Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:52 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
As far as i can remember the SDMB is the only place I've heard the term 'potential person'.
I've found this is a really common reason to oppose legal abortion: when I explain that I don't consider an embryo to be a "person," because it lacks any of the salient attributes of a person (self-awareness, ability to feel pleasure/pain, memory, preferences, intentionality, etc.), over and over I hear from pro-lifers, "But if nobody interferes, that embryo will BECOME a person by your definition!" They may even use "potential" to describe that dynamic.

I 100% don't find it a compelling argument, any more than I think a fertilized chicken egg must be coddled lest I run afoul of anti-cruelty laws.
  #202  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:52 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 347
I never said that.(re; the question of rape, no woman chooses that or brings it upon herself)
__________________
Do not taunt the monkey-Peter Alexander

Last edited by SuntanLotion; 02-06-2020 at 12:53 PM.
  #203  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:19 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
As far as i can remember the SDMB is the only place I've heard the term 'potential person'.
What LHoD said. That's exactly the language I've seen.

Quote:
It would seem you can have a corpse of a potential person.
Sure, skip the middle man. How efficient.
(Is a few cells excreted during a miscarriage a corpse? We can debate when corpses begin, I see.)
  #204  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:20 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I disagree. Pro-choice are willing to compromise. Anti-abortionists anti-life are not.

The "pro-life" movement is anti-life. "Pro-life" is a oxymoron of sort.
Compromising on rights is fairly routine. I have a right to keep and bear arms. Sure there are some absolutists who think that the RTKBA cannot be infringed at all and there are about as many pro-choicers who think the right to an abortion is absolute.

But if we are talking about murder the instances where we make exceptions is much narrower. Self defense being the primary exception. And this is analogous to the exception that almost every pro-lifer has for abortions that are required to protect the life of the mother.

All you are doing is calling people names, it doesn't convince anyone that isn't already convinced and it doesn't make you right.
  #205  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:28 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Compromising on rights is fairly routine. I have a right to keep and bear arms. Sure there are some absolutists who think that the RTKBA cannot be infringed at all and there are about as many pro-choicers who think the right to an abortion is absolute.

But if we are talking about murder the instances where we make exceptions is much narrower. Self defense being the primary exception. And this is analogous to the exception that almost every pro-lifer has for abortions that are required to protect the life of the mother.

All you are doing is calling people names, it doesn't convince anyone that isn't already convinced and it doesn't make you right.
The term "pro-life" was specifically chosen to by implication call persons who oppose it "pro-death". Anyone who has a problem calling people names would avoid using it, and instead use an honest term for their position like "anti-choice" or even "anti-abortion".

(Note that "anti-abortion" isn't really an accurate term either - one can be opposed to abortions on principle but believe that it's not anyone's right to prevent other people from choosing to have one. But it's far more accurate than the slanderous bullshit lying term "pro-choice".)
  #206  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:39 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The term "pro-life" was specifically chosen to by implication call persons who oppose it "pro-death". ...
I would like a cite on this one, as the opposite I heard is pro-abortion, or sometimes anti-life.

Quote:
(Note that "anti-abortion" isn't really an accurate term either - one can be opposed to abortions on principle but believe that it's not anyone's right to prevent other people from choosing to have one. But it's far more accurate than the slanderous bullshit lying term "pro-choice".)
For the fetus, to be or not to be, that seems like a choice.
  #207  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:42 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
(Is a few cells excreted during a miscarriage a corpse? We can debate when corpses begin, I see.)
It's never struck me as ambiguous. A corpse is a corpse, of course, of course.
__________________
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.
  #208  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I would like a cite on this one, as the opposite I heard is pro-abortion, or sometimes anti-life.
Even if you're right, those are obviously stupid and dishonest terms.
Quote:
For the fetus, to be or not to be, that seems like a choice.
Fetuses, like all non-persons, have never made a choice and lack the capacity to make a choice. Saying something is "a choice" for a fetus is gibberish.
  #209  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:52 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Even if you're right, those are obviously stupid and dishonest terms.
Well whatever the opposition terms, te standard terms actually are pretty good as both sides come to this issue from different perspective. Pro-life, that's your baby sweety, try not to kill her. Pro choice, honey it's your body, ain't me to say what you chose to do. When we get into trouble is when we don't respect the different perspectives then we get baby killers and anti choice.
  #210  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:04 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It's never struck me as ambiguous. A corpse is a corpse, of course, of course.
And no one can talk to a corpse of course.
You've never heard of a talking corpse
Listen to this
I am Madame Blavatsky
  #211  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:07 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Well whatever the opposition terms, te standard terms actually are pretty good as both sides come to this issue from different perspective. Pro-life, that's your baby sweety, try not to kill her. Pro choice, honey it's your body, ain't me to say what you chose to do. When we get into trouble is when we don't respect the different perspectives then we get baby killers and anti choice.
Except that pro-choice people can be anti-abortion - for themselves. They might accept that the status of the fetus is a matter of opinion, and not fact, and that they should not impose their opinion on others.
I'm unaware of how any "pro-life" person is not anti-choice, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
  #212  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:12 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Except that pro-choice people can be anti-abortion - for themselves....
. Not really, they can decide if they will or will not abort. They are still pro abortion, in that they appreciate and think it good to be a legal option


Quote:
I'm unaware of how any "pro-life" person is not anti-choice, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
One can chose to engage in baby making activities, full choice here. One can chose not to raise their child, full choice here, however murder, and even murder of your own child is not a choice, it's a crime.
  #213  
Old 02-06-2020, 08:40 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The term "pro-life" was specifically chosen to by implication call persons who oppose it "pro-death". Anyone who has a problem calling people names would avoid using it, and instead use an honest term for their position like "anti-choice" or even "anti-abortion".

(Note that "anti-abortion" isn't really an accurate term either - one can be opposed to abortions on principle but believe that it's not anyone's right to prevent other people from choosing to have one. But it's far more accurate than the slanderous bullshit lying term "pro-choice".)
Hmm, did you mean to write "pro-life" at the end there?

Regarding pro-life, pro-choice, etc., I think we should call people by what they want to be called. However, the most accurate terms in my opinion would be pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights. I say this because many pro-lifers are also fine with the death penalty, for example. And, pro-choice means what? It's only choice in terms of abortion rights -- they may be anti-choice for many other things (maybe gun rights?). So, I'll call people what they want to be called (pro-life and pro-choice, I think) and in my mind think pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights.
  #214  
Old 02-06-2020, 10:33 PM
syncrolecyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 1,884
There is not enough consensus on where "personhood" starts to make that statement. Speaking only for myself, aborting a viable fetus is extremely hard to justify barring some terrible medical risk. Terminating a recent conception is very different to me. I am not saying it is meaningless, but it is not murder or killing to me. I understand why it may be to someone else though...

But the issue that really determines my view of abortion is whether it is a good idea or not for the state to have direct authority over what takes place internally within anyone's body.

Last edited by syncrolecyne; 02-06-2020 at 10:34 PM.
  #215  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:27 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
. Not really, they can decide if they will or will not abort. They are still pro abortion, in that they appreciate and think it good to be a legal option
IIRC John Kerry, being a good Catholic, said that he personally was against abortion but did not want to impose his religious views on others. I'd hardly call that a pro-abortion position.

Quote:
One can chose to engage in baby making activities, full choice here. One can chose not to raise their child, full choice here, however murder, and even murder of your own child is not a choice, it's a crime.
I assume by child you mean fetus, since no one doubts that once a child is born it is a person. If you say that abortion should be a crime, that sounds like anti-choice to me.
If on the other hand you mean that because these people support the right to choose what ice cream we eat and therefore are pro-choice, I'll wait until you have an intelligent response.
  #216  
Old 02-07-2020, 06:49 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,137
I hope you know I am playing devil's advocate in this line, though it was similar to viewpoints I once held.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
IIRC John Kerry, being a good Catholic, said that he personally was against abortion but did not want to impose his religious views on others. I'd hardly call that a pro-abortion position.
Why not? He supports a society that permits abortion. What would you call this position?



Quote:
I assume by child you mean fetus,
You by even having to make this assumption demonstrate you don't understand the disconnect between the 2 sides. To many who are pro-life the fetus is a child, it is a person and is alive. There is no potential person, and that term makes no sense. Child being used for a fetus is automatically understandable. Pro-life is all about the child, and protecting it's right to live from the deception that it is just a clump of cells that can be scrapped away and try to deceive the mother into murder of her child, greatly harming the mother as well (as she murdered her child). If you can't understand that, i'll give this back to ya:

Quote:
...I'll wait until you have an intelligent response
Which sort of fits, though I would have to reword it a bit to be a better fit.


Quote:
since no one doubts that once a child is born it is a person. If you say that abortion should be a crime, that sounds like anti-choice to me.
Again you are not realizing that both sides come at this issue from different perspectives. Until you do, and until you can intelligently talk to either side from their own perspective you will just be babbling in the wind over things you don't understand to them.


Quote:
If on the other hand you mean that because these people support the right to choose what ice cream we eat and therefore are pro-choice, I'll wait until you have an intelligent response.
no comment

Last edited by kanicbird; 02-07-2020 at 06:50 AM.
  #217  
Old 02-07-2020, 08:39 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
IIRC John Kerry, being a good Catholic, said that he personally was against abortion but did not want to impose his religious views on others. I'd hardly call that a pro-abortion position. ....
Thinking more on this, I need to also state that Kerry's statement doesn't say that much in terms of his reason for his position and sounds more like a re-election statement to please people then a true belief, but ignoring that last part.

The question is not really answered by saying he is a good Catholic as to what his statement is based on. What is it specifically in terms of Catholic beliefs and or doctrines that he is referring to that would get him into a state where he is personally against abortion but he didn't want to impose his religious beliefs on others.

It does not seem to align with Catholic church's views on the subject:

Quote:
We therefore call upon Catholics to commit themselves vigorously to the implementation of all three elements of the Pastoral Plan—an education and public information effort, pastoral care for pregnant women and their children, and a public policy program in defense of human life in all its stages, especially the unborn. Our long and short range public policy goals include: (1) constitutional protection for the right to life of unborn children to the maximum degree possible; (2) federal and state laws and administrative policies that restrict support for and the practice of abortion; (3) continual refinement and ultimate reversal of Supreme Court and other court decisions that deny the inalienable right to life; (4) supportive legislation to provide morally acceptable alternatives to abortion, and social policy initiatives which provide support to pregnant women for prenatal care and extended support for low-income women and their children. We urge public officials, especially Catholics, to advance these goals in recognition of their moral responsibility to protect the weak and defenseless among us.
From http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...n-abortion.cfm

Note above 'public policy', thus not just for catholics.

So it sounds like in the issue of abortion John Kerry is not acting as a 'good catholic'. In fact to be a good catholic it would seem like a political figure would have to push to end abortions.

Last edited by kanicbird; 02-07-2020 at 08:41 AM.
  #218  
Old 02-07-2020, 08:40 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
I go with the terms "pro-legal abortion" and "anti-abortion." The former wants to keep abortion a legal option, the later wants to end it entirely.
  #219  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:41 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,476
I think the simplest terms are the simplest -

Anti-abortion: the persons in the anti-abortion camp are not "pro-life", as others point out they may be in favour of the death penalty. The sum of their position is that others should not have the option to themselves have an abortion, maybe in some or maybe in any circumstances. The faction is centered around the issue of abortion choice, not around the issue of not wanting to do so themselves, or not wanting people to die in other ways. The sum of the movement is to deny others abortions, through legislation and social changes. Note too, this then does exclude say, John Kerry - he does not seek to disallow others from having abortions, despite his personal convictions.

Pro-choice: These people may not want abortions for themselves, or may wish others in their family don't have abortions, but yield to the concept that ultimately it is a woman's personal choice to determine what happens to her body, and a physician's right to effectuate that choice if their patient desires it. It's about respect for the right to choose, not about wanting it yourself. John Kerry, it seems, is reluctantly pro-choice.

If you really want to see how dedicated someone is to their pro-choice principles, ask them if they would support laws against sex-selection abortions.
  #220  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:55 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Hmm, did you mean to write "pro-life" at the end there?


Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Regarding pro-life, pro-choice, etc., I think we should call people by what they want to be called. However, the most accurate terms in my opinion would be pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights. I say this because many pro-lifers are also fine with the death penalty, for example. And, pro-choice means what? It's only choice in terms of abortion rights -- they may be anti-choice for many other things (maybe gun rights?). So, I'll call people what they want to be called (pro-life and pro-choice, I think) and in my mind think pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights.
I want to be called "The only person who is not a fucking idiot".
  #221  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:19 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,976
Nobody* is "pro-abortion", in the sense that nobody is jumping up and down and cheering 'yay abortion! let's everybody have abortions! they're fun! abortions are essentially a Good Thing, everyone should have at least one!'

And calling people 'pro-abortion' sounds a whole lot like a claim that that's what pro-choice people are saying.







*OK. Somewhere in -- good grief it's around 8 billion people now -- there may be some human saying this, or something like it. Possibly on the internet. But it's most certainly not a standard position.
  #222  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:50 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The term "pro-life" was specifically chosen to by implication call persons who oppose it "pro-death". Anyone who has a problem calling people names would avoid using it, and instead use an honest term for their position like "anti-choice" or even "anti-abortion".
Pro-life is not dishonest just because you prefer to call them something else.

I happen to agree that anti-abortion is a more precise but so what?

Quote:
(Note that "anti-abortion" isn't really an accurate term either - one can be opposed to abortions on principle but believe that it's not anyone's right to prevent other people from choosing to have one. But it's far more accurate than the slanderous bullshit lying term "pro-choice".)
Why is the term pro-choice slanderous and lying? I think it's at least as accurate as pro-life.
  #223  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Except that pro-choice people can be anti-abortion - for themselves. They might accept that the status of the fetus is a matter of opinion, and not fact, and that they should not impose their opinion on others.
I'm unaware of how any "pro-life" person is not anti-choice, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
This gets a bit semantic but what is the difference between a person that is anti-abortion and a person that is pro-life?
  #224  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:03 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I hope you know I am playing devil's advocate in this line, though it was similar to viewpoints I once held.



Why not? He supports a society that permits abortion. What would you call this position?
Anti-abortion with a proviso that he might be wrong and that other people disagree. A very healthy position, one that we could use more of these days.


Quote:
You by even having to make this assumption demonstrate you don't understand the disconnect between the 2 sides. To many who are pro-life the fetus is a child, it is a person and is alive. There is no potential person, and that term makes no sense. Child being used for a fetus is automatically understandable. Pro-life is all about the child, and protecting it's right to live from the deception that it is just a clump of cells that can be scrapped away and try to deceive the mother into murder of her child, greatly harming the mother as well (as she murdered her child). If you can't understand that, i'll give this back to ya:
What you've done here is given an excellent example of poisoning the well, which anti-choice types indeed do. They can call a fetus a child, but it isn't one. I have two new grandchildren and neither are anything like the way they were as fetuses. It's not much different from the OP's attempt to poison the well by having pro-choice types admit that a fetus is a person.


Quote:

Again you are not realizing that both sides come at this issue from different perspectives. Until you do, and until you can intelligently talk to either side from their own perspective you will just be babbling in the wind over things you don't understand to them.
I understand their perspective just fine. But I'm not letting them control the language. And I am happy to let them live their lives as they see fit, as long as they let my wife and daughters live their lives the same way.
  #225  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:13 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Thinking more on this, I need to also state that Kerry's statement doesn't say that much in terms of his reason for his position and sounds more like a re-election statement to please people then a true belief, but ignoring that last part.

The question is not really answered by saying he is a good Catholic as to what his statement is based on. What is it specifically in terms of Catholic beliefs and or doctrines that he is referring to that would get him into a state where he is personally against abortion but he didn't want to impose his religious beliefs on others.

It does not seem to align with Catholic church's views on the subject:



From http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...n-abortion.cfm

Note above 'public policy', thus not just for catholics.

So it sounds like in the issue of abortion John Kerry is not acting as a 'good catholic'. In fact to be a good catholic it would seem like a political figure would have to push to end abortions.
He was trying to be both a good Catholic and a believer in the Constitution, which means that the church should not establish its religious views as public policy.
The Catholic Church at this very time was covering up for pedophile priests, so their support for children seems a bit weak. If they want to be political they can pay taxes.
If the Catholic Church were consistent in its views, they should push for a ban on birth control (as they once did) also. Is anyone in favor legalized birth control not a good Catholic also? If so, why draw the distinction at abortion?
If the Catholics excommunicated everyone who went against any church doctrine, there would be cobwebs in the churches.
  #226  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:14 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
This gets a bit semantic but what is the difference between a person that is anti-abortion and a person that is pro-life?

1) The phrasing "pro-life" implies that people who are in favor of access to abortion are opposed to life in general.


2) Many people who oppose abortion are only pro-life in that specific context. They may favor the death penalty. They may favor wars. They may not be willing to have money spent to save the lives of children who have been born. So a specific person who's anti-abortion may in general be pro-life; but if the term's being used for everyone who's anti-abortion, then it's often inaccurate. (For that matter, they very likely eat meat and swat flies; though I think most people on all sides of this issue are using the term with an implied "human" attached.)
  #227  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:20 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
This gets a bit semantic but what is the difference between a person that is anti-abortion and a person that is pro-life?
Pro-life implies that ones opponents are anti-life - or at least that they are not pro-life also. It's already been mentioned that pro-lifers are fine with the death penalty and wars. Which are perfectly legitimate positions, but not ones which go with an identification as pro-life.
Anti-abortion is a bit more nuanced. Does it mean a personal position or a universal one? I'm anti-abortion in the sense that it should be a last resort and you should direct your reproductive life to make it unnecessary - understanding that it is impossible to do this perfectly. I hardly know anyone who is pro-abortion in the sense that it should be the first method of birth control.
So the distinction is between anti-abortion for me and anti-abortion for me and you and you and you.
But still, anti-abortion seems a lot more accurate label than pro-life.
  #228  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:35 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Pro-life is not dishonest just because you prefer to call them something else.

I happen to agree that anti-abortion is a more precise but so what?
Pro-life is objectively false for the reasons repeatedly mentioned and it's a lie because it's a slanderous attempt to imply that the opponents of the so-called pro-life movement are opposed to life, ie, pro-murder. That is the whole purpose of the term - they aren't describing what they believe, they're describing what their damaged little minds think their opponents believe, and positioning themselves opposite of that.

In a way it was a portent of the political right's current approach of defining themselves entirely based on who they oppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Why is the term pro-choice slanderous and lying? I think it's at least as accurate as pro-life.
I already 'd over that typo/brain fart, what more do you want of me?
  #229  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:19 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post


I want to be called "The only person who is not a fucking idiot".
The only person who is not a fucking idiot, I'm happy to call you that. However, after the post I replied to before, I may not believe it wholeheartedly.
  #230  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:02 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
The only person who is not a fucking idiot, I'm happy to call you that. However, after the post I replied to before, I may not believe it wholeheartedly.
Hey, I never said I was perfect. I just said that terms chosen to be insulting to the other party are terms chosen to be insulting to the other party - and of course that calling the anti-abortion group "pro-life" is an obviously false descriptor given the various forms of non-abortion killing many of the member of the group are in favor of.


(Also you need not call me that anymore. I presume you understood my point.)
  #231  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:06 PM
We're wolves not werewolves is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 5
We now have 5 pages of ever widening and nuanced discussion when the answer to the OP's original question is simple -- pro-choice advocates do not use that argument because they do not want to believe that that are condoning murder, whatever justifications they believe make it ok.
  #232  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:59 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
1) The phrasing "pro-life" implies that people who are in favor of access to abortion are opposed to life in general.
Do you have a cite to proliferation generally implying that pro choice folks are opposed to life in general? That sounds silly.

Quote:
2) Many people who oppose abortion are only pro-life in that specific context. They may favor the death penalty. They may favor wars. They may not be willing to have money spent to save the lives of children who have been born. So a specific person who's anti-abortion may in general be pro-life; but if the term's being used for everyone who's anti-abortion, then it's often inaccurate. (For that matter, they very likely eat meat and swat flies; though I think most people on all sides of this issue are using the term with an implied "human" attached.)
So is that any different than a pro choice person that opposed choices in non - abortion contexts?

This also seems like silliness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Pro-life implies that ones opponents are anti-life - or at least that they are not pro-life also. It's already been mentioned that pro-lifers are fine with the death penalty and wars. Which are perfectly legitimate positions, but not ones which go with an identification as pro-life.
Once again with the implications. Where do they imply that the term pro life extends beyond abortion?

Quote:
Anti-abortion is a bit more nuanced. Does it mean a personal position or a universal one? I'm anti-abortion in the sense that it should be a last resort and you should direct your reproductive life to make it unnecessary - understanding that it is impossible to do this perfectly. I hardly know anyone who is pro-abortion in the sense that it should be the first method of birth control.
So the distinction is between anti-abortion for me and anti-abortion for me and you and you and you.
But still, anti-abortion seems a lot more accurate label than pro-life.
Perhaps but there's seems to be a lot of offense being taken at a reasonable characterization of their position in the abortion context. In fact the motto of one of the larger organizations is choose life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Pro-life is objectively false for the reasons repeatedly mentioned and it's a lie because it's a slanderous attempt to imply that the opponents of the so-called pro-life movement are opposed to life, ie, pro-murder. That is the whole purpose of the term - they aren't describing what they believe, they're describing what their damaged little minds think their opponents believe, and positioning themselves opposite of that.

In a way it was a portent of the political right's current approach of defining themselves entirely based on who they oppose.

I already 'd over that typo/brain fart, what more do you want of me?
I hadn't seen it when I started.

I think you are reading way too much into it. They chose life for the fetus, you chose choice for the mother.
  #233  
Old 02-07-2020, 08:29 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by We're wolves not werewolves View Post
pro-choice advocates do not use that argument because they do not want to believe that that are condoning murder, whatever justifications they believe make it ok.
Or maybe it's that anti-abortion advocates do not want to believe that they're only pretending abortion is murder in order to justify controlling women's sexual behavior.

I mean, if you're just going to unilaterally decide that the people who disagree with you actually secretly agree with you and are lying to themselves about it, that's a game that two can play.

However much you may dislike recognizing it, the fact remains that there is no simple objective way to determine when a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus attains full human personhood. Of course you're entitled to believe that a fertilized egg is a fully human person from the moment of conception onward (although you probably don't maintain that position consistently in, e.g., the familiar fire-in-a-fertility-clinic thought experiment) if that's how you feel about it. But that's a spiritual/religious belief rather than a biological fact.

There is no biologically valid concept of a human "soul" or a process of "ensoulment" that happens at the instant of fertilization. Biologically speaking, gestation is a continuous process of development of the characteristics and abilities that we consider constitute human personhood, from an undetectable individual cell to a living baby. There is no one point in that development where it makes any meaningful scientific sense to say "this developing entity is a fully human person as of this instant but wasn't a fully human person at the previous instant". Applying the social and legal concept of "personhood" to a fetus is always an arbitrarily determined compromise with messy biological reality.
  #234  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:30 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
In his book "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments," Randy Alcorn says that pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion. I wonder if they would be true if the vote was for mandatory abortions for any group.

He also criticizes the terms used by the New York Times (pro-choice and anti-abortion) because "It makes one group look good and the other look bad." Hey, being anti a bad thing makes the group look good.

You either believe every woman who gets pregnant should have to carry the fetus to term or you don't. Case closed.
  #235  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:37 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,476
It's "anti-abortion" because the faction advocating for that - that is the sum total of their position. It's not a movement that also as vocally espouses anti-death-penalty, or turn-the-other-cheek as a preference over killing in self defense, or vegan philosophy or against right-to-die laws - it's a group which strongly announces "do not allow anyone to have abortions" and lobbies for social controls to that end. I don't think there's a better term for that than "anti-abortion". It sums up the movement's goal. Using a different term is simply spin - putting lipstick on the pig, so to speak.
  #236  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:40 AM
We're wolves not werewolves is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
:

I mean, if you're just going to unilaterally decide that the people who disagree with you actually secretly agree with you and are lying to themselves about it, that's a game that two can play.
Of course, and I agree with you. Obviously, most pro-choice advocates don't use that argument because they don't believe it's murder. My comment was directed to those that believe a women's choice to control her body is paramount and that any other consideration is secondary and therefore don't really put much thought into the status of the fetus. Admitting that it is killing of another human, however justified, is a stark admission that would undoubtedly cause some moral discomfort in many.
  #237  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:03 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
However much you may dislike recognizing it, the fact remains that there is no simple objective way to determine when a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus attains full human personhood. Of course you're entitled to believe that a fertilized egg is a fully human person from the moment of conception onward (although you probably don't maintain that position consistently in, e.g., the familiar fire-in-a-fertility-clinic thought experiment) if that's how you feel about it. But that's a spiritual/religious belief rather than a biological fact.
As luck would have it, there is a simple and objective way to determine personhood--the point where the fetus can survive outside of the mother. At that point it's a person and not on life support any longer. Up to that point of viability, the fetus is subject to the woman allowing it to use her for its life support and should she feel inclined, she may withdraw that consent at any time. Just as we're beginning to accept that consent to sex may be withdrawn no matter how involved one partner may be at the time and prefer the non-consenting partner allow them to continue, we accept that it is not ethical or correct to use another person's body to our own ends against their will. Fetus or sex partner, the concept is the same. Consent must be achieved and continuously granted or the relationship ends. Full stop.
  #238  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:13 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post

Once again with the implications. Where do they imply that the term pro life extends beyond abortion?
By using the word "life?" If the term was pro-fetal-life I'd have no issues, but life itself is a lot broader term with broader implications. After all, who could be against their life and the life of their loved ones?
Quote:

Perhaps but there's seems to be a lot of offense being taken at a reasonable characterization of their position in the abortion context. In fact the motto of one of the larger organizations is choose life.
But their position is choose life or we'll throw you in jail, right? An organization that advocated for carrying a fetus to term could be consistent with a pro-choice position. (As long as it's done honestly, not through a so-called support center with a hidden agenda.) But they're not satisfied with just trying to convince people, are they?
  #239  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:22 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by We're wolves not werewolves View Post
Of course, and I agree with you. Obviously, most pro-choice advocates don't use that argument because they don't believe it's murder. My comment was directed to those that believe a women's choice to control her body is paramount and that any other consideration is secondary and therefore don't really put much thought into the status of the fetus. Admitting that it is killing of another human, however justified, is a stark admission that would undoubtedly cause some moral discomfort in many.
The only people who count, those carrying a fetus, almost certainly do think about its status. That they have come to the conclusion that their fetus is not a person doesn't mean they haven't thought about it.
  #240  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:08 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
In his book "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments," Randy Alcorn says that pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion. I wonder if they would be true if the vote was for mandatory abortions for any group.
Are you seriously saying that you wonder whether pro-choice people favor, and would vote for, mandatory abortions? Or did I just read that wrong?

Nobody* in the modern pro-choice movement is arguing for mandatory abortions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by We're wolves not werewolves View Post
Obviously, most pro-choice advocates don't use that argument because they don't believe it's murder. My comment was directed to those that believe a women's choice to control her body is paramount and that any other consideration is secondary and therefore don't really put much thought into the status of the fetus. Admitting that it is killing of another human, however justified, is a stark admission that would undoubtedly cause some moral discomfort in many.
Why are you assuming anyone hasn't "put much thought" into their position?

Why are you assuming that people making only the bodily autonomy argument without the not-a-person argument must therefore have moral qualms?

And are you assuming that people can't have moral qualms and nevertheless conclude that it's even more immoral to ban abortion than to allow it? Presumably at least some soldiers have moral qualms about killing; that doesn't mean they think it's always morally wrong of them to do so.



*see asterix in post 221
  #241  
Old 02-08-2020, 03:19 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
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."
I don't believe this, and I don't think I know a pro-choice person who does.

Quote:
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.
Oh, I doubt this.

Quote:
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.
I know many people who have grievously mourned the loss of a limb, even one that was cancerous or gangrenous. And lots of men have mourned the loss of a testicle, while women have mourned the loss of a breast or a uterus. Tons of people who donate a kidney to save the life of a relative still go through a period of mourning-- maybe mourning is not quite the right word-- but they have to deal with the loss.

Quote:
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.
Holocaust victims were not like fetuses in utero. This is the first thing you've said that makes sense to me.

Abortion is not a unique circumstance, any more than anything is a unique circumstance. Do you mean "a circumstance without analogy"? Personally, I don't think that is true either, although this is something I do know some pro-choice people to believe.

Quote:
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.
Would it really? would it shut you up?

But again, most pro-lifers I know would not use an argument they did not believe, even to shut the other side up.
__________________
"There's always a non-Voodoo explanation for everything." ~Adrian Monk
  #242  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:13 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
As luck would have it, there is a simple and objective way to determine personhood--the point where the fetus can survive outside of the mother.
There's an even simpler test. US Constitution refers to "a person born". Genesis refers to "soul", breath. Be born and take a breath ==> person. Until then an embryo is part of a woman's body. Is the woman a slave, a brood-cow incubator? Then she's not allowed to decide. If she's a free person, she decides and the rest of us don't. That's pretty simple.

"Oh, but a viable fetus is a potential person!" But how do we know a viable fetus exists without mandatory monitoring? I know I'm a potential corpse because I'm pretty easy to see. And I know any tissue clipped off me or anyone else is a potential person because potential cloning. Thus amputations and skin-tag removal are abortions.

Anti-choice ==> pro female enslavement.
Pro-abortion ==> China family policy.
Pro-choice ==> women decide.
  #243  
Old 02-09-2020, 07:49 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
As luck would have it, there is a simple and objective way to determine personhood--the point where the fetus can survive outside of the mother.
That's not an objective way to determine personhood, because there's no objective reason to equate personhood with independent viability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
At that point it's a person and not on life support any longer.
Well, there are plenty of persons temporarily on life support who are still considered persons. There's no objective reason that pre-viability fetuses shouldn't also be placed in that category.

Mind you, I personally think that fetal viability (or some arbitrary timespan approximating it reasonably well, since there's no one-size-fits-all rule for determining exactly when a fetus is viable) is a reasonable and sensible place to draw the line for assigning full human personhood to a fetus. But it's not an objective approach to determining personhood. Because, as I said, there isn't one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq
[...] it is not ethical or correct to use another person's body to our own ends against their will. [...] Consent must be achieved and continuously granted or the relationship ends. Full stop.
That's a perfectly fine moral principle, but there's nothing objective about it. Personhood is a social construct, not an objective biological fact, and all the moral principles in the world can't provide an objective way to determine it.
  #244  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:04 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
...Genesis refers to "soul", breath. Be born and take a breath ==> person....
The Bible says life is in the breath, however the Bible also says the life is in the blood. So both, from air and from the umbilical.
  #245  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:37 AM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
The Bible says life is in the breath, however the Bible also says the life is in the blood. So both, from air and from the umbilical.
A soul (if any*) enters a body with the first breath. No soul means no person. Yes, life is in blood and other bodily fluids, but it doesn't start there. Life is continuous. Ova and sperm aren't dead before they join. And being alive doesn't grant personhood - ask any jellyfish.

Please don't think I'm appealing to authority of biblical texts; I merely cite a cultural artifact, which doesn't support anti-choice arguments. Living persons have traditionally been reckoned as, "Population 2048 Souls". Those are people who can be seen and counted. How can an embryo be counted if it's an undetected, invisible person? I've mentioned mandatory monitoring, without which the anti-choice position is clearly about controlling women's bodies, not protecting embryos.

* Does a soul grant an evolutionary survival benefit? When and how did souls evolve in primates? Did Denisovans, Neandertals, and "Hobbits" possess souls? How can we tell? No, I don't expect answers.
  #246  
Old 02-10-2020, 08:17 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
I remember when a "pro-life" protestor approached a woman going into the clinic and started her efforts to change the woman's mind. When I stepped in and told the protestor to stop harrassing the woman, she said "Don't listen to her. She just wants you to have an abortion."

Lying Bitch. I wanted the woman to have a choice to do what she wanted to do, something the anti-abortion movement wants to deny women. Not only to they not abortion to be a choice, many (most?) of them want gay adoption to be illegal because it's "child abuse."
  #247  
Old 02-10-2020, 08:37 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
A soul (if any*) enters a body with the first breath. No soul means no person.
I do biblically agree with this. Note Ps 51:

Quote:
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

But note where that secret place is in Ps 139:

Quote:
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
So biblically the mother's womb is not the uterus, but a secret place in the depths of the earth. Which agrees with:

Quote:
Genesis 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”



Quote:
* Does a soul grant an evolutionary survival benefit? When and how did souls evolve in primates? Did Denisovans, Neandertals, and "Hobbits" possess souls? How can we tell? No, I don't expect answers.
[/QUOTE]

To me souls are who we are, what makes us alive. The physical manifestation of life is just that. As the Apostle Paul calls it our body is just a 'tent' to dwell in for a time. As such animals have souls, however I do suspect that some animal groups are single soul, such as a bee colony and just how one human is made of many living cells working together as one. Also this is the secret the Apostle Paul takes about how we are the body of Christ, part of one soul, called spirit in this case, but also the holy spirit. The best I can explain my belief is a soul is a individual entity while the spirit is the soul re-intergrated with God's soul.

So yes animals would have souls and could also have spirit.

As for evolutional survival benefit, yes certainly more then biological. the Apostle Paul talks about being in the pains of childbirth and having to feed milk to spiritual infants. It's the real deal that guides evolution.
  #248  
Old 02-10-2020, 04:42 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by We're wolves not werewolves View Post
We now have 5 pages of ever widening and nuanced discussion when the answer to the OP's original question is simple -- pro-choice advocates do not use that argument because they do not want to believe that that are condoning murder, whatever justifications they believe make it ok.
Oh look, an obviously false statement.

There is not a single pro-choice person who believes that abortion is murder. It's not that they want not to believe it, they simply don't.

The quoted post is a great example of not being able to comprehend positions other than your own. You believe that a fetus dying counts as murder, thus everyone else must believe that too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I hadn't seen it when I started.
That's fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think you are reading way too much into it. They chose life for the fetus, you chose choice for the mother.
Read We're wolves not werewolves's quote and tell me again how you think the pro-lifers aren't accusing their opponents of being pro-murder.
  #249  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:31 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,680
You ask any pro-life person whose rights are greater, the mother or the fetus, and I guarantee you they will answer "the fetus." Or "the baby."

I do wish every woman considering abortion would let the child be adopted by a homosexual couple. It would certainly put a stick in the pro-life wheels.
  #250  
Old 02-12-2020, 03:59 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
...I personally think that fetal viability (or some arbitrary timespan approximating it reasonably well, since there's no one-size-fits-all rule for determining exactly when a fetus is viable) is a reasonable and sensible place to draw the line for assigning full human personhood to a fetus. But it's not an objective approach to determining personhood. Because, as I said, there isn't one.
I have added this to my I-completely-agree-with-Kimstu file.*

*said file does not take up a huge amount of room in my filing cabinet, but still.
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 04:57 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