Matt Welsh:
I took the bait.
I couldn’t help but open an email with the subject line: “You’re afraid of this pro-choice argument”
Afraid? I’m afraid of a lot of things. Actually, five things: spiders, asteroids, ghosts, head lice, and malaria. But arguments? Especially pro-abortion arguments? Definitely not on the list.
I might be frustrated by them; annoyed, angered, even disturbed, but afraid? I don’t think so.
Here’s Rachel, trying to strike fear into my heart:
Dear Matt, ever since I first read your blog I knew you were a cowardly fake. It wasn’t until I started reading some of your anti-choice articles that my suspicions were truly confirmed. You spend a lot of time picking the low hanging fruit. You attack the weakest abortion rights arguments while ignoring the glaring weaknesses in your own position.
If you had the guts or the brains you’d try to respond to the most important abortion rights argument… bodily autonomy or bodily integrity. This means that we have the final jurisdiction over our own bodies. Nobody can claim a right to our body that goes above our own right. Nobody can use our bodies without consent. We cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to someone else. A fetus must survive on a woman’s body so the woman has a right to withdrawal her consent and her body at any time.
This is the pro-choice argument that no anti-choice fanatic… especially one as stubborn and simpleminded as you… could ever possibly dispute. If you still don’t understand, try to imagine this hypothetical…
Imagine that you wake up one morning in a hospital bed. In the bed next to you is a famous singer. He is unconscious and all of these tubes are connected from him to you. A doctor comes in and explains that the singer became sick and you are the only person with the right blood type to match his. They need you to remain hooked up to him until he recovers… they tell you it should only take nine months. Until then, he needs to use all of your organs… your kidneys, liver, lungs, everything… just to survive. If you unplug yourself, he will die. So do you think you are obligated to stay plugged in? Does he have a right to live off of you like this? Should you be FORCED to stay connected to him?
That’s what situation the pregnant woman is in. Instead of harping on all of these irrelevant issues, I wish you’d be brave enough to address it from this angle. It is immoral to require a woman to sustain a fetus and it is moral for a woman to make a decision with her body based on what is right for her. How can you argue against this?
But I guess your blog is more about preaching to the choir than actually being intelligent and bold in your writing. What a shame.
-Rachel
Here’s my answer:
Dear Rachel,
You’re right. You win. I have no response. I can’t think of any reason why you’re wrong about any of the points you raised.
Well, I can’t think of any reason — except for, like, ten reasons. So I’ll start with five reasons why that hypothetical is flawed, and move on to five additional reasons why your overall argument is flawed.
Here we go:
1. Your analogy is flawed because it presupposes that the relationship between mother and child is no more significant, and carries with it no more responsibility, than the relationship between a person and some random stranger in a hospital bed.
This is absurd. If we’re trying to make this hypothetical as close to pregnancy as possible, shouldn’t the sick singer (or violinist, according to the original iteration of this hypothetical) at least be your child? Your argument doesn’t work because the fact that your child is your child, and not some strange adult from across town, is precisely the point. Hidden cleverly in this hypothetical is the insinuation that one cannot agree that an unborn child has a right to his mother’s body, without agreeing that anyone in the entire world, in any context, for any reason, at any point, for any period of time, has a right to a woman’s body.
Nice try, Rachel.
Just because a mother is expected to be a mother doesn’t mean she’s also expected to be a slave, a prostitute, and a forced organ donor to talented musical artists. Indeed, the extent of our responsibility to a person hinges in many ways on our relationship to them. You would, I assume, agree that you have a responsibility to your born children, wouldn’t you? And your responsibility to them extends far beyond your responsibility to your neighbor, or your plumber, or your trash collector, doesn’t it? The relationship matters. Your hypothetical fails because it pretends that relationships are irrelevant.
2. Your analogy is flawed because it leaves out an important detail: how did the singer become ill in the first place?
Aside from cases of rape, a child is only conceived because two people intentionally committed a particular act which has, literally billions of times, resulted in the conception of a human life.
This singer came down with a terrible sickness. You might feel pity for him, but you didn’t cause him to be sick. You didn’t put him in this state. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. The same cannot be said when a child is conceived.
3. Your analogy is flawed because, when framed properly, it doesn’t strengthen your moral position — it defeats it.
The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did. He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified? You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion. And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion.
@Pete:
all the libs are interested in is a vote. If it can vote, they’re for it.
@Redteam:
By logical extension of Greg’s theory:
At any point in a person’s life, if that person is not conscience or is not deemed as exhibiting sentient behavior, it’s OK to kill them, because for that period of time they are not human. Yet if you pull the plug on a self aware computer it will be murder.
Quite the sociopath aren’t you Greg?
@Greg:
Yes. Because the oh-so tolerant Collective is devoid of all hostility. Tell me, what media sources would you suggest?
I read the words. The problem is that your words are not very clear. If for instance we look at what you have written:
Then we should be able to deduce that your position is that you do indeed believe that a woman exercising her sovereign authority over her own body includes the fundamental right to drink and smoke while she is pregnant.
But you also offered a wishy-washy qualifier by stating that you “don’t support stupid personal choices,” which puts this deduction into question. It’s unclear whether you support a pregnant woman’s right to drink and smoke, whether you feel it’s a stupid personal choice, or something else. You aren’t clear on your position here.
It’s also known as an excluded middle argument. I always find it to be a never ending source of amusement, how so many drones will rattle off terminology from Carl Sagan’s The Fine Art of Baloney Detection during a debate, without actually understanding the meaning of those terms. I suppose many of them think that this makes them appear to be more intelligent than they really are. This is why I had to ask you what and who you were accusing of a straw man argument, since it doesn’t appear that you understand what one is.
Take for instance your accusations of a false dichotomy, which is “considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities.” For an argument to be a false dichotomy, there has to be intermediate or middle options that exist. The problem here is that these “shades of grey” options don’t always exist. For instance, if I were to ask if a light switch were on or off, there is no false dichotomy in the question posed because there is no nuanced “kind of off” position. If I were to ask you if you were a house plant or not, again there is no false dichotomy because you either are or are not a house plant. There is no “slightly a house plant” option. If it were the case that binary options never exist and only shades of grey do, then that would invalidate the entirety of true/false portions of tests and exams.
In regards to the question specifically posed here that you evaded by digressing into arguments over debate techniques that you clearly don’t understand, “is the fetus an independent being, or is it merely a mass of tissue belonging to the mother,” there is no nuanced middle ground here. Something can’t be partially or somewhat be an independent sentient being. If any part of the fetus is considered an independent being, then it is an independent being. So, which is it? Is the fetus an independent sentient being or merely a mass of tissue belonging to the mother?
This is pathological, and we’re both fully aware of that.
Not at all, as you indicated there is more coming after the “without question,” which is the correction of the fundamental core of the issue. Here it is for your convenience:
Regardless, you go on…
If you’re not capable of keeping track of a simple conversation, then why should anyone take you seriously on any matter? The purpose of communication is to make others understand your “thoughts.” Since I do not possess psychic powers, my only way of understanding of your position comes from your writing. Therefore it is your responsibility to articulate your positions effectively.
Furthermore, if you’re making accusations of straw-man arguments and the formation of imaginary meanings, it is also your responsibility to explain why you are making these accusations and against whom. For instance, I could make the claim all day long that someone somewhere is making straw-man arguments. But unless I explain who is making them and how, the accusations don’t really amount to more than a hill of beans. This is typically where a drone will respond by misapplying the term non-sequitur.
Remember, you need to articulate your position in order to communicate effectively. Confusing your debate partners by being vague to allow later revisions of your positions, doesn’t denote some kind of nuanced insight that your adversaries lack. Rather, it indicates your own inability to communicate effectively, which you and I together have confirmed repeatedly.
You do realize of course, that Freudianism is dead, don’t you?
It’s always entertaining to educate drones about the things that they think they know. Perhaps you could describe for us in detail how it feels to come to the realization that your education has been a farce?
I’m not interested in more extraneous obfuscating “detail.” I’m only interested in the distillation of your position with a simple yes or no. Considering that these are only two and three letter words, it should be a fairly simple matter for even you to type one of them out. So let’s go ahead and ask the question again:
Does a woman exercising her sovereign authority over her own body include the fundamental right to drink and smoke while she is pregnant? Yes, or no?
@Kraken, #104:
That’s not a qualifier. It’s another fact. Fact #1: I generally support the individual’s freedom to make personal choices. Fact #2: I don’t support stupidity. Taken together, this means that in many instances I believe you’re perfectly free to behave stupidly, but that you shouldn’t expect that I’ll approve of it.
There’s a big difference between disapproving of something and wanting what you disapprove of to be forcibly stopped. I support the right of people to do a lot of things that I personally disapprove of. That’s a fundamental part of being an American.
In the event that you still can’t figure out what I mean, the answer would be Yes. But it’s stupid behavior, and I strongly disapprove of it. I have no problem whatsoever with a mandatory Surgeon General’s warning on your cigarette pack or beer bottle label reminding you that it’s stupid.
@Greg:
This is interesting.
.
Why do you feel that drinking and smoking while pregnant is stupid behavior? Why do you strongly disapprove of it?
@Kraken:
You beat me to it…..should be an interesting exercise in prevarication coming….
Or not, apparently.
I suppose that it is hard to argue that it is stupid for a pregnant woman to smoke or drink if your position is that tbe fetus has no human rights and is nothing more than a mass of cells with the potential to become human…..
@Kraken, #105:
Smoking during pregnancy increases the likelihood that infants will develop respiratory problems. Alcohol consumption can adversely affect neurological development.
@Pete, #107:
While a fetus is not yet a child, every living child was at one time a fetus. Terminating a pregnancy before a child exists is one thing; having foolishly caused harm to a child that does exist is another.
I realize that this probably won’t make sense within your frame of reference, but it does make sense in my own.
@Greg:
But what difference, at that point, would it make?
After all, according to the Collective’s “wisdom,” the fetus is not a person. Let’s review some of the Collective’s assertions on this matter:
So the question we are left with here, is what difference, at that point, would it make if a fetus developed respiratory problems or adverse neurological disorders, since it isn’t deemed a person anyway?
Also, are we to understand here, that we ought to be concerned with the respiratory and neurological issues of a fetus, while simultaneously being unconcerned about the whole sale termination of that same fetus?
@Greg:
And the essence of the delusional, inhumane, contemptibly selfish nature of the pro-abort position is finally brought forth, in this exhibition of yet another classic example of Orwellian Doublethink.
You do see, don’t you (even if you won’t admit it out loud) the glaring inconsistency in your position that both Kraken and I have been trying to get you to acknowledge? Smoking or drinking while carrying a fetus is wrong, but under your “logic” only if the fetus is allowed to continue on the path of the human life cycle to a point where it escapes the womb….but actually KILLING the fetus before it has a chance to escape the womb is perfectly acceptable behavior in your set of beliefs. So I suppose it is OK for a woman to smoke and drink during pregnancy if she is going to abort anyway, right? Wow.
Of course it “makes sense to your way of thinking”. Rationalization, by definition, is what you use to avoid guilt or responsibility for thoughts and actions which in your heart you know are wrong, but that you still want to think and do anyway.
Honestly the most dubious claim to logical thought I think I have ever come across.
@Kraken, #109:
Let’s try again:
Every living person is the result of a chain of events leading back to a conception. Adverse biological events that occur anywhere back along that chain of events can sometimes have lasting negative consequences on the living persons that follow.
If a person never comes into existence because a particular fertilization doesn’t lead to a birth, there’s never anyone to experience those negative consequences.
OK, here comes the really difficult part:
Recommendations that pregnant women not drink and not smoke are made with the possible negative consequences to those falling into that first category in mind.
@Greg:
This strikes me as an argument for contraception, which I’m not at all interested in. This conversation is specifically about abortion.
Okay.
By the first category in mind, I’m assuming you’re referring to the “chain of evens” sentences?
If so, then what you’re saying (if I’ve translated your Colletivese correctly) is that recommendations that pregnant women not drink and smoke are meant only for pregnant women who intend on having their babies, not for women who plan on having abortions who can drink and smoke while pregnant all day long.
Adverse biological events that occur anywhere back along that chain of events can sometimes have lasting negative consequences on the living persons that follow.
So at what point exactly does a human gain personhood? For instance, let’s suppose the adverse biological event that occurred along Fred’s chain of events was murder, leaving a lasting negative consequence; death. Let’s say Fred was exactly one second old, that is he was just born and the the doctor decided to do him in. One second out of the vagina, and it’s murder. But let’s consider Fred one second before birth while still in the womb. The pro-choice advocate would have you believe that since the child isn’t born yet, that the woman has the right to exercise sovereign authority over the body of the child within her. So killing Fred one second before birth wouldn’t be murder, it would be abortion.
Question: What changes between the second before birth to the second after birth that transforms abortion into murder?
At what point exactly does a human fetus gain personhood?
Bueller?
@Greg:
If you accept the first statement, then the second statement is a blatant rationalization designed to justify the termination of a separate human life. If a fertilization does not progress to the fetus escaping the womb due to natural causes, then it is still the result of natural progression along a shortened human life cycle. If outside entities surgically or medically intervene for the express purpose of terminating the life cycle of the individual within the womb, then you cannot claim it is not murder if you support ANY law/criticism/interference with the “sovereign right of the woman to do as she pleases” because of potential damage such actions can cause to the in utero entity. Well…you cannot if you expect to have any intellectual consistency whatsoever.
Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals
The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants
Kraken
do we know ?where the 1,37 MILLON ABORTIONS IN 2012,
WHERE IS THE PROCESS IN HERE ? AND THE CO2 MUST REACH THE
PLANETS ABOVE OUR EARTH,
we have now reach in real time,
the past MOVIE SOYLENT GREEN,
WHAT KIND OF SHIT, GROWN IN THAT ENERGY PLANT FEEDING ARE WE EATING?
THIS ADMINISTRATION have done wrong to AMERICANS ,
they have screwed the people’s mind,
SPECIALY THOSE WHO EMBRACE THE LEADER WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS ASK,
NOT EVEN A BIRTH CERTIFICAT TO SHOW, he could have come FROM HELL, AND NO ONE CARE,
NOW THE INDOCTRINATION has taught them to need contraceptive, and force the companies to pay for it, why the hell does the companies have to pay for it as a law of the land? IT’S A PERSONAL MATTER, NOT A WORK MATTER,
and more is the many millions spent on those places to abort on request no questions ask
on top of that 1,37 million abortion in 2012 only, it show that law impliment to the business
did not and doesn’t work, AND NEVER WILL,
and what business does the administration have to force anyone on their multi thousands laws, IT’S CRIMINAL,
which take the freedom of people away, to a point
AMONG OTHER,that the abortions have become a normality, AND CONFUSION BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG RULE, AND WIN WITH THE EASY DECISIONS OF WRONG GIVEN TO PEOPLE,
and the woman can drink and smoke cigarettes and now weeds and more destructives stuff like cocaine while being in the first stage of pregnancy and get on with more sexual orgy, AS SHE CONTINUE FOR MONTHS,
which a inner call tell them, IF THEY BECOME SOBER ENOUGH TO FEEL IT, they are hurting their pregnancy,and to have the GUILT taken away from ther mind, THEY FOLLOW THE ADMINISTRATION MINDSET, WHO MADE IT EASY TO FIX, THEY HAVE FIX FOR EVERYTHING CORRUPT,
JUST GO TO PLAN PARENTHHOOD TO BE FIX, who will tell you forget that few months of guilt FEELNGS,
it’s your body and you have sovereignty on it all, whe are here to help YOU BE RENEWED,
AND RID OF IT,
BUT THEY FORGOT TO TELL THE GUILT WILL NEVER GO AWAY,
THE MIND IS ALWAYS KEEPING THE PAST NO MATTER HOW LONG,YOU WON’T FORGET EVER, THAT LITTLE ONE WHO WANTED TO LIVE , AND IT WILL NEVER BE THE SAME FOR THAT WOMAN, HER LIFE IS NO MORE AS FUN,
BECAUSE SHE CARRIED THE UNSUPORTABLE LOAD OF INFANTICIDE,