Incoherent rage re: El Salvador and abortion

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t agree that self-awareness is a necessary characteristic of humanity or “personhood.” Consider a coma patient, or someone in a persistent vegetative state. Would you argue they are definitively no longer persons?
[/QUOTE]
If the brain structures involved in self awareness are there but shut down, yes, if not, no.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
But why are people so worried about the weakness of their position that they’re convinced that if we allow the democratic process to work that they would lose everything? You’re sure that without Roe v. Wade, American legislators would in a second follow the lead of El Salvador? Really?
[/QUOTE]
Or worse.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Why not? Merely repeating this claim yourself is hardly proof. Why should I accept your definition of personhood?
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a better, non-religious one ?

Defining a fetus as a person doesn’t elevate the fetus, it devalues personhood. A fetus is mindless, and will remain so whether or not you call it a person. If a fetus is a person, then people are no more valuable than so many pounds of mindless flesh.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
For the life of me, I can’t understand the idea that an unborn baby must have no moral significance, or that an unborn baby must not be a person, because otherwise…what?
[/QUOTE]
First, because you open the door to women being enslaved in the name of “protecting the unborn”.

Second, you devalue humanity, as I said above.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Again, you keep repeating “higher brain functions” as though it’s obvious and inarguable that this is the sine qua non of personhood. But I don’t agree that it is, and you cannot provide any “scientific evidence” to the contrary.
[/QUOTE]
It’s the standard position, used in such matters as organ transplants. It’s also the only non-ridiculous position I know of. Do you have a better one ?

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m pointing to the actual words issued by the Catholic Church.
[/QUOTE]
And I should trust scum like them why ? I judge them by actions, not words. I’d trust the word of someone just escaped from a maximum security prison first.

142

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Do you have a better, non-religious one ?

[/QUOTE]

Sure. The moment you have an individual living creature with unique human DNA, you have a person. That’s not religiously based, and it’s better, in that it reflects the instant the unique human being comes into existence.

143

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Because I can point you to the precise position paper issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. You, on the other hand, are relying on a law passed by a lay group, the Salvadorean government, and asking me to accept the inference that this law is the best evidence of what the Catholic Church wants. I’m pointing to the actual words issued by the Catholic Church. Which of us has the better evidence?
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’s a start. Note that I never claimed to have any evidence for what the RCC wants, but was asking for evidence myself. “Why shouldn’t I believe X?” does not entail that I do believe X, it’s asking for evidence against it. And before you call my suggestion ridiculous, note that just recently, the Canadian RC hierarchy put some significant effort into campaigning against C-38, the bill that granted legal recognition to same-sex marriages. Church officials up to and including archbishops threatened the souls of Catholic MPs. And yet those same church officials do not threaten the souls of Catholic MPs over the legal recognition of the marriages of divorcees, which is presumably every bit as heinous as same-sex marriage is. Why? I presume because they know they’d be laughed off the stage. I would not be surprised in the least to learn that the RCC had campaigned in a more socially conservative country against legal remarriage of the divorced. So you see, I have no great faith that the RCC isn’t saying one thing to Western society, and another to Latin American society, because it knows it can’t get away with saying to Canadians what it says to Salvadorans. You are welcome to disabuse me of this notion, if you can.

So, help me out here.

Do you deny that the Catholic Church has an extraordinary level of influence over Latin American society?

Do you believe that this law would have been passed if the Church had actively opposed it?

Do you believe that the Church would be unable, if it so chose, to effect an amendment (by actively lobbying for it) which would properly respect the doctrine of double effect?

Do you believe that at the very least the Church ought to be speaking out against women with ectopic pregnancies having their lives placed in jeopardy in this way?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Salvadoran hierarchy is unhappy with the current state of affairs?

If it is conceded that the Salvadoran hierarchy supports the double effect-violating form of the law, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Vatican has disavowed the stance of the Salvadorans?

If this was the Southern Baptist Convention with its rather loose affiliation of congragations and quasi-democratic structure I might not push so hard on this, but we’re talking about the most top-down hierarchical religion in the world.

144

Der Tris has a point–why should any non-Catholic take the word or judgement of the Catholic church on any issue involving the sanctity of life and surrounding issues? From pedophiles to no women priests to abstinence or rhythym method to celibacy to Terri Schiavo, the RCC has hardly shown itself to be a courageous, humanitarian institution, IMO.

And why should the Catholic church get to decide what is best for all people? No one here is forced to choose AB, but somehow, the fact that it is an option is too much for some people. The poor El Salvodoran women have had their choices removed and now their lives are endangered–for what? Some abstruse theological principle? What possible good does this law do?

And while the Salvodoran Gment may not have involved the RCC in its legislation directly, I don’t think that anyone would say that the RCC is prepared to fight the Salvodoran’s on this issue, or lobby for more moderate reforms.

It just boggles my mind that a female person can be made infertile(via the choice of salpingectomy) and this is OK with the RCC, so long as doctrine is followed. That, alone, speaks volumes about how the RCC views women and people as well. God forbid you use contraception to prevent pregnancies (ectopic or otherwise) but if you don’t–you’re still screwed. Why not castrate impotent men, then? Gosh, they can’t help that they can’t achieve erection so why not take the temptation away? I know, that doesn’t make much sense–I am seething over here and I said I wouldn’t get sucked into this. Where is the equivalent life changing issue for men? Where is the potential permanent damage to them? Nowhere. There isn’t one. Biology is destiny, indeed.
Bricker -if you don’t find the SD law regarding AB draconian, then we have no middle ground here to discuss. Carry on without me (I’ll sit on my hands).

145

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
And before you call my suggestion ridiculous, note that just recently, the Canadian RC hierarchy put some significant effort into campaigning against C-38, the bill that granted legal recognition to same-sex marriages. Church officials up to and including archbishops threatened the souls of Catholic MPs. And yet those same church officials do not threaten the souls of Catholic MPs over the legal recognition of the marriages of divorcees, which is presumably every bit as heinous as same-sex marriage is. Why? I presume because they know they’d be laughed off the stage. I would not be surprised in the least to learn that the RCC had campaigned in a more socially conservative country against legal remarriage of the divorced.
[/quote]

And why do you presume same-sex marriage is precisely as troublesome, no more and no less, as marriage of divorcees? You seem to base your set of syllogisms of this assumption, and I don’t see where you derived it.

Certainly they have a greater influence than they have here in the US. “Extraordinary” is not a word remarkable for its precision.

I doubt it.

I have no idea. I think it’s quite possible that this effort would expend political capital that the Church either outright does not have, or cannot afford to expend on this issue.

Yes, I do. And I don’t know that they’re not.

No. But I have no evidence that they’re delirious with joy, either. I don’t have the slightest idea about the political and religious debates that swirl around the Salvadorean landscape.

Again, no. But that’s simply a natural consequence of my ignorance of the landscape.

Your perception aside, individual bishops are comparatively autonomous within their dioceses, and episcopal conferences have great latitude in matters of practice and discipline.

146

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Bricker -if you don’t find the SD law regarding AB draconian, then we have no middle ground here to discuss. Carry on without me (I’ll sit on my hands).
[/QUOTE]

Well, it’s your call, of course, but considering I just said that the law does have an exception to save the life of the mother, and that the very issue we’re discussing here, ectopic pregnancy, would be a permissible reason for abortion under the SD law… it would seem to me it’s up to you to show an example of WHY, precisely, it’s draconian.

Unless you adopt the position that forbidding abortion is, by definition, draconian, in which case I agree that further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.

147

[QUOTE=JThunder]
Spousal abuse is a being-to-being issue. So is child abuse. So is rape.
Abortion is a staple in Great Debates. Interestingly enough, the only people who bring up religious arguments are the pro-choicers.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am pro-choice, but the fulcrum of this argument, in fact, the fulcrum of many arguments is, in fact, orgaized religion. It is the vehemently religious that primarily make up those who oppose abortion, not because of a tangible empiric reason, but because their religion tells them so. The more hardline the religion and it’s practitioners, the harder life is for women. So yeah, you’re dead fucking on when I say religion is the problem. Look at Iraq. Once you boil away the politics, what do you have? Muslims who hate Christians, who blow them up who then turn around send troops to blow THEM up. What happened in Norther Ireland? Catholics and Prodestants fought to the death, and took plenty of innocents with 'em (and THEY were both Christians). Catholic Bishops hid pedophiles and pederasts from justice under the law.

Thousands of people send in billions of dollars to hucksters and charlatans for their own enrichment, thinking there will be some eternal reward. Group thinkers (read: sheep) fill stadiums and arenas actually weeping in amazement of the “faith healers” that plague this nation.

Religion kills people.

Faith, on the other hand, faith will save you. Salvation, if you believe in it, is FREE for the taking, all you need to be is a good person. If you believe in Jesus, do as he did, not as the Pope, or the bible, or your bishop, or some coiffed television theif says you should.

For fucks sake, this is simple. Believe, Think, Act, Do Good Works, Give what you can to the ACTUAL needy, not the church bureaucracy, and enjoy the fruits of eternal reward.

You’re not going to get into heaven on your tithe, you’ll do it by feeding that hungry man, or giving that woman a place to sleep.

If more Christians took what Jesus DID and followed THAT instead of what other people SAID he SAID, we wouldn’t even be HAVING this conversation.

148

[QUOTE=Bricker]
And why do you presume same-sex marriage is precisely as troublesome, no more and no less, as marriage of divorcees? You seem to base your set of syllogisms of this assumption, and I don’t see where you derived it.
[/QUOTE]

Way to nitpick a minor element of presentation (fallaciously, since “ever bit as” does not mean “no more and no less”, but allows for the possibility of “as much and more”) and fail to address the point I was making. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your answers to my more direct questions.

149

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure. The moment you have an individual living creature with unique human DNA, you have a person. That’s not religiously based, and it’s better, in that it reflects the instant the unique human being comes into existence.
[/QUOTE]
So twins aren’t people ? A clone wouldn’t be ? A lab grown human organ would be human ? If I was crushed by a truck and scientists kept my finger alive artificially, that finger would be a person ? Is organ harvesting murder then ?

No, your “better” definition is, not surprisinglly, silly.

150

[QUOTE=Bricker]
“Self-defense” is not quite the right term, since the usual instance of self-defense is against a person who has chosen to use deadly force against YOU.
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. If a total lunatic, incapable of exercising even the most rudimentary judgment, charges at me with a knife, I’ll kill him if necessary… in SELF-DEFENSE.

Irrelevant – see above.

151

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure. The moment you have an individual living creature with unique human DNA, you have a person.
[/QUOTE]

Identical twins aren’t people?

Interesting…

152

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Because I can point you to the precise position paper issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. You, on the other hand, are relying on a law passed by a lay group, the Salvadorean government, and asking me to accept the inference that this law is the best evidence of what the Catholic Church wants. I’m pointing to the actual words issued by the Catholic Church. Which of us has the better evidence?
[/QUOTE]

Anybody want to start a betting pool on when this post will be linked to in reference to Bricker’s next assertion about the agenda of the Democratic Party, or the ACLU, or somebody?

I call dibs on one week from today.

153

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure. The moment you have an individual living creature with unique human DNA, you have a person. That’s not religiously based, and it’s better, in that it reflects the instant the unique human being comes into existence.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Is each HeLa cell a person?

Sorry, Bricker, your definition isn’t quite up to snuff.

154

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Because an eptopic pregnancy, by definition, is NOT viable. At all. It will never come to term.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but these two statements aren’t 100% true:

From lavenderviolet’s link on the first page (here):

It’s also possible for a nontubal ectopic pregnancy to come to term successfully:
Wikipedia
Britannica

Even a tubal ectopic is possible: Doctors hail ‘miracle’ baby

Not that these are good arguments for the El Salvador law, but it is possible.

Arjuna34

155

[QUOTE=Bricker]
And why do you presume same-sex marriage is precisely as troublesome, no more and no less, as marriage of divorcees? You seem to base your set of syllogisms of this assumption, and I don’t see where you derived it.
[/QUOTE]

Both are prohibited absolutely (i.e. neither is any more prohibited than the other) by the RCC.

156

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
So twins aren’t people ?
[/quote]

I’m willing to concede that my definition can be refined. I used “unique” DNA to refer to DNA distinct from the parents, not “unique” to mean “not shared by another living creature.”

Solved by my revision.

157

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure. The moment you have an individual living creature with unique human DNA, you have a person. That’s not religiously based, and it’s better, in that it reflects the instant the unique human being comes into existence.
[/QUOTE]
Others have pointed out the logistical problems with this definition; I’ll point out the relevance problems. What does human DNA have to do wtih having rights? What connection are you drawing between them?

THe self-awareness definition has the far preferable advantage of being related to rights: you give rights to babies because babies’ welfare is significantly changed by the rights you grant them. A being who cannot experience pain has no right to be free from pain; a being who has no personality has no right to be free from the end of that personality.

Daniel

158

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m willing to concede that my definition can be refined. I used “unique” DNA to refer to DNA distinct from the parents, not “unique” to mean “not shared by another living creature.”

Solved by my revision.
[/QUOTE]

First, this doesn’t solve the cloning issue: if technology advances to the point where human cloning is possible (and that’s no longer a distant science-fiction possibility), the child will have DNA identical to the parent’s, essentially being the parent’s younger twin.

Second, this doesn’t work in the animal kingdom. Assuming for a moment that you agree with anti-cruelty statutes that protect animals, and that you agree these laws rightly benefit the animals they protect (as opposed to being indirectly for the benefit of human beings), surely you wouldn’t carve out an exception in these laws allowing Dolly to be tortured to death by teenaged Satanists, simply because her DNA is identical to her parent’s, would you?

Third, this still doesn’t pass the relevance test: what does distinct DNA have to do with the capacity to appreciate rights, or with our duty to treat an entity as having rights? Why is it not a standard every bit as arbitrary as, say, my giving rights only to my immediate kinsmen, or your giving rights only to those who accept Jesus as their personal savior?

Daniel

159

[QUOTE=robertliguori]
Hmm. Is each HeLa cell a person?

Sorry, Bricker, your definition isn’t quite up to snuff.
[/QUOTE]

No, each HeLa cell derives its DNA from Helen, not from a merge of two people to create a separate DNA entity.

Incidentally, I’m fascinated at this. People who remained silent for earlier parts of the thread, letting obvious logical flaws pass without comment, no appear and leap eagerly into the discussion to attack my proposed definition on the basis of flaws that are relatively trivial and easily curable.

Why so interested now in making sure that logic and argument are rigorous, guys? Is it because now you can aid the argument from the “correct” side?

160

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Incidentally, I’m fascinated at this. People who remained silent for earlier parts of the thread, letting obvious logical flaws pass without comment, no appear and leap eagerly into the discussion to attack my proposed definition on the basis of flaws that are relatively trivial and easily curable.

[/QUOTE]

Am I “people”? Because if I am, check out my posts on the first page of the thread, in which I argued with pro-choicers. I’ve been gone for most of the day, and just returned to the thread, picking up an active conversational strain.

Daniel