Pro-Life - Is it about compassion or punishment.

Great Debates
21

Pro-choice does not argue against advocating a moral agenda, rather against advocating a moral agenda without a rational basis. For instance, opposition to slavery rests on the rational conclusion that there is no basis to differentiate rights based on skin color or other superficial characteristics; human rights accrue as a result of sentience and consciousness.

If any moral agenda may be legitimately enforced, then how do you rationally differentiate your position from Nazism and racism, or the oppression of those that do (or do not) rub blue mud in their navels? Do you believe that you have the moral authority to coerce people to your arbitrary moral standards?

On another note, if a fetus is the equivalent of a born human, what rational distinction do you make between aborting a fetus and killing a born child that results from rape/incest? If you argue that the humanity of a born person is qualitatively different from that of a fetus, then you have undermined the only possible rational basis for opposing abortion.

22

And what about the following scenario?

A woman visits her doctor and learns two things:

  1. She’s pregnant (which she suspected all along, of course.)

  2. She has cancer.

The doctor tells her that the cancer can be treated only one way, with chemo. The treatment will almost certainly kill her fetus but she will most likely survive and will most likely still be able to become pregnant again. If she is not treated, she will almost certainly die within a year, but she will very likely successfully give birth.

What does she do? Save herself or her fetus?

There are those who would say she must save her fetus and not herself; it’s not acceptable to kill an innocent unborn life even to save your own. And you never know, God might step in and miraculously cure her of her cancer. And besides, if she has turned her life over to Christ, she’ll be in Heaven with Him if that cancer kills her. And He’ll look after her baby for her, I guess. :rolleyes:

23

To PatricM and anyone else who thinks we have enough safeguards in place as to not execute an innocent man I submit this nice little editorial one of many such writings.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99nov/991/wrongman.htm

Needs2know…this article was attached to The Crime Files Library

24

The last time I had this discussion with a pro-lifer who would make an exception for rape, I asked her if she would also make an infanticide exception for rape. “Of course not” was her reply. “Oh, so you’re admitting there’s a difference between a fetus and a baby then?” I asked.

She changed the subject VERY quickly …

25

Got to agree on that one…why is child of a rape less deserving to live than the child of some sordid, drunken, one night stand? You either believe that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception and all human life is sacred or what?

Needs2know

26

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Joe Malik *
**Pro-choice does not argue against advocating a moral agenda, rather against advocating a moral agenda without a rational basis.

Nonsense…I have heard countless pro choice advocates tell me NOT to impose “my” beliefs on others…I have never heard them qualify that rationale with “a rational basis”

If any moral agenda may be legitimately enforced, then how do you rationally differentiate your position from Nazism and racism, or the oppression of those that do (or do not) rub blue mud in their navels? Do you believe that you have the moral authority to coerce people to your arbitrary moral standards?
I think that Nazis and racists have the right to debate the merits of their (foolish) positions, and let others be repulsed by the “merits” of their arguments. My standards are not arbitrary (what a cute word to demean someones beliefs by the way)…although they are certainly open to public policy debate. I (or anybody else) should not coerce others to follow a belief outside a democratic political process (at least in the U.S., where I live)

I don’t, for example, belive that abortion is “murder”, because murder is a political concept not currently applied to abortion in this country. I believe that all sides have the right to discuss the issue in the court of public opinion…and to influence public policy via the courts and legislature. It is strikingly arrogant of you to claim that my beliefs are arbitrary and without a rationale basis…and therefore not fit for public policy discussion. It is a cowardly way of excluding a viewpoint from public policy discussion. I wonder if you would apply the perjorative term “coersion” to what the anti-slavery folks or freedom riders tried to do?

I disagree with most of the basic tenets of the pro choice position, I also believe that those people have every right to TRY and “impose” that viewpoint on the country via a legitamate political process.

27

  1. Unless you wish me to call your side “anti-choice,” please allow my side the same courtesy. We are pro-abortion RIGHTS, which is not the same as what you said.

  2. Why does having somethiung available to you (i.e. abortion) mean you have to do it yourself? I probably would have a hard time killing a cow and slaughtering it myself. But I eat steaks with the best of them. I don’t find this inconsistant. You might say I’m squeamish, but I fail to see why this means I can’t have a burger if someone else does the work.

  3. If you were to ask me your question and include the disingenuous and frivilous “late-term abortion” caveat (which I don’t recall anyone bringing up until you mentioned it), I would simply say that I certainly WOULD do it, since almost all of the very few late-term abortions done in this country are to save the life of the mother or get rid of a fetus which has little if any hope of a normal pain-free existance.

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, five days, 16 hours, 7 minutes and 43 seconds.
6346 cigarettes not smoked, saving $793.36.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 50 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **

28

my mistake…should have included this earlier, but it is kind of neat that this thread has already been
Godwinized :slight_smile:

29

I think the OP and topic header create a false dichotomy. Not an uncommon thing to find in debates on abortion. There are not two reasons for opinions on the issue of State control of reproduction. There are many opinions, and many philosophical elements of each of those opinions.

I oppose state control of the entire realm of human reproduction. I also feel that every living being, which includes fruit flies, fetuses, and even Southern Baptist Republicans, and Unitarian Pinkos, are beloved of the Lord. That means the issue of abortion is a very difficult issue for me. But the overwhelming thing that I see is that the State has no specific record of expertise in the matter at all. I also disagree with the concept that the State has some right to be involved in it at all. The entire process of pregnancy takes place inside a woman. That seems to be outside the reasonable purview of the rights of the State.

I am certainly not pro-abortion in any sense of the term. I doubt that a significant proportion of the pro-choice faction would be either. I know for a fact that the anti choice community is certainly not commonly pro-life in any supportive and dedicated personal sense in the case of the woman who elects to keep her unwanted child and raise him without family support systems. I know that because the facts of single motherhood in America pretty much demonstrate the absence of pragmatic aid to these children that such a commitment would entail. Life may be sacred, but poverty and social condemnation are evidently acceptable treatment for the sacred.

So my stand on abortion is that it seems the least likely choice to be right to me, but it is not a choice I will ever have to make. I find it unacceptable to surrender such choices to the state. I will support any woman who seeks my aid in avoiding that choice. I think it more important to offer that woman the sort of love and care that she needs to face the real world problems of pregnancy, than to make, or seek laws to compel her choice in that matter. The child, if it is born will have that same commitment from me. Until it is born, I do not see that I have a right to compel her to follow my reasoning. Neither do I feel that I have the right to compel her to bear a child over her specific objection.

There are many that feel very passionately opposed to abortion, and of them, some are compassionately committed to the sanctity of life. Some are passionately committed to their perception of their own moral superiority, and little else. Most others fall in the ground between. As do those on the other side. The test would be the dedication to the people who we are talking about. Not the issue of their rights, but the people themselves, and the lives we contemplate controlling. If we will choose to make decisions compelling these choices, we must first make decisions making those choices reasonable.

I would find the disparity of rational thinking more glaring in the case of those who are Pro-State Pro-control in the issue of reproduction, and anti support, anti compassion in the issues of services to children, and pregnant women. I find that more on point than the death penalty.

Tris

30

Sigh… I see I shall have to explain my position more carefully.

I am making a distinction between an arbitrary belief and a belief based on a rational argument. An arbitrary belief can only be promulgated as, “I believe this to be so, therefore you should be compelled to live by it.” A belief based on a rational argument has, well, a rational argument supporting it, as I responsively demonstrated with respect to slavery.

I do not characterize your belief as arbitrary because I disagree, I do so because you have not yet offered a rational argument in its support. You have merely asserted your general right to lobby for the imposition of your belief, without regard to its rational merits. I most definitely hold that the imposition of such a belief, without rational justification, tyrranizes those who do not hold it, regardless of the size of the majority who do.

The problem with the argument for an arbitrary belief is that any belief qualifies. The argument against Nazism then becomes merely its unpopularity, an obviously absurd conclusion. I am not trying to compare your position as Nazism, I am attempting show that your argument applies equally well to it, a form of reductio ad absurdem.

I am not bound by the arguments of other pro-choice proponents, neither are you bound by the arguments of other pro-life advocates. Debate those of us here, do not attempt to cloud the issue with the alleged fallacies of non-participants.

31

I guess i don’t really feel the need to outline the rationale for a pro life position…it appears that this thread is about something else besides pro life vs pro choice. The rationale for (or against) a pro life position has been debated ad nauseum, and I don’t feel a need to repeat it…surely there IS a rationale though…and hell yes I do have the right to lobby for my beliefs…I’m still puzzled by how a pro life belief is an “arbitrary” belief.

I did not compare YOUR beliefs to other pro choice proponents. i was doing 2 things…one: making general comments about SOME pro choice proponents (much like the OP made general comments about some Pro life positions) and two: responding to your specific arguments about the arbitrary nature of MY position

I had said that SOME pro choicer folks will say that pro life folks don’t have the right to “impose’ (a word usually used by those speakers) their 'morality” on others. i responded that the “imposition” of morality occurs in lots of settings. If you (or anyone else) wants to disagree with this particular 'imposition of morality" (or coersion as you put it), then fine…that’s what a democratic political process is for.

For anybody to state that this is an imposition of morality, and imply that "imposition of morality’ is a bad thing only done by bad people, is silly. i have heard environmentalists use moral arguments to defend their position on resource use…I have heard feminists use moral arguments to argue for equivalent pay etc… The roots of the civil rights/voting rights efforts came from the churches in the South and North, often laced with moral rhetoric…Political change has always been influenced by someones moral beliefs…people tend to use “moral” in a perjorative sense when the beliefs are not theirs

32

Wow, a myriad of responses overnight, some even vaguely related to the OP.

I’d like to specifically adress the people that believe that abortion as birth control is repugnent. Why? Why is that worse than a married woman having an abortion because their birth control failed?

This inconsistantcy works on both sides.

Pro-Life: If abortion is about saveing fetuses, then it should be equally repugnent no matter what the circumstance (includeing rape). If abortion is about enforceing negative consequences for sex (and an unwanted kid can be a very negative consequence) then the “abortion as birth control” is worse because the woman is not taking responsiblilty. But I dont think you can believe both at the same time. So, which is it?

Pro-Choice: My biased self hates to strike down fellow pro-choice people, but the sword cuts both ways. Lots of people I know say “abortion should be legal, but it is really bad when used as birth control”. Why? If it is a personal medical decision, then it doesnt matter what the motivation is. Unless you are worried about the health or finances of the woman involved, which isn’t what I think you all mean. So?

Finally, a query to pro-life people that I have always wondered. You are in a fertility lab. Your clumsy self manages to spill two vials, one containing sperm and the other containing female eggs. They mix together on the counter, some of the eggs get fertilized and cells start devideing. Are you morally obligated to quicky find a bunch of test tubes and later a woman to implant the fetuses in to so that you save their lives? Or do you clean up the spill and go home? If you clean up the spill, how is that different from abortion? Is it different because of some matter involveing life, or different because it doesnt involve two people having sex in an unsanctioned manner?

I eagerly wait responces.

33

MY GOODNESS TRICK…that was so eloquently spoken it gave me goose bumps!

Needs2know

34

[u[beagledave, obviously, my command of the language is insufficient to express my point, contrasting a belief enforced merely because it is held by the majority to a belief supported by rational argument.

To go all the way back to the OP, the glaring inconsistencies in the “pro-life” position, which you have done nothing to dispel, point out the rational bankruptcy in the position. Without exception, the pro-life advocates have always, when their contradictions have been exposed, fallen back on the, “this is a democratic society, I can advocate any belief I wish.” To an extent, this is a true statement. You can indeed argue any point you wish. I, of course, may use the same basis to conclude that such an advocate espouses tyranny of the most evil sort: I believe it to be so, therefore I have a “right” to argue for the enforcement of such a belief.

Of course, as I am dedicated to rational analysis, I will not rest on an argument I consider so weak. Hence my additional point, that such an argument applies equally well to conclusions obviously absurd or grotesque. The fact that other people argue moral positions is not in itself germaine. Such moral positions as you cite have not been argued arbitarily, rather their proponents have offered sound reasoning why such enforcement should occur.

BTW: Well said, Triskadecamus. Although we have many significant differences in our beliefs, I admire your analysis and conclusions as well as your eloquence.

35

Uh, Thanks? (Is this a trick?) :slight_smile:

Wow, thanks!

Trying hard to remember it is a person on the other end of the argument, rather than a political opinion makes it much easier to speak to the person, rather than to the question. It turns out people are easier to communicate with than Political Positions. Which, of course applies to my original point, as well.

Tris

36

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Satan *
**

Satan, of course it’s not lost on you that those who seek abortions are (from at least one perspective) pushing their definition of when life begins on someone with a real interest in the matter–i.e., the unborn person.

37

  1. “what” glaring inconsistencies in the pro life position have you heard from ME? (unless you want to include me in a group with all pro lifers, something you did not want ME to do with you…)

  2. I don’t feel any need to dispel whatever inconsistencies you may find (and probably always will find) in a pro life position…

interested readers can find MY philosophy expressed at sites like these
http://www.seamless-garment.org/
http://www.consistentlife.org/
and http://madprof.home.mindspring.com/ethic.html

  1. “without exception”? Wow…you must read a whole bunch of pro life literature on a regular basis to know how all of “us” behave when our “inconsistencies” show…

  2. Advocacy of a belief is not tyranny…

  3. I of COURSE (in the U.S. at least) have a RIGHT to argue for enforcement of a moral position, whether it be equal voting rights for women, end of slavery, or a pro life position. I (and others who feel similarly) advocate for that position…get involved in the political process in an attempt to persuade others (advertising…forums…water cooler discussions etc…), elect candidates who support that position, and hope to effect policy. Welcome to democracy. It’s not tyrrany…If you don’t like the position, you do the same kind of thing (and I won’t call it tyrrany when you do)

38

**
Please clarify for me, Tris, if you don’t mind. Why does the process of birth significantly change your right here?

39

I am pro-choice because I do not think the state should force women into something as dangerous as giving birth.

Your chances of dying during childbirth are higher than if you went skydiving. Consider this (somewhat outlandish) scenario - somebody is dying in a remote, inaccessible location, only accessible by parachuting in from a plane. There is a doctor who can operate and quite possibly save the man’s life, but they need someone of the same rare blood type on hand for a transfusion. It has been determined that you have the matching blood type, nobody else with this type is available.

Should the state have the right to force you to get in a plane and parachute in to save this person’s life? Of course not - your chute might not open, the wind might carry you onto sharp rocks, you could DIE. Even if you did make it, there is no guaranty that even if you did make it the operation would work.

Outlawing abortion would force women to risk their lives. That alone is reason enough to keep it legal. And making it illegal would not stop abortion - women have been having abortions for thousands of years, and until recently most cultures punished abortionists with death. If that didn’t stop people from having abortions, nothing would.

40

Joe, I’m interested in your logic here. How would you react if I told you your definition of personhood (as defined by sentience) is arbitrary from my perspective if you limit it to that? Why should I accept your assurance that an entity is not sentient?

What if I say that potential for sentience in a genetically human being is enough for me–otherwise you are inserting the arbitrariness of time by preventing this being from ever realizing consciousness in the manner you’ve defined. If this is arbitrary, explain why it’s any more so than your assertion.

Specifically why is your definition rational? For example, can’t I demand that you show me the exact line where consciousness emerges–otherwise we must assume it’s always there since to err on the wrong side is a most grievous error? If there is any uncertainty, mustn’t we err on the side of not killing an innocent?

I’ll appreciate your help here.