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.
Kraken
YES, i like your comments,
Bees,
I was both quoting a Psalm from King David as well as pointing out what doctors say.
A baby is a foreign body inside a woman.
It is not her DNA.
It is 1/2 hers and 1/2 the father’s DNA.
As such the human female body must protect itself from that or it will expel it like you do a splinter.
For a time (sometimes the entire pregnancy) most mothers get sick (we call it morning sickness) because their own body is aware of the foreign material but note that we do not get so sick that we lose the baby.
The placenta screens a woman from her baby’s foreign nature.
It acts as a barrier between the two.
All the more reason the baby is just as sovereign as the mother’s.
It is inside her, but not her.
Greg, I should always proofread.
It should have been a past tense sentence because it was referncing my previous sentence about older cultures.
Yes, I am well aware of the baby-making dynamo that was Nazi Germany.
I used to live next-door to Germans who were newlyweds in that government.
They had many children.
They were all blond and tall and strong with incredible ble eyes.
Years later, after I was in college someone murdered the mom in her house.
Police couldn’t find a killer.
Scared my parents into moving away.
As to rape as retaliation and reprisal, no culture beats Islam’s for that!
90% of all women behind bars in Pakistan are there because they were raped.
Whenever a woman might be killed for any Sharia offense she is almost always gang raped first.
The excuse it that allah might allow her into heaven if she dies a virgin.
Yeah, right.
That’s why you do it.
Selling young girls into temporary marriages is also quite common.
Once the girl, now a woman, is returned her family disowns her and she ends up on the streets.
Lovely culture.
Not dead like Naziism.
Nanny G
yes
thank you for explaining it,
very interesting to read, it”s strange that the GERMANS WANTED RIGHTFULLY
TO SAVE THEIR RACE, I AM A BELIEVER OF SAVING THE ROOTS OF AMERICA,
but the mistake those leaders all do is to kill other by saving their own, and that”s where,
they lose the support of the other countries who rightfully percieve the escalation of their fear,
that those hitlers think of having to kill other citizens to protect their own, as if their mind collapse
as soon as they begin to save their roots on the LIVES of other,
it”s like the conflict was in their mind “s debate to accelerate the process, by exterminate the other,
COULD IT BE THAT ALL THOSE WARS CAME ABOUT FOR STOPPING FOREIGN INTRUSION WHICH HAD BECOME TOO NUMEROUS IN ONE OR ANY COUNTRY,
IS IN IT WHY UKRAINE IS ATTACK FOR ALLOWING A NEIGHBORING BREED TO GROW IN ONE OF HIS LAND AND ALL THIS TIME REFUSE TO GIVE ALLEGIANCE TO THE BENEVOLENT COUNTRY WHO GAVE THEM ASYLIUM WHEN THEY DEMAND IT,
THEY SELFISHLY KEPT THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR PREVIOUS RUSSIA WHILE TAKING THE LAND OF THE COUNTRY WHO
GAVE THEM THEIR FREEDOM, UNTIL UKRAINE NEEDED THEIR SUPPORT AND SAW THEY HAD BEEN LIVING WITH THEIR ENEMY,
IT LIKE A COUNTRY WHO ELECT A LEADER WHO HAS HIS ALLEGIANCE IN A TOTALY DIFFERENT MINDSET COUNTRY,
AND IS IN POWER TO LEAD IN A FREE COUNTRY, AND DECIDE TO BRING THE OTHER MINDSET WHICH IS HIS OWN, INTO THE FREE COUNTRY
USING ALL KINDS OF LAWS HE DECIDE BY HIS OWN FOREIGN
MMINDSET, THOSES HE LIKE ON THE OTHER COUNTRY, SHOULD WORK ON THE FREE COUNTRY, WHICH REFUSE HIS
MINDSET, AND REGRET TO HAVE PUT HIM IN POWER TO BEGIN WITH BUT THEY HAVE TO WAIT YEARS WASTED AND DESTRUCTIVES TO THE PEOPLE, SO TO REPLACE HIM AND REPAIR THE DESTROYED YOUNG MINDS WHO HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATE FOR ALL THOSE YEARS INTO BELIEVING,
THAT WRONG IS RIGHT,
THE GERMANS HAD IT DONE TO THEM EVEN FURTHER, AND TO MAKE THEM KILLED THEIR OWN CITIZENS COLD BLOOD, LIKE ZOMBIES THEY WHERE TAUGHT TO BECOME, REMOVED FROM THEIR SOUL,
bye
@Pete:
I find it disturbing and hypocritical that the Journal of Medical Ethics has put out an article that radically supports infanticide of newborns (which Obama supported in his voting record), but with typical far left linguistics renames it “after-birth abortion.” And the Journal’s editor stands by it:
@Greg:
Oh, no. You don’t get off that easily Greg by parroting the Obama defense talking points. And of course, as usual, you don’t even bother to read the links:
You see, Obama voted against the first bill both as it was being created in committee, and on the floor.
How very progressive.
As I pointed out in Post #1, Matt Welsh’s entire response was an exercise in evasion. He never did respond directly to the one specific issue that she challenged him on. Perhaps he is a coward and a fake.
This entire thread has been little more than an extended exercise in such evasion. No one on the anti-choice side ever wants to come right out and openly admit that their position requires them to deny that a woman has any fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority over her own body. Basically, these small, non-intrusive government advocates want to empower government to forcibly intrude into one of the most private areas of a woman’s life, in order to impose their own beliefs and their own will upon her.
@Greg:
It doesn’t require that at all. Remember, a woman does indeed have a fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority over her own body. Without question. No one except those within the Collective are arguing this point.
But that’s not the fundamental core of the issue.
Rather, the fundamental core of the issue is whether or not a woman has a fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority over the body of the child within her. That’s where the controversy is, and where your misunderstandings lie.
There, I’ve even bolded it for your convenience. How many times do you need to read this before you’re able to process the information? What exactly is the nature of this problem?
@Greg:
If anyone has been posting evasive entries on this tbread, it would be you, Greg. How many times have people pointed out – clearly -.that there absolutely are limits enshrined in current law that limit what one can do with one’s body, which you have repeatedly evaded answering? The entire premise of your pro-abortion argument is based on evading the humanity inherent in the human fertilized ovum/zygote/fetus. As I already alluded to, can you provide evidence of a single human being coming into existence without having first started out as a fertilized ovum, progressing to zygote stage, then to fetal existence, then to a term infant?
Ditto – .yes. Peter Singer is the so called ethicist to which I was referring in another post whom you referenced. It sickens me when someone tries to defend his position that there is anything ethical about killing an infant, as if there is no inherent difference between a human at that stage of development and a piece of garbage, to be thrown away because it is deemed to have no intrinsic value.
I would love to have a pro-abort spend a day with me in the NICU to see the fetal aged patients we work so hard to save, with a better than 97% success rate, then tell the parents that tbeir children have no right to life.
And another point that pro-aborts misc haracterize is the whole “it is my body” nonsense. The baby in tbe womb is a completely separate entity, walled off from the mother by the amniotic sac by tbe time the abortionist terminates the pregnancy. The fetus is clearly NOT part of the mother’s body, but is WITHIN her uterus, occupying the space but distinctly separate.
@Kraken, #58:
I assert that she does. That’s the basic pro-choice premise. It’s her body, her potential child, and her choice. No one else’s.
@Pete, #59:
I make a distinction between the potential to become a person and the actualized condition of already being one.
I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I recognize a woman’s fundamental right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant, based on her own personal situation and beliefs, and in accordance with the dictates of her own conscience. No one’s authority on that matter exceeds her own—neither any government’s nor any church’s.
GREG
yes, until she is ready to kill a human unable to defend himself,
that as the name of MURDER, she has the name of MURDERER,
MURTHY IS NOT FIT FOR THAT JOB,
KEEP HIM OUT,
LET OBAMA WHEN HE LEAVE TO BRING HIS GANG WITH HIM,
@Greg:
And yet again you dodge the central point of the intrinsic human-ness of the fetus. Denying the continuum of the human condition is the hallmark of the abortion supporter. Furthermore, the rationalization of the “potential to become human” is so weak a talking point as it presumes that the fetus is anything other than human, as if it could “potentially” become anything other than human. Moreover the self-characterization “pro-choice” is nothing but another rationalization to avoid admitting that one is choosing between allowing the fetus to continue on the path of human existence versus terminating the human for the convenience of those already escaped from the womb.
Seriously, if the fetus isn’t human, then what exactly is it? If you are able to view.the view the fetus as “potentially” human, the how can you avoid admitting that you are terminating a separate life if you cannot show the existence of a human coming into existence without having first been a fertilzed ovum, then a zygote, then a fetus, before.being born?
@Pete, #64:
It’s a product of logical thinking.
I can’t deny the essential humanness of someone’s big toe, either. What’s relevant isn’t humanness, but person-hood. Hence the right’s efforts of confer the status of person by law from the moment of conception. What isn’t self-evident—and in fact seems illogical and counter-intuitive to many reasonable people—they hope to make binding by legal decree. They hope to overturn a Supreme Court decision that should have settled the legal issue 40 years ago. They don’t want to convince. They want to compel.
So according to Greg supporting abortion, even retroactively outside of the womb, means you are pro-choice, but arguing in favor of the life of the unborn human is anti-choice. Well, we’ve at least verified where he stands. Of course he also doesn’t understand that what science knows of fetal development has changed in the last 40 years. People like Greg used to argue that because the fetus looked little different from the fetus of some other mammals, that it wasn’t human. Now that we can prove that genetically the DNA of a fetus is the same inside as it can later be tested outside of the womb. The a fetus isn’t a human yet argument doesn’t work. So they ignore the science and treat the human within as if it is nothing more than a parasitic organism that doesn’t deserve life if a woman’s mood changes. That’s why these pro-abortion folk also fight ultrasounds for women considering abortion, because they don’t want these women to realize that they are carrying a healthy precious miracle of human life. Once they have had their abortion the pro-abortionists are done with these women, and care nothing about the post abortion mental health anguish and nightmares these women suffer. No, Greg wont want to talk about that either.
@Pete:
That is absolutely the best summation of scientific fact regarding the true physical relationship between mother and human fetus that I have heard yet. Bravo!!!
I wish I could get the funding to create a video documentary of this type. Interviewing you or fellow pro-life medical professionals and documenting the struggle to save the lives of babies in and out of the womb. Sadly, I doubt any of the leftist controlled artistic foundations would approve it. Still, I’ve been looking for such pro-conservative values video projects. Perhaps I’ll create a proposal.
@Ditto:
Ditto, thank you and I would be happy to help your documentary endeavors.
@Greg:
Greg, you keep equating body parts like a big toe, which is not a separate entity and cannot develop or grow by itself into an aware individual with a developing fetus – which most certainly does – as if they have the same worth, and believe this to be a logical argument. This would only be a logical comparison if you could ever show a case of a big toe developing into a separate complete adult human, which you can’t. The human life cycle is a scientific fact that does not include the progression of existence from big toe to adult human.
And complaining about pro-life.people trying to compel to do anything is laughable, as if the hallmark of leftist ideology isn’t completely based on compulsion. Roe v Wade, characterized as it is even by some left leaning legal scholars as bad legal reasoning, absolutely compelled the legalization of abortion whether states wanted it or not. Since Roe, almost 60 million human lives have been terminated, and the original plaintiff seeking to legalize abortion has become pro-life.
@Greg:
Then I take it that you support the right of pregnant mothers to drink and smoke as well?
@Kraken, #69:
Are you suggesting that laws should be passed forbidding them to do so?
I don’t support stupid personal choices, but if stupidity were made illegal, half of the population would be breaking the law at some point. (And one-half might be an overly optimistic projection.)
@Ditto, #66:
If you’re going to take issue with me, kindly take issue with what I actually say, not what you pretend I have said.
The presence of human DNA does not equal the presence of a person. All of your genetic information is contained in a drop of blood. The drop of blood is not a person. A house can be there with nobody at home. A body forms before a person is present in it. After a person dies and has left, the empty vessel remains for a time. It’s the person that matters, not the house he or she once occupied.
@Greg:
You are imitating a broken record, comparing biological matter that does not have the ability to grow into an adult human, with the ovum/zygote/fetus that most certainly does. You cannot refute the scientific fact of the human life cycle, and assign the arbitrary moment of leaving the womb as the beginning of “personhood”. What is different between a fetus still in the womb from the infant outside the womb, that is so monumentally significant that the former can be legally butchered or chemically burned but the latter is eligible for human rights?
@Greg:
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking a question:
Do you support the right of pregnant mothers to drink and smoke?
It’s a pretty simple yes or no question
Pete
HI, what if a zygot planted in a human womb,
has no memory of when she should stop growing ,
and no brain activity,
SHE PROBABLY WOULD DESTROY THE WOMAN WHO CARRY HER
IN HER WOMB,
THAT IS A DANGEROUS SCENARIO, BUT IF THEY ARE ALREADY STUDYING THE ZIGOTE, THEY BETTER THINK OF CONSEQUENCES,
BYE
What an interesting argument, Greg.
People are known to be coded for eye color, blood type, male/female, certain diseases, height, all sorts of other factors all at conception.
But is the being in the womb a life?
Well, we know it is.
It’s heart beats.
It uses O2 from mom’s blood via the placenta to feed its own growth.
A mom who eats right, doesn’t drink or smoke or do drugs will have a healthier baby than one who ignores all pre-natal health care.
The only thing a baby in the womb doesn’t do that we do is draw breath.
Believe it or not, the Bible writer Moses makes a big point out of that!
The definition of a ”living soul,” is the drawing of breath. (See Genesis 2:7 in various translations)
So, some people, some Christians, do not believe in a resurrection of a baby lost to death before it can draw breath.
Others, also Christians, believe that all people are worthy of a resurrection, even babies that die without drawing breath.
So, Greg, you have attempted to discern between the blood and the marrow, (Hebrews 4:12) between the soul and the spirit.
Read that verse and you’ll see that it takes the Word of God to be able to do that with any accuracy.
I was at a science and industry museum where fractal geometry was being explained.
One example of fractals was the edge of a cloud, another was the marrow and the blood.
Apparently it is a very hazy and complex ”line.”
@Pete, #72:
Nor does it make much sense to me to arbitrarily designate the moment of conception as the beginning of personhood.
@Nanny G, #75:
Nearly 70 percent of all human conceptions end as a result of natural processes without leading to the birth of a child. In many of those cases the woman never even knows she was pregnant.
I don’t think we can base law on religious arguments when people’s religious view vary widely, and when some people have no religious views at all. Leaving the matter as a private, personal decision allows each to act in accordance with their own beliefs and conscience.
I would resist just as strongly any suggestion that people should sometimes be compelled to have an abortion.
@Greg:
You equate the scientifically defined beginning of the human life cycle as arbitrary? Do you really believe that? I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you make such a statement, as you would only be able to argue in favor of abortion if you can deny the humanity of the fetus. And even if we grant veracity to your claim of 70% of fertilized eggs never progressing to an active implantation, there is no conscious act of pregnancy termination in your scenario as tbere is in abortion.
IT”S WEIRD BUT BEFORE I HEARD THE MALAYSIAN PLANE TRAGEDY,
IT JUST HAPPEN THAT I WENT OUTSIDE AND I LOOKED UP TO SEE A WHITE PLANE
A BIG ONE BUT VERY HIGH I THOUGH STRANGELY VERY HIGH,
WHY DID I LOOK UP AT THAT MOMENT BEFORE IT FADED AWAY,
BUT WHERE I AM IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR SURE THAT IT WAS THAT PLANE,
WEIRD IS IN IT, and i learned the day after of that MALEYSIAN PLANE,
BY THE WAY, WAS SHE ON on ATLANTIC OCEAN side?
ANYONE KNOW ?
IT’S NOT MY HABIT TO LOOK UP AT PLANES,
MEYGAN
how about the passengers, WHERE COULD THEY BE? WHERE THEY LET OUT IN ONE OF THE ISLAND,
YOU MENTIONED ABOUT ISLAND, AND THE PLAIN LEFT THEM THERE ?
OR?
WE MUST TALK ABOUT THE 239 PASSENGERS, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER,
AND ON THE MAP, THERE IS MANY ISLANDS IN THOSE MALEYSIA,
@Greg:
Let’s have it then. Do you or do you not: Support post natal abortion, like your hero Obama, and think that it’s perfectly alright to terminate newborns?
So we must ask you Greg: At what arbitrary point do you consider a human fetus as being a person? The First Trimester? The Second? The Third? When brain activity begins? When it reacts to it’s environment? At the mere physical transference from the womb to an outside environment? Or is it at the point that it opens it’s eyes to view the world? Is it when it begins to make words? When it walks? On it’s first day of kindergarten? When it graduates high school? When it gets a job and pays taxes?
Wait Greg has said that it’s not because of it’s being a human, but when it becomes a person. Let’s look at the online dictionaries:
Well, a human fetus certainly qualifies here.
Tougher, but the Fetus still qualifies at least under #2.
Human being? Hmm… OK let’s define “Human being”
Well, there we go. Science tells us the unique human genome DNA sequence is what separates humans from all animals. All humans are created via human DNA. No animals have the same genome sequence of humans. In fact, if it is a living being created of Human DNA, it can only possibly be of the species Homo sapiens, and as genetic testing of human fetal tissue will never register as the DNA of any other creature. ergo a fetus is a “human being” ergo if it is a living being comprised of human DNA, it is a person. Well that blow that theory of yours out of the water.
Or would you also have us next believe that someone who is just as “helpless as a baby” is not a person? That a human who is asleep, unconscious, in a drunken stupor, on life support, or in a coma is no longer a “human being” and is a viable target for “abortion?”
@Pete:
I will ask Curt and Skookum to share my email with you (and only you) if you request it.
@Ditto:
Sounds good. I look forward to working with you.
@Greg:
It’s interesting to watch Greg evade questions while simultaneously accusing everyone else of evasion. It’s a hypocrisy implosion.
In any case, according to Greg, a woman has a fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority over her own body. Great also asserts, that a woman has a fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority over the body of the child within her, because…
For Greg it seems, there is no discernible difference between a mole, a toe, a tumor or a fetus.
So I asked Greg if he supports the right of pregnant women to drink and smoke. Rather than give a simple yes or no answer that the question elicits, I received classic progressive evasion:
So in attempting to translate this Collectivese, we’re left with further questions about the nature of Greg’s position.
If Greg, and by extension the Collective, feels that a fetus is merely another part of the woman’s body like a toe or an ear, and the woman has a fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority over her own body, then Greg’s default position should be that of support for pregnant women drinking and smoking, and should actively work against anyone who would frown upon women exercising sovereign authority over their own body in this manner.
If on the other hand Greg, and by extension the Collective, feels that drinking and smoking while pregnant is a “stupid personal choice,” the rest of us are then left to wonder, why would drinking and smoking while pregnant be a stupid choice if the woman is merely exercising sovereign authority over her own body? Why?
Others are welcome to chime in here since it’s likely that Greg will either ignore the questions posed altogether or type out some more Collectivese tap-dancing, since it’s clear that he hasn’t yet received the Collective’s assigned response to this particular quandary yet.
IF THE PASSENGERS ON THE LOST PLANE, WOULD HAVE DRAWN ,
THERE WOULD BE SHARKS ROAMING THE PLACE,
@Kraken:
As I have already mentioned in this thread, the fetus is not “part of the woman’s body”, as it is a separate entity encapsulated in the amniotic sac, floating in amnionic fluid, occupying the space WITHIN the womb, and deriving nutrients, oxygen and fluid through multiple layers separating the mother from the fetus and the placent by the processes of diffusion, passive transport and active transport. The simple fact that the fetus being chemically burned or surgically carved up does not transmit pain to the mother, pain which the fetus experiences during the abortion, also proves that the fetus is not part of the woman’s body. If a woman were to have chemical corrosives or surgical instruments used to remove her big toe, or any other part of her body without the use of local anesthesia, she would most certainly experience pain, because those are parts of her body. During an abortion, the fetus is not given any type of anesthesia, yet the woman does not experience the associated pain.
Pete
yes but i think the fetus must feel pain,
one way or another,
IF NOT, IT’S NOT AN EXCUSE TO DESTROY IT,
A FUTUR AMERICAN, WHO ONE DAY MIGHT SAVE HIS COUNTRY, FROM
SOCIALIST MARXIST COMMUNIST FORCES OF EVIL
AND SAVE THOSE INDOCTRINATED WHO CANNOT GET AWAY FROM THE ROPES ENCIRCLING THEM,
@Ditto, #80:
I see no point in commenting on deliberately misleading statements and insinuations, which doesn’t really leave much left of this post to comment on.
Correct. But as has been pointed out a number of times, the mere presence of a unique DNA sequence is not equal to the presence of a person. A unique DNA sequence is nothing but a blueprint, or a set of biological instructions. The instructions are not the thing itself. A blueprint is not a house.
@Kraken, #83:
I’ve evaded nothing, other than being tricked into giving the appearance that nonsensical lines of argument actually make sense. Matt Welsh, on the other hand, has both evaded the central point presented for his consideration, and then attempted to hide the fact that he has done so.
That’s not my line of reasoning. At no point have I said that a fetus is a part of a woman’s body. What I have said is that a woman has a fundamental right to exercise sovereign authority over her own body. That includes the right to decline to continue a pregnancy.
Like Matt Welsh, no one seems to want to argue the point that was raised itself. People seem to want to set up an imaginary meaning—a strawman point—and then argue with that instead.
@Greg:
B.S. It’s a simple question. Do you support post natal infanticide?
Except we are not talking about blood smears, samples of dead tissue cloned or genetically engineered cells or the mere numerical specific genome sequencing alone. We are talking about a fetus which is a one-of-a-kind, growing developing living human being that has it’s own unique DNA that no other Human has unless there is an identical twin. A homo sapiens which has it’s own human DNA that is not the same as the mother or the father, or any other person that has ever existed.
You unscientifically claim according to your personal arbitrary standard that an unborn human being is “not a person” Yet you refuse to enlighten us as to your specific definition of what it takes to make a human being a “person.” We’re holding your feet to the fire Greg. If you can’t answer the above questions, it is either because:
(1) You don’t have an answer because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
(2) You are only following an ideological political mantra rather than any logical reasoning.
(3) You are evading answering because you know that: once you tell us what your own personal definition of “a person,” you realize that you will not be able to scientifically defend or be held to your own standard.
(4) Or perhaps you are a follower of the perverse school of socialistic eco-fanatics who seek euthanasia of all “unnecessary eaters”.
or (5) Any combination of the above.
@Ditto, #89:
It takes organized brain activity of a higher order than what is associated with nothing more than autonomic responses and reflexive behaviors. It takes a minimal level of self awareness. I assume those things to be present to a sufficient degree to meet my definition of a person in a newborn infant, even if their presence cannot be conclusively demonstrated.
There’s nothing at all arbitrary about this position, to my way of thinking.
That’s more than can be said for personhood from the moment of conception—a principle which the Sanctity of Life Act would legally establish. There’s no logical or scientific basis for establishing such a principle in law. The principle is ridiculous. It legally equates an organism consisting of only a few replicating cells with a fully conscious, independently thinking and acting person. How logical is that?
@Greg:
Greg, by the time a woman knows she is pregnant, it is not just a mass of cells. The heart is already beating by 4 to 5 weeks. and the argument you are using about “organized brain activity” is the same argument Peter Singer uses to justify terminating infants after they are born. Arguably, the blueprint point you put forth could also be extended to a term infant, as it is a blank slate waiting to further develop into whatever he or she will become as an adult. There is even recent medical research showing that a person’s brain is not fully mature until roughly 25 years of age.
@Greg:
Aww, poor baby. How were you tricked, and who tricked you, little one?
Really? Then what did you mean exactly when you said in post #61:
Hummm? Specifically, is the fetus an independent being, or is it merely a mass of tissue belonging to the mother? Which one is it?
Well, you mean except for this question:
“Do you support the right of pregnant women to drink and smoke?”
Well, you mean except for when I directly addressed it in post #58 by saying:
It’s weird, because the words are on the screen, but there’s something that’s blocking you from processing them.
What exactly was the strawman point you speak of? What is this “imaginary meaning?”
Okay. So 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?
@Greg:
I think that most people would agree with that statement, but that authority ends with the impregnation. She needs to make the decision to become pregnant or not. Not to kill a baby after it is created.
@Greg:
Wow. So let me see if I can follow your thought processes….because you ASSUME a SUFFICIENT DEGREE of self-awareness even if it cannot be conclusively demostrated that your position can be described as – in your own words – “There’s nothing at all arbitrary about this position,”….and the added caveat…”to my way of thinking.”
And you consider this logical thinking? Greg, I am sorry, but this is absolutely classic Orwellian doublethink. Thank you for providing this quote. I give medical lectures to residents and occasionally to medical conventions, and that quote – verbatim – is the most illustrative and concise example of complete lack of awareness of self-inflicted position negation I have ever read.
could it be that woman is having low estime of herself and feel that her progeniture woul not become,
to fit a superior standard of how she would like because of her own low estime feeling of not be worthy,
and therefor refuse to and dread to take a chance on her baby coming to look like her miserable person,
AND THAT WOULD MAKE HER REFUSE THE LIFE OF HER GENES PRODUCTION, WHICH SHE OVERLOOK THE OTHER PART OF GENES INVOLVED IN THE BABY, THE MALE GENETIC TREE,
@Kraken, #92:
You’re beginning to sound like one of the resident sock puppets. Of course that might only be because you’re all afflicted with the same hostile attitude and are plugged into the same media sources. Beware of the tells, however. A couple of resident socks have holes in them.
Read the words. They say exactly what I meant—no more, and no less.
What you’re posing is a logical fallacy known variously as a false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or the fallacy of false alternatives. The point being that a fetus could be one, the other, or both of the things you suggest. It all depends upon how the words are being used. You’re relying on that ambiguity to try to make a point.
I haven’t. You have evaded proper understanding of what I’ve clearly said. I guess you don’t like what I’ve said. Sorry about that.
Well, then, our argument would be at an end, wouldn’t it? Except for the fact that you weasel out of the full implication of those words. Something more will be coming after the “Without question.” You’ll reframe the question outside of that context.
Figure it out for yourself. I haven’t got the time or the inclination to go back through nearly 100 posts.
I directly addressed that question previously also, with more detail than a simple Yes or No. Admittedly understanding what I said requires thought, and might be difficult for anyone who can only see things in the context of black and white thinking. (The psychological term for this tendency to view all issues as an either/or proposition is splitting, by the way.)
@Greg:
And you are trying to put so many shades of gray into a simple question to avoid a.conclusion your ideology does not, cannot accept. Some things are simple yes or no questions. You are alive or dead. You are a.citizen of a country or you are not. You have enough income to pay your bills, or you are bankrupt. The fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo/fetus is part of the human life cycle, or it isn’t. A sperm cell or an unfertilized ovum can arguably be compared to being a part of an individual’s body and not a separate entity, but once fertilization occurs, a new human life cycle begins. That is not a religious position, that is scientific fact. Denying the inherent separate humanity of that portion of the human life cycle, and insisting that life does not begin until escape from the womb is illogical rationalization to avoid guilt from the act of terminating a separate human entity for the convenience of.those at a more advanced stage of an identical – from a biological standpoint – human life cycle. Simply insisting that your position is the rational one, while knowing that every single human that ever lived started out as a fertilized ovum, and in no case has a human ever developed in any other manner, makes no logical sense.
@Pete, #97:
Human is a word having a broad range of application. Human is not the issue. What is at issue is sentience, and the presence of a person. Not all parts of the human life cycle correspond with the presence of a person. At early stages of development consciousness has not yet appeared. For consciousness to be associated with a body, a certain degree of neural complexity and activity must first be present.
It’s going to be interesting to see how people react when self-aware machines show up in the near future. Many people who want to project the most important attributes of personhood onto a human fetus have trouble recognizing sentience and self awareness even in non-human biological forms.
@Greg:
I am not entirely sure where to begin responding to you. Sentience as a criterion for eligibility for buman rights still denies the inherent human nature of the life cycle. Furthermore it imparts, if I am understanding your comment accurately, the mantle.of humanity to electronic equipment that at some future time may be programmed in such a sophisticated manner as to mimic human thought processes, while inherently being nonhuman. In essence you seem to be arguing that a nonhuman, inorganic machine, if it becomes self-aware, would be entitled to human rights that you would deny a human at the earliest stage of development. That, to me, is an utterly horrifying concept.
@Greg:
If I interpret what you’re saying, if a person becomes unconscious, they become un-human?