Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:43 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,904

Abortion: Why don't pro-choicers just say, "It kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance?"


Per the new GD rules, I'm hoping this can be a thread for a narrow focus on just one aspect of the abortion debate, without morphing into the same old abortion debate we've had for decades - hope the mods can clamp down on any hijacking:



For decades, there has been this ongoing war of words over whether a fetus is a person or not, with some saying it is, and some saying "a fetus is just a piece of human tissue," and some holding other views. But surprisingly rarely do you hear the pro-choice side ever just say, "Yes, abortion kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else."

Because if the pro-choice side ever did use such an argument, it would essentially shut up most pro-life arguments in one fell swoop. It would be acknowledging the pro-life argument (that a fetus is a person) while also brushing it aside at the same time. The pro-life side would then have a hard time making much further argument.

I know that not all pro-choicers argue that "a fetus is just a lump of human tissue, like an appendix;" indeed, many don't. But for the many who do, this claim immediately runs into cognitive dissonance - nobody mourns the surgical removal of a uterine tumor or an appendix, but plenty of women grieve a miscarriage or regretted abortion, because a fetus represents something that a tumor, cyst or appendix doesn't - it represents potential birth, an individual who could have exhibited his/her own personality, lived a life, done things, etc. There is plainly a clear difference.

By saying, "Yes, a fetus is a person, but abortion is a unique circumstance," the pro-choice side would avoid this cognitive-dissonance problem while still justifying abortion at the same time. It is a unique circumstance because the fetus is occupying the mother's body and relies on it for survival and nourishment, etc. Those who would compare abortion to, say, the Holocaust would then be told that Holocaust victims weren't like fetuses in utero.

For the record, I'm pro-life and I'm not suggesting that the pro-choice side actually endorse such an argument as presented above. But it surprises me that few pro-choicers have or do use this argument. Because it would essentially put an end to much of the current ongoing debate.
  #2  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:49 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,980
I do exactly that.

I agree completely. ETA: thanks for starting this discussion.

Last edited by AHunter3; 01-30-2020 at 10:50 AM.
  #3  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:53 AM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,914
I've been trying to argue this for years. If it's a person or a piece of tissue is irrelevant.

I analogize a woman's uterus as a sovereign nation in which she is the supreme ruler of.

Last edited by Grrr!; 01-30-2020 at 10:54 AM.
  #4  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:55 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,613
That isn't the point. The point of "Pro Choice" is that a fundamental right of all women is to completely control their own reproductive processes. So, in answer to your question, THAT is why "Pro Choice" doesn't "ever just say" or address that. It is not germane to our position.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #5  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:58 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,613
How would this help the pro-choice position? You'd have to explain why killing a person should be legal in this instance when it isn't in others. And what about the pro-choice people are pro-choice because they don't believe that the aborted fetus is "a person"?
  #6  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:00 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
For the record, I'm pro-life and I'm not suggesting that the pro-choice side actually endorse such an argument as presented above. But it surprises me that few pro-choicers have or do use this argument. Because it would essentially put an end to much of the current ongoing debate.
You thought of it and it didn't change your mind. Yes, if everyone just agreed a fetus was a person, that would end the debate on whether it's a person. Bravo. How does that help the pro-choice movement?
  #7  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:04 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
I argue this: It's okay to kill a person who is using your body without your permission and that a woman has more rights than a fetus. Then the pro-life side argues that any woman who has sex is giving permission to any fetus that reults from sex. When I ask them who has more rights the woman or the fetus, it's always "the baby." And if she's pregnant by rape, then the baby shouldn't die cause it didn't do anything wrong.

I do wish the pro-life crowd would call itself anti-abortion and stop calling the pro-choice crowd pro-aborion.

Last edited by Annie-Xmas; 01-30-2020 at 11:06 AM.
  #8  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:08 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,047
The same reason why pro-life people don't say "Our political beliefs are founded on our belief in an imaginary supernatural being."

People need to realize that their opponents in an argument are probably just as sincere in their position as you are in yours. They don't secretly agree with you but lie about it.

You may believe that having an abortion is murder. But that doesn't mean that the people who say they don't believe that are lying.

You may be an atheist. But that doesn't mean the people who say they are religious are lying.
  #9  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:12 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
That isn't the point. The point of "Pro Choice" is that a fundamental right of all women is to completely control their own reproductive processes. So, in answer to your question, THAT is why "Pro Choice" doesn't "ever just say" or address that. It is not germane to our position.
It's germane in the sense that it is the primary opposition raised to abortion - you have abortion-opponents arguing that abortion is the killing of a person. So when countering one's opponents, the pro-choice crowd has to address their arguments and counter them - so it is germane.

As for "a fundamental right of all women is to completely control their own reproductive processes" - that's also a different way of saying the same thing said in my OP - just phrased differently. A pro-choicer could phrase it as, "Yes, a fetus is a person, but a woman's right to control her body still reigns paramount." Phrased differently, but same argument.
  #10  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:16 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
I've been trying to argue this for years. If it's a person or a piece of tissue is irrelevant.
I think both sides of the abortion debate are slowly coming to a consensus on what a fetus is - the pro-life side because they've always held that a fetus is a person, and the pro-choice side because it is - first of all, irrelevant to them, as you point out - and secondly, because the notion that a fetus is just a clump of tissue like an appendix has always been absurd. An appendix has no potential to grow up to go to school, college, work a job, have a family, vote, use Facebook, drive a car, etc.
  #11  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:18 AM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 355
Its a tough subject. On one hand, if she wasn't raped, she chose to have sex, so its not the baby went commando and took over her uterus in a coup. So its not a real person but it is if she wants it. Hm.
__________________
Do not taunt the monkey-Peter Alexander
  #12  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:23 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
"Yes, abortion kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else."
What Thudlow Boink says - in what way is it a unique circumstance?

Once you say it's a person, you need a justification why you are not treating it like another person, especially an innocent person who hasn't done anything wrong. And then you need to show why that justification doesn't apply to other circumstances. Why, for instance, you can't kill a newborn.

Regards,
Shodan
  #13  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:34 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
What Thudlow Boink says - in what way is it a unique circumstance?

Once you say it's a person, you need a justification why you are not treating it like another person, especially an innocent person who hasn't done anything wrong. And then you need to show why that justification doesn't apply to other circumstances. Why, for instance, you can't kill a newborn.

Regards,
Shodan
It's unique because in no other circumstance is a person literally occupying another person's body. A newborn is not physically attached to someone. It does not pose a direct physical burden to the mother (in the sense of, being inside her.)
  #14  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:39 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
As I ask the anti-abortion crowd "If you are going to let a fetus use a woman's body without her permission, why not a rapist?" When they point out the fetus doesn't have a choice, I say "Well, neither does the rapist. She was wearing a tight skirt. She was walking alone after dark. What did she expect." Since some of them see rape as the woman's fault, they have to agree with it.
  #15  
Old 01-30-2020, 12:32 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,980
A fetus or embryo is simultaneously alive and human and a part of the woman's own body. There's no comparable situation so it doesn't fall into a broader category. You can't directly distill the "right attitude" based on how you feel about the overall category. It's uniquely its own case.

Meanwhile, though, we do recognize some situations where the killing of human life is not regarded as murder and/or morally wrong. War, self-defense, the defense of others, etc. Pregnancy & abortion does NOT fall into any of those categories (see prev paragraph) but I bring these up to demonstrate that just because something constitutes the killing of human life does not automatically make it murder or a moral failure.
  #16  
Old 01-30-2020, 12:36 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,723
A non-viable fetus has no chance of growing into a human being either. Whether the fetus is non-viable because it's defective from the get go (and approximately half of all fetuses are like this and basically every heterosexually active woman has likely had at least one miscarriage without ever knowing it) or because the woman it's inside doesn't want to go through a pregnancy is immaterial. The fetus is non-viable. All fetusus are non-viable until they can survive outside a uterus on their own and currently the record is about 21 weeks gestation. Up to that point, a fetus is only hanging on by luck and good wishes. They are not people, they are potential people, just like every egg and sperm is half a potential person. Nature is profligate and produces more potential than ever makes it to actuality. This is not a tragedy, this is simply a scientific reality and the faster people get over their stupid sentimentality over TEH POOR IDDOE BABBIES and their irrelevant religious manias the better.
  #17  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,354
I don't make this argument because it's irrelevant to my beliefs about abortion, which are about the right to control one's own body, including access and usage by other entities (persons or otherwise) to one's body.

I think it would be spectacularly ineffective and even counterproductive because it would lead to pro-lifers saying something like "See? Even pro-choicers admit that it's murder!"
  #18  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:15 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,719
Why is the onus on pro-choice to make the argument palatable to pro-lifers? Since no pro-choicer (AFAIK) would dictate to a pro-lifer what they should do with their body and reproductive decisions, what's wrong with simply telling them to fuck off and mind their own goddamn business? No further justification needed or owed.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #19  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:21 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,947
Yes, abortion kills a fetus, but it's a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else. If you want to arbitrarily label the fetus a "person", be my guest, but it doesn't change anything.

Now, there are indeed circumstances where one can legally kill a person, as the label is generally used, even a fully-formed sentient, walking, talking person. If we decided that, say, we were going to remove the arbitrary level as it suits us, i.e. if you break into someone's house, you are no longer a "person" and thus if the homeowner shoots you, they're not killing a person. This doesn't change anything either.

Labeling is just trying to confuse the map for the place. One major reason a pro-choice person should not concede the "person" label (or not concede that it has any significance whatsoever) is that the pro-life person will immediately try to use the label to justify legislation.

But let's assume we did and said "Okay, a fetus is a person. Now what are you going to do with this information, pro-lifer? What have you gained, or what do you think you have gained?"
  #20  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:26 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
When I ask a pro-life person what should a pregnant woman do if she doen't want to raise a child and doesn't want to give her child up for adoption, I get a blank stare. Ditto if I say it's the child of a rapist who wants paternal rights and she doesn't want to be tied to her rapist for the rest of the child's life.

My favorite pro-life saying is "Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." Yes, and Hitler was a Christian who was NOT pro-choice. Indeed, the anti-abortion crowd shares a lot of Hitler's beliefs.
  #21  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,859
At what time is a fetus a "person"?

That's the relevant question.

I mean, everytime I wank off i kill 280 million potential lives.
  #22  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:33 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
At what time is a fetus a "person"?

That's the relevant question.
It is? Why? What's the difference between these scenarios:

A. Personhood attaches at conception
B. Personhood attaches at birth

If the difference is "we don't legally kill persons", then I have to point out that, yes, we do and have been doing so for quite a long time.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.
  #23  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:44 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,817
Do you realize that what you're asking is basically 'why don't pro-choice people make an argument that would justify prosecuting abortion and/or miscarriage as homicide by anti-choice people'? Are you aware that anti-choice lawmakers have already passed laws defining a fetus as a person and attempted to prosecute women under such laws? (And yes, in at least one case the prosecution was for a miscarriage, not an abortion). I don't get how someone who is aware of what 'fetal personhood' laws are and how they are used could ask this question, it's pretty obvious that allowing miscarriage to be prosecuted as manslaughter is not a result that pro-choice people want.
  #24  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:45 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,376
The problem with relying purely on the unconscious violinist argument is that it automatically cedes the moral high ground. While a person isn't obligated to tie themselves to the circulatory system of the violinist to save his life, doing so would be an altruistic act, and so therefor more moral than letting him die. Thus those who give birth are more moral than those who don't. So if you do have an abortion you are necessarily a bad person.

I personally think the best way to view a pregnancy is as an opportunity. With it comes great joy but also great responsibility and possible hardship, in some ways analogous to a job opportunity. If you have been applying for a really great job, and think that you are going to get it, but it falls through at the last minute you could be heart broken. One could get a sudden offer that that they weren't expecting and decide to take it, or decide that the time is not right just now. One could also make the choice not to take it, but still feel have mixed feelings about whether they should have taken it or not, and maybe later regret that they did not take it. In any case its the choice of the individual.

So sure it not just like any other piece of tissue, but its not a person, at least not yet.
  #25  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:56 PM
ZPG Zealot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Per the new GD rules, I'm hoping this can be a thread for a narrow focus on just one aspect of the abortion debate, without morphing into the same old abortion debate we've had for decades - hope the mods can clamp down on any hijacking:



For decades, there has been this ongoing war of words over whether a fetus is a person or not, with some saying it is, and some saying "a fetus is just a piece of human tissue," and some holding other views. But surprisingly rarely do you hear the pro-choice side ever just say, "Yes, abortion kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else."
Because it's not a unique set of circumstances We have laws already that allow the killing of a person if that person is attaching itself to another person's body and drinking their blood. Apply the existing laws to fetuses and every abortion become protected as a form of self-defense. Hell, in Texas you can kill someone for breaking into your house or vehicle. Certainly, your body should be entitled to a similar level of defense.
  #26  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:00 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think both sides of the abortion debate are slowly coming to a consensus on what a fetus is - the pro-life side because they've always held that a fetus is a person, and the pro-choice side because it is - first of all, irrelevant to them, as you point out - and secondly, because the notion that a fetus is just a clump of tissue like an appendix has always been absurd. An appendix has no potential to grow up to go to school, college, work a job, have a family, vote, use Facebook, drive a car, etc.
You're doing exactly what I talked about in my previous post. You're assuming that your beliefs are universal and that the people who are arguing with you know they're wrong and are just not admitting it.
  #27  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:10 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
While a person isn't obligated to tie themselves to the circulatory system of the violinist to save his life, doing so would be an altruistic act, and so therefor more moral than letting him die. Thus those who give birth are more moral than those who don't. So if you do have an abortion you are necessarily a bad person.
I question the premises of this argument. Let's say you have a belief system that posits an afterlife. The possibilities are you can go to a good place or a bad place after you die and spend eternity there. Your actions during your lifetime will determine which one you go to. And you believe that a human life begins at conception.

In such a scenario, wouldn't it be moral to kill a person before they are born? A human before birth has had no opportunity to do anything wrong; they're guaranteed to go to the good place. But if you allow that person to be born, you are creating the risk that they will do something wrong and go to the bad place when they eventually die. You should act morally and protect your fellow human beings by killing them before they can screw up.
  #28  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:12 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You're doing exactly what I talked about in my previous post. You're assuming that your beliefs are universal and that the people who are arguing with you know they're wrong and are just not admitting it.
Heck, if a person (an unambiguous fully-formed adult walking talking person) told me they were going to go to school, college, work a job, have a family, vote, use Facebook, drive a car, etc. but first they wanted to continually punch me in the stomach for nine months, I think I would prefer having to option to decline.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 01-30-2020 at 02:13 PM.
  #29  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:13 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Why is the onus on pro-choice to make the argument palatable to pro-lifers? ...... No further justification needed or owed.
Because both sides are warring for the votes of people in the middle.
  #30  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:13 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Why don't pro-choicers just say, "It kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance?"
Some pro-choice people do make that argument. I've seen it made quite frequently.

Others don't make that argument because they don't think a blastula is a person, and/or don't think an embryo is a person, and/or don't think a fetus is a person. As all stages were rolled in together in the OP's question, I'll point out that anyone who thinks a single fertilized cell isn't a person wouldn't make that argument because they don't think it's true.

There are some who don't make that argument because "person" has a legal meaning, and they don't see a fertilized egg, or a blastula, or maybe an embryo, or maybe a fetus as properly coming under that legal meaning.

And there are probably some who don't make that argument because they expect the next thing the anti-choice person would say would be 'then of course abortion is murder!'

And that last group has some justification for that. As I said, I've seen the suggested argument made, a number of times. But I have not ever seen it "essentially shut up most pro-life arguments in one fell swoop". It might do so for some anti-choice people, I suppose. But it doesn't seem to do so for many others.

Last edited by thorny locust; 01-30-2020 at 02:15 PM. Reason: word choice
  #31  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:28 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Because both sides are warring for the votes of people in the middle.
And the way for pro-choice people to win this battle is to cede 90% of the argument to the anti-choice crowd? That's absurd.

A man whose brain has turned to mush is no longer a person. I think that a fetus without a working brain (at least) is not a person. But I'm a man and it really doesn't matter what I think. The only person (and she is a person) who counts is the woman with the fetus inside of her.

When do you think personhood begins?
  #32  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:31 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
I argue this: It's okay to kill a person who is using your body without your permission and that a woman has more rights than a fetus. Then the pro-life side argues that any woman who has sex is giving permission to any fetus that reults from sex. When I ask them who has more rights the woman or the fetus, it's always "the baby." And if she's pregnant by rape, then the baby shouldn't die cause it didn't do anything wrong.

I do wish the pro-life crowd would call itself anti-abortion and stop calling the pro-choice crowd pro-aborion.
How come men who go around impregnating women aren't consenting, then, to child support, medical bills, school bills, and so on? Plus half of whatever it costs for the woman to recover from the pregnancy. That fetus is created by leaching from the woman's bone, blood, muscle, sinew, and life.
  #33  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:33 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
For the record, I'm pro-life and I'm not suggesting that the pro-choice side actually endorse such an argument as presented above. But it surprises me that few pro-choicers have or do use this argument. Because it would essentially put an end to much of the current ongoing debate.
How exactly does the use of the personhood label accomplish this (or anything, really)? If a pro-choicer shrugs and says "Okay, a fetus is a person," then what is the pro-lifer's next step?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.
  #34  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:36 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
And the way for pro-choice people to win this battle is to cede 90% of the argument to the anti-choice crowd? That's absurd.

A man whose brain has turned to mush is no longer a person. I think that a fetus without a working brain (at least) is not a person. But I'm a man and it really doesn't matter what I think. The only person (and she is a person) who counts is the woman with the fetus inside of her.

When do you think personhood begins?
Well, back before women had rights, it was after "quickening". That was when the woman could feel the fetus moving. Up till then, it wasn't abortion, it was considered bringing back the regularity of "the courses". These services----and the often-dangerous "medicines" that were used----were advertised even in Catholic newspapers. Legalized abortion was not a break with the past. It was just putting it on the books and making it official----plus ensuring that women no longer risked death to refuse to be broodmares.
  #35  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:42 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
How exactly does the use of the personhood label accomplish this (or anything, really)? If a pro-choicer shrugs and says "Okay, a fetus is a person," then what is the pro-lifer's next step?
Then the pro-lifer doesn't have much left to say. If a pro-choicer says, "Fetus personhood or not, if a woman wants to abort, she should have the right to abort," what rebuttal do you give to that? The pro-choicer has just acknowledged the full length and depth of the pro-lifer's argument and still dismissed it.

Which is what several Dopers in-thread have also alluded to - the whole debate over whether a fetus is a person, or at which point it becomes a person, is irrelevant in the eyes of many pro-choicers. And which has left me curious why you don't see more pro-choice politicians simply saying, "Fetus personhood is irrelevant" in the public square.
  #36  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:42 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,987
For that matter, Velocity: you've obviously heard the argument. But you say you're "pro-life" -- so it hasn't changed your mind. Why do you think it would change the minds of everybody, or nearly everybody, else who's opposed to the right to end a pregnancy? And if you don't think it would change minds, why do you think it would end the debate?
  #37  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:52 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,777
Perhaps the OP thinks that's a convincing argument. I really don't think a vast majority of pro-lifers are going to be satisfied with that answer. I mean, if the point is to shut someone up, maybe that would do it for some people? If the point is to actually change minds, no I don't think so.
  #38  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:52 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
For that matter, Velocity: you've obviously heard the argument. But you say you're "pro-life" -- so it hasn't changed your mind. Why do you think it would change the minds of everybody, or nearly everybody, else who's opposed to the right to end a pregnancy? And if you don't think it would change minds, why do you think it would end the debate?
It wouldn't necessarily change minds - abortion is one of the most intractable and dug-in issues that there is - but it would shift the debate towards more favorable turf for the pro-choice side. Because right now, the pro-choice side has been playing this tortured definition-logic game of whether a fetus is a person or not, or when it becomes one (is it at 2 weeks? 4 weeks? 6 weeks?) etc.

By saying, "Fetus personhood doesn't matter, abortion should be legal no matter what," the pro-choice side would suddenly have itself a much simpler and clearer stance, and the pro-life side would suddenly have to scramble for a new defense/approach, because much of what the pro-life side has been based on - the argument that a fetus is a person - would suddenly no longer matter in the debate.
  #39  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:53 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Which is what several Dopers in-thread have also alluded to - the whole debate over whether a fetus is a person, or at which point it becomes a person, is irrelevant in the eyes of many pro-choicers. And which has left me curious why you don't see more pro-choice politicians simply saying, "Fetus personhood is irrelevant" in the public square.
https://nypost.com/2019/06/26/alabam...ing-when-shot/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...tillborn-trial
https://now.org/resource/criminalizi...-prosecutions/

Last edited by Pantastic; 01-30-2020 at 02:56 PM.
  #40  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:15 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Then the pro-lifer doesn't have much left to say. If a pro-choicer says, "Fetus personhood or not, if a woman wants to abort, she should have the right to abort," what rebuttal do you give to that? The pro-choicer has just acknowledged the full length and depth of the pro-lifer's argument and still dismissed it.
What rebuttal? Seriously? The pro-lifer's rebuttal is to accuse the pro-choicer of wanting to kill people and pointing to the pro-choicer's own words as evidence.

Quote:
Which is what several Dopers in-thread have also alluded to - the whole debate over whether a fetus is a person, or at which point it becomes a person, is irrelevant in the eyes of many pro-choicers. And which has left me curious why you don't see more pro-choice politicians simply saying, "Fetus personhood is irrelevant" in the public square.
Because accusations of baby-killing will follow. Why invite it?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.
  #41  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:29 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,146
It would be problematic on several levels for Pro-Choice.

Part of the pro-choice thing is choice. Or how it used to be phrased the abortion is a issue that is between the woman and her god or doctor, depending on the telling, and no one else's business. It is undetermined when human life starts as we don't even know what human life means, therefor as part of the choice it is a choice to believe it is just a clump of cells, and not a person. It is also a choice to believe the fetus is a person. Or the mother can have other beliefs. The mother then can chose accordingly accordingly to her beliefs and wishes under her circumstances.

Further Pro-Choice is the guardian for millions of women that they did not morally commit murder, a reversal of their stance admitting abortion is killing could serve to stigmatize many women, perhaps also unnecessarily as a fetus still might not be a human life.

As such I believe their rank and file would not accept such a premise and threaten to split Pro Choice. Into 'It's just a clump of cells' and 'it's OK to kill my baby' groupings. Pro Life would have a absolute field day with that.

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-30-2020 at 03:30 PM.
  #42  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:31 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Because both sides are warring for the votes of people in the middle.
The best argument for the undecided is to say: One side gives you a choice and respects your human rights to make decisions right for you, the other side does not. Vote accordingly.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 01-30-2020 at 03:32 PM.
  #43  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:39 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 17,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
At what time is a fetus a "person"?

That's the relevant question.

I mean, everytime I wank off i kill 280 million potential lives.
Well, not quite ... one wank = 1 possible pregnancy if you concede that you would have screwed one woman, the only way it would possibly be more if it was into a cup for invitro fertilization where one shot could possibly go for several eggs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Why is the onus on pro-choice to make the argument palatable to pro-lifers? Since no pro-choicer (AFAIK) would dictate to a pro-lifer what they should do with their body and reproductive decisions, what's wrong with simply telling them to fuck off and mind their own goddamn business? No further justification needed or owed.
Works for me.
__________________
"Rammstein might not be the most sophisticated band there is, but who doesn't like the smell of napalm in the evening air"
  #44  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:51 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post

My favorite pro-life saying is "Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." Yes, and Hitler was a Christian who was NOT pro-choice. Indeed, the anti-abortion crowd shares a lot of Hitler's beliefs.
Not to get off-topic, but Hitler was hardly a Christian, he was involved in the occult. And he was not anti-abortion, only against aborting Aryans.
Wasn't it uncovered that Margaret Sanger wanted abortion because it would get rid of black babies?
__________________
Do not taunt the monkey-Peter Alexander
  #45  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:58 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
Well, not quite ... one wank = 1 possible pregnancy if you concede that you would have screwed one woman, the only way it would possibly be more if it was into a cup for invitro fertilization where one shot could possibly go for several eggs.
Have you not heard of twins?

Anyway, I suspect the point was that declaring a fertilized egg to be a human makes about as much sense as declaring an individual sperm to be a human.
  #46  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:01 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,549
Well, I don't make that argument because I don't believe it. I think the early fetus isn't a person, and that once it becomes a person, the mother should have a reason stronger than "I don't want to be pregnant" to kill it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZPG Zealot View Post
Because it's not a unique set of circumstances We have laws already that allow the killing of a person if that person is attaching itself to another person's body and drinking their blood. Apply the existing laws to fetuses and every abortion become protected as a form of self-defense. Hell, in Texas you can kill someone for breaking into your house or vehicle. Certainly, your body should be entitled to a similar level of defense.
Yeah, I disagree with "castle doctrines" in general. I don't think you should be able to kill another person unless you are in real danger. So, for instance, if the pregnancy imperils the mother in some way, of course she should be able to end it. But if you are 8 months pregnant and healthy, I don't think you should be able to kill the fetus. And if someone breaks into your house and is sitting quietly in your living room eating crisps, and not presenting any threat, I don't think you should be able to shoot him, either.

(You might schedule a c-section or call the police to help you force the guy out of your house. Neither of those should involve killing, unless something goes badly wrong.)
  #47  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
I would never argue that an early-term fetus is a person because I'm not a liar and don't engage in the practice of telling lies for convenience or political benefit.

Also, if I was convinced that a fetus was a person, I might not be pro-choice. I mean, the arguments for pro-choice are much stronger when it's between "the woman or controlling misogynists who want to enslave her as baby factory" rather than "the mother's bodily rights or a person's life." Yes, there is an argument based in bodily rights, but I've never given it a full analysis because I'm not deluded enough to think that there's a person in there. Arguments for late-term abortions seem to be mostly based on things like threats to the the mother's life, which is yet another argument that I feel is stronger than the argument based on bodily autonomy.

So yeah - I'm not inclined to throw out reality and adopt a weaker position based on delusion in order to coddle religious nuts and those who wish to enslave and dehumanize women.
  #48  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:08 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Not to get off-topic, but Hitler was hardly a Christian, he was involved in the occult. And he was not anti-abortion, only against aborting Aryans.
Hitler was okay with abortion for non-Aryans not because he was pro-abortion, it was because he was anti-anyone-who's-not-Aryan.

Whether being into the occult prevents someone from being a Christian isn't a call either you or I are in a position to make.
  #49  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:08 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,846
Velocity, we know exactly what happens when fetuses are declared persons. In fact, pro-lifers are pushing personhood bills as we speak. The result is legal jeopardy for women who have miscarriages, or who aren't careful enough while pregnant, or who get in the way of a bullet heading towards their uterus.

So, you tell me -- why should pro-choicers adopt this language?

A person is different than a human -- a human with no brain is no longer considered a person, for example. I wouldn't argue that a blastocyst, fetus, etc., isn't human tissue -- of course it's human tissue. It's just not a person for legal purposes -- personhood brings all kinds of rights that fetuses, embryos, etc., shouldn't get in my opinion.
  #50  
Old 01-30-2020, 05:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It is? Why? What's the difference between these scenarios:

A. Personhood attaches at conception
B. Personhood attaches at birth

If the difference is "we don't legally kill persons", then I have to point out that, yes, we do and have been doing so for quite a long time.
We execute condemned criminals. I dont like it, but we do. But if it is scenario B, then abortion doesnt kill persons.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017