No, not really, if you don’t want to consider any of the questions I posed, there is no reason for you specially not to consider that one less than the others. Apparently you have managed to avoid asking such questions for quite some time now. And will continue, it appears.
.
I’d still like to know what you think about the link I posted in #299.
If I may suggest, there’s a gulf between:
“I feel a fetus is an unborn child and has a soul.”
and
“I feel a fetus is an unborn child and has a soul and I support laws to ban abortions even for people who feel differently.”
There’s much more to it, of course, but that’s where it starts.
Religion or non-religion, all of those people/groups are pro-life based on their BELIEFS, not on facts. They have a Constitutional right to believe whatever they want but they have no right to force their beliefs on people who have a Constitutional right to believe differently, which is what you keep trying to do, which is what is completely and blatantly un-American.
Actually, they do, and actually it isn’t, respectively. Can a political stance be “un-America” if the majority of Americans hold that stance? Not abortion, but look at prayer in school or teaching creationism and evolution together. Or, look at the number of American who would not vote for an atheist for president. We are first and foremost a representative democracy, and if the majority of Americans want “x” and can use the proper channels to achieve “x”, then talking about what rights they have is beside the point. Their most fundamental right is to democratically choose what their government can and cannot do.
Our government is not supposed to support any particular religion or religious views, in general. However, that is entirely different than saying the citizens should not use religion as one influential factor guiding their political stance on any given issue. As a non-believer myself, I wish they wouldn’t, but I’m not going to be so arrogant as to say they are un-American for doing so.
That’s a completely separate argument. Lobohan’s “argument” was that I was “…trying to make this country into a Catholic wonderland.” But the precise same behavior arises from some Jews, some Muslims, some Buddhists, some Mormons, and some atheists. It’s absolutely unsupportable to accuse each of them of trying to create a Catholic wonderland.
The problem with debating so many people is that when someone’s poor argument is exposed, rather than admit their error, they simply slink back, say nothing, and allow the next person to step up, never admitting that any flaw in their argument ever existed.
So how about we all settle this one first. Lobohan was wrong when he accused me of trying to pass Catholic laws and create a Catholic wonderland. The pro-life position derives not from Catholic commands but from a basic belief in the value of human life: one shared by some Jews, some Muslims, some Buddhists, some Mormons, and some atheists, among others.
Do you agree that Lobohan’s argument was flawed?
The soul isn’t the issue.
I do believe in a soul, of course. But that’s not what drives my position on abortion, and I don’t know if I can say definitively when a soul becomes part of a developing child. I’m pretty sure it’s NOT at the moment of conception. In fact, I think I can inductively prove it.
Consider identical twins. We assume for the purposes of this discussion that identical twins have separate souls, yes? Yet the first mitosis of the sperm and oocyte is the one that produces the unique genetic mix, the unique human, of which I spoke. But those cells, and the cells from the next division at least, are totipotent, and if split at that stage will produce two genetically identical humans. Or, more rarely, three. Or much more rarely, four. So it’s clear (to me, anyway) that one soul doesn’t arrive at the moment of fecundity because that zygote might end up being more than one person.
I don’t discount the importance of a soul, by any means. The soul is what makes us like God: immortal, and made in his image and likeness.
But the soul has little to do with my abortion stance.
What Bricker is doing is certainly not unAmerican, by any reasonable standard.
This doesn’t mean it’s rational, necessary or useful. There shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever with his beliefs. Using those beliefs as a premise for a logical argument is potentially problematic, of course. “Humans are special, therefore…” can be followed by anything the speaker wants. The specialness of humanity becomes a rationalization of existing views, not a reason for them.
I would say that that’s a perfect case to take medical action intended to save the life of the mother. If that medical action causes the death of the unborn child, that’s a tragic, but unintended, secondary effect.
I can totally see where some people may believe that fetuses are human and that abortion is tantmount to murder. I don’t agree with it, but I can see where some people would see that. I can also see why these people would exercise their rights to try to influence the government to ban abortion. Again, I don’t agree with it but I see where they’re coming from. What I think is asinine is the attempt to regulate a legal procedure out of existence. What is triply asinine is the notion that these pregnant women are complete dunces and need to be shown an ultrasound so that they can understand what is in their body. Condescending sexist bullshit, that. So vote how you want concerning abortion, that is your right. But I don’t think it is your right to get state legislatures to work around the law and make a legal procedure impossible to get or degrading to the person seeking it.
I have not agreed with you very much lately, but I can say that I pretty much agree with that. Nice post.
But what if you were to learn that, say, 30% of women seeing the ultrasound results decided not to have an abortion? Wouldn’t that indicate that it’s NOT simply sexist bullshit – that the ultrasound information is enough to change minds?
Maybe 30% of people euthanizing their cats wouldn’t do it if they had to hold the animal and watch it die. Having an abortion is a difficult decision. Having an ultrasound done doesn’t give the woman any more information than she had in the first place. Forcing her to sit and listen to a doctor say “awww, there’s its wittle face… awww, look at the cute little hands- are you sure you want to kill this little angel?” isn’t giving her any information, it’s an attempt to play to emotion. If you’re old enough to get pregnant, you’ve had science classes. You’ve seen pictures of fetuses before.
I disagree. At one time, a majority of Americans believed black people were second-class citizens, but according to the Constitution, discrimination is wrong. Even though there are few, if any, atheists in elected office does NOT mean that the majority of Americans can vote to make religion a requirement for someone to run for office. ANY person, religious or not has the right to run for elected office.
Currently, women have a constitutional right to have an abortion, and it’s a right no matter how many Americans might think differently. You don’t get to vote on rights; it’s why they’re called rights. The majority does not rule everything, and rights do matter.
“Use the proper channels” to elect someone who will govern via religious fiat? No way. That’s forcing your beliefs onto people who do not share your belief. That’s the Iranian way, and in my opinion, un-American. If “the majority” decides to vote out our constitutional democracy in favor of a theocracy, then it just won’t be America any more.
I gather you’re not responding to me any more, but I’ll comment anyway.
I can well imagine some arbitrary percentage of women changing their minds after being made to see an ultrasound, but how is this not blatant emotional manipulation? I’m doubtful of any claims that the ultrasound procedure is helping her gather information for a calm rational decision. What about the 70% (going with your proposition) who are not affected? Are you going to advocate stronger measures at some point to get them to change their minds, i.e. a woman seeking an abortion must spend an afternoon around newborns? Watch videos of playing toddlers? Attend a high-school graduation surrounded by proud parents? What is a reasonable check point in the emotional-manipulation process?
Sure they can. They can vote in Congresscritters that are willing to approve a Constitutional Amendment to make Islam the official religion of the US and being a member in good standing at a mosque a requirement to run for office. Done.
How did the Bill of Rights become part of the constitution? Were they inscribed on stone, and given to George Washington on some mountaintop?
Way. It’s called democratically amending the constitution. It’s highly unlikely, but perfectly legal.
Yeah, “eternal vigilance” means what it says, not “okay, we’re safe now.” The same mechanisms that allow liberal governments to gradually improve also lets them dramatically collapse.
Point taken. It is procedurally possible. Apologies to Bricker - it’s not unAmerican. Ignorant and misogynistic, yes; unAmerican, apparently not.
I’m not sure if the death of an anencephalic fetus is actually a tragedy or unintentional, but I am glad to see that you’re not a strict absolutist.
Here is another case which cost a woman her life and is now causing Ireland to review its laws concerning therapeutic abortions:
I am a strict absolutist. That doesn’t mean I value a unborn child OVER a mother, any more than the reverse. In that case, the child had effectively zero chance to live, either way. The mother had a chance to live one way. That’s the way that should be taken. And it’s important to remember the intent that follows that decision: you never intend to kill the unborn child. You intend to save the mother. If the only way to save the mother involves the certain death of the child that will probably die anyway, then that’s the way to take… but the intent is always to save, not to kill.