JCOAPS! Homer - well, it was a Great Debate, but now it’s turned into a Fundie Flap.
Of course abortion is the killing of life.
So is washing your hands (poor, poor microbes).
To argue the “pro-life” stance convincingly, you need to show that it benefits society to save that life and also that society has the right to intervene.
You can rationalize it all you want. It’s a parasite, it’s not alive, it doesn’t feel pain, yadda yadda yadda.
Wait a second, Peter – how come your position is apparently the correct one, while ours is just rationalizing?
If you’re waiting for me to defend the routine performance of abortions in the third trimester, you’ll have a long wait – I don’t think they should be routinely performed, and I don’t think they are. Are the justifiable when the mother’s life is in danger, or when the fetus (yes, fetus – not baby) suffers from serious physical defects? IMO – and JUST my O – yes. You see, that’s the difference between being pro-choice and anti-choice – I don’t require that everyone out there agree with me. You say:
Well, I would have thought this self-evident, but the reason is because my definition of “life” does not include any part of one human body that cannot live without that human body. Therefore, I don’t consider a fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb to have an independent life of its own any more than I consider my right hand to have an independent life of its own. And what I choose to do with my own body – pregnant or not – is my business, not yours. End of story. Your histrionic anti-choice hyperbole of “burning babies to death” will not change that, ever. As you surely recognize by now, I disagree with you fundamentally on this issue. The difference, of course, is that I do advocate forcing my beliefs on you through the force of law. Believe what you want, it’s fine with me – because that’s what being in favor of choice means.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Wait a second, Peter – how come your position is apparently the correct one, while ours is just rationalizing?
If you’re waiting for me to defend the routine performance of abortions in the third trimester, you’ll have a long wait – I don’t think they should be routinely performed, and I don’t think they are. Are they justifiable when the mother’s life is in danger, or when the fetus (yes, fetus – not baby) suffers from serious physical defects? IMO – and JUST my O – yes. You see, that’s the difference between being pro-choice and anti-choice – I don’t require that everyone out there agree with me. You say:
Well, I would have thought this self-evident, but the reason is because my definition of “life” does not include any part of one human body that cannot live without that human body. Therefore, I don’t consider a fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb to have an independent life of its own any more than I consider my right hand to have an independent life of its own. And what I choose to do with my own body – pregnant or not – is my business, not yours. End of story. Your histrionic anti-choice hyperbole of “burning babies to death” will not change that, ever. As you surely recognize by now, I disagree with you fundamentally on this issue. The difference, of course, is that I don’t advocate forcing my beliefs on you through the force of law. Believe what you want, it’s fine with me – because that’s what being in favor of choice means.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Brian White wrote:
Um, where in the bible does it say that abortion is murder?
Okay…and for the record I never said I was anti-choice, choices, IMO, end at conception.
And as far as the “histrionic hyperbole,” would you kindly direct me to a site that describes, in detail, the exact effects of a saline injection to a fetus?
There are those who would argue that abortion falls under that “Thou shalt not kill” thing.
No, Pete, I won’t, because life is too short for me to do the electronic research that you presumably are smart enough to do on your own. If you want to characterize the procedure as “burning babies to death,” then maybe you should post a (non-propagandized) link showing that such a description is something other than utter bullshit.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Which makes you, by definition, anti-choice in the context of a discussion of the topic of abortion. Oh, and if you have some proof that life, under any practical definition, begins at conception, trot it out.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Actually, life began long before conception, since the gametes (sperm and egg cells) are already alive. Then again, about a gazillion cells in your body die every day, so I wouldn’t mourn too long if you “waste” some sperm cells 
.
Remember, life begins at 4.5 billion B.C.!
And, just so we’re clear, the Planned Parenthood definition, given above, stated:
Tracer then speculated:
Speaking only for myself, the induction method is the only procedure I’m aware of involving the injection of saline. As far as I know, it does result in killing the fetus (ie, a stillbirth) because the fetus cannot survive in a saltwater solution. I don’t know what the hell Peter North is talking about.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
You’re welcome, Brian. But I still don’t see you drawing a distinction between this and any other sin.
Jodi, there’s a significant difference between the fetus and your right arm: your right arm will never be more than your right arm. The fetus, if all goes optimally (from a biological standpoint), will become a real, live, independent human being. It seems to me that that alone is at least a pretty good argument for giving the fetus a different status.
But distinctions like that aside, I doubt you’d have much luck if you were to walk into a hospital and demand that they remove your arm. They’d check you in for psychiatric observation instead.
I don’t think there’s anything they could charge you with if you fired up the old circular saw and did it yourself, but still: society’s not going to give you any help in taking your arm off. So if you’re arguing for the right to an abortion because you should have the same right to do with the fetus as with your arm, that might give you the right to self-induce an abortion, but no more. (And you couldn’t expect drugs designed to aid abortion, anymore than anyone’s making drugs to help you slough off an arm.) So it doesn’t seem like that argument gets you very far.
There are those who would argue that cheeseburgers fall under that “Thou shalt not kill” thing.
So you say choice ends at conception at yet you’re not anti-choice? Besides the obvious malarkey of that statement which we’ll ignore, please answer the following questions:
-
Why are you not also mandating a criminal investigation into every single incident of miscarriage? After all, if the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, then a death of a human being has just happened and should be investigated to determine fault.
-
Why are you waiting until conception anyway? Why allow any female human the option of not becoming pregnant when ovulation is occurring? After all, that’s a potential human being right there!
-
Why are you so intent on forcing YOUR religious interpretation of YOUR religion’s book on the rest of the nation, many of whom DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR RELIGION IS TRUE? After all, if your religion were all supreme and all good, then it shouldn’t have to be forced on us unbelieving heathen types.
I’m still waiting for Homer to confirm or deny the possibility that he misheard what he supposedly overheard.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
I can’t find a description of exactly what happens with a saline abortion. All I can find is “propagandized” information.
RoboDude:
I think Homer did “recant” -
**Alright guys, I’ve been reading what you said about mishearing and inside jokes, and I am thinking it was one or the other. I was thinking “Wild Oats” as in sowing, or again being able to sow. Perhaps it is a food chain here, too. **
RTF: I see your point about someone’s right hand not being comparable to a fetus, but just for the fighting ignorance part of all this, people can actually get parts of their bodies cut off, even if the limb is healthy. There have actually been several cases of this recently (and I guess I’m off to find some actual news reports, but I read it just the other day in our local newspaper…stay tuned for link). Patients come into the hospital so horrified of their limb (leg, arm, what-have-you) because of how it looks, that they’re determined to have it removed…and doctor’s have been performing these operations.
That link is actually from the News of the Weird by Chuck Shepherd. Is that considered a reliable source?
Here’s the link: http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html
and the quote:
**Barely six months after the murder conviction of San Diego surgeon John Ronald Brown (whose patient died while voluntarily having a healthy leg removed), a hospital in Scotland announced that it has been the site of two similar but successful surgeries in the last three years, on patients so dissatisfied with their bodies that they have a psychological need (“apotemnophilia”) to have a healthy limb removed. Surgeon Robert Smith said he was troubled by his patients’ (one British, one German) needs but ultimately performed the operations at no charge because the patients were so distraught, one having earlier shot himself in the leg to improve the chances a surgeon would agree to amputate. **