Now, I think that "pro-life" means an opposition to the legal right to access to abortion, and that one's position on the legal question can and should be distinguished from one's conclusion about morality. We can support individual liberty to do a lot of things that we think are morally wrong — lying to friends, cheating on your spouse, destroying useful possessions instead of giving them to charity, etc. etc. But that insight isn't helpful in explaining the discrepancy Gallup identifies. Although I can see why more people could come to believe that abortion is morally wrong without wanting to deprive women of control of their own bodies, the trend in the polls goes in the opposite direction. The moral opinion is stable, even as more people are saying they are pro-life.
It would be good if the poll had a question asking people to pick one of these 4 categories:
1. abortion is morally wrong and should be banned or severely restrictedI'm saying I understand — and I personally agree with — #3. And I don't think the poll shows an increase in #3. I think #4 is the strangest idea, and the Gallup results look as though it is the increasing category. Since that is unlikely, I'm inclined to accept Gallup's hypothesis that the label "pro-life" has become more popular — at least when answering questions asked by pollsters. Are there also more out-and-proud pro-lifers these days?
2. abortion is not morally wrong and should not be banned or severely restricted
3. abortion is morally wrong but it should be not be banned or severely restricted
4. abortion is not morally wrong but it should be banned or severely restricted
Posts
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229danielle said: (re my slavery analogy)
I think we got our lines crossed a bit, and you lost sight of what that argument was in response to. It doesn't, in any way, show that a fetus is a human being with a right to life, nor is it intended to. I'd argue that one on the merits, but a number of others have covered that for me.
It was in response to your arguments that one can believe that the fetus is a human life, but can't force that belief on others. It is an example of another situation where that was an argument, but, because failure to force that belief on others affects actual human beings, the mind your own business argument is completely and totally morally bankrupt. It's not OK to turn your back on slavery, because it is the slave owner's personal choice. It is not OK to turn your back on abortion, if it kills another human being (which I am certain it does), simply because you don't want to be involved with someone else's busines. It is the exact same situation.
**********
Crack, you acuse me of lazy thinking for using this analogy, yet you never make any argument as to why the analogy is flawed or lazy. Instead, you try to claim some argument that I am "using exploited groups for convience" as if I am to ignore history. Someone's doing some lazy thinking here, but it sure isn't me.
- Lyssa
Lyssa -- no, i didnt loose sight of what that argument was in response to. I think you misunderstood my point which I'll explain again after I point out where this went wrong. In your first paragraph you wrote:
" It doesn't, in any way, show that a fetus is a human being with a right to life, nor is it intended to."
That's true. But that's where we disagree. And that was my question. The basis for your unyielding confidence that zygotes are human entities on which the gov't can legislate. You then go on to talk about what you seem to judge as correct morality:
"It is not OK to turn your back on abortion, if it kills another human being (which I am certain it does), simply because you don't want to be involved with someone else's business."
My point was that all of this hinges on whether or not zygotes and fetuses are human. (Others -- not me -- argued that they think they are but wouldnt push that belief on others). I genuinely am really wondering about how we define human. I know you think zygotes are people, but you have to admit that there are vast differences between a collection of a few cells and the way those cells function and interact and the way a fully formed baby does.
oh, and I agree with Crack that throwing slavery into the mix is an underhanded way to try to claim the moral high ground. I think you probably honestly believe in your rightness, but i'm sure you also know that allusions to slavery in America is also a cheap way to try to goad people into shame and silence by evoking a history of pain and conflict.
as a follow up, if you believe zygotes are human, you are probably against embryonic stem cell research ? Do you also have problems with people destroying left over embryos after they do in vitro fertilization ?
...when the subject was termination of a fetus and whether or not it was murder.
You were clearly confused about how it was possible for a killing to be immoral if it wasn't "murder or something very closely related". I politely explained how it was possible, whereupon you became very angry and threw a temper tantrum, while, apparently, remaining confused.
I offered no opinion on the relative value of puppies and babies. I explained that killing a puppy is wrong. This means that killing a baby is wrong if a baby's life is at least as morally worthy as that of a puppy. Saying "he mentioned puppies in a discussion about abortion so he must think puppies = babies" was so idiotic I concluded you must be trolling, that's all.
So you're either completely unable to focus, or you're an utter imbecile.
What an oddly angry little man you are. I particularly like the bit about "focus", as if I was obligated to religiously adhere to exactly what you wanted to discuss. :)
danielle, the argument that a person believes that a fetus is human, but wouldn't push that belief on others, is silly. It is as silly as saying that you don't believe in slavery, but wouldn't stop others from owning slaves. The people making that argument, including you, are making a silly argument. It's as simple as that.
As far as I can tell, this is the first time that you have asked me what my logic is for thinking fetus is are human. I haven't been participating in that side of the argument, and it wasn't really directly relevant to the original post. Others have done it well: separate DNA, human life, etc. I've seen ultrasounds; it takes some serious mental work arounds to argue that what is hidden in the womb is fundamentally different than a newborn baby. There is no magical bestowing of life that occurs after one crosses the birth canal.
Yes, a fetus is different from the outside of the womb person that you can see, but in no more fundemental way than the ways that a newborn is different than a five year old, or a preschooler is different than a teenager, or a 19 year old is different from an AARP member. We're all clumps of cells, just some are bigger and shaped differently than others.
As for stem cells- way off topic, and I'm more interested in the validity and logical consistency of the arguments. But, since you asked, I don't believe in IVF, if it creates extra embryos (I think they can do it without extras now, but I'm not clear on the details). I'm a strong proponant of adoption for those who cannot conceive. That said, since there is no real brain tissue involved, it's a little less disturbing than full abortion.
Since we already have extras, I fully support trying to have them adopted. If there is truely no way to save them, though, it is in our best interests to experiment, just as it is good to experiment (humanely, of course) on terminal cancer patients in attempts to find better treatments.
- Lyssa
Ok, wait Rev, I see I need to break this down for ya. You just said:
"You were clearly confused about how it was possible for a killing to be immoral if it wasn't "murder or something very closely related".
Nope. Actually that's not what I said or even implied. Here's your disconnect. I was talking about killing a baby/fetus/whatever we're going to call an unborn human. I wasn't talking about killing in general. Do you get it now? Read a little slower if it helps.
That's pretty significant context you're leaving out. You decided to talk about killing puppies to illustrate a point that didn't really relate to my question. So yeah, if you're responding to a question I asked, sorry if I don't think it's "religiously adhering" to any agenda if you stay reasonably close to the point.
Put another way: your contribution was worthless. That's not me being angry or throwing a tantrum, that's me telling it like it is. Don't project your anger on me because you wandered off into Lala land.
Look, I get what you're trying to say since you have since clarified. I even said so much upthread if you had bothered to read it. But no, you got pissy because I snarked at you for a poor comparison that had little to do with what I was talking about.
If you can't stick to the topic, that's your problem, so don't try to make it mine.
And just to show I'm being as good natured as you are, I'll put a little smiley at the end like you do.
:)
See? All better.
I think the puppies thing is not relevant. You can kill a puppy, but you can't murder one. Murder is reserved for humans.
My point was that all of this hinges on whether or not zygotes and fetuses are human. (Others -- not me -- argued that they think they are but wouldnt push that belief on others). I genuinely am really wondering about how we define human. I know you think zygotes are people, but you have to admit that there are vast differences between a collection of a few cells and the way those cells function and interact and the way a fully formed baby does.
If it isn't human, then what is it? Each zygote has its own unique DNA code. It meets the 4 criteria for biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
A zygote is absolutely human, but it is perhaps not a person. It has the potential to develop into human life, but it will never develop into anything other than a human.
It does not function and interact the way a fully formed baby does, but neither does a person in a coma, or someone who is profoundly disabled.
if you believe zygotes are human, you are probably against embryonic stem cell research ? Do you also have problems with people destroying left over embryos after they do in vitro fertilization ?
For myself, that is correct. I would no more perform scientific experiments on a human embryo than I would a prisoner on death row, who will also "just die anyway."
At this point, embryonic stem cell research has not produced anything very promising. If it had, there would be plenty of private funding available. On the other hand, adult stem cells are being used right now to cure or help a variety of diseases.
the argument that a person believes that a fetus is human, but wouldn't push that belief on others, is silly
To reiterate in part what I have said before, what people "believe" is irrelevant. Either the entity in the womb is a separate living human being or it is not. Either it is or it is not. Belief is beside the point. And whether it is or is not can be, and has been, determined conclusively as a matter of fact.
The non-personhood of the unborn, and the related non-human, non-life of the unborn, arguments have always been the weakest arguments in favor of abortion inasmuch as they require turning truth on its head.
A much stronger argument is that of justifiable homicide. That is, that abortion does indeed involve the intentional killing of a human being, but it is justified by this factor or that factor.
But that is not the road upon which Justice Blackmun (and the rest of the pro-abortion faction) decided to proceed.
They chose instead relativism, the Kennedyesque choose your own truth relativism of Casey. So now we have to live under that dictatorship of relativism, regardless of how irrational and opposed to reason it might be, no matter how opposed to the truth of woman and her inherent dignity, and the inherent dignity of innocent human life it might be.
Lyssa, please review my posts here. I have not argued that terminating a pregnancy is killing a person. Perhaps you are trying to morph what I was saying into a position that you refute with the judgment 'silly' (a position, that I'm sure you realize many very thoughtful and intelligent and moral people hold -- but still, you disrespect them and call them silly).
Some people you deem 'silly' had this to say about it. There are two very interesting paragraphs that start with "Our law affords constitutional protection ..".
Still a silly view, Lyssa ? Or will you still belittle these people who disagree with you ?
Flexo -- what is your justification for this statement:
"And whether it is or is not can be, and has been, determined conclusively as a matter of fact."
my link above was bad.
try <a href = "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833> this one <\a>.
today is not my day.
one last try ....
Either the entity in the womb is a separate living human being or it is not.
This question is clear cut, because the entity in the womb is not a separate living human being (satisfying every element of separate, living (and separately-living) and human), and won't be until it is born.
This question is clear cut, because the entity in the womb is not a separate living human being (satisfying every element of separate, living (and separately-living) and human), and won't be until it is born.
Viability outside the womb seems arbitrary and also subject to change. Also, has the POTUS ever denied his vote against a bill banning live-birth abortions? How much more viable do you need than live-birth FLS?
In any event, the people of this country are moving in a direction away from where you want things to be towards a situation where they will have more say. HCR, once it kicks in, should accelerate this.
Nope. Actually that's not what I said or even implied.
You mean it isn't what you meant to say. In response to Synova's statement:
there are more ways for abortion to be morally wrong other than being murder. It's not murder or nothing.
You replied:
I've been waiting for someone (someone who chooses #3 for example) to explain what's wrong or immoral about abortion. If it's not murder or something very closely related, then what is it?
So obviously, yes, you were utterly unable to figure out how abortion could be immoral if it wasn't "murder or something very close to it". I realize you're probably embarrassed for not having been able to figure it out after all these people explained it to you, but really that's no reason to get snippy with me. :)
You decided to talk about killing puppies to illustrate a point that didn't really relate to my question.
Of course it did. I'm sorry you haven't been able to figure it out. Let me explain it as simply as I can:
Abortion, in many people's opinion, needlessly kills a living thing. Many people consider this wrong, even people who don't think a fetus qualifies as something close to human. Do you understand now? I'm afraid I can't dumb it down any further.
Look, I get what you're trying to say since you have since clarified.
If you'd paid attention the first time instead of reflexively spewing your mental diarrhea over everyone you didn't immediately understand, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble.
"Either the entity in the womb is a separate living human being or it is not."
This question is clear cut, because the entity in the womb is not a separate living human being (satisfying every element of separate, living (and separately-living) and human)
Consider a case of adult conjoined twins who share a heart. Neither twin satisfies "every element of separate, living, separately-living and human". Does this mean you could surgically separate them, give one twin the heart, and let the other die -- without having killed a living human being?
Either the entity in the womb is a separate living human being or it is not. Either it is or it is not. Belief is beside the point.
There is no universally agreed upon definition for "living human being". So, no, it isn't a simple matter of "it either is or it is not". It either does or does not qualify under any ONE definition, but it could certainly qualify under one but not another.
E.g., so far as most people were concerned Terri Schiavo was no longer a "living human being" and the people desperately fighting to keep her heart beating were preserving an empty husk. Those people quite obviously felt differently about her.
How much more viable do you need than live-birth FLS?
The criteria for live birth are quite undemanding. A single pulsation of the umbilical cord is enough, a criterion easily met by an anenchaphalic child which could survive only minutes outside the uterus.
Does this mean you could surgically separate them,
Rev, I didn't say that the question was useful or an accurate depiction of the situation, only that it was clear cut.
Viability covers a range of physical conditions. But I'm pretty sure a cerebrum and cerebellum are required for viability.
I’m glad this is still going. I’d like to weigh in :-)
I’m pro-choice. I don’t think that abortion is immoral or murder. However, I think that by the third term – a woman has chosen :-) I posted this the last time this subject came up:
You don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. C. S. Lewis
I look at life that way. We are souls that have bodies (vehicles). What goes on in a pregnancy is the production of a vehicle, imo. Once a soul enters it – it is alive. Before that, it’s not.
That’s purely belief. There is no proof. There never will be, I don’t think. There will never be *proof* of when life begins or whether there is a God or all kinds of very interesting, very personal philosophical ideas, imo. And whether or not it is ok with some people – others will continue to belief differently than they do. Humans are exasperating that way :-)
It seems to me that *if* you really, honestly believe that abortion is murder – murder! – the killing of an innocent human baby:
1. you would be doing everything you can to stop the killing. I don’t know how you would even sleep at night.
2. you would want the murderers in jail – (in other words – these woman who are coldly *killing* their babies ought to be imprisoned, right? )
And what about birth control – for those who believe that life begins at conception – then aren’t many methods of birth control also murder?
It also seems to me that so much of the discussion of abortion circles around the idea of women having sex – without consequences. It seems to me there is a whole segment of the anti-abortion population that are more concerned with whether and how much sex woman are having and whether they are getting off scott free.
It wasn’t all that long ago that woman couldn’t even get birth control information. That kind of tells you where the deep seated thinking comes from. And, of course, in many places in the world – genital mutilation insures that women do not enjoy sex. Also, an indication of a certain kind of mind set toward
There is no universally agreed upon definition for "living human being".
There was until it was no longer politically convenient for some and they proceeded to engage in this process of redefinition of terms, which has done nothing except wreak havoc on society, hence the dictatorship of relativism.
As for universally agreed definitions, the phrase is self-defining, no need for universal agreement. A "living human being" is (a) living, (b) human, and (c) a being. This is true whether everyone or no one agrees. This is true whether or not some wish to arbitrarily add on other preconditions.
Now how hard was that?
I know that it is a lot funner to move the goalposts in this game of choosing your own truth, but the words "living human being" mean something in and of themselves, i.e. a living, human, being. That includes blacks. That includes Jews. That includes Indians. It includes these beings even though they too at one time were not universally accepted as full human beings and were instead held to be subhuman and untermenschen. Likewise those living human beings who just so happen to be inside the body of another person, i.e. the unborn human being.
.... there goes the lazy reasoning again; trying to shame people who disagree with you by evoking slavery. Racism and racist laws are *not* equivalent to what you call denying the right of the state to protect a fetus, and/or denying that a fetus is a human.
as Crack said before, your reasoning is lazy.
Danielle and Whimsy,
"I also think the only people who can make those decisions are the people involved; people in the relationships."
What you're both trying to avoid is the difficulty of passing judgement on others. You want to get a divorce? Fine - stand in front of your friends and family and explain why they disrupted their lives, bought you gifts, planned their world around you - as a couple, a couple you demanded they accept you as, putting you in a special place in society - only to discover your punk ass ain't mature enough to go the distance. There are either one or two liars here, and just as we anointed them when they dragged us all to the church or whatever, we (not you) should now have the opportunity to say "you deceived us, warped our world, and took our shit."
"Yes, it hurts like hell but if people get out and are at peace, or even find other fulfilling relationships, i dont see how that can be called bad."
"Hurts like hell" is a too-sweet euphemism for what it's like. I slipped a disc in my neck from screaming in my sleep. (Don't ask me how much it cost to get that fixed - you don't want to know.) I still suffer nightmares, five years on. I lost most of my friends, extended family (on both sides) and all my money - and I "won" my divorce. Later, when my wife's many betrayals were finally revealed, then those friends and family couldn't look me in the eye because they knew they'd betrayed someone they always knew as a man of integrity, the cowards, so, in essence, I lost them twice.
You fine folks are, partially, the recipients of what's left of the well-rounded spouse after divorce: a snarling dog that doesn't trust anyone, really - whether they're trying to pat him or the head or not. I've seen how you'll bend the truth to make it easier on yourselves - as you're attempting to do it now - and, compared to the evil you're willing to unleash because you're not willing to deal with the true consequences of what you propose, you're not worth the trust you request/demand.
Cont'd.
"I totally agree with your assessment, but you can't make someone come to terms with his/her faulty thinking/ messed up brain wiring/ selfishness,lack of consideration or even concern, emotional abuse, financial shenanigans, etc, if they are not willing to do so,and do not see the value of saving the marriage."
Yes you can. You can shame them. Strip them of everything. Put them in the crazy house. Decipher who's a liar, and who ain't, and make them finally deal with it. Pass judgement and make them deal with the consequences of their actions. It's only because you're not willing to that you allow one person to destroy another and walk away clean. You don't do that in other areas of life - you punish criminals, wayward children, and more - but, here, you create a society-wide space for the worst kinds of depravity and say we have to deal with it. It's bullshit.
"Definitely I believe the offending party should not be paid off by the other, which is what I think you are angry about."
Don't assume anything when it comes to me. Like I said, I "won" my divorce. I'm pissed off at the whole environment that's been created. Where the power of the state can show up at your door based on the offending spouse's word, and nothing more. Where the entire society will look at whoever "wants out" and says to the (possibly unsuspecting) other - who's dedicated their very lives to that person and may have, on occasion, risked it (and their finances) for the other - that they just have to "deal with it" whether that's possible or not. The way one spouse can grab everything and the only determinant of who-owns-what is who gets to the bank first. (Leave the country with it and it's yours - divorce courts have no jurisdiction overseas.) And on and on and on.
You've created Hell on Earth - and posited yourselves as Satan - all because you decided you were God, answerable to no one.
I swear, sometimes, I feel like I'm talking to children.
the words "living human being" mean something in and of themselves, i.e. a living, human, being.
Spermatozoa are thus living human beings because they
1. live
2. are human if a hman produced them
3. exist.
Masturbation is murder.
"There is no universally agreed upon definition for "living human being"."
There was until it was no longer politically convenient for some and they proceeded to engage in this process of redefinition of terms
Oh? What was the universally accepted definition and what was the time frame in which it was universally accepted? Right after making that claim you turned around and followed it up with a claim that the term was self-defining. If it is self-defining it can't have been redefined.
A "living human being" is (a) living, (b) human, and (c) a being.
Too reductive. For example, any living cell in or from the human body is living, human, and a being. Your skin cells, your taste buds, etc -- these are all living, human, and beings. But if you pointed at a human skin cell under a microscope and said "that's a living human being!", people would think you had fallen and hit your head on something hard.
Now how hard was that?
Barking out a definition is pretty easy. Thinking through the implications of it? That's trickier.
Revenant furthers his decline into temporary idiocy: "So obviously, yes, you were utterly unable to figure out how abortion could be immoral if it wasn't "murder or something very close to it".
So no, you're still so far off the mark that you're embarrassing yourself. Here you finally get off your ass and determine that well yes, the conversation was about abortion. In that context, talking about killing puppies would seem rather stupid to even dullest of wits. :)
You're not really dumb, but you're acting like it because you stepped all over yourself and are now spinning mightily instead of stepping up and admitting you had no real point. :)
And no, there really haven't been very many people at all who have adequately explained the subject that you have finally joined in on. Granted, the puppy thing was the worst digression, but the other arguments focus mainly on deflecting the question instead of answering it.
And golly, since plenty of other people are asking for carification on what ths thing is that's growing in the womb, I'd say the question hasn't relly been answered and that it's a point of contention. Do you grasp that concept?
"Abortion, in many people's opinion, needlessly kills a living thing. Many people consider this wrong, even people who don't think a fetus qualifies as something close to human. Do you understand now? I'm afraid I can't dumb it down any further."
This enters the other part of the conversation that has been continuing on without you for awhile and is always the fundamental difference in the debate - is an unborn baby a human. This is the crux. Is it human?
Well, one thing we can probably all agree on is - it's not a puppy.
Your analogy was just fucking lazy dude. You got called on it. Get over it. :)
"If you'd paid attention the first time instead of reflexively spewing your mental diarrhea over everyone you didn't immediately understand, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble."
Here you go projecting again. Might wanna get that looked at. I think my initial response to you would hardly be considered mental diarrhea, however the verbal ejaculations you've since followed up with come a helluva lot closer little guy. :)
Want to keep insulting one another? Or Do you want to move forward from here?
:)
sunsong: "It seems to me that *if* you really, honestly believe that abortion is murder – murder! – the killing of an innocent human baby:
1. you would be doing everything you can to stop the killing. I don’t know how you would even sleep at night."
People die wrongfully by the tens of thousands daily. What are you doing to stop it?
Like it or not, our society has deemed abortion to be legal. In an advanced democratic civilization, we can respect the law while still fighting for it's change.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
"2. you would want the murderers in jail – (in other words – these woman who are coldly *killing* their babies ought to be imprisoned, right?)"
If society were to determine that an action is illegal, there should be consequnces for breaking the law.
"And what about birth control – for those who believe that life begins at conception – then aren’t many methods of birth control also murder?"
Logically speaking, if a child has been conceived, any method of birth control that terminates the life that is growing within is effectively no different than abortion. For anyone who beieves abortion to be murder, then this would qualify.
Post a Comment