After looking it up on wikipedia (since I hadn't heard of it before) Its pretty patently obvious that "Operation Rescue" doesn't exactly qualify as "the leadership of the pro-life movement"...
The fact is the leaders of the 'pro-life' movement are anti-contraception, especially since they can trot out lies like the pill or the morning after pill being abortifants in order to justify their opposition to the best anti-abortion methods out there.
Except that those aren't lies. The morning after pill is an abortificient 100% of the time that it works, and the pill (some varieties) acts as an abortificient as a tertiary backup means of "contraception".
blah blah blah... because in the end the denial of the possibility of abortion at any time before the end of pregnancy is a denial of woman's self-ownership.
or, you know, a recognition that the women is not the only party affected. By definition, in order to have an abortion another human being is involved. Its not a question only of "womens right to choose vs women losing that right". Its a question of "womens right to choose not to be pregnant vs. Fetus's right to exist after it has already started to exist."
I don't understand how this is even a moral grey area. (Infanticide would be a moral grey area, in contrast.) Abortion is a medical right. I'm glad in Quebec it's actually covered by the state's medical insurance (and you can have one at 14 without parental consent). I can't understand how this is such a hot button issue in a country that prides itself on individualism and self-ownership.
because self ownership does not trump the value placed on not owning another human.
In the end, it's all just about 'punish the skank for opening her legs'. It's about denying women agency. That's why feminism was always in favor of abortion rights. Because they know the denial of such simply means state ownership of women (and since the state is controlled by men, that's really just man ownership of woman).
This is ridiculous. And I'm pretty sure you know it is. Pro-life isn't about "the state owning women" any more than Murder laws are about the state owning people...
There's no fixed definition. Many people who identify as pro-life support the death penalty.
You may be right, but as I understand it the organized political/religious/social movement that takes the name "Pro-Life" specifically includes those things, and if you do not support them then you are technically not "pro-life". People might identify as pro-life simply by being anti-abortion, but it's not exactly correct. That, of course, brings up the question of whether the distinction is actually relevant and most of the time it probably isn't, but since we're talking about whether the labels are appropriate based on what they do and don't support, I think it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
The morning after pill is an abortificient 100% of the time that it works, and the pill (some varieties) acts as an abortificient as a tertiary backup means of "contraception".
Okay weren't you the person who just said you *weren't* anti-contraception? Except here you are, arguing against contraception... how droll.
I'd also like to mention that most pro-life organisations, in their training booklets explicitly tell militants in training to *lie* about their anti-contraception beliefs (by omission, or diversion). Doesn't make for good PR to attack contraception, since it's much less of a grey area in the mind of the general public.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether you're just following the script, or if your confusion about your actual beliefs on contraception is genuine.
or, you know, a recognition that the women is not the only party affected. By definition, in order to have an abortion another human being is involved.
Another being is involved when I refuse to donate my kidney to save them, also. But it is not murder to deny usage of your body to another human being.
I have no problems with the usage of Condoms, other barrier methods or pills that do not prevent implantation of the fetus.
The whole "It's not abortion because all it did was prevent implantation of the fertilized fetus" I disagree with. I'm of the opinion that pregnancy starts at conception, not at implantation. Edit: Before you start raging on me about how this is settled, its not. The law defined it as at implantation because a line needed to be drawn. It's not something where everyone agrees that "pregnancy starts at implantation" and I'm jsut the 1 wacko out there who disagrees with it.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether you're just following the script, or if your confusion about your actual beliefs on contraception is genuine.
My beliefs aren't confused at all, and I'm not "just following the script". I'm pretty sure I understand what my "actual beliefs" are a whole heck of a lot better than you do.
as an aside: I'm at work... could you summarize the points in your "mythbusting video" for us?
I'd also like to mention that most pro-life organisations, in their training booklets explicitly tell militants in training to *lie* about their anti-contraception beliefs (by omission, or diversion). Doesn't make for good PR. Seems you had the training down pat.
[Citation Needed]
I don't by this for 1 second. Your not arguing that "the extremist pro-lifers" do this. You're arguing MOST pro-lifers do it. without a citation you are making up stuff to make the other side look bad.
There is never such a thing as a 'principled opposition'. Principles are just the thing people create to support what they wanted in the first place.
Having just read this portion of the post from a few posts back, I have two thoughts. The first is pitty, because you appear to be extremely Jaded, and the second is confusion because if there is no point to the debate, why are you here?
I'm a conservative, but a pro choice one considering historical trends with horrible laws like prohibition. I am strictly against abortion as a means for birth control as I find that lazy in most cases I've seen. I would rather have more incentives for those babies to be adopted out to anyone with a good home. However, I am totally for medically well reasoned abortions or abortions for already dead fetuses.
I don't eat animals that I find sentient such as a dolphin or an ape. I will not consume a low birth rate animal like a shark for environmental reasons. Everything else is open season.
Am I a hypocrite? I draw a line between certain animals for objective reasons for the most part. I've done research into being a vegen, and honestly I just do not have the time to bother with those nutrition issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The problem, as previously stated, is that religious people believe that humans have souls, and that a soul is bestowed upon an individual at the point of conception. So long as this belief is held, you will never convince them that abortion is okay.
In my opinion, since I believe religion is bunk, a "human" shortly after conception is a single cell, or small number of cells, that is indistinguishable from most other animals without running DNA. There's no circulatory system, nervous system, no organs at all. We're talking a small grouping of cells. Even if you take it to the latest you can have an abortion, you're still talking about a non-sentient animal. Yes, an animal, that's what humans are. Objectively we're no better than any other organism on this planet.
I would feel no guilt at all from killing an embryo. I would, however, feel guilty if I were to, for example, strangle a cat to death.
Even if you take it to the latest you can have an abortion, you're still talking about a non-sentient animal. Yes, an animal, that's what humans are. Objectively we're no better than any other organism on this planet.
Even after the latest you can have an abortion (i.e., birth), you're still talking about a non-sentient animal. Being born doesn't flip on any switches in the infant's head.
...Well, except for the one marked "breathe".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Even after the latest you can have an abortion (i.e., birth), you're still talking about a non-sentient animal. Being born doesn't flip on any switches in the infant's head.
All this proves is that if the litmut test is personhood, even infanticide is merely in a moral grey area. Sentience comes sometime later than birth, and it's a continuum, not a clearly demarcated line.
The only litmut test that might rule out abortion in late terms is the ability to suffer, which is shared by animals and should lead one to veganism. Well, the only *rational* one, in any case (the others involve magick, i.e. the soul hypothesis). Even then, since late term abortions are done for medical reasons, there is really no reason to outlaw them except having the state get between a patient and her doctor, which I thought the GOP was all in arms against (see: health care reform).
Your not arguing that "the extremist pro-lifers" do this. You're arguing MOST pro-lifers do it.
I'm arguing the leadership do it. That's not remotedly close to the majority, given the hierarchical organisational methods of these groups. Only the leadership is relevant, because they are who hold the political sway and have influence on policies. Everyone else is just bodies, cannon fodder. Their opinion matters not. The majority of the voters who voted for the Nazi party were just regular industrialists and right-wingers, not all anti-semites. Maybe they liked the Fuhrer's policy on outlawing independant unionism, or maybe they like his 'law and order' attitude or his emphasis on national security (against the Red menace). I mean, that's mostly why Hitler was beloved by the *American* right-wingers (prior to the USA entering the war). And most German soldiers were fighting for their country, not because they wanted to kill the Jews. That still makes all of them party to the Holocaust, because they *objectively supported* those who made it happen. The leadership.
The point was that they thought these values (free enterprise, protection from the Reds, raising Germany from the ashes of World War I) were more important than not killing Jews. Your values are more important to you than not enslaving women to the state and making them incubators. Whether you actually WANT to work your hardest to make women incubators is not what matters to me. There's no such thing as neutrality on a moving train. Only two sides to each barricade. All that matters is that *something* is more important to you than making sure they're not incubators, so objectively you're working with the people who want to make that happen, ergo you're not on my side. It's a matter of where your priorities lay.
Having just read this portion of the post from a few posts back, I have two thoughts. The first is pitty, because you appear to be extremely Jaded, and the second is confusion because if there is no point to the debate, why are you here?
Propaganda's primary purpose serves to prop up your own ranks' morale, not to convert the enemy.
There's also the occasional bout of 'false consciousness', somebody might just realize that what they thought their self-interest was was not *really* their self-interest, but that's pretty rare.
I'm arguing the leadership do it. That's not remotedly close to the majority, given the hierarchical organisational methods of these groups. Only the leadership is relevant, because they are who hold the political sway and have influence on policies. Everyone else is just bodies, cannon fodder. Their opinion matters not. The majority of the voters who voted for the Nazi party were just regular industrialists and right-wingers, not all anti-semites. Maybe they liked the Fuhrer's policy on outlawing independant unionism, or maybe they like his 'law and order' attitude or his emphasis on national security (against the Red menace). I mean, that's mostly why Hitler was beloved by the *American* right-wingers (prior to the USA entering the war). And most German soldiers were fighting for their country, not because they wanted to kill the Jews. That still makes all of them party to the Holocaust, because they *objectively supported* those who made it happen. The leadership.
The point was that they thought these values (free enterprise, protection from the Reds, raising Germany from the ashes of World War I) were more important than not killing Jews. Your values are more important to you than not enslaving women to the state and making them incubators. Whether you actually WANT to work your hardest to make women incubators is not what matters to me. There's no such thing as neutrality on a moving train. Only two sides to each barricade. All that matters is that *something* is more important to you than making sure they're not incubators, so objectively you're working with the people who want to make that happen, ergo you're not on my side. It's a matter of where your priorities lay.
So rather than providing any kind of credible source for your ludicrous claim you instead compare them to Nazis / nazi sympathizers?
To be clear, could you expound on who this mythical pro-life leader is that is controlling all the shots? Or perhaps some of these mythical "traning manuals" that teach pro-lifers to lie about their beliefs? Or, you know, ANYTHING to support the claims you are making?
All this proves is that if the litmut test is personhood, even infanticide is merely in a moral grey area. Sentience comes sometime later than birth, and it's a continuum, not a clearly demarcated line.
The only litmut test that might rule out abortion in late terms is the ability to suffer, which is shared by animals and should lead one to veganism. Well, the only *rational* one, in any case (the others involve magick, i.e. the soul hypothesis). Even then, since late term abortions are done for medical reasons, there is really no reason to outlaw them except having the state get between a patient and her doctor, which I thought the GOP was all in arms against (see: health care reform).
Typically the litmus test used by most people is "viability". Which as it stands now is somewhere after implantation and before birth (theres a narrower window than that, but it still leaves a month or so of gray area. I'm jsut not sure where the cutoff is, so I'm not going to claim I do.)
The only litmut test that might rule out abortion in late terms is the ability to suffer, which is shared by animals and should lead one to veganism. Well, the only *rational* one, in any case (the others involve magick, i.e. the soul hypothesis).
You are making a strong statement, of the form 'All x's are y.' Support it; demonstrate that there are no x's which are not y.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
By definition, in order to have an abortion another human being is involved
No, in order for it to be an abortion a fetus or an embryo have to be involved. Whether those qualify as human beings is exactly what is being debated.
No, in order for it to be an abortion a fetus or an embryo have to be involved. Whether those qualify as human beings is exactly what is being debated.
"Human beingness" is defined by genetics. Personhood is what is debated.
The instant the sperm's genes and the eggs genes combine it becomes a "human being".
To be clear, could you expound on who this mythical pro-life leader is that is controlling all
the shots?
Leader*s*. Operation Rescue, Human Life International, Justice for All, these are basically the foremost prolife organisations out there. They promote material that attacks contraception (by claiming it is abortificent). These are the face of the prolife movement, and anti-contraception is what they propose as part of their whole ideological package.
You *yourself* opposed contraception. On this very thread. Do you think we're blind?
Have fun. In particular is the chapter on how to fake empathy for women, and the lies to give out to people who ask about your opposition to contraception. Like giving out a non-answer like "I'm opposed to contraception that kills the unborn" (there are none).
You *yourself* opposed contraception. On this very thread. Do you think we're blind?
most people, no. You, apparently. I outlined my position on contraception. I have been consistent with it the entire time. I said I support contraception that does not act as an abortaficient. I clarified what I meant by abortaficient since its a debated term. I even provided examples of what types of contraception I support.
How does that translate into "You *yourself* opposed contraception"?
Have fun. In particular is the chapter on how to fake empathy for women, and the lies to give out to people who ask about your opposition to contraception. Like giving out a non-answer like "I'm opposed to contraception that kills the unborn" (there are none).
I'm reading it now. I'll get back to you when I'm done. Quick: Which all encompassing uber leader group of all pro-lifers ever is this from?
Edit: And I finished reading it now. For anyone else, I'd recommend looking at it its only 13 pages with big letters so its pretty short. My response: it never says to lie. I'm assuming you are arguing that the part where it tells people to say "As a matter of public policy, I'm not opposed to birth control that does not kill an innocent human being." This would be true for any pro-life person who has my stance, and probably also true for someone who believes all contraceptives are immoral, but not all contraceptives are worth legislating against. If you actually read the explanation, it even explains why its not lie. (See page 10 of the linked document for further info). *In response to your direct assertion that there are no contraceptives that kill the unborn: I direct you to my earlier comments regarding the morning after pill, and the pill.
Page 4 describes "five tasks" when talking to someone about it. I assume you are referring to point number 2 and its corresponding section when you argue that your favorite part is where it tells you "how to fake empathy". The point of that instruction isn't how to fake it. Its effective ways to actually show the empathy you have.
Which all encompassing uber leader group of all pro-lifers ever is this from?
Justice for All. Since they're a campus outreach group, that's the one most of us on this forum are likely to have to confront.
If you have a problem with the view we have of these groups, just start one that isn't composed of misogynistic anti-sex bigots. Then you'll have *one* pro-life group that isn't anti-woman, and some of us might have to revise our analysis. Good luck with that.
How does that translate into "You *yourself* opposed contraception"?
Because you oppose the most efficient forms of contraception by lying about how they work. Or repeating lies about how they work, which is the same thing.
Also, do you actually promote passing out free condoms and other barrier methods? Or do you support abstinence-based sex education (we call it 'ignorance-based sex miseducation')?
Old man: "We oppose abortificent forms of contraception."
Homer: "That's bad."
Old man: "But we support the use of barrier methods."
Homer: "That's good."
Old man: "We don't actually promote the use of such methods by making them widely available."
Homer: "That's bad."
Old man: "But you can come at our church and we'll give you the Eucharist."
Homer: "That's good."
Old man: "The Eucharist contains sodium benzoate."
Homer: ...
Old man: "That's bad."
Sorry, Treehouse of Horror was this weekend, and this is a classic.
Because you oppose the most efficient forms of contraception by lying about how they work. Or repeating lies about how they work, which is the same thing.
Its. Not. A. Lie. One of us is being willfuly ignorant and accusing the other of lieing...
Also, do you actually promote passing out free condoms and other barrier methods?
Nope. but then, I also don't support universal healthcare. I'm fine with people using them. I don't think there is anything wrong with using them. That has no bearing on my willingness to buy it for them.
Or do you support abstinence-based sex education (we call it 'ignorance-based sex miseducation')?
I don't honestly have the data to know which is more effective, so I don't actively support either side. If supporting condom use is more effective than abstinence, then sure I support it. I haven't looked into the specifics, so I can't say for sure.
Old man: "We oppose abortificent forms of contraception."
Homer: "That's bad."
Old man: "But we support the use of barrier methods."
Homer: "That's good."
Old man: "We don't actually promote the use of such methods by making them widely available."
Homer: "That's bad."
Old man: "But you can come at our church and we'll give you the Eucharist."
Homer: "That's good."
Old man: "The Eucharist contains sodium benzoate."
Homer: ...
Old man: "That's bad."
Sorry, Treehouse of Horror was this weekend, and this is a classic.
And that is relevant how? I mean lets face it, you are making gross exagerations in an attempt to demonize the opposing viewpoint, while I'm presenting a rationale for my side of the argument, and presenting arguments against yours... one of us is practicing good debate skills, one of us isn't.
I mean lets face it, you are making gross exagerations in an attempt to demonize the opposing viewpoint,
I am refusing to accept to debate with people who don't debate in good faith, and who hide their own positions behind lies in order to make it seem like they care about life rather than controlling women. There is no good faith prolife position. You want to outlaw a medical procedure. Your side has been responsible for acts of domestic terrorism (the Tiller murder) and your leaders haven't denounced it. In fact, in the case of Operation Rescue, it's probable they provided covert support to the murderer. There's not really any debate to be had here.
while I'm presenting a rationale for my side of the argument, and presenting arguments against yours...
You're not. I don't even care if it is abortificent. You're entering irrelevant territory. I said you had no right to stop abortion even to the last trimester, for the very simple reason that a woman's ownership over her body is supreme. For the same reason it is not murder or immoral for a man to refuse to be cut up and give a kidney to someone who needs one, it is not murder or immoral for a potential mother to refuse to give out her own body's ressources or risk her own health to bring a parasitical growth to term.
The abortificent part is just me being annoyed by blatant LIES. A pregnancy starts upon implantation. Stopping implantation does not terminate a pregnancy, it stops it from *starting*. Furthermore, it is a very rare effect of the pill, the pill being mostly used to stop *ovulation* completly. And it is not true either that the morning after pill is *always* stopping implantation when successful. It is merely a bigger dosage of the same hormones as the regular pill, and it mostly work by stopping ovulation also (because sperm lives on in a woman's body enough so that ovulation occuring shortly after the sex act can result in a fertilized ovum).
I'm pro-choice, and I disagree wholeheartedly. The rationale behind the sanctity of life does not necessarily have to do with consciousness. The fact that the organism is of the species Homo sapiens can be considered an equally relevant criterion, if not the only criterion. Consciousness is not necessary.
Hmm. But then we get into the tangled web of defining homo sapiens...
because every animal we slaughter for food is at a higher level of consciousness and mental development than an unborn baby is.
I'm much more interested in the dichotomy whereby you rarely see anywhere near as many people protesting outside prisons with death chambers as you do protesting outside abortion clinics... Sacred, right.
I'm much more interested in the dichotomy whereby you rarely see anywhere near as many people protesting outside prisons with death chambers as you do protesting outside abortion clinics... Sacred, right.
You can't intimidate presumably ****ty women by going outside a prison protesting death penalty... hence it loses most of its appeal.
And in the interest of being more open to the people on the other side of the aisle (I'm trying to deescalate): that's only about the clinic protesters, not the entirety of the 'movement'. You know, people motivated enough to actually hold 24/7 vigils outside of clinics, taking turns so there's always someone out there protesting? Even us rabid left-wing wackos don't do that...
You can't intimidate presumably ****ty women by going outside a prison protesting death penalty... hence it loses most of its appeal.
And in the interest of being more open to the people on the other side of the aisle (I'm trying to deescalate): that's only about the clinic protesters, not the entirety of the 'movement'. You know, people motivated enough to actually hold 24/7 vigils outside of clinics, taking turns so there's always someone out there protesting? Even us rabid left-wing wackos don't do that...
The problem I have with your attitude, and I think what has gotten you into trouble (which you referneced way at the beginning) is that you automatically assume the worst motive for all members of the opposing party, and the best motive for your side. ALL the time.
Is it that hard to believe that a person actually believes that a fertilized zygote (I think thats the right term, correct me if I'm wrong) is a valuable human being and worthy of protection?
Fine, my mistake, and I don't appreciate the condescension. Why does having human DNA imply personhood?
I apologize for coming across condescendingly. I assumed you were taking a play form XDarkangelX's book and reacted accordingly, when it was actually a legit mistake. As far as Why does human DNA imply person hood, my answer (which I doubt you'll accept for obvious reasons) is that by its human nature it has a soul. yes, many people on these threads scoff and play it off like that is the religious wacko talking so it doesn't matter, but that is (in my mind) what makes the distinction.
There's no circulatory system, nervous system, no organs at all.
This might apply only at the point of conception. most women don't find out they are pregnant until several weeks after this has occured. by then yes there are organs and a circulatory system and parts of the nervous system in place.
We're talking a small grouping of cells. Even if you take it to the latest you can have an abortion, you're still talking about a non-sentient animal.
I have about 4 or 5 week ultra sounds that proves you wrong. It was actually pretty cool to see the heart beating and the blood flowing through.
I would feel no guilt at all from killing an embryo. I would, however, feel guilty if I were to, for example, strangle a cat to death.
I feel sorry for you then.
Sentience comes sometime later than birth, and it's a continuum, not a clearly demarcated line.
wrong seeing how i think at the 4 month ultra sound i saw my son playing with his foot. nope no sentience there at all.
these are basically the foremost prolife organisations out there.
You said it yourself they are organisations. they only lead those that belong or follow those organizations. since most people tend to stay away form extremist groups like that they are not really leaders.
personhood
What is personhood where does it begin. i can tell you now that the baby my wife is carrying right now is most recently a person. i have the ultrasounds to prove it.
Sure, you won't give some of your income so babies can have adequate care, but you'll force women to give their bodies against their will.
emotional arguement that fails. sorry it wasn't against her will. she willingly engaged in a practice that could cause her to get pregnant. she evidently did not take the steps needed to stop that from happening.
I am refusing to accept to debate with people who don't debate in good faith, and who hide their own positions behind lies in order to make it seem like they care about life rather than controlling women
No one is controlling women. no one technically forces a person to get pregnant. rape is probably the only uncontrolled circumstance.
There is no good faith prolife position. You want to outlaw a medical procedure.
This is your opinion not a fact. actually it isn't outlaw it is trying to get people to take responsibility for their actions. with today's modern medicine there is no excuse for someone to get pregnant.
I said you had no right to stop abortion even to the last trimester, for the very simple reason that a woman's ownership over her body is supreme.
Not according to the laws of this land which say that you cannot get an abortion in the 3rd trimester.
. For the same reason it is not murder or immoral for a man to refuse to be cut up and give a kidney to someone who needs one, it is not murder or immoral for a potential mother to refuse to give out her own body's ressources or risk her own health to bring a parasitical growth to term.
actually it would be if the man is alive. since most organs are taken right after death or done with the persons consent.
sorry but an infant isn't a parasitical growth that is pretty much a medical fact. you sensationalism is quite boring actually.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The problem I have with your attitude, and I think what has gotten you into trouble (which you referneced way at the beginning) is that you automatically assume the worst motive for all members of the opposing party, and the best motive for your side. ALL the time.
You're wrong. I don't assume the best motive for my side. I guess you would say I expect the worst motives for every party involved. But best/worst is a worthless judgement value. I assume that every side is pursuing their self-interest. It is not bad, nor good. Of course I prefer my side's self-interest. It is mine. I happen to share it. It follows naturally. It also follows naturally that I oppose the interests that run counter to mine.
Is it that hard to believe that a person actually believes that a fertilized zygote (I think thats the right term, correct me if I'm wrong) is a valuable human being and worthy of protection?
It is when it is not followed by the logically consistent position of providing adequate prenatal care for every women, not to mention a whole lot more positions that should logically follow. It is hard to conceive when these organizations oppose Planned Parenthood, which is mainly in the business of providing conselling and ressources to expecting mothers just because they also *incidently* happen to provide access to abortions. Mostly poor mothers and their zygotes too, the ones with the most need for such protection.
Finally, it is hard to think otherwise when their tactics is to scream at women, to call them *****s, and to intimidate them to *terrorize* them so they won't go through with a surgical procedure. And don't try to sugarcoat it. I've volunteered as a clinic escort, I know how they act.
Quote from mystery45 »
Not according to the laws of this land which say that you cannot get an abortion in the 3rd trimester.
Last time I checked Dr. Tiller was doing those. These were legal procedures. And it's not the state that decided to off him. Who was it again? Oh yeah. Pro 'lifers'.
And I was talking of rights, not Law. Slavery was legal too. Coerced birthing was also law, before Roe v. Wade.
Hmm. But then we get into the tangled web of defining homo sapiens...
There's little to nothing that's confusing about defining an organism's species in this case. What is confusing is how to define personhood, which is distinct from an organism of the species Homo sapiens to some (and synonymous to others).
As far as Why does human DNA imply person hood, my answer (which I doubt you'll accept for obvious reasons) is that by its human nature it has a soul. yes, many people on these threads scoff and play it off like that is the religious wacko talking so it doesn't matter, but that is (in my mind) what makes the distinction.
Well, thanks for one of the more straightforward and honest answers I've seen here. I am uncertain about the idea of a soul, and this is not a debate on whether humans have souls. If that is what you believe, then yes, there is no doubt that abortion is murder, and there is no inconsistency with the killing of animals.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
After looking it up on wikipedia (since I hadn't heard of it before) Its pretty patently obvious that "Operation Rescue" doesn't exactly qualify as "the leadership of the pro-life movement"...
Except that those aren't lies. The morning after pill is an abortificient 100% of the time that it works, and the pill (some varieties) acts as an abortificient as a tertiary backup means of "contraception".
or, you know, a recognition that the women is not the only party affected. By definition, in order to have an abortion another human being is involved. Its not a question only of "womens right to choose vs women losing that right". Its a question of "womens right to choose not to be pregnant vs. Fetus's right to exist after it has already started to exist."
because self ownership does not trump the value placed on not owning another human.
except for, you know, being totally different.
This is ridiculous. And I'm pretty sure you know it is. Pro-life isn't about "the state owning women" any more than Murder laws are about the state owning people...
You may be right, but as I understand it the organized political/religious/social movement that takes the name "Pro-Life" specifically includes those things, and if you do not support them then you are technically not "pro-life". People might identify as pro-life simply by being anti-abortion, but it's not exactly correct. That, of course, brings up the question of whether the distinction is actually relevant and most of the time it probably isn't, but since we're talking about whether the labels are appropriate based on what they do and don't support, I think it is.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Okay weren't you the person who just said you *weren't* anti-contraception? Except here you are, arguing against contraception... how droll.
By the way, pill as abortificient mythbusting video:
http://vimeo.com/1692916
I'd also like to mention that most pro-life organisations, in their training booklets explicitly tell militants in training to *lie* about their anti-contraception beliefs (by omission, or diversion). Doesn't make for good PR to attack contraception, since it's much less of a grey area in the mind of the general public.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether you're just following the script, or if your confusion about your actual beliefs on contraception is genuine.
Another being is involved when I refuse to donate my kidney to save them, also. But it is not murder to deny usage of your body to another human being.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
I have no problems with the usage of Condoms, other barrier methods or pills that do not prevent implantation of the fetus.
The whole "It's not abortion because all it did was prevent implantation of the fertilized fetus" I disagree with. I'm of the opinion that pregnancy starts at conception, not at implantation. Edit: Before you start raging on me about how this is settled, its not. The law defined it as at implantation because a line needed to be drawn. It's not something where everyone agrees that "pregnancy starts at implantation" and I'm jsut the 1 wacko out there who disagrees with it.
My beliefs aren't confused at all, and I'm not "just following the script". I'm pretty sure I understand what my "actual beliefs" are a whole heck of a lot better than you do.
as an aside: I'm at work... could you summarize the points in your "mythbusting video" for us?
[Citation Needed]
I don't by this for 1 second. Your not arguing that "the extremist pro-lifers" do this. You're arguing MOST pro-lifers do it. without a citation you are making up stuff to make the other side look bad.
Having just read this portion of the post from a few posts back, I have two thoughts. The first is pitty, because you appear to be extremely Jaded, and the second is confusion because if there is no point to the debate, why are you here?
I don't eat animals that I find sentient such as a dolphin or an ape. I will not consume a low birth rate animal like a shark for environmental reasons. Everything else is open season.
Am I a hypocrite? I draw a line between certain animals for objective reasons for the most part. I've done research into being a vegen, and honestly I just do not have the time to bother with those nutrition issues.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
In my opinion, since I believe religion is bunk, a "human" shortly after conception is a single cell, or small number of cells, that is indistinguishable from most other animals without running DNA. There's no circulatory system, nervous system, no organs at all. We're talking a small grouping of cells. Even if you take it to the latest you can have an abortion, you're still talking about a non-sentient animal. Yes, an animal, that's what humans are. Objectively we're no better than any other organism on this planet.
I would feel no guilt at all from killing an embryo. I would, however, feel guilty if I were to, for example, strangle a cat to death.
Even after the latest you can have an abortion (i.e., birth), you're still talking about a non-sentient animal. Being born doesn't flip on any switches in the infant's head.
...Well, except for the one marked "breathe".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
All this proves is that if the litmut test is personhood, even infanticide is merely in a moral grey area. Sentience comes sometime later than birth, and it's a continuum, not a clearly demarcated line.
The only litmut test that might rule out abortion in late terms is the ability to suffer, which is shared by animals and should lead one to veganism. Well, the only *rational* one, in any case (the others involve magick, i.e. the soul hypothesis). Even then, since late term abortions are done for medical reasons, there is really no reason to outlaw them except having the state get between a patient and her doctor, which I thought the GOP was all in arms against (see: health care reform).
I'm arguing the leadership do it. That's not remotedly close to the majority, given the hierarchical organisational methods of these groups. Only the leadership is relevant, because they are who hold the political sway and have influence on policies. Everyone else is just bodies, cannon fodder. Their opinion matters not. The majority of the voters who voted for the Nazi party were just regular industrialists and right-wingers, not all anti-semites. Maybe they liked the Fuhrer's policy on outlawing independant unionism, or maybe they like his 'law and order' attitude or his emphasis on national security (against the Red menace). I mean, that's mostly why Hitler was beloved by the *American* right-wingers (prior to the USA entering the war). And most German soldiers were fighting for their country, not because they wanted to kill the Jews. That still makes all of them party to the Holocaust, because they *objectively supported* those who made it happen. The leadership.
The point was that they thought these values (free enterprise, protection from the Reds, raising Germany from the ashes of World War I) were more important than not killing Jews. Your values are more important to you than not enslaving women to the state and making them incubators. Whether you actually WANT to work your hardest to make women incubators is not what matters to me. There's no such thing as neutrality on a moving train. Only two sides to each barricade. All that matters is that *something* is more important to you than making sure they're not incubators, so objectively you're working with the people who want to make that happen, ergo you're not on my side. It's a matter of where your priorities lay.
Propaganda's primary purpose serves to prop up your own ranks' morale, not to convert the enemy.
There's also the occasional bout of 'false consciousness', somebody might just realize that what they thought their self-interest was was not *really* their self-interest, but that's pretty rare.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
So rather than providing any kind of credible source for your ludicrous claim you instead compare them to Nazis / nazi sympathizers?
To be clear, could you expound on who this mythical pro-life leader is that is controlling all the shots? Or perhaps some of these mythical "traning manuals" that teach pro-lifers to lie about their beliefs? Or, you know, ANYTHING to support the claims you are making?
Typically the litmus test used by most people is "viability". Which as it stands now is somewhere after implantation and before birth (theres a narrower window than that, but it still leaves a month or so of gray area. I'm jsut not sure where the cutoff is, so I'm not going to claim I do.)
You are making a strong statement, of the form 'All x's are y.' Support it; demonstrate that there are no x's which are not y.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Human beingness" is defined by genetics. Personhood is what is debated.
The instant the sperm's genes and the eggs genes combine it becomes a "human being".
Well, the Nazis also had a forced/coerced birth program... he said cheekily.
Leader*s*. Operation Rescue, Human Life International, Justice for All, these are basically the foremost prolife organisations out there. They promote material that attacks contraception (by claiming it is abortificent). These are the face of the prolife movement, and anti-contraception is what they propose as part of their whole ideological package.
You *yourself* opposed contraception. On this very thread. Do you think we're blind?
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/Anti-Choice-Handbook.pdf
Have fun. In particular is the chapter on how to fake empathy for women, and the lies to give out to people who ask about your opposition to contraception. Like giving out a non-answer like "I'm opposed to contraception that kills the unborn" (there are none).
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
most people, no. You, apparently. I outlined my position on contraception. I have been consistent with it the entire time. I said I support contraception that does not act as an abortaficient. I clarified what I meant by abortaficient since its a debated term. I even provided examples of what types of contraception I support.
How does that translate into "You *yourself* opposed contraception"?
I'm reading it now. I'll get back to you when I'm done. Quick: Which all encompassing uber leader group of all pro-lifers ever is this from?
Edit: And I finished reading it now. For anyone else, I'd recommend looking at it its only 13 pages with big letters so its pretty short. My response: it never says to lie. I'm assuming you are arguing that the part where it tells people to say "As a matter of public policy, I'm not opposed to birth control that does not kill an innocent human being." This would be true for any pro-life person who has my stance, and probably also true for someone who believes all contraceptives are immoral, but not all contraceptives are worth legislating against. If you actually read the explanation, it even explains why its not lie. (See page 10 of the linked document for further info). *In response to your direct assertion that there are no contraceptives that kill the unborn: I direct you to my earlier comments regarding the morning after pill, and the pill.
Page 4 describes "five tasks" when talking to someone about it. I assume you are referring to point number 2 and its corresponding section when you argue that your favorite part is where it tells you "how to fake empathy". The point of that instruction isn't how to fake it. Its effective ways to actually show the empathy you have.
Justice for All. Since they're a campus outreach group, that's the one most of us on this forum are likely to have to confront.
If you have a problem with the view we have of these groups, just start one that isn't composed of misogynistic anti-sex bigots. Then you'll have *one* pro-life group that isn't anti-woman, and some of us might have to revise our analysis. Good luck with that.
Because you oppose the most efficient forms of contraception by lying about how they work. Or repeating lies about how they work, which is the same thing.
Also, do you actually promote passing out free condoms and other barrier methods? Or do you support abstinence-based sex education (we call it 'ignorance-based sex miseducation')?
Old man: "We oppose abortificent forms of contraception."
Homer: "That's bad."
Old man: "But we support the use of barrier methods."
Homer: "That's good."
Old man: "We don't actually promote the use of such methods by making them widely available."
Homer: "That's bad."
Old man: "But you can come at our church and we'll give you the Eucharist."
Homer: "That's good."
Old man: "The Eucharist contains sodium benzoate."
Homer: ...
Old man: "That's bad."
Sorry, Treehouse of Horror was this weekend, and this is a classic.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Its. Not. A. Lie. One of us is being willfuly ignorant and accusing the other of lieing...
Nope. but then, I also don't support universal healthcare. I'm fine with people using them. I don't think there is anything wrong with using them. That has no bearing on my willingness to buy it for them.
I don't honestly have the data to know which is more effective, so I don't actively support either side. If supporting condom use is more effective than abstinence, then sure I support it. I haven't looked into the specifics, so I can't say for sure.
And that is relevant how? I mean lets face it, you are making gross exagerations in an attempt to demonize the opposing viewpoint, while I'm presenting a rationale for my side of the argument, and presenting arguments against yours... one of us is practicing good debate skills, one of us isn't.
Sure, you won't give some of your income so babies can have adequate care, but you'll force women to give their bodies against their will.
I thought us feminists were the humorless ones...
I am refusing to accept to debate with people who don't debate in good faith, and who hide their own positions behind lies in order to make it seem like they care about life rather than controlling women. There is no good faith prolife position. You want to outlaw a medical procedure. Your side has been responsible for acts of domestic terrorism (the Tiller murder) and your leaders haven't denounced it. In fact, in the case of Operation Rescue, it's probable they provided covert support to the murderer. There's not really any debate to be had here.
You're not. I don't even care if it is abortificent. You're entering irrelevant territory. I said you had no right to stop abortion even to the last trimester, for the very simple reason that a woman's ownership over her body is supreme. For the same reason it is not murder or immoral for a man to refuse to be cut up and give a kidney to someone who needs one, it is not murder or immoral for a potential mother to refuse to give out her own body's ressources or risk her own health to bring a parasitical growth to term.
The abortificent part is just me being annoyed by blatant LIES. A pregnancy starts upon implantation. Stopping implantation does not terminate a pregnancy, it stops it from *starting*. Furthermore, it is a very rare effect of the pill, the pill being mostly used to stop *ovulation* completly. And it is not true either that the morning after pill is *always* stopping implantation when successful. It is merely a bigger dosage of the same hormones as the regular pill, and it mostly work by stopping ovulation also (because sperm lives on in a woman's body enough so that ovulation occuring shortly after the sex act can result in a fertilized ovum).
That's because one of us is doing politics and the other one is prepping for the debate club, apparently.
I assure you, I'm giving this topic all the seriousness it deserves.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Hmm. But then we get into the tangled web of defining homo sapiens...
I'm much more interested in the dichotomy whereby you rarely see anywhere near as many people protesting outside prisons with death chambers as you do protesting outside abortion clinics... Sacred, right.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
You can't intimidate presumably ****ty women by going outside a prison protesting death penalty... hence it loses most of its appeal.
And in the interest of being more open to the people on the other side of the aisle (I'm trying to deescalate): that's only about the clinic protesters, not the entirety of the 'movement'. You know, people motivated enough to actually hold 24/7 vigils outside of clinics, taking turns so there's always someone out there protesting? Even us rabid left-wing wackos don't do that...
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
The problem I have with your attitude, and I think what has gotten you into trouble (which you referneced way at the beginning) is that you automatically assume the worst motive for all members of the opposing party, and the best motive for your side. ALL the time.
Is it that hard to believe that a person actually believes that a fertilized zygote (I think thats the right term, correct me if I'm wrong) is a valuable human being and worthy of protection?
I apologize for coming across condescendingly. I assumed you were taking a play form XDarkangelX's book and reacted accordingly, when it was actually a legit mistake. As far as Why does human DNA imply person hood, my answer (which I doubt you'll accept for obvious reasons) is that by its human nature it has a soul. yes, many people on these threads scoff and play it off like that is the religious wacko talking so it doesn't matter, but that is (in my mind) what makes the distinction.
This might apply only at the point of conception. most women don't find out they are pregnant until several weeks after this has occured. by then yes there are organs and a circulatory system and parts of the nervous system in place.
I have about 4 or 5 week ultra sounds that proves you wrong. It was actually pretty cool to see the heart beating and the blood flowing through.
I feel sorry for you then.
wrong seeing how i think at the 4 month ultra sound i saw my son playing with his foot. nope no sentience there at all.
You said it yourself they are organisations. they only lead those that belong or follow those organizations. since most people tend to stay away form extremist groups like that they are not really leaders.
What is personhood where does it begin. i can tell you now that the baby my wife is carrying right now is most recently a person. i have the ultrasounds to prove it.
emotional arguement that fails. sorry it wasn't against her will. she willingly engaged in a practice that could cause her to get pregnant. she evidently did not take the steps needed to stop that from happening.
No one is controlling women. no one technically forces a person to get pregnant. rape is probably the only uncontrolled circumstance.
This is your opinion not a fact. actually it isn't outlaw it is trying to get people to take responsibility for their actions. with today's modern medicine there is no excuse for someone to get pregnant.
Not according to the laws of this land which say that you cannot get an abortion in the 3rd trimester.
actually it would be if the man is alive. since most organs are taken right after death or done with the persons consent.
sorry but an infant isn't a parasitical growth that is pretty much a medical fact. you sensationalism is quite boring actually.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
You're wrong. I don't assume the best motive for my side. I guess you would say I expect the worst motives for every party involved. But best/worst is a worthless judgement value. I assume that every side is pursuing their self-interest. It is not bad, nor good. Of course I prefer my side's self-interest. It is mine. I happen to share it. It follows naturally. It also follows naturally that I oppose the interests that run counter to mine.
It is when it is not followed by the logically consistent position of providing adequate prenatal care for every women, not to mention a whole lot more positions that should logically follow. It is hard to conceive when these organizations oppose Planned Parenthood, which is mainly in the business of providing conselling and ressources to expecting mothers just because they also *incidently* happen to provide access to abortions. Mostly poor mothers and their zygotes too, the ones with the most need for such protection.
Finally, it is hard to think otherwise when their tactics is to scream at women, to call them *****s, and to intimidate them to *terrorize* them so they won't go through with a surgical procedure. And don't try to sugarcoat it. I've volunteered as a clinic escort, I know how they act.
Last time I checked Dr. Tiller was doing those. These were legal procedures. And it's not the state that decided to off him. Who was it again? Oh yeah. Pro 'lifers'.
And I was talking of rights, not Law. Slavery was legal too. Coerced birthing was also law, before Roe v. Wade.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!