# Pro-Lifers: Are they hypocrites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400 "2005-10-15T21:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/221 "2005-10-19T13:57:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here is where we agree to disagree. I don’t agree that up until consciousness arises no such thing as a person that deserves to have its rights protected exists. That’s a definition you’re proposing as if it were Holy Writ: that consciousness is the _sine qua non_ for “deserving of legal protection”. I don’t agree with that formula. I already assumed you disagreed there, because otherwise we wouldn’t have had this discussion in the first place. 😉 So your definition is, I take it, “human life starts at conception; human life = personhood: abortion is murder.” Correct? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/222 "2005-10-19T14:11:43Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > You know, when I look at the Bible and investigate the logic that people have for claiming that the Bible says that abortions are evil, I try to work within the logic system of the Bible. This helps me understand the reasoning of the person who claims that the Bible prohibits abortion. If then, by chance, I cannot make this internal logic work towards the conclusion that the Bible prohibits abortion, or at the very least suggests that the body is infused with a Soul at conception, I will then question the person who claims to follow the Bible. If that person then ignores me, I will draw my private conclusion on the logic system of that individual. Good thing that all of the pro life posters have made appeals to scripture part of their rationale. Oh wait. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/223 "2005-10-19T14:19:30Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Good thing that all of the pro life posters have made appeals to scripture part of their rationale. > > Oh wait. > :smack: Are you posting :smack: because you think that’s what I think? That all pro-life posters appeal to scripture? Because obviously I don’t. But I have come across one. I’ve discussed several different arguments people quote for being pro-life, and one of them was the Bible. I was just coming up with a suggestion on what may have caused **JThunder** to falsely believe that _I_ place ‘personhood’ at birth. Or was the :smack: for any of the possible combinations of pro-life / scripture / rationale? Because however false and wrong that implication would be, I could understand that particular mistake also. :wally ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/224 "2005-10-19T14:26:39Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > I already assumed you disagreed there, because otherwise we wouldn’t have had this discussion in the first place. 😉 > > So your definition is, I take it, “human life starts at conception; human life = personhood: abortion is murder.” Correct? Well, yes, although I should qualify my “abortion is murder” statement. Murder is a legal term referring to the unlawful taking of a human life. It’s also used in a more philosophical sense to refer to the morally wrong taking of a human life, and it is in that admittedly more imprecise way that I’m using it. Perhaps a better summary of my position would be to say that: [ul] [li]Conception begins human life, and[/li][li]The deliberate taking of any human life is an act that has a very high burden of necessity to overcome before it’s permissible[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/225 "2005-10-19T14:27:28Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Are you posting :smack: because you think that’s what I think? That all pro-life posters appeal to scripture? Because obviously I don’t. But I have come across one. You have come across one pro life poster who made an appeal to scripture part of their rationale? Are we reading the same thread? Which pro life **poster** (not some dude in a bar or on the subway) has made appeal to scripture part of their rationale here? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/226 "2005-10-19T14:44:06Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > You must be very willing to gloss over anything that counters your own hypothises to be able to claim that. I asked for a definition of personhood. Your cite offered multiple beliefs, but not a single definition – much less a well-established one that existed prior to Roe v. Wade. My objection stands. > [@](#): > > I made no statements about four-week-old pregnancies, only 16 week. Which is four months, so maybe that’s where your confusion comes from? My apologies. I was confusing you with **Der Trihs** who spoke about the alleged non-personhood of a one-month fetus. > [@](#): > > It’s not a different matter, and I have never said so. To be clear on this, how do you define personhood? How do you define consciousness? Concept of self? Ego-centrism? Self-awareness? Because it may well be that we disagree on these terms, but if we do, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are shifting our goalposts. Why don’t you ask your fellow pro-choicers? They’re the ones who claim that personhood is the relevant defining characteristic. I have made no such claim. Quite the contrary; I was the one who asked them (and you) for a well-established definition of personhood that would justify their claims. So far, nobody has stepped forward with such a definition. People have _asserted_ that personhood begins at birth, or at other stages of development, but nobody has been able to defend those claims. > [@](#): > > You know, when I look at the Bible and investigate the logic that people have for claiming that the Bible says that abortions are evil, I try to work within the logic system of the Bible. This helps me understand the reasoning of the person who claims that the Bible prohibits abortion. Ah, yes. Because the pro-lifers here have been relying heavily on the Bible to support their views. For example, there was… um… errrr… Dang it. I can’t think of any pro-lifers here who have cited Scripture to defend their beliefs. What’s going on? Say, can you help me out? Can you tell us where the Bible came into play in the course of this discussion? After all, if you complained about pro-lifers use of the Bible, then surely _somebody_ here must have been guilty of that heinous deed, right? So who was the guilty culprit, and when did he use Scripture to condemn abortion? ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/227 "2005-10-19T14:56:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, yes, although I should qualify my “abortion is murder” statement. Murder is a legal term referring to the unlawful taking of a human life. It’s also used in a more philosophical sense to refer to the morally wrong taking of a human life, and it is in that admittedly more imprecise way that I’m using it. > > Perhaps a better summary of my position would be to say that: > > [ul] > [li]Conception begins human life, and[/li][li]The deliberate taking of any human life is an act that has a very high burden of necessity to overcome before it’s permissible[/li][/ul] So, would you want the constitution to be amended so that wherever it reads person, it should also be taken to refer to any human life? Or would you want ‘the deliberate taking of any human life … etc.’ to be a(n electible) State amendment only. If I understood correctly, then I assume the latter … ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/228 "2005-10-19T15:08:50Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > So, would you want the constitution to be amended so that wherever it reads person, it should also be taken to refer to any human life? Or would you want ‘the deliberate taking of any human life … etc.’ to be a(n electible) State amendment only. If I understood correctly, then I assume the latter … The federal constitution should be silent on this issue. Just as murder and robbery are a matter for the plenary police power of the state, so, too, should the regulation of abortion be. There is nothing about abortion that fits into the limited powers enumerated to belong to the federal government. Nor do I see these issues as matters for state “amendment”. These are simply laws, in the same way that robbery and murder are criminalized, and the practice of chiropractic medicine is legal but subject to state regulation. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/229 "2005-10-19T15:28:02Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I asked for a definition of personhood. Your cite offered multiple beliefs, but not a single definition – much less a well-established one that existed prior to Roe v. Wade. > > My objection stands. First of all, were a Jew to have no other definition of personhood than ‘that which starts once a child has come into this world half-way’, that would still be a definition of personhood. And it would be as valid as your belief that conception creates something that holds such rights that it supercedes a woman’s right to decide what happens with, to, from, and inside her own body. > [@](#): > > My apologies. I was confusing you with **Der Trihs** who spoke about the alleged non-personhood of a one-month fetus. No problem, I’m not perfect either. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you ask your fellow pro-choicers? They’re the ones who claim that personhood is the relevant defining characteristic. I have made no such claim. Quite the contrary; I was the one who asked them (and you) for a well-established definition of personhood that would justify their claims. To qualify as a person, something has to be capable of being self-aware. While the process of self-awareness hasn’t been scientifically spelt out, memory, perception and high-level brain functions and activity are clearly prerequisites for the formation of a self. Without a self and self-awareness, someone cannot stand out as an individual within society and cannot be distinguished from an animal. Without perception, someone cannot suffer. > [@](#): > > So far, nobody has stepped forward with such a definition. People have _asserted_ that personhood begins at birth, or at other stages of development, but nobody has been able to defend those claims. Nobody has been able to defend those claims, or have been able to defend those claims to your satisfaction? Bonny Steinbok or Carl Sagan (cited in that link above) do a pretty decent job, I think. You may feel their statements crumble in the face of your superior arguments, but I certainly don’t. > [@](#): > > Ah, yes. Because the pro-lifers here have been relying heavily on the Bible to support their views. For example, there was… um… errrr… > > Dang it. I can’t think of any pro-lifers here who have cited Scripture to defend their beliefs. What’s going on? > > Say, can you help me out? Can you tell us where the Bible came into play in the course of this discussion? After all, if you complained about pro-lifers use of the Bible, then surely _somebody_ here must have been guilty of that heinous deed, right? So who was the guilty culprit, and when did he use Scripture to condemn abortion? (this part is also for you, **beagledave** , since you asked the same question) If we are talking about this thread (also for you, then I brought it into play here myself. I never said anything else. I gave a list of reasons that I have come across that people used to justify their intent on making abortion illegal and taking away female autonomy over the female anatomy (hah!); and citing religion and/or the Bible was number 3, I think. Even here that wasn’t necessarily completely irrelevant; \*\*Bricker \*\* being a fairly devout Roman Catholic, I am not altogether sure that if I were to ask him if his stance on abortion is unrelated to the 19th century Roman Catholic definition of life starting at conception, he would say yes. If I were then to ask him what the Roman Catholics base this on if not the Bible, it would be relevant or at the very least good background material. To answer your question to the poster and place: it was on another board ([GTPlanet.net](http://GTPlanet.net)), dedicated to Cars but also in possession of a lively Opinions section in which some serious discussions take place, among which a 30-something page thread on abortion. The member I had the discussion with goes by the nick of ‘Swift’, and with him I had a scriptural debate on this subject. If there are no people on the SMDB that quote the Bible on this subject, then you won’t hear me complaining. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/230 "2005-10-19T15:30:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The federal constitution should be silent on this issue. Just as murder and robbery are a matter for the plenary police power of the state, so, too, should the regulation of abortion be. There is nothing about abortion that fits into the limited powers enumerated to belong to the federal government. > > Nor do I see these issues as matters for state “amendment”. These are simply laws, in the same way that robbery and murder are criminalized, and the practice of chiropractic medicine is legal but subject to state regulation. Is there anything at all you think should be regulated on the federal level? Should slavery have been abolished, for instance, the way it has been now? Or do you think that if, say, the state of New York wants to try it out, that should be fine too? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/231 "2005-10-19T15:30:41Z")
**Arwin** : Can you reply to my post #210 and tell me how that is different from **Bricker** ’s position on abortion, and why I am not also a hypocrite? ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/232 "2005-10-19T15:32:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Arwin** : Can you reply to my post #210 and tell me how that is different from **Bricker** ’s position on abortion, and why I am not also a hypocrite? Try post #216. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/233 "2005-10-19T15:38:02Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Try post #216. Huh? That didn’t address my post. Does my position on work vs theft make me a hypocrite? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/234 "2005-10-19T15:38:37Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > First of all, were a Jew to have no other definition of personhood than ‘that which starts once a child has come into this world half-way’, that would still be a definition of personhood. And it would be as valid as your belief that conception creates something that holds such rights that it supercedes a woman’s right to decide what happens with, to, from, and inside her own body. No, it wouldn’t. It would be an _assertion_ that personhood begins at birth. That is not the same as a definition. It merely makes an assertion, without explaining what the intrinsic qualities are that confer personhood. Your approach is similar to those who once asserted that blacks were non-persons. One can utter such claims until the cows come home, but without a definition of personhood, such claims are meaningless. They hold as much water as a sieve does. > [@](#): > > To qualify as a person, something has to be capable of being self-aware. Again, you’re making an assertion. Assertions are a dime a dozen. I could just as easily assert that a person is any human being, period. Moreover, if self-awareness is the necessary criterion, then what about newborn infants? What about the severely retarded? Shall we kill them as well? > [@](#): > > Nobody has been able to defend those claims, or have been able to defend those claims to your satisfaction? Bonny Steinbok or Carl Sagan (cited in that link above) do a pretty decent job, I think. You may feel their statements crumble in the face of your superior arguments, but I certainly don’t. You’re confusing “defense” with “assertions.” The article you cited offered multiple viewpoints on when personhood begins, but none of them proceeded from any well-accepted definition of personhood. I can only conclude that their criteria for personhood were selected after the fact, in order to justify a pro-choice position. ---
**Author:** ![Good\_Egg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@Good\_Egg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Good_Egg)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/235 "2005-10-19T15:46:12Z")
Some people are posting here about women forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children. I am curious as to who forced them to get pregnant. People do know that birth control doesn’t always work, they did take the chance knowingly. Also, if its okay to choose to dispose of an unborn child, we really should extend that to the terminally ill, elderly, and other disabled people, its only right. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/236 "2005-10-19T15:57:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Huh? That didn’t address my post. Does my position on work vs theft make me a hypocrite? If you can explain to me why your Theft analogy is different on a metaphorical level from Bricker’s Child Abuse analogy, I will. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/237 "2005-10-19T15:58:47Z")
> [@Good Egg](#): > > Some people are posting here about women forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children. I am curious as to who forced them to get pregnant. People do know that birth control doesn’t always work, they did take the chance knowingly. So, you’re saying, basically, we shouldn’t have sex more than once or twice in our lifetime, or never if we don’t want any children? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/238 "2005-10-19T16:00:40Z")
Not only that, we should not give women access to abortions, because, you know, they made the choice upon having sex… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/239 "2005-10-19T16:01:52Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > If there are no people on the SMDB that quote the Bible on this subject, then you won’t hear me complaining. Umm that would be our point. No one on the board (even though YOU said “That all pro-life posters appeal to scripture? Because obviously I don’t. But **I have come across one**.”) relied on scripture to support their pro life position. I’m a Roman Catholic as well…that doesn’t mean I can’t offer up non-scriptual rationales for my opposition to abortion, the death penalty or the war in Iraq. You just seemed to be making a straw man argument with the biblical source references. > [@](#): > > To qualify as a person, something has to be capable of being self-aware Is this merely your opinion, or do you have some sort of reference for that assertion? “Personhood” is quite the slippery concept. It’s a subjective notion heavily rooted in the particular culture of the day. If we were in the mid 19th century, a black American would not qualify as a full “person”. From [here](http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/whendoes.html) > [@](#): > > The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists-not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Also see myths 12,13 and 14 at the same site. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/240 "2005-10-19T16:04:44Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > If you can explain to me why your Theft analogy is different on a metaphorical level from Bricker’s Child Abuse analogy, I will. I don’t see how that plays into it, so I’ll pass. But I will point out that the only people agreeing with you on the hypocracy thing is **Der Trihs** and (maybe) **Scott Plaid**. Not much of a ringing endorsement, btw… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400.md?page=13)