I find it ironic (abortion and freedom)

Great Debates
41

It’s not important to agree on terminology. Whether we call the thing inside a pregnant woman’s womb a “person” or an “entity” or a “fetus” is irrelevant. What is relevant is the discussion between people who (A) think that that thing commonly called “abortion” should be legal and/or is morally justified and people who (B) disagree.

These issues do not turn on whether we call the thing being evacuated from the womb a “person” or a “fetus.” That only really matters to PR men.
– VarlosZ (pro-unborn-baby-killing)

42

Yes and no. Maybe this has gotten too far into semantics but it is still important to an extent. The very nature of the argument for those opposed to abortion is to define the fetus/zygote/whatever as a distinct human being with its own right to life. Thus an abortion is murder to them just as if someone killed you. To me allowing ‘animate being’ and ‘entity’ to be used to describe the fetus gives up this very important and pivotal point.

As to the ‘pro-life=anti-choice’ I probably let that go too far for no purpose except to be contrary. Sorry about that.

43

As you said, yes and no. I think we can agree that what people are trying to argue about (ultimately) is whether society’s common ethical and legal protections ought to extend to that thing in the womb. To an extent, arguing over terms such as “animate being” and “person” is just shorthand for that very issue; you say “person” so you don’t have to say “a thing deserving of the same ethical and legal protections as commonly apply to you and me.” Perfectly reasonable.

The problem is that the debate frequently degenerates into a squabble over the words themselves instead of the meaning of the words. Person A says that Person B’s use of a certain word is inappropriate, stating the objection a bit too literally, and then B counters with another too-literal point (by, say, quoting the dictionary). And now we’re arguing over the proper wording of a given definition, we’ve lost sight of the fundamental disagreement, and any progress grounds to a halt. (I certainly don’t mean to single you out; we all do this.)

So I see no reason why we can’t object to the use of a given term, but it should be made clear that we’re ultimately objecting to the thing implied by that term, as used in that particular instance – we have to remind ourselves that the word is just a tool: a stand-in for meaning.

44

Discussion of the rhetoric is informative and thus, by the standard of fighting ignorance, legitimate. If someone doesn’t want to read about it then, as has been pointed out innumerable times, they are free not to.

I am both pro-choice and pro-abortion. I think women should be allowed to chose and I believe that many, including I suspect, myself, are not fit to be parents. I have no problem with the other side calling themselves pro-life because they want to keep the fetus alive. I don’t complain about the term just because in other contexts ( I am thinking about capital punishment ) the pro-lifers on abortion take the anti-life position.

45

A rolling stone makes hay while the sun is on cloud nine.

Actuary You’ve asked for someone to define the point at which ‘human’ becomes applicable as a definition; I believe the the definition ‘human’, apart from being a diverse one (do you mean the legal definition, the biological definition etc?), I think it is a little like asking how many hairs constitute a beard.

In fact tell me how many hairs constitute a beard.
if I have just the requisite number of hairs on my chin, I am defined as ‘bearded’ - If one of them falls out, am I suddenly ‘beardless’?

In a process that is smoothly continuous, it is impossible to find transitions. Arguing that a fertilised ovum is suddenly fully human is like asserting that a single hair on your chin is a beard.

46

Sorry. Pet peeve here.

“Y’all” is a contraction of “you all.” Thus, the apostrophe should be between the ‘Y’ and the ‘A’

On the debate, I’ve got nothing much more to say than to agree with Mangetout on the “what constitutes life” thing. Quite eloquent there.

47

Bob Cos:
Simply because one could make an argument that “pro-choice” is inaccurate does not make it so. Simply presenting one argument why “pro-choice” is inaccurate, and placing it alongside the argument why “pro-life” is inaccurate, does not establish that the two arguments are equally valid. While referring to someone as “pro-choice” does leave out information, it is information which it is absurd to expect. Asking someone to add “in the area of abortion” at the endof “pro-choice” is akin to asking a sports announcer to refrain from calling the football simply a “ball” out of concern that it might be confused with a baseball. The term “pro-choice” omits information that should be obvious. The term “pro-life” implies information which is false. I don’t see how you can equate a lack of information with inaccurate information.

As for the “human” issue, I think that y’all (thanks, Soup_du_jour) are missing an important distinction: there’s a difference between being human, and being a human. A drop of blood from a human is human blood, but it’s not a human. I believe that a fetus is human, but not a human.

48

This character has just been banned from another list I am on for spamming and being a complete jerk. The following should explain everthing. I did get the authors permission to post this:

49

For all you anti-lifers, Isn’t it kind of hypocritical for you to be pro-choice considering you’ve already been born?

50

What, being born is inherently better than not being born? I’m a happy guy and I like life, but it wouldn’t be so bad (for the world or for “me”) if I never was.

51

Look, I’m the result of a pregnancy that took two teenagers by surprise. I’m thrilled to be alive, personally. But saying that abortion should be illegal because otherwise I wouldn’t be here is like saying that all teenagers should be having sex without birth control because otherwise I wouldn’t be here.

52

How is supporting someone’s right to make a decision that your own family didn’t make hypocritical? That’s like saying it’s hypocritical for a Democrat to support someone’s right to vote Republican. Sure, if everyone voted Republican the Democrats would up shit creek, but that’s a personal decision for the voter and only the voter to make.

As for my personal situation, I was an unplanned but wanted pregnancy. I was just a few months earlier than they’d really planned. (Mom wanted me to be born in the early summer so she’d have time off work to be with me, but I was a January baby.) To say that she should have aborted a pregnancy she wanted is stupid, and that is never the position of those of us who are pro-choice/anti-life/pro-abortion-rights/pick your term. Having me was the choice that happened to fit her life and her priorities.

Other women, with other pregnancies, aren’t in the same situation. They don’t want to be pregnant. They can’t afford to be pregnant. It would exacerbate their diabetes and permanently damage their kidneys to be pregnant. They’re carriers for devastating genetic disorders. For whatever reason, continuing the pregnancy isn’t a choice that fits their lives and priorities.

53

Why do you need to ask? I stated it clearly and repeatedly. From a biological and genetic point of view (not legally yet), when does the “it” become a human (I’ll get to that later – you’re right, --The Ryan–, to make the distinction). But you still did not answer the question.

You cannot really answer the question, can you? Y’all (thanx) admitted as much. It’s a continuum.

Mangetout - You talked about the definition of a beard. If you have some hair on your chin/face, wouldn’t it be really, really important to YOU how a country that you were to visit defined a “beard” if they had laws that permitted people to KILL YOU for not having a “beard”. It would be really important to YOU, wouldn’t it?

When in doubt, err on the side of LIFE.

54

There’s a huge difference between preventing a life from coming into existence AND killing it after it starts in its most helpless state.

55

Hold off the matter of affording it or not.

CarzyCatLady – Are you familiar with the concept among pro-choicers that says, “If the women wants the baby it’s a life worth protecting (and even prosecuting over if killed), but if she doesn’t want the “it” – it can be aborted.” Think about it, whether it’s a LIFE worth protecting depends on whether the mother wants it? Walk down that road a piece. What are the implications?

Why do we not apply that principle to other life-death choices? A high view of LIFE would never define it as such. A low view of life (and high view of self) will finds numerous spurious reasons to kill a nuisance baby.

56

The “it” is more than merely human. It is a human (but still in development). “It” has human DNA and unique human DNA (I have forgotten how early in gestation it is discernable). “It” has separate and distinct DNA from it’s mother. Labs do DNA testing in a court trial, to identify a person (separately and distinguishably from other suspected person). When they find the DNA distinct they declare the person tested to be a separate and distinct person.

Bob Cos – What if lab personnel had tested the DNA of the “it” that “became” you at a later, but unknown time? What if they held in the results in the files until now? What if they tested you now. Of course they would find a perfect match.

The “it” was really YOU, back then. Not a pre-YOU.

This is all just basic science. Don’t keep resisting the scientifically obvious for your emotional, self-image, spurious, reasons.

57

Thanks for posting those links, Zap. You’d think that after three books Illuminati would be able to spell the word “many.” And am I the only one who strongly suspects that he moonlights as a ventriloquist?

58

I’m going to call bullshit on this one; the newly fertilised ovum that became ‘me’ may well be ‘pre-me’ in a purely genetic/chemical sense, but a heck of a lot has happened since then (I developed a brain and senses, was born, learned to speak, read, write, feel pain, built relationships, formed opinions, laughed, cried etc); the ‘it’ was not a person at that stage - all the stuff that happened in between was what makes me a person.

However, you’ll now ask me to define the moment at which the transition to ‘person’ took place. I shall reiterate that moments of transition are not discernible in a smoothly continuous process.
Five weeks ago, I was clean shaven, but I have a beard now; at no moment did I suddenly ‘have a beard’, having ‘no beard’ the previous moment; there is no moment of transition because the state of beardedness/lessness is not a boolean function.

So it is (I believe) with personhood and/or humanity; the law may be forced to have an opinion as to when the ‘moment’ occurs, but that is all it is; an opinion.

59

You need to read more closely if you’re inferring that I have the beliefs you seem to be disputing. I have no spurious reasons to resist science that shows human life begins at conception, since I happen to agree with this notion.

60

This doesn’t become less nonsensical just because more than one person asserts it. Let me try one more time. “Pro-choice” is not technically accurate, since that camp is not for all choices, and neither is the pro-life side against all choices. It is a name that is ambiguous, even if unintentionally so, and that ambiguity could lead the uninitiated to the wrong conclusion. Now, here’s the point you so conveniently missed:

You are asserting that, despite the fact that the term by itself may not be absolutely clear, it is implicitly obvious just what “choice” the “pro-choice” crowd is for. Then explain why “pro-life” is not just as clear to anyone who hears it–i.e., it describes someone who is “pro” protecting the life of the unborn.

You know what? This is not that big a point, but it is amusing how strenuously people will torture logic here. If you want names that are not in any way ambiguous or misleading, then you’ll have to abandon “pro-choice.” It is not an argument to say, “but everyone knows what that means” unless you are willing to concede that this argument also applies to the term “pro-life.” Why would I have to needlessly add information like “pro-life of the unborn”? That would be like asking a sports announcer to refrain from calling the football simply a “ball” out of concern that it might be confused with a baseball.

Look, both sides have chosen a term that connotes something noble and that could imply something base about the opposition. I recognize this, and frankly I think it’s self-evident. Just be consistent in the logic you apply regarding which terms are worthy of your use.

Or…you can just believe as I do that it is common courtesy to refer to people as they prefer, which is why I have no reluctance at all to call people pro-choice. Again, feel free to ignore a simple request. But I recognize it for exactly what it is–pandering pettiness.