively that the fertilized egg is non-human? Of course not; it is not the case.
The absurdity of that is drowning this conversation in its irrationality."
You want to impose your views, for no reason. Why is it a human? You refuse to answer, you just claim it is and then argue that 'we' want to kill humans.
Pro-choice argue that it's up to medical specialist and women to decide, together. Science tells us how DNA work and why it's nothing special at conception, in the sense that's it's nothing but one of many possible random combination. Denial and emotional responses is what you have to offer.
C.S.S:
Regarding step 3:
I originally wrote it as:
"3. If a woman as a "fully human" being propagates, she propagates a "fully human" being."
The idea is simply that propagation of a species ALWAYS produces the SAME, IDENTICAL species. I am unaware of any species which propagates a TOTALLY DIFFERENT species at the moment of conception, which then continues life for some ambiguous and arbitrary period of time as that TOTALLY DIFFERENT species, and then (for totally unknown reasons) morphs into the propagating species.
Ergo, the second statement of part 3. was to elucidate that idea as just given, and not to "sneak in" the conclusion.
Given that explanation and intent, I don't see how step 4 "sneaks in" the conclusion at all. It is the reiterated position of many of those contributing to this blog topic.
That Mary Elizabeth Williams in her Salon article (the original impetus for Stan's blog post) EXPLICITLY REJECTED the position that the "fertilized egg (ovum)," "random cells," "random DNA," "5-week old embryo," and all other euphemisms is NOT a "fully human" being from the moment of conception has been ignored by those making such claims on this topic.
Mary Elizabeth Williams in her article did NOT morally justify the contradiction between her acknowledgement that a "fully human" being exists at the moment of conception, and her continued insistence on "unrestricted reproductive freedom" (which from the context of the rest of the article is another euphemism for an unrestricted and absolute "right" to kill a "fully human" being for any and every reason whatsoever (or for no reason) at any time and at any stage of development; her summary statement is: "She’s the boss... Always.")
I surmise (of course, quite possibly incorrectly) that at least one of the reasons for studiously avoiding Mary Elizabeth Williams' position (which is also my position, to wit, that a "fully human" life begins at the moment of conception) is that it then becomes much more difficult (if not impossible) to MORALLY justify "sacrificing" that "fully human" being for the majority (85%) of the reasons for abortion given (by those having abortions) in the Guttmacher Institute survey. One then has to address the IMMORALITY involved in making that decision under those circumstances, and that would mean descent from the lofty heights of elitist moral superiority over those who oppose the "sacrifice" of a "fully human" being for 85% of the reasons given.
I think it should be obvious from the discussion so far that there are cogent and reasoned MORAL positions opposing an "unrestricted right" to kill "fully human" beings, and not just subjective, emotional reasons. The only way I can see to avoid that conundrum is to resist (highly emotionally?) the very idea that a "fully human" being exists from the moment of conception. If that morally and logically grounded position is conceded, then at least 85% of the "reasons" given for abortion collapse into immoral attempts to justify killing a "fully human" being which have NOTHING to do with the health or potentially life-threatening situation of the potential "mother."
Stan:
Thank you for the analysis of the argument I gave. I did intend that step 4 begin a Reductio Ad Absurdum, but did not realize that I had merged two arguments together.
Choices:
Quoting:
"Pro-choice argue that it's up to medical specialist and women to decide, together. Science tells us how DNA work and why it's nothing special at conception, in the sense that's it's nothing but one of many possible random combination. Denial and emotional responses is what you have to offer."
1. What is it that is "up to medical specialist and women to decide"?
2. Science can investigate "cause and effect" in the material realm but has NOTHING to say as science qua science on MORAL issues, i.e., the immaterial realm. That science can investigate and report "facts" (what IS) in no way provides ANY basis for moral justification (what OUGHT). You have "leaped" from a factual description of a fertilize egg (stipulating that said fertilized egg is the minimum number of cells that a "fully human" being will ever be constituted in) to a moral assessment of value ("nothing special at conception"). If I'm not mistaken, that is a logical Category error.
3. The description "it's nothing but one of many possible random combination(s)" ignores two aspects.
3a. The specific combination is NOT random, on the scientific view. There is specific DNA contributed by the egg and the sperm. The resulting "fully human" being is uniquely differentiated from all other "fully human" beings. There is nothing "random" going on, no swirling of various combinational possibilities of random bits of DNA, eventually coalescing into an "it." Every component of the combination of egg and sperm is purposefully intentional, having specific functions and performing those specific functions, with the "goal" (final cause and effect) of creating a "fully human" being. DNA encodes instructions for creating and maintaining the life of a "fully human" being. There is NOTHING "random" about it. That the process leading to getting the sperm to the egg involved "random" and undirected behavior is irrelevant.
3b. Assume (merely for the sake of argument) that the combination of egg and sperm ARE "nothing but one of many possible random combination(s)". The resulting "fully human" being (at every stage of life) would also then be "nothing but one of many possible random combination(s)". Consequently, you have inadvertently extended the irrational moral justification of the dubious "right" to indiscriminately (and arbitrarily, based on the "whim" of a third-party) kill ANY "fully human" being at any point in the entire life cycle (since at any stage of life it continues to be "nothing but one of many possible random combination(s)"). Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.
Why are ovum and sperm not fully human beings according to Robert?
142 alcorol said...
Why are ovum and sperm not fully human beings according to Robert?
I really do wish those responding would pay attention to this phrase:
A "FULLY HUMAN" BEING
Please note the quotation marks around "FULLY HUMAN". That is the designation of the ESSENCE. "being" refers to the EXISTENCE.
An ovum is REQUIRED to create a "fully human" being. A sperm is REQUIRED to create a "fully human" being. These are the necessary (but INSUFFICIENT, in and of themselves) PARTS required to constitute the WHOLE "fully human" being. Neither ovum nor sperm (independently) is a "fully human" being. The potential found in either the ovum or the sperm does NOT constitute a "fully human" being. It is only when the separate parts (potentiality) are combined (actualization of the potential) that the whole (actualized) "fully human" being comes into existence. That actualization process occurs in and at the moment of fertilization of the egg with the sperm.
"According to Robert":
PARTS IS PARTS, AND NOT THE WHOLE THING! But, when the WHOLE thing has been created, then NECESSARILY AND SUFFICIENTLY, by the First Principle of Logic, IT IS WHAT IT IS AS A WHOLE.
Next attempt, please, at attempting to divert from the topic at hand, to wit, Mary Elizabeth Williams view that (a) a "fully human" being exists from the moment of conception AND (b) that it is not only morally acceptable and even laudable to kill that "fully human" being at any stage of life but (c) also an inherent "unrestricted" right to kill that "fully human" being for any reason whatsoever (or no reason) as determined by "Da Boss."
I find it richly amusing that not one person vociferously asserting the "pro choice" position in these responses has even bothered to address Mary Elizabeth Williams moral dichotomy:
A "fully human" being, whose life is worth SACRIFICING.
Come on, people! Surely you can do better logically than merely continuing to recycle the same old rhetorical talking points, stuck in irrationality.
Maybe a little help from a "Bright" is in order:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p.133
Uh, on second glance, maybe that's NOT a good place to look for morality and ethical grounding - because on that view, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORALITY!
SHIT HAPPENS because, well, er, shit happens.
If you are unlucky enough to be conceived in a "town" where the townspeople can decide arbitrarily whether you live or die, well, shit happens, don't you know, so I'm sorry, old chap, but YOU'RE DEAD! That's just exactly what you'd expect in a universe without morals.
Choices,
Don't bullshit us, answer the question posed to you.
If you (in the generic "pro choice" sense) want to try making a moral argument, I suggest one possible starting point is the "utilitarian" viewpoint on normative ethics.
(I make NO claim that "utilitarianism" nor any other form of "consequentialism" are valid (rationally coherent in themselves), much less applicable to the topic at hand. This is merely a "thought experiment." However, given the paucity of actual moral arguments FOR killing a "fully human" being and the groping around in the AtheoLeftist moral Void for justification of the act, I thought I'd at least suggest a possible (at least nominally logical) starting point for those who seem incapable of doing anything more than "emoting" the various euphemisms devaluing that "fully human" being into something other than or less than a "fully human" being.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Quoting:
"Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering."
Taking the usual definition and restricting it to be "maximizing happiness" and "reducing suffering," we can then proceed to the arguments.
Let's consider "maximizing happiness." Surely we can all agree that the person seeking an abortion will be "unhappy" if forced to carry the "fully human" being to term, and then (a) being forced to be responsible for care and feeding and training of that "fully human" being for an extended period of time. (We'll arbitrarily specify that the responsibility ends at age 18, just for argument's sake.) But then we could "balance" that against the amount of "happiness" that the killed "fully human" being has the potential to actualize throughout "her/his" lifetime. So we seem to have a balance and utilitarianism doesn't give us guidance when the outcome is balanced. So, let's throw in the "unhappiness" of the sperm donor. (I realize that the "pro choice" default position regarding the sperm donor is that the sperm donor has exactly NO rights with regard to the decision to have or have not an abortion; the "official" position is that "right" to make the decision resides EXCLUSIVELY in "Da Boss.") I'm fairly certain that in most cases, the sperm donor would be much "happier" NOT being saddled with the responsibility of providing for a "fully human" being that HE doesn't want, until that said "fully human" being reaches the ripe old age of 18. So we are making "progress" toward creating more "happiness" by killing the "fully human" being than would be the case if the "fully human" being is not terminated.
Let's consider "reducing suffering." Surely we can agree that the "suffering" involved in an abortion is disproportionately felt by the one having the abortion, compared to the suffering felt by the aborted "fully human" being. Surely by aborting that "fully human" being, we can assume that potential suffering (on the part of the one not allowed to have the abortion, suffering she is forced to struggle to feed, clothe and shelter that un-aborted "fully human" being for 18 long and presumably miserable years; and also on the part of a "fully human" being who experiences the full force of being unwanted and resented for at least 18 years).
I make no claim to have either accurately represented the utilitarian position nor to
following it to its logical conclusion. I present it merely as an alternative to endless (and pointless) assertions as to the "itness" (not "humanness") of what gets aborted.
Stan, There is no question to answer since you subjectively define 'fully human'. I go with the current legal status of abortion, the current medical understanding of what human conception is and what control we can have over it, while letting professionals and individual women decide what they think is best for their family. Therefore, by challenging the status quo, you need to defend your position. if there is a question to answer is why you think aborting a 5-week human embryo should be considered to be murder. All you do is start with the assumption that it is murder. No support. Nothing to talk about.
Choices:
Re:
"You want to impose your views, for no reason."
Au contraire, mon ami.
First, I have made no imposition of my views. I have simply stated my logical reasons for opposing abortion when possible moral justification (the actual endangerment of life of the potential mother, the actual endangerment of the life of the "fully human" being to be aborted, and the extremely rare case of rape and incest) is absent, i.e., as given by women seeking abortion in at least 85% of the cases reported by the Guttmacher Institute. Quality of life issues do not trump the fundamental right to life of a "fully human" being. That is my disagreement with the original article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, which moral dichotomy you have (so far) failed to address.
Secondly, I HAVE given cogent logical arguments AGAINST an "unrestricted right" to kill "fully human" beings at any time and place for any reason whatsoever (or no reason). There is no "slippery slope;" once a "right" of a third party is invented which allows for the "unrestricted right to kill" a "fully human" being,then NO ONE IS SAFE from the arbitrary application of that "right" to any Other.
If one concedes (as did Mary Elizabeth Williams) that a "fully human" being begins at conception, then it becomes a question of morality as to whether there is an "unrestricted right" to kill that "fully human" being and also the circumstance under which it is morally permissible (or if it is NOT morally permissible). That it is currently legal (with some legal restrictions, which are adamantly opposed by the "pro choice" advocates regardless of the merits of so restricting that "right") does NOT provide moral justification for the act itself.
Totally aside: is it just me, or does anyone else find it very disquieting (regarding the viewpoint of Mary Elizabeth Williams) that "Mary" was the name of the mother of Jesus Christ and "Elizabeth" was the name of the mother of John the Baptist? Perhaps on her viewpoint she could consider changing her name to "Margaret Sanger" Williams in honor of her luminous advocacy for eliminating the "inferior" races and peoples in order to make "progress" in improving the (remaining) overall human "presumably, white") or at least the Aryan race.
Sorry, I forgot: the "Progressives" of the Third Reich tried that "noble" experiment; it failed to force of arms. China is about the only major country continuing that experiment today, after the bloodbaths of the twentieth century by AtheoLeftist governments intent on establishing utopian societies by force. Hey, if it requires killing a few million of "them" to establish Paradise, the remaining majority will have the greatest happiness. (You really won't protest and claim some amorphous "right to life" when they come for YOU, will you?!?)
Choices:
I go with the current legal status of abortion, the current medical understanding of what human conception is and what control we can have over it, while letting professionals and individual women decide what they think is best for their family.
And here we (finally) have the shibboleths that "might makes right" or "it's legal so I can do it without any moral considerations" or "it's moral because it's legal." Legal does NOT equate to MORAL except in the Atheo-Leftist mind.
Sorry, on that viewpoint and justification, anyone can justify any act against the Other: slavery (it was legal and therefore moral), extermination of the "inferior" races (eugenics, Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood), forced sterilization of "inferior" genetic stock (the "feeble-minded"), termination of the life of "challenged" individuals with Downe's Syndrome, extermination of intellectuals who might provide justification for opposing the in-power regime - the list is endless of who can be killed once an "unrestricted right" to kill has been granted.
WHAT PHILOSOPHY DO YOU THINK WAS BEHIND THE MASSACRES OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ("FULLY HUMAN" BEINGS) IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY?!?
Part II:
Prior to Roe v. Wade, did you also "go with the current legal status of abortion..."? If not, why not? If that was sufficient justification to NOT legally sanction abortion, then why would you favor changing centuries of "settled law" which you explicitly accepted as being "valid" simply because it was legal?
Sorry, that dog don't hunt either.
”Stan, There is no question to answer since you subjectively define 'fully human'.
And that is the same bullshit. ANSWER the question: What empirical study can you provide that shows that a fertilized egg is non-human? WHERE IS IT? It’s your claim so SUPPORT IT! When you have actually NOT proved your assertion, then man up and admit it. Then answer the next question:
What gives you the moral authority to devalue a human, and designate him/her as killable??
If you refuse to even answer by using the same old run-away crap, then there is no point in even talking to you. Your desire to kill exceeds any rationality you might have.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LIKE AN ADULT.
” I go with the current legal status of abortion,..”
Purely non-empirical, with no possible proof of empirical validity; presumes that all laws are moral: absurd answer. Robert killed this assertion just above.
“…the current medical understanding of what human conception is…”
False. False. False. Show us the study, or take this assertion back and admit that it is false.
”… and what control we can have over it,…”
Anyone can control and kill anyone else; does that make it right? This assertion is also absurd.
“…while letting professionals…”
Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, and no particular authority at that.
…” and individual women decide what they think is best for their family.”
Then that applies to the woman who killed her neo-nate in Texas this week, too. The concept of killing as OK because it is “best for the family” is still absurd, and illegal in most cases except where the AtheoLeft has redefined a class of humans to allow them to be killed on demand. Still absurd.
”Therefore, by challenging the status quo, you need to defend your position. if there is a question to answer is why you think aborting a 5-week human embryo should be considered to be murder. All you do is start with the assumption that it is murder. No support. Nothing to talk about.”
FALSE. The case has been abundantly and repetitively made; you reject it (proving that the case has been made) with a long string of absurdities which you think obscure the real issue which is that you think that you can morally devalue human life into classes which are killable on demand; when asked what your moral authority over those lives are, you never answer, you deviate back through the same absurdities, over and over.
You have devalued the life of the “5-week human embryo” by claiming without evidence that it is not human, so it can be killed. You have been challenged to support your claim that "it is not human" with actual empirical studies, and you do not. Instead, you make transparently meaningless references to unidentified authority, which, out of all of the absurdities you throw out, is the most absurd of all.
So either provide empirical evidence to support your assertion with empirical studies or admit like an adult that you can’t.
Taken separately and before fertilization, no human can result and the DNA is purely that of the adult which provides it. After fertilization the new human is fully differentiated by combined DNA defining the new human, which is within the now viable egg which will now in a state of human development. That state of human development is not available to sperm or eggs which are not combined in the fertilization process.
The above comment was for 142 alcorol.
Consider my adamant objection to the granting of an "unrestricted right to kill" to ANYONE or to ANY GOVERNMENT.
You may approve of the Chinese government providing abortion on demand, lauding the "humanitarian impulses" that provide those services for "free." Having usurped the power and self-granted "right" to "unrestricted control" over the Other, are you really naive enough to believe that the Chinese government would not FORCE women to bear children, if the ruling elites decided that was in their own best interests?!? Do you have any doubt that the same "benevolent" Chinese government would FORCE women to bear children if the ruling elites decided that was in their own best interests?
If you can see that little, then why are you totally incapable of accepting that there just might be reasons in principle to oppose either granting that power to any government or allowing any government to usurp that power?
"An ovum is REQUIRED to create a "fully human" being. A sperm is REQUIRED to create a "fully human" being."
Then maybe a zygote is required to create a fully human being. Maybe an embryo is required to create a fully human being. Maybe a foetus is required to create a fully human being.
But even if they are required to make a fully human being, that don't make them necessarily fully human beings in themselves. I believe that the only reason you believe a zygote is a fully human being is because you defined it as one.
"PARTS IS PARTS, AND NOT THE WHOLE THING! But, when the WHOLE thing has been created, then NECESSARILY AND SUFFICIENTLY, by the First Principle of Logic, IT IS WHAT IT IS AS A WHOLE."
Maybe a zygote is a "part". Maybe an embryo is a "part". The only reason you think a zygote is a whole is - BECAUSE YOU DEFINED IT SO.
142 alcorol:
That is incoherent on the face of it.
I refer you to this (in a previous post):
As Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said — 'How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.'
Calling a "fully human" being a zygote, fertilized ovum, or fetus is merely descriptive terminology associated with specific stages of development of that "fully human" being. At no time or point in that process does the "fully human" being cease to exist as a "fully human" being, or to become something other than a "fully human" being.
Come on: this repeated cycle of attempted re-labeling (in a vain and desperate attempt to hold the moral "high ground") is getting ridiculous.
That different labels can be and are applied to the various stages of "fully human" being development is uncontested and uncontestable.
Applying a different descriptive label to a particular subject does NOT entail any change whatsoever in the subject being re-labeled - except to possibly devalue it (in the minds of those doing the re-labeling) to a "less than" state in an attempt to avoid the immoral ramifications of their position vis-a-vis killing it.
As a Reduction ad absurdum, I could re-label YOU as an "idiot" and myself as a "Bright," but that would have no bearing on what each of us IS; neither you nor I would be any stupider or smarter as a result of the re-labeling. We also would not change from being "fully human" beings.
I would prefer to think of you as a reasoning and reasonable "fully human" being. Consequently, I would like to see some semblance of reason applied in your responses, responding to the argument(s) given, rather than merely re-labeling attempts, struggling (unsuccessfully, so far) to avoid the immoral implications of the position in Mary Elizabeth Williams' Salon article, to wit:
A "fully human" being, whose life is worth SACRIFICING.
Why do you studiously avoid addressing HER position?!?
Is it like the 11th "commandment" of the Republican Party?
"Thou shalt not EVER publicly criticize members of the Sisterhood or disagree with the "official" position, especially on ANY issue which might give "aid and comfort to the enemy" and result in restrictions on the "right" to kill "fully human" beings?"
alcorol,
"Maybe a zygote is a "part". Maybe an embryo is a "part". The only reason you think a zygote is a whole is - BECAUSE YOU DEFINED IT SO."
False. The only reason to think that it is anything less than human at its natural state of development is purely because you and the AtheoLeft define it as such in order to create a Kill Class of Humans which you designate as acceptable to kill on demand.
You cannot escape the fact that you are the one categorizing and classifying a segment of normal, innocent, developing, living human beings into Kill Classes in order to facilitate their killing.
No amount of phony rationalization can change the reality.
You can designate the time at which you personally define the emergence of a "human" all you want, and that serves specifically to illuminate the fact that you defined the point where the previous life was Classified as the Kill Class.
The AtheoLeftist arguments for killing which have been posted lately on this thread have become so silly at this point that I doubt that the commenters are actually serious. I'm thinking trolls.
I have placed another post on the subject of abortion at the top of the blog. If there are any serious commenters out there, they can comment there.
Stan, i not attempting to justify anything, i told you there is nothing more to talk about. this is reality. In reality, 5-week embryos are not considered humans and hence can be legally and morally be disposed of. Either provide empirical evidence, arguments facts, anything to suport your assertion (that they are to be considered human) or admit like an adult that you can’t and concede that you 'feel' this is right. Your emotions are not arguments.
Post a Comment