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.)
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.
Do you have a cite to proliferation generally implying that pro choice folks are opposed to life in general? That sounds silly.
So is that any different than a pro choice person that opposed choices in non - abortion contexts?
This also seems like silliness.
Once again with the implications. Where do they imply that the term pro life extends beyond abortion?
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.
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.
:dubious: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
I don’t believe this, and I don’t think I know a pro-choice person who does.
Oh, I doubt this.
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.
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.
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 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.
That’s not an objective way to determine personhood, because there’s no objective reason to equate personhood with independent viability.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
I do biblically agree with this. Note Ps 51:
But note where that secret place is in Ps 139:
So biblically the mother’s womb is not the uterus, but a secret place in the depths of the earth. Which agrees with:
[/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.
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.
That’s fair.
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.