Would you say a crooked policeman can ethically enforce the law on others?
The prolife position is invalidated for other very good reasons.
I’m pretty sure DianaG was talking about anti-choice people who want to outlaw all abortions from the moment of conception. Most people who have nuanced pro-life positions aren’t rabid about outlawing the right of a woman to regulate her own body or a family to make their own family planning choices.
I also have contempt for them as I have contempt for a creationist who tries to get that shit into science classes. You can come to the conclusion that a fertilized egg or early fetus is not a human being by evaluating tons of evidence and using cold logic. Then when confronted by ignorance and sometimes misogyny that threatens your right to your own body, you can have lots of contempt, while still maintaining your rational view.
There is a clear mental block for anti-choice people. I see it in this thread and remember the same struggle in two other threads. Some simply cannot grasp the notion that their view requires belief in a soul (or equivalent) or a sort of manifest human destiny bestowed upon the embryo. Over and over again, I see people mistaking human DNA or human ‘life’ for human being. Whatever this specialness they think an embryo or early fetus has, it takes precedence over the woman’s right to her own body. It’s confounding to them that there is no evidence to support their belief and plenty of people simply do not believe that these things exist. Do they not listen when this is explained? Do they not understand? I don’t know, but there is an impasse, probably caused by a materialistic vs supernatural world view.
Therefore, they don’t realize that their moral views do not have the universality as moral views on murder. Everyone can see that the murdered person suffers or at least a family member or friend will suffer when that person dies. So murder is universally considered to be something bad. But if an anti-choice person believes killing a fertilized egg is murder, the suffering caused by outlawing abortion is just a necessary evil to stopping the holocaust (sort of like bombing Dresden, lol).
I also agree with DianaG that the bumper sticker is useless for trying to bring home the point of choice. Someone already mentioned the, “It’s not a choice, it’s a CHILD!!!” bumper sticker. They just really can’t get over their belief that conception makes little people and you will never be able to make them understand with logic. A serious epiphany is required.
See, I think the question is “Is abortion legal, or is it not?”
That’s a darned good question, and I’m not sure how I’d answer that one – especially since it would depend on which aspects of the law he broke. I can say with confidence, however, that his hypocrisy does nothing to invalidate the law.
Maybe, maybe not. That’s the sort of discussion that’s been providing grist for the Great Debates mill for years. Either way though, the point I raised remains… this objection is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Well, there are people who think that right and wrong exist outside of the law. So, for example, they think that stabbing someone to death is evil regardless of whether or not such an act is illegal.
Maybe you’re not among these people?
What difference does it make if maladroit is one of those people or not? Those people can think whatever they want; that’s sort of the point of the slogan. They just can’t dictate another person’s decision.
By defining the debate as one about the absence or presence of evil, you’re conceding a pretty substantial part of the argument right from the beginning. If I go around saying that other people shouldn’t be allowed to use condoms, because condoms are evil, does that mean my perspective has to be granted the utmost gravity? What if I say interracial marriage is evil? Is that a really important serious conversation we have to have, too, because I’ve raised the specter of evil? It seems to me that “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” is exactly the appropriate response in these situations, and certainly all that we’re obligated to provide.
Ehem. In fact, full investigations are called for if the elderly person was not under a doctor’s care. They don’t just write “Old Age” on the death certificate and pop her in the box. The person’s family has no say in the matter; the Authorities decide on the depth and details of the investigation.
However, that might be a states issue, and no applicable in your state.
You are embracing the idea that I criticized: that there is some sort of equivalence between disliking an action and considering it evil. I’m not going to ask you to debate pro-lifers, but I am going to ask that you not be confused about what they think. Pro-lifers are not trying to force their personal preferences on other people any more than I try to force my preference against genocide on other people. My perspective on genocide is not “I hate genocide, so you should too, because I’m an egocentric nut!”
Don’t want to waste your time debating pro-lifers? Nobody is going to stop you. But pro-lifers are most certainly not like people who don’t understand that they are the center of all reality. They are not control freaks by definition, though I am sure some of them are (just as some pro-choicers are control freaks). They believe that fetuses are people and that people shouldn’t be killed. I am going to ask that you understand this–or, that if you believe it to be untrue, you provide good reasons for your opposing view.
Just because I think it’s not worth further consideration doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. They use really explosive rhetoric about it. It’s “evil,” not just a thing they disfavor. Yeah, I get it. It doesn’t change anything. It’s rhetoric. Meat is murder, too, I hear. Obama is Stalin. Gestapo baby holocaust. So?
Your answer, more or less, is that yes, if I tell you that something is evil, you have to make room in your mind to accommodate that, as long as you really think I think it’s evil. But how many cases do you apply that to? I’m guessing just the one.
What I think, again, is that they can believe whatever they like. So what? They aren’t right. They believe contrary to fact. At some point I have to make a decision: entertain fantasy or do not entertain it. And so do you and everyone else. The difference is that, for some reason, you are making an exception here. You entertain the notion that abortion is murder in a way that you refuse to entertain some other equally counterfactual argument. It’s not because there’s really a concrete difference between “abortion is murder” and “driving an SUV is murder;” it’s because of a distinction you’re making. It’s not more reasonable to make that distinction than it is to refuse it.
As far as the genocide comparison, again: we had a big discussion, over many years, and decided genocide: not OK. We had the same discussion about abortion, too: go nuts, kids.
Okay, I see that you understand what I’m saying. It seems to me like you’re saying something like this (my own paraphrasing here):
I actually assent to this, if this is what you mean to say. But I come from a philosophical background of sorts, and I am used to trying to debate fundamental issues ad nauseum. And I am damn certain that many, many pro-lifers are honest about what they think–namely, that unborn babies are people with rights. I think it’s better to at least think their beliefs are honestly felt than to insist that they’re bullshitting us in order to control our lives just because they love controlling other people.
Well, mocking people is mean, for sure, and being mean ought to be avoided. If it’s a question of propriety I can’t really argue against the idea that a calm recitation of medical and legal facts would be ideal. But although your paraphrase is more or less accurate otherwise, it isn’t about having time to argue about it, or about it being intellectually unrewarding.
Because it also happens to be really destructive, this set of beliefs, honestly held or not. I’ve watched women walk into Planned Parenthoods with people shouting - shouting - a bunch of crazed mumbo jumbo about how “that baby has a fashion sense at seventeen minutes old” and all that from about three feet away. Spittle flying, voice breaking, hands flailing. One of them grabbed me and shit, telling me I could “stop this.” They’re nuts. I bet they do hold some of this honestly. They kill people over it. They kill people and then more or less admit that they’re going to keep killing people if they can swing it.
And there is a sense in which this is a matter of objective truth, and in that sense they’re completely wrong. And since that’s the world we live in, I think a smart-ass and indirect reminder of the state of the law is not a particularly misguided response. It’s a perspective that should by rights be marginalized. Because what is the consequence of taking it seriously and allowing it to air itself as legitimate?
Are you saying that the police are called in to conduct an investigation every single time an old person is found dead? I’d like to have a cite for that, please.
Moreover, even if we grant what you said, the point remains – not every death is investigated. This is true regardless of whether the person is elderly or not. That’s why it’s fallacious to say that (ahem) every miscarriage WILL be investigated if abortion is declared to be illegal. That’s not how the criminal justice system works.
An anti-abortion rights activist who essentially is demanding “You do what I say!” could be termed a control freak.
An equally determined pro-abortion rights advocate whose stance is “I will staunchly defend your right to do as you wish!” is a control freak too?
Really?
This is not what I meant at all. I meant only to say that being against abortion does not make you a control freak, though such an individual might in any other way be a control freak (in other areas of life). The same applies for pro-choice people.
True. Considering a law unjust doesn’t invalidate it either.
In many cases there is an autopsy, which is a medical investigation into the cause of death.
If abortion were illegal, then a pregnant woman who deliberately and knowingly took some medication that induces a miscarriage would likely run afoul of that prohibition. An autopsy of the fetus and testing of its tissue samples would likely reveal any medications that the mother was recently taking, since either consent or a warrant by police would be required for obtaining a sample of the mother’s blood. If abortion were illegal, but only surgical abortions were given any attention by either doctors or law enforcement authorities, that would create a fairly large gray area where any prohibition could be side-stepped.
Having declared people dead and filled out death certificates, my experience has been that generally nowadays an autopsy is only done if the family requests or there is a reason to think the death is “suspicious”. There are plenty of cases where a reasonable assumption can be made about what killed the person and an autopsy isn’t pursued.
There are plenty of murders in our society nowadays (even of young infants and born children) which could be prevented by instituting draconian violations of individual rights. Just think of how many young toddlers’ lives would be saved if we simply banned parents of young children from owning backyard swimming pools that the parents could potentially drown the kid in or banned them from owning cars that the kid could potentially be left in during a hot summer day. You could justify these measures by saying that nefarious parents could potentially get away with murder by making it look like an accident. Yet most people in this society recognize that, while young children are human beings with a right to life, it isn’t reasonable to turn to such draconian methods to try to stop any possible death. I don’t see any reason to think that an exception would be made for deaths of fetuses when it isn’t for any other stage of human life.
If abortion isn’t killing anything worthwhile, and it is a beneficial thing for women, why wouldn’t there be pro-abortion people?
Anyone who isn’t comfortable calling themselves “pro-abortion”, or who feels the need to preface their views with how they are “personally opposed to abortion” or “would never have an abortion myself” should be able to understand where pro-lifers are coming from at least. It’s just a matter of degree.
I do believe there are genuinely pro-abortion people out there though actually. As just one example, there are guys out there who don’t give a shit about women’s rights, who happily intimidate or pressure their girlfriend or wife into an abortion because they don’t want to pay child support or deal with a kid. You sure you want to claim them for the “pro-choice” side?
I don’t think it even shows that very well - at least not at a level of evidence that would be accepted if it were used to establish a pro-life position.
She claims it has five cites. I looked - there are five at the end.
The first and last aren’t hyperlinks, so I can’t evaluate either. The link to the Pro-Choice Debate Handbook of Planned Parenthood also gives a Page Not Found, but based on the title, I rather suspect it is not the most objective piece of evidence ever cited. :rolleyes:
The second and third cites seem to assume that all Catholics believe that abortion is immoral, which for Americans is questionable, to say the least. And one cite says
and the other says
Not very strong evidence that hypocrisy is rampant in the pro-life movement.
The rest of the article is, as mentioned, a bunch of alleged anecdotes from anonymous pro-choice clinic workers.
Although this -
is entirely correct.
Regards,
Shodan
No, we calim them for the selfish asshole side. The men you are describing don’t really fit with your first sentence. There’s a good reason it’s called Pro-choice. People aren’t advocating women should get an abortion because it’s good for them and isn’t killing anythng worthwhile. They are advocating that each woman has the right to choose for herself based on her unique circumstances and her own conscience and beliefs. Pro choice people support women who choose not to get an abortion.