Pages

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Watch out for this disingenuous "pro-choice" tactic

In the last few weeks, the abortion movement has been having a very public identity crisis. Some prominent voices in that movement, including Planned Parenthood, argue that they should drop the label "pro-choice." The debate is playing itself out in outlets like Alternet and the Washington Post, among others.

If not "pro-choice" (and not, they vehemently protest, "pro-abortion"), what do they want to be called? The answers vary, but there's a common theme: they want to ride on the coattails of genuine good causes. In the Alternet piece, Planned Parenthood talks about supporting "economic security," while abortion advocate Monica Simpson, whose efforts are focused on the Black community, wants to link abortion to a "safe and healthy environment" for children and freedom from domestic violence. And of course, there's the time-tested method of hiding abortion in the tent of "women's health." Because as everyone who's never met a pro-lifer knows, there's nothing that we love more than poverty, battered wives, and breast cancer. (That's sarcasm. Don't you dare quote me out of context.)

Why they think the 40-something-year-old term "pro-choice" is suddenly responsible for pro-life success—as opposed to more recent developments like the increasing ubiquity of ultrasound technology, pro-life groups harnessing social media, and the pro-life trend of treating the right to life as a human rights issue rather than a religious one—is beyond me. But I don't much care what they want to call themselves. Frankly, the loftier they try to be, the starker the contrast we can draw between their language and the bloody reality of what abortion does to an unborn child. I like the way Jill Stanek phrased it: they're seeking a "euphemism for a euphemism."

Meanwhile, in faith-based-land, I noticed an interesting piece in the Christian Post arguing that the pro-life movement has the exact opposite problem: "pro-life" is being overused! Specifically, the authors worry that the use of "pro-life" messaging by Christian environmentalists is diluting the term. Myself, I'm not too concerned, because I suspect 1) that any conservatives who would abandon the pro-life movement because they see the term used by a cause they don't support likely aren't our movement's greatest assets anyway, and 2) it may have the beneficial side effect of busting the stereotypes that the abortion movement pushes about who pro-lifers are and what we do. But in any event, it's quite the contrast to what's happening across the aisle.

So where does that leave us? We're in a good position, but the conflict is far from over, and we need to remain on high alert. Based on the signals we're getting from pro-choice media commentators, we need to be particularly vigilant in our charitable endeavors. Pro-lifers are as active in charitable organizations as anybody else, so we have the ability to impede the pro-choice strategy here. Whatever causes you are involved in, be on the lookout for activists looking to co-opt them in the name of abortion—and when it happens, speak out against it, quickly and loudly!

1,000 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 1000   Newer›   Newest»
TheDingus said...

Because you continue to consider a brainless embryo as being individual, attached to no one. But that's not true. They are attached to someone: the person whose body is creating them in the first place.

Because you cannot create babies without women. And you think women should have no agency in deciding whether to go through the process of creating a baby.

You also cannot assign rights to embryos who live INSIDE OF ANOTHER PERSON without stripping that other person of their rights. You simply can not do it. In the first place, how do you propose to discover if a woman is pregnant, or not? Why she isn't pregnant when she was? When she had intercourse and might have become pregnant? Why is what's going on INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON even remotely your business?



But you don't want the day to day responsibility of any of that; you want the government to do it for you. Where does it say the government can search and seize people's bodies without due process of law. Do you think the government has the right to know when you have sex?


Once you've stripped a person of their fundamental rights without due process, you have ipso facto removed all moral value from them.

Ann Morgan said...

The cartoon is trying to sneak in the assumption that an embryo firstly has either the capability of or the right to a 'choice', and secondly, that it somehow has special rights that no other human being has, that allow it the right to own another person's body, because of it's 'very life', and that a person must therefore make choices that favor the embryo rather than themselves.

Ann Morgan said...

** I thought I was all for women, and men, doing whatever they want with their bodies until it hurts someone else.**


So, can I assume you're in favor of forcing people to donate blood, marrow, and kidneys on the same basis?

ChristinaDunigan said...

They seem to be testing two different main directions: "women" and "reproductive."

Both have been around a while. And all we need to do is question their broad name but narrow focus. "You say you're for women's rights, but I'm not seeing any outrage against women being stoned to death for getting raped." "You say you're for reproductive health, but I've not heard a word about the alarmingly high c-section rate in the US."

Ann Morgan said...

**Just as if you were to put a child into a burning building, you would be responsible for what happens to them there, if you put a child into your/ your female partner's uterus, you are responsible for what happens to them.**


If a child is put into a burning building, I can probably get photographs from the parents of the child, PRIOR to their having been put into the burning building. Can you get me photographs of the 'child' you claim is put into the uterus. Just one will do. Show me ONE single photograph of ONE single 'child' that has been 'put' into a uterus, at a point in time PRIOR to their having been 'put' there Or are you just babbling and trying to sneak in your assumptions about fertilized eggs and 'potential people' being the same as real people?

Ann Morgan said...

**2) If a woman does, through her own actions, become pregnant, she, and her partner become responsible for that new human life - at least to the extent to not kill it.**


Sorry, no. First of all, they don't become instantaneously 'responsible'. Secondly, you're trying to pull an equivocation fallacy with the word 'human' again. Thirdly, refusing to supply resources for someone in an unsustainable state does not equate to 'killing' them. They die of their own unsustainable state.

Ann Morgan said...

Please inform me when the law against shooting your father becomes "I must be forced to sell my house and donate my kidney against my will if my father's medical condition means his 'very life' depends on it."

KB said...

Are you literate in the English language?

Ann Morgan said...

Rebekah, the way it erases the moral value from woman (and everyone else) is in two ways:


1. You cannot give the embryo 'rights' to own the woman's body without taking away her rights. It is impossible.


2. It's also impossible, for other reasons, to create value, where none really exists (regardless of how much some people like to pretend it does). This is why the 'no child left behind' program in schools is such a failure. There is NO way, no matter how much money and effort is poured into it, to turn an idiot into a genius. However, the opposite is not true, you can turn a genius into an idiot by screwing up their education. Which is the ONLY way the 'No Child Left Behind' program works. By lowering everyone to the lowest possible intellectual level and value. If no child gets ahead, then no child is left behind.


Ditto for the supposed value of fertilized eggs. They have very little value, regardless of how much pro-lifers like to pretend otherwise, and the ONLY way to make their pretense work (since there is no way to create value where none exists) is to reduce the value of real people, with real brains, to nearly zero, or the same value that fertilized eggs - without the pretense - really have.

thedoorisajar said...

What is a person?

Arekushieru said...

That's one way to let the trolls take over. Which is why I don't ignore trolls on RH Reality Check. Thedoorisajar is not a troll. You, however, I cannot say for certain.

Jess Tommassello said...

So? It has his DNA in the womb too. But it's not his when it's in the womb.

Jess Tommassello said...

Yea and embryos become fetuses become people. That's science too, but you chose to ignore that part.

KB said...

Oh it's not human? What is it, a badger? And you obviously don't know too much about the most commonly done abortion procedure if you think "they die of their own unsustainable state" Gosh you are full o' silliness.

Jess Tommassello said...

If women don't want abortions, why does the abortion industry exist? Your argument makes no sense =)

KB said...

try and ultra sound. Man lady, you are weak.

thedoorisajar said...

If you removed a non-viable embryo by c-section, it would *still* die, because it can't survive upon disconnection from the woman's organs.


Even if you ejected it whole, by disconnecting the placenta from the uterus, or simply cut off blood supply to the uterus, it would die because it cannot survive without the woman's body to perform all of life's functions for it.


So, how it is removed is *irrelevant* and I bet you'd still oppose abortion if every embryo was ejected whole, amirite?

Jess Tommassello said...

Your argument makes no sense, as men do not house developing people within their bodies. Men are not forced to impregnate women and therefore cannot be "forced" to sire children. Your argument is that ending a life in the name of bodily autonomy is totes cool and empowering? Yea I beg to differ.

Jess Tommassello said...

The temporary exercise of abortion overrides the autonomy of the unborn in a permanent way. It infringes the rights of a person who has been effectively disenfranchised by an industry looking to sell something.

thedoorisajar said...

So? May autonomy doesn't give me a right to anyone else's body but my own. So why should a prenate have a special right that no one else has?

Jess Tommassello said...

Because a prenate is not a body part, it is it's own body. That's an easy question. Think of a harder one.

thedoorisajar said...

It infringes the rights of a person who has been effectively disenfranchised by an industry looking to sell something.


Even if there was no abortion industry, women would *still* abort - with pills, poisons, coathangers, herbs, menstrual extraction and falling down stairs.

thedoorisajar said...

So? I'm my own body, that still doesn't give me a right to use the body of another as life support without their explicit and ongoing consent.

Jess Tommassello said...

I'm done arguing with someone who sees the fetus as nothing more than a worthless parasite to be removed at the slightest convenience. You know the risks of pregnancy when you have sex. Take proper precautions at that moment. Accept responsibility for your actions before the fact rather than forcing someone else to suffer at your own will.

thedoorisajar said...

Stop strawmanning my position.

Whether or not a prenate is a 'parasite' as you put it, or a person is utterly irrelevant.

Albert Einstein would *not* have a right to anyone's body as life support, no more than a zygote.

That right does *not* exist.

Accept responsibility for your actions before the fact rather than forcing someone else to suffer at your own will.


Embryos can't suffer. They have no self. They won't miss not existing because they don't even have a functional brain.

Ann said...

I tried you never answered my question you just cut and paste something to make you sound scientific-y and when I asked if that was your final authority you never answered my question just got all huffy and started calling me cupcake. I doubt you even understood what you cut and pasted as by that authority you would have to renounce abortion at the 25 week as they would by your assertion of brain functionality be a person. However your futher comment contradict this statement.

thedoorisajar said...

Yeah, it's called a citation. Got a problem with citations? And, considering your habit of 1) stalking me 2) not contributing to comment threads *other* than to accuse me of being a troll...


It sure sounds to me like you're the troll, doesn't it?



As for my citations, I prefer to let the experts speak. Also, knowing you, if I had chosen to go without citations, you would have accused me of trolling because you are profoundly dishonest and have a bone to pick for some childish reason.



But, it's pretty simple. I will explain. Consciousness arises from the thalamus and the cerebral cortex. An anencephalic baby, for instance, will never attain consciousness because it lacks a cerebral cortex. In a fetus, the brain is wired up differently than in a sentient infant or adult. The very necessary thalamcortical connections that enable consciousness do not start to form until past 20 weeks, and are not fully formed until 25 weeks gestation. From 25 weeks on up cortical processing is possible, and the fetus gains the capacity for sentience. Current evidence points towards the thalamus and cerebral cortex being fully functional at 28-30 week gestation.


The other stuff I pasted, about EEG readings, simply explains that prior to 25 weeks gestation, a fetus/embryo has the same brainwaves that are present in a corpse. The brainstem is functional, but there is no conscious mind.


A mind is what makes a person, not a body. This should be obvious. We value human life for our minds, not our bodies. This is why beating heart cadavers (living body but no mind), permanently comatose patients and anencephalic babies are not kept alive indefinitely. e do NOT associate personhood with a life human body - we associate it with the MIND.


So, the question for pro-lifers is, why should a non-sentient zygote/embryo/pre viability fetus be treated as a person when it' can't function like one?


Do you have an answer to that, my little stalker?

Ann said...

Corpses do not have brain waves off any type.
Are 25 week preborn babies now persons as they now have sentient brain waves? Or do you have more criteria for their exclusion?

Ann Morgan said...

Yes. Are you? Or are you just engaging in the usual game of attempting to handwave away the physical effects of pregnancy and birth on a woman?

Crespera Ram said...

Sorry, but our uterus only has but one function, to host another human life. You talk as though you have never even thought about your own body. The baby/child/pre-born/fetus whatever you want to call a human being at that stage of development, doesn't invade our body like the movie "alien" (great movies by the way). Our uterus is designed specifically for growing a human being. Of course we control our bodies but our rights end where another's begin, would'd you agree? A lot of children are conceived but unwanted, is that a reason to kill them just because I have a right to do what I want with my body? By that philosophy I could choose to blow myself up in a movie theatre and take the lives of hundreds...hey it's my body and I have supreme control over it...hmm I don' think you'd agree.

thedoorisajar said...

Naturalistic fallacy + gender essentialism

Come back when you have a valid argument.

PS: the vagina was "made" for the penis. That does not mean that penises are entitled to any and all vaginas.

Crespera Ram said...

Which part? Are you saying that since the uterus is designed to host life that is a gender essentialism? About the naturalistic fallacy are you saying it is ok to kill if you do jot want a child? Because I don't think it is

thedoorisajar said...

Your entire post was that "pregnancy is good because the uterus was designed for it"

^naturalistic fallacy + gender essentialism

It also objectifies women and reduces them to a body part, an easy bake oven

Come up with a more convincing argument. I am patient.

Crespera Ram said...

You might want to re-read my comment because it is clear you have misunderstood. Did I say pregnancy is good because the uterus was designed for it? Ok did you re-read? I did not. I sat the uterus was designed to host a baby. Secondly I think we can both agree that the direct and intentional taking of another human's life is wrong.

thedoorisajar said...

Actually, the implied goodness of pregnancy is right there in your statement. The uterus was made for the unborn, therefore pregnancy, even if forced, is good and wonderful.

Intentional killing is wrong. So you can't kill your rapist? The one who is using your vagina because that particular body part was designed for his weewee?

Crespera Ram said...

You are still speed reading, my friend, try again

Timothy Griffy said...

And what responsibility is that?

Timothy Griffy said...

Whatever the prenate may be, the one thing it is not is autonomous. And no, its rights are not infringed by abortion.

Timothy Griffy said...

Actually, men can be forced to sire children. We call that rape.

thedoorisajar said...

I re read it. I'm still correct.

No person or thing is entitled to your body, even if they can "use" certain body parts of yours.

Timothy Griffy said...

Ultrasounds can only be taken once the fetus has conceived. Ann specifically asked for a photograph taken *before* it was "placed" in the uterus.

Crespera Ram said...

Wait let me understand you, this time, forgive me, you are saying that you were using one of your mother's body parts at one time in your life

Timothy Griffy said...

It's your argument that makes no sense. Do you want emergency medical treatment? If not, how do you account for the existence of the emergency medical treatment industry?

thedoorisajar said...

Yes. Proto - me was not entitled to that uterus.

Crespera Ram said...

Ok just wanted to be clear on that. You might want to check out "the radiance foundation" the founder was conceived in rape, you might be interested in his unique perspective. I enjoyed dialoguing with you, and am thankful there are platforms for civil conversations. After all being a liberal used to mean being able to dialogue about ALL points of view. Much luck to you my friend!

thedoorisajar said...

So you believe that rape victims should be forced to give birth because their uteri were "designed" for pregnancy?

DarkCougar555 said...

Hey, I was sarcastic. =)

DarkCougar555 said...

Person = human; human = person.

Well, I really tried to unseen ZEF as a "disease"/"parasite", but I can't. I still see him "baby"/"person" inside...

lady_black said...

Are women being stoned to death for being raped in the USA? Really?? I hadn't heard about that, but YES that is a reproductive justice issue. Unfortunately, we have more than enough work to do right here. Plus, if you aren't hearing this as a reproductive justice issue, you just haven't been listening. We are also very alarmed at the high rate of C-sections, particularly where they are forced on women. I've read no less than a dozen articles about this very thing on the RHRC site in the last few months alone. So, while you might wish people here would swallow your BS hook, line and sinker, I'm sorry to inform you that you are either mistaken or lying.

lady_black said...

What is not viable to begin with cannot be rendered "non-viable" by abortion. Non-viable is it's normal condition. It's unfit for life outside the body of a woman, and guess what? We don't have to fork over our bodies on your say-so. Our bodies do not belong to you, the state, or any random act of biology. They belong to us alone. You know what they call someone who isn't the rightful owner of his/her own body, right? They call that slavery.

lady_black said...

Erm, NO. My vagina is designed to receive a penis during intercourse. That doesn't mean I won't KILL anyone who tries to do that without my consent. You are making a fallacious argument, and an insulting one to boot. Make no mistake. My uterus is MINE, and I alone will decide what it will or will NOT be used for. YOU get to mind your own business, and my uterus isn't even remotely your business.

lady_black said...

Your entire post is pure, unadulterated BS. There is no "which part." The answer would be the entirety of your comment, starting with your proclamation on the purpose of our uteri and ending with your ridiculous analogy of blowing up a movie theater. If the movie theater were inside my body, I would have the right to do with it as I please. But the movie theater is NOT inside my body and isn't under my control, so FAIL, Fail, fail.

lady_black said...

Don't fall for it's gaslighting. That's exactly what it said.

lady_black said...

With consent, obviously. My mother wasn't forced to birth me.

lady_black said...

Yes she is. YOU, I'm not too sure about.

lady_black said...

Let's get one thing straight, cupcake... There are no "competing rights" to the use of my body. There is ONE person, and ONLY one person with that right, and that is ME. NOBODY else has ANY right to my body, full stop.

lady_black said...

Exactly. And neither men nor women are compelled to bodily donation for the benefit of a child. Whether or not you consider an embryo a child. I don't. But even if I did, it would have no more rights than my born children have, and that doesn't include an entitlement to any of my tissues. Not for nine months. Not for nine minutes. My consent is required for that.

lady_black said...

No, they really DON'T become responsible to that new entity. That's YOU saying that, and you may really believe it. What you believe is irrelevant to me.

lady_black said...

Yeah that's pretty crazy. A child in a bathtub is obviously NOT in an unviable condition, or you wouldn't be putting it into a bathtub. You'd be sending it to the funeral home. Anything that needs my body to sustain it's life? That's under MY control. I am not obligated to fork my body over to anyone, born or unborn.

lady_black said...

No, sweetie. That's *YOUR* fallacy. To wit: you have no right to force me to breathe for you, unless you're a fetus, and then it's totes OK. NO IT IS NOT OK.

Plum Dumpling said...

Key phrase = "some one else." Some one else can stand behind me in the checkout line. Some one else can get me a cup of coffee. Words have meaning. I do not become two people the moment the sperm hits the egg.

lady_black said...

There is no "person" and no "child" and conceiving isn't a negligent or malicious act resulting in harm. Even if that were your argument, let me tell you what the law says about damages. You are responsible NOT to unjustly enrich the fetus by gestating it. You are responsible for returning the "wrongfully conceived" fetus to the state it was in prior to the "negligent act." Guess what condition that would be? That's right... non-existence.

lady_black said...

No, actually it IS a choice. Next dumb argument?

lady_black said...

Well GOODIE! Cause guess what? There are no two-year olds with an entitlement to a donation of my body for their use.

lady_black said...

Organ donation will never be mandatory. Do you hear me? NEVER. And my body is NOBODY'S "food, housing and safety."

lady_black said...

They are using their organs to support their own lives. That's what.

Plum Dumpling said...

Nonsense. I have sex to get an orgasm. I never once had sex to get pregnant.
I do not become two people the moment the ovum meets the sperm.

lady_black said...

Yep. It's every bit as extraordinary as any other bodily donation.

Plum Dumpling said...

You probably should not have an abortion.
If I become pregnant and I do not want it and/or I cannot care for it, it is out of me.
You may do as you like.

lady_black said...

NOPE! I can consent to bone marrow transplant and change my mind in the midst of the procedure, and they MUST stop the procedure, even if it's to save a life.

Plum Dumpling said...

Secondly I think we can both agree that the direct and intentional taking of another human's life is wrong.

..............
No. We cannot agree on that. Why? Assisted suicide and killing in defense of oneself or others is not wrong. Further, we do war and police work which also involves the intentional taking of life. We differ as to whether such is wrong.

Plum Dumpling said...

I am PRO life so naturally I am PRO choice. You are not pro life you are quite simply pro birth.
Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Abortion and contraception are human rights.

Plum Dumpling said...

I am pro abortion for any woman who wants an abortion.
I am pro birth for any woman who wants to give birth.
I am pro women handling their own sexual/family lives without coercion.

myintx said...

not donating your bone marrow is not intentionally killing someone. big difference.

myintx said...

Parents have a responsibility to take care of their offspring -i.e. provide them basic food and shelter. That responsibility starts when their offspring is created - at fertilization.

myintx said...

But you're not pro-future-women. You don't mind if they get slaughtered by the millions.

thedoorisajar said...

Plum and I want all future "women embryos" to be slaughtered so that we can move to the moon, just the two of us, and enslave men on a vast male stripper sex farm.

It is a cunning plan.

Coyote said...

"Gillette is mistaken. No one is pro abortion."

Then all of the people who say that they are pro-abortion must be lying.

As a side note, I want to point out that I am not making any judgments of people who claim to be pro-abortion.

Coyote said...

"All we have to do is chemically castrate all males at puberty, and only reverse it when they can show the wherewithal to support a child, and an affidavit from a woman stating she wants his baby."

Serious question--is *chemical* castration 100% effective/efficient in regards to preventing pregnancy?

As a side note, I myself am certainly open to the idea of getting myself (physically or maybe chemically) castrated.

Coyote said...

Damn ... this sounds like something that one should make a movie about. ;)

Coyote said...

"So, can I assume you're in favor of forcing people to donate blood, marrow, and kidneys on the same basis?"

I myself am politically ambivalent on the abortion issue, but I am open to the idea of coercing people to donate their body parts in certain specific cases.

Coyote said...

Do you oppose the draft in *all* cases (which includes historical and hypothetical cases)? If so, then I have to say that I respect your consistency in regards to this.

Coyote said...

"If an unborn human has a right to the body of a parent, why can't toddler also share that right?"

I myself am politically ambivalent on the abortion issue, but I *am* open to the idea of letting postnatal humans use other humans' body parts in certain specific cases.

thedoorisajar said...

Yes.

And if a draft is somehow absolutely necessary - think Red Dawn, then draft everyone equally.

Coyote said...

What about a case where someone's kidney was donated to someone else without his or her consent due to a hospital mix-up?

thedoorisajar said...

You have the right to take it back

Coyote said...

Keep in mind that at some point in the future, technological advances will probably eliminate the need for body part donations from other people in the first place. Thus, eventually this will probably essentially become a moot point.

Coyote said...

I admire your consistency here, but are you sure that this is actually the case?

Coyote said...

Thanks for clarifying this part.

In regards to Red Dawn, though, I haven't seen that movie, and thus, I will need to get back to you on this.

Also, I am assuming that you mean draft everyone who is capable, correct? After all, I don't think that a 100+ year old person would be capable of fighting in military combat at that age.

thedoorisajar said...

I would assume so, yes. This is theft we are talking about.

thedoorisajar said...

Of course.

Draft the Amazon women, specifically, before they get to the moon!

Coyote said...

I am politically ambivalent on the abortion issue, but I will nevertheless eventually take a look at this article.

Coyote said...

OK.

In regards to Red Dawn, I took an extremely quick look at it right now, and even in such a hypothetical situation, I myself am still tempted to oppose the draft due to the fact that the draft might put some/many people's lives at greater risk than would have been the case if these people end up under Soviet rule (and aren't drafted, obviously).

thedoorisajar said...

Good point. I suppose it would depend on the level of threat.

ISIS Dawn? That would be genocide.

thedoorisajar said...

You need to be more precise. "Human" is rather vague. By that definition, I could conclude that every cell in your body, beating heart cadavers, molar pregnancies, tumours, and Hela cells = persons

thedoorisajar said...

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. (Probably too much to ask, since you only seem capable of stalking and trolling).A beating heart cadaver is not a corpse. Take Terri Schiavo - her body was alive, she had brainwaves, but NOT the kind of bilaterally synchronous waves that are associated with consciousness. Her higher brain was a gooey mass - she would never have regained sentience. However, her lower brain - the brain stem - was still alive, so she still had a wake/sleep cycle and her autonomic nervous system functioned. But SHE, her very self, was gone.

I am OK with the supreme court compromise in regards to 25wk viability. However, it must be very clear that abortion should be permitted for life, health and fetal deformity. And as Lady Black has repeatedly explained, a post viability abortion is usually a delivery. Induced labour is safer than natural birth and c-section/abortion. In certain cases, however, a dilation and extraction might be safest for the pregnant person.

You are also, apparently, labouring under the delusion that women wake up at 30wks and realize that they want to party hard, so they schedule an abortion. A third trimester abortion runs anywhere from 8,000$ to 25,000$. These things are not done on a whim.

lady_black said...

It's a moot point now.

Plum Dumpling said...

You skeeve me.

Plum Dumpling said...

And it will work too. FemiNazis Unite!

Plum Dumpling said...

So you want to compel self centered women with deadly faults to produce a child against their will? Do you dislike children?

Plum Dumpling said...

We are not having PR trouble. The abortion approval rate has been greater than 50% for more than 40 years. AntiChoice has not been able to pass a personhood bill in Misssissippi. Mississippi.

Anybody who wants to make sure that abortion is there for poor women might want to take the
http://tacoorbeerchallenge.tumblr.com/

Another way to resist whackjobs like Faye is http://www.vochoice.org/

Plum Dumpling said...

I am PRO life so naturally I am PRO choice. You are simply a Forced Birther.

ockraz said...

4. "that is not what happens during pregnancy" - It's different only in that, like an infant, it's not yet developed the cognitive abilities humans have that other animals don't - what ethicists call personhood. Otherwise, pregnancy does involve making a dependent human organism and connecting it to your body in a way that can't be prematurely severed without being fatal. The pro-choice line is often that the prenate is being saved by compelling the gravida to allow the use of her body and that that's analogous to forcing an organ donation. Of course, that's just bunk. It's not a question of forced saving but of prohibited killing. Prenates aren't, like Thomson's violinist, terminally ill. The only saving that might occur with regard to the life of the prenate is saving it from someone trying to kill it.

ockraz said...

3. "consent can be withdrawn
at any time." - Can you cause someone to need something to survive and
then choose to deny them what is necessary for survival? I suppose it's
incontrovertible you can. What is at issue is if it should be legal, and
it shouldn't.

ockraz said...

you don't deserve to make that decision

ockraz said...

You're assuming that we'd insist the biological mother raise the baby?

ockraz said...

Approval for elective abortion (ie, not based on maternal health, birth defects, or rape but for economic or social reasons) has never been above 45%. It's been aroundd 40% since they've been polling - which is over 40 years.

ockraz said...

Certainly, the defendant's attempt at home repair was what caused the floor to collapse so that her visitor became trapped in her basement - but to expect her to to take water and food down there would be allowing the victim to profit from use of the defendants' groceries.

thedoorisajar said...

Having non-procreative sex while female isn't a negligent act.

thedoorisajar said...

Yeah, she does deserve the right, because her body makes that eventual infant. A zygote isn't a baby.

ockraz said...

no- you certainly do not

ockraz said...

The law would view the accident as malpractice, and you could sue, but if take the organ back after it was implanted without the consent of the recipient that's a crime. There's 'no two wrongs make a right' justification of violence o "undo" an accident.

thedoorisajar said...

Yes, you do. That's organ theft. Whether or not it was intentional is irrelevant. Intent is not magic.

thedoorisajar said...

The recipient never had a right to your organ in the first place.

ockraz said...

It's darkly comic for you to call yourself pro-life while insisting that you can select a set of scenarios when human life is disposable. It's like saying you're a free speech advocate, but only for speech you agree with.

You're a 'right to kill' advocate plain and simple.

ockraz said...

It doesn't. They're just assuming that if you don't grant women this might that you don't value women. It's patently absurd but it makes them feel better about themselves to vilify pro-lifers this way.

Coyote said...

Please elaborate on this part; I was under the impression that people nowadays still died due to not receiving body part (kidney and/or et cetera) donations in time; am I wrong in regards to this?

Faye Valentine said...

Absolutely not. I don't think self-centered women should be allowed to abuse their children in *any* capacity, whether that's killing them in a "clinic" or abusing them after they are born.

Faye Valentine said...

That's weird, because the survey of abortion as "morally acceptable" pretty clearly trends in our favor. But I guess anything's possible when you throw literally millions of dollars towards disinformation campaigns at an issue.

Faye Valentine said...

What part of being "PRO life" involves killing children in their mothers' uteri, exactly?

Plum Dumpling said...

Children are born. There is a fetus in the womb. And women have only one uterus generally.
If you cannot get things like that straight, talking to you will an exercise in nothing.

Plum Dumpling said...

Citation needed.

Plum Dumpling said...

Nonsense. You do not think. You emote. They have really nice pills for hysterics these days.

Plum Dumpling said...

Whose life are you 'pro,' Piscialetto? Clearly your own. Narcissism is so unattractive.

Plum Dumpling said...

Are you for criminalizing abortion again? If so you are a Forced Birther.
"An other human being" can stand behind me in the check out line or get me a cup of coffee. Words have meaning.

Plum Dumpling said...

Laughing at you.
http://tacoorbeerchallenge.tumblr.com/

TACO OR BEER CHALLENGE

YOU JUST EAT A TACO AND/OR DRINK A BEER AND DONATE TO AN ABORTION FUND.

Ann Morgan said...

Dingus, there's an interesting ethical problem regarding Siamese twins in a book by Barry Longyear. It involves 2 siamese twins, one killed a man while the other tried (to the best of his ability, given the body parts he was able to control) to prevent the murder, albeit unsucessfully. According to the law, the guilty twin was to get the death penalty. The other twin was offered surgery to seperate him from his 'brother' and refused. What to do? The guilty brother was shot, and the temporarily surviving brother was told he now had a short period of time to reconsider his refusal on that surgery.

Ann Morgan said...

**Oh it's not human? What is it, a badger?**


You either don't know what an equivocation fallacy is, or are deliberately trying to handwave your way out of it. Let's pretend that you are merely stupid. An equivocation fallacy is using a word first with one definition, to get people to agree to a particular argument, then trying to use the word with a different definition, in order to extend the argument and claim that it must be agreed to.


Case in point, abortionists like to do this a LOT with the word 'human'. They will first use the word 'human' in a mental sense, to get people to agree that 'humans' have a right to life, based on their status as individual creatures with functioning brains. They then like to sneakily switch to a BIOLOGICAL or GENETIC definition of the world 'human' and claim that since 'humans' have a right to life, and an embryo is 'human', therefore the embryo has a right to life.


Sorry, no. You forced birthers have pulled this equivocation fallacy regarding the word 'human' in the past, it didn't fool me then and it isn't going to fool me now. Nor will it stick if you keep pulling it, and you merely make yourself look foolish by doing so.

Ann Morgan said...

**If you put a person in a precarious situation,**


And I'm sure you can show me a photograph of this 'person' at a point in time BEFORE I put them in this 'precarious situation'.

Ann Morgan said...

Muslims have a rate of bad recessive genes 33 times higher than any other racial group, due to their frequently marrying their own cousins. That does not bode well for their prospects as world conquerers. In fact, it does not bode well for their prospects for mere survival.

Ann Morgan said...

**you can select a set of scenarios when human life is disposable.**



And the usual equivocation fallacy regarding the word 'human'. Again.

thedoorisajar said...

Faye is pretty hardcore. She's for jail time for women who make the wrong choice. See, Faye made the wrong choice, and now her life isn't what she had wanted it to be. So she wants to punish other women because of her bad choices.

thedoorisajar said...

Ockraz is a philosopher. Have fun.

Ann Morgan said...

Then I'm sure that he'll either have a clever explanation as to the reason why, other than their status as sentient creatures with a functioning brain, human beings would have ANY rights (and also why this reason would NOT apply to animals), or admit to his equivocation fallacy.

thedoorisajar said...

Is this the same guy who wrote the other book you mentioned? About the fellow who cloned prostitutes?

Ann Morgan said...

It was cloned 14 year old girls. And no, different book.

thedoorisajar said...

What's the title?

Ann Morgan said...

The books with the highly educated serial killer who cloned his victims are 'Aftermath' and 'Starfire' by Charles Sheffield. The book with the Siamese twin who was a murderer was either "Kill all the Lawyers" or "Keep the Law" by Barry Longyear. Not sure which, I have all 3 volumes in that series in one big book.

thedoorisajar said...

Thanks. Added to my Google books list.


That is a great thought experiment, from Sheffield.


If zygotes are rational and the same entity as a 14 year old, then it shouldn't matter, should it, if he kills then clones? It's just another developmental stage after all!

Ann Morgan said...

You might also be interested in the "Unwind" series of books. It proposes a society in which abortion is forbidden (because the little fertilized eggs are so vulnerable and cute and innocent) but between the ages of 13 and 18 (when a child is no longer so cute and innocent and vulnerable) if the parent wants, the child can be sent to the local hospital to be 'unwound', which means that their body is taken apart piece by piece, including the brain, and every part is transplanted into someone who 'needs it for their very life' due to injury or illness. Since every part of their body, including various slices of brain tissue, are all still alive, and thus all that precious "unique living DNA (sob, boo hoo hoo)" has all been preserved. Since the pro-lifers have handwaved away the importance of mind and consciousness, they should have no objection to such a thing.

thedoorisajar said...

Thanks! That is also interesting.

Ann Morgan said...

Anyway, I have far too much compassion for real people, who feel real pain, to be able to feel a whole lot for fertilized eggs with all the awareness of a paramecium. Which is one reason why I would willingly give a couple of pints of blood to someone like Morbius the Living Vampire (who in the comic books feels pretty extreme agony if he doesn't get enough blood) before I would give a single drop *unwillingly* to a fertilized egg. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I also wouldn't WILLING give my blood to a fertilized egg. I most likely would. But it would have to be willingly, and I would never advocate that anyone give blood to a fertilized egg, or Morbius, or the local bloodbank UN-willingly, and I place priority over real actual pain of real peopple over the fake pain and sad feelies of fertilized eggs.

Ann Morgan said...

I'm also still waiting for the pictures of the 'children' who supposedly are being shoved up women's vaginas and 'put' into their uterus... I don't expect such pictures will be produced any time soon, but I'm a patient person.

thedoorisajar said...

Because, sex is a negligent act, well, for persons with uteri, anyway.


It's funny watching them try to say that no, they don't think that non-procreative sex is a harmful act, yet, when they have to justify the 'duty' that a woman has to gestate that embryo, they have to start using analogies that cast non-procreative sex as a criminally negligent act.


A mass of contradictions really. Same as the gender essentialist one that says you can ONLY love women if you force them to gestate unwanted pregnancies - even those from rape. We adore women, which is why we ignore their own free will and treat them like mere appliances for the delivery of a baby.

Ann Morgan said...

Well, that's about it. They loudly insist that their position is not *really* about 'punishment for sex', then go into all sorts of arguments as to firstly why birth control shouldn't be used, and why abortion is permissable for rape, and 'your choice to have a child starts with your choice to have sex'. All of which is just a 5 page gerrymandering about why it really IS about punishment for sex. If they'd just flat out say so, their arguments would be a lot simpler. No more valid, mind you. But simpler.

thedoorisajar said...

They claim to be pro-sex and pro-bc here, yet they do nothing but talk shit about how Planned Parenthood is totes evil because it purposely sells ineffective bcp so that women will get pregnant and have to abort for the billion dollar abortion industry!

ockraz said...

"Children are born." - Not when your side has its way.

"women have only one uterus generally. If you cannot get things like that straight, talking to you will be an exercise in nothing." - Notice the apostrophe is AFTER the "s" indicating multiple mothers. Exercise in Nothing? Talk about glass houses. Yeesh.

ockraz said...

I wouldn't expect any tears. Given what you've said about your age, your getting pregnant is no more likely than Coyote or me becoming pregnant.

ockraz said...

citation needed

Ann Morgan said...

I notice they have rather little to say about the billion-dollar circumcision industry. Apparently once a baby is born, and has served it's proper purpose of punishing the mother for sex, then that 'tiny little seperate vulnerable person' instantly loses all of HIS rights (that according to them, he had only a few minutes earlier, and how come a 'few short minutes' now suddenly make such a difference?), and his parents can have normal healthy body tissue amputated without the baby's consent due to vanity or their assorted neuroses about sex.

ockraz said...

I'm waiting to see pictures of zefs invading womens bodies. Sounds kind of sci-fi!

ockraz said...

Fine. It's not yet a 'person' in the philosophical sense, although it's a person in a legal sense in some localities, and in the vernacular sense of 'person' as merely 'someone' it's a legitimate (albeit ambiguous) use. Let's just say "entity" so we can get more than a sentence out without getting mired in questions about word choice.

Replace:
A) "If you put a person in a precarious situation"
with:
B) "If you put an entity in a precarious situation"

We can change the verb to accommodate your timeline objection too.

C) "If your actions cause an entity to exist in a precarious situation"

I want to change 'precarious,' though. It doesn't capture what we're really arguing about.

D) 'If one causes an entity to exist in a situation of where it's dependent upon you for survival..."

Plug that back in to KB's argument and we should be good to go.

If one causes an entity to exist in a situation where it's dependent upon you for survival, then can you kill it in order to extricate yourself from the situation.

If the entity is a squirrel, then you can. It depends on the moral status of the entity. If the entity has sufficient moral status you can't justify killing it based on the idea that its continued existence is a case of it assaulting or stealing from you. Talk about blaming the victim!

ockraz said...

"Case in point, abortionists like to do this a LOT with the word 'human'" - Actually you and your beloved abortionists do it with the word, 'person.' You omitted the "anti."

"You either don't know what an equivocation fallacy is" - I think you know what it is, but lack the ability to recognize when it is and isn't being used.

"They will first use the word 'human' in a mental sense, to get people to
agree that 'humans' have a right to life, based on their status as
individual creatures with functioning brains." - No. We don't. You wrongly infer that it's 'based on their status as
individual creatures with functioning brains.'

We don't subscribe to your moral principles which require a "functioning brain" for moral status. We think that the claims you make to that effect are false.

You're assuming that we agree with a distinction based on these claims, and use the word with one sense as delineated by the distinction and then a different sense as delineated by the distinction, but we aren't. You're just trying to dump your baggage on us.

Wrongly inferring that we use the term differently is the error and it's yours.

ockraz said...

PS: If a PLer asks you if you agree that 'humans' have a right to life, then you shouldn't think to yourself, "I going to assume that 'humans' refers to 'human persons," because you're answering a question that's not the one they asked. They meant the biological sense. You can't turn around later and accuse them of equivocation when they later use the biological sense. They're being consistent.

Most PLers don't say, "I don't mean human person" in the first instance, but it's not because they're being deceptive, it's because drawing that distinction wouldn't occur to them. PCers accuse them of essentially cheating based on assuming a common frame of reference that isn' there.

ockraz said...

LOL - That's cute. You're still wrong tho'

ockraz said...

And the meaning of human being involves coffee? :P

Prenates meet the definition for human organism but don't meet the philosophical definition for personhood.

Human being is ambiguous. It can be used either way.

ockraz said...

Yes- exactly.

Ann Morgan said...

**B) "If you put an entity in a precarious situation"**

Such as eating meat?

**If your actions cause an entity to exist in a precarious situation"** Such as eating meat, and you'd have to show me that the 'entity' was in existence either at or prior to the time I committed my 'actions'

**If the entity is a squirrel, then you can.**



You're trying to sneak in your equivocation fallacy about the word 'human' here, again.

Ann Morgan said...

**We don't subscribe to your moral principles which require a "functioning brain" for moral status. We think that the claims you make to that effect are false.**


And I'm sure you'll prove that point by ceasing to breath, since you kill thousands of bacteria every time you do.

Ann Morgan said...

Also, in regards to your claim that someones 'actions' caused an 'entity' to 'exist in a precarious situation', for that even to start to be valid, you'd have to explain how the fact that people have sex is the cause of how and why embryos have the particular stages of developement that they do, which is going to be difficult, since that was determined by evolution, long before human beings even existed on the planet.

thedoorisajar said...

I would also assume that if one is guilty of putting an entity in a "precarious situation" that if any harm befalls that entity while in that situation, you are ultimately responsible for its death etc.

Miscarriage = manslaughter, perhaps even murder

Ann Morgan said...

Bacteria are entities. They die by the thousands every time you breath. Breathing=murder

Timothy Griffy said...

Muslims are a religious group, not a race. Islam is composed of members of all races.

Timothy Griffy said...

Just reminding her of a fact.

ockraz said...

Never said it was,
1. To me 'non-procreative sex' excludes coitus. So, it's oral, anal, mutual masturbation, "outercourse", etc.
2. If we define pro-creative sex as coitus, then engaging in pro-creative sex while intending to prevent reproduction is like doing the home repair which you know can cause the collapse unless you take measures to prevent it.
3. The precautions you take to prevent reproduction can fail even if you do everything right, but that's rare. It's like plane crashes. 99% of the time they involve pilot error. Here it may be more like 95-98%, but it's still the reason LARCs outperform other methods: you just can't use them wrong.

4. I don't see the importance of negligence. Does it matter if it was because of a negligent error or some other more excusable variety of error? Does it matter if the homeowner anchored the brace poorly or the brace was fabricated with a flaw. I'm still stuck in a sub floor with no food or water as a result of your project going sideways and it's still nonsense to characterize that as an unjust burden to impose on you.

Timothy Griffy said...

The woman doesn't cause the prenate to need something to survive.



And why shouldn't it be legal? After all, there are a number of situations in which consent can legally be withdrawn at any time, especially when it comes to bodily autonomy.

Timothy Griffy said...

There are no competing rights involved. No one may use another's body without consent. Period. Even if a prenate has rights, those rights do not include a claim on the woman's body. So all that matters is the woman's consent.

Timothy Griffy said...

I gratuitously denied a gratuitous assertion made by Jess Tommassallo. But as you are well aware, I am quite willing and able to make a sustained argument on my assertion. Where would you like me to begin?

ockraz said...

First: a minor point: zygotes are irrelevant. if we're talking about abortion because it's an embryo prior to implantation.

Second:
It's true an embryo isn't an infant, but an infant isn't a person. Assuming a mental ability standard for an embryo puts it somewhere between flatworm and a fish, but the same standard would put an infant somewhere between a frog and a pig. You're using the wrong standard unless you really think infants have that status. Normal people think infants have rights as much as people do because they're in the process of developing personhood. Embryos are too. They just started later.

ockraz said...

You're welcome to say how you think the law ought to e, but that doesn't chaange what it is.

If A steals a necklace from B and gives it or sells it to C, then C can be forced to return the necklace, but we aren't talking about necklaces or about stealing.

If X goes to a hospital and they mistakenly take his kidney instead of fixing his hernia, and implant it in Y, then that's not stealing. It's a mistake, the same as if you remove a gall bladder rather than an appendix. If Y wants to give permission to put it back in X, that's fine. If not X is out of luck, because you can't cut it out of Y if Y refuses.

They did this on Law & Order years ago.

ockraz said...

That's right, he didn't. However, taking it out involves cutting into her. Looking at your right to get back your body part and weighing it against her right to refuse being cut into, the latter wins out.

Control over one's body (ie, bodily autonomy) isn't considered a terribly important value. If it were, then you could use heroin, or be a prostitute, or sell a kidney and that would all be legal. The value that is treated as important is the opposite. It's not deciding what YOU CAN do to your body, but deciding what OTHERS CANNOT do to it (ie, bodily integrity). That's why the PC side has a weaker hand than they claim.

PCers say that a gravida should be able to act either surgically or pharmacologically affect a change to their bod to end pregnancy- a bodily autonomy claim... PLers say that prenates should be protected from having someone (fatally) damage their bodies- a bodily integrity claim + right not to be killed.

So on the first comparison
-moral status: gravida vs prenate
the PC side is stronger
but on the second comparison
-the claims: bodily autonomy (weak) vs bodily integrity (strong) + right not to be killed (very strong)
we're much stronger.

That's why the 'PLers don't value women' claim is bunk. It's not just woman vs fetus. It's the X of the woman vs the Y of the fetus. There's a second variable. Most PLers I talk to think prenates and gravidae have comparable moral status, but because of the difference between X and Y. you could think prenates only have a fifth the level of moral status and still favor their claim.

Ann Morgan said...

I find myself curious as to your contention that people like you assign 'moral value' to something, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the mind/brain. On that basis, exactly WHY would you claim that I have a right to kill squirrels, but not 'human beings'. Do 'human beings' have a cuter head? Did you spin a roulette wheel with all the species in the world and 'human beings' happened to come up on top?

ockraz said...

1. I don't understand your meat example. Is the meat the entity (a cow/chicken) or the meat eating what is precarious (high cholesterol)?
2. Why are you using B anyway? My point was to modify to eliminate what was needlessly problematic. A-C were discarded. D doesn't have 'precarious' at all.
3. show me that the 'entity' was in existence either at or prior' - The change from B to C eliminated that issue.
4. 'You're trying to sneak in your equivocation fallacy about the word 'human' here, again.' - You're not even using the term right anymore.

ockraz said...

re: fallacy

H = Human (unspecified)
Hs = Human (sci)
Hp = Human (person)

If I make an argument about Hp, but using H to denote Hp, and then extend the argument - still using H, but now referring to Hs, then that's an
equivocation fallacy. That's not what is happening.

Generally, what is happening is that you believe personhood is a necessary condition for moral status, and hearing H in the context of moral status interpret it to be Hp. When a PLer makes clear use of Hs, you see an incompatibility - except based on your (mis)interpretation. The PLer meant Hs consistently.

Specifically with regard too, "If the entity is a squirrel, then you can." - I'm saying that if one causes an entity to exist in a situation where it's dependent
upon you for survival, then you can't kill it in order to extricate
yourself from the situation - provided that it's the sort of thing that has moral rights.


If the entity is your sister, then it has moral rights & you can't kill it.. If it's a cricket then it doesn't and you can. Which category does a human prenate belong to?

Saying that asking the question is employing a fallacy is just nuts.

Maybe you think that personhood is a nec cond for having moral rights. You're free to your opinion. I think it isn't a nec cond. You don't get to say I'm using a fallacy every time I say H or Hs and talk about the moral rights that human has because of that opinion.

While I do think personhood is a suf cond, I (and all other PLers) think it's not the only suf cond. Therefore, saying 'Hs have rights' isn't a fallacy. It might be false, just like saying 'personhood is a nec cond for moral rights' might be false. It's not a fallacy.

ockraz said...

?????? ? ? ??????? ? ???????? ? ? ??????? ? ? ??????? ? ? ??????? ? ? ??????? ? ? ??????? ? ? ?

ockraz said...

Use D, not A-C

ockraz said...

You say two incompatible things:
> "There are no competing rights involved.">"No one may use another's body
without consent."



There's a problem.
The prenate has a body.



Abortion injures the body fatally. It to does so to end the mothers pregnant state. In effect, catastrophic harm to the body of the prenate is used as a cure for the gravida's unwanted pregnancy.

Unless the prenate, or some surrogate making decisions to protect the interests of the prenate, gives consent (which is a possibility with severe birth defects), the abortion itself violates your prohibition.


There necessarily are competing rights -unless- you deny the possibility of prenatal rights.

Ann Morgan said...

**I don't understand your meat example. Is the meat the entity (a cow/chicken)**


So, basically your use of the word 'entity' and the claims that the mind was irrelevent to moral status were both complete bullshit, and now you're pretending to be stupid and claim that you don't understand why (absent the mind as you claimed) a cow or chicken would be considered an 'entity' or being shipped off to the slaughterhouse would be considered a 'precarious situation'. I don't for a minute believe you are actually that stupid, so your use of the word 'entity' apparently was simply meant to be synonymous with 'human' from the get-go, while deceptively pretending that it meant something else.

ockraz said...

This seems so self-evident as to go without saying. Did I misunderstand you somehow?

ockraz said...

I remember you now! Yes, we had a long discussion about six months ago. :)

Apologies, but at the time there were a number of us, not SPL exactly, but atheist PLers (most of whom are in SPL, but we've got our own haunts on FB where we can say anything we like about religio's) and I think we were still dealing with at least six or seven people apiece. I only remember three people, and everyone else kind of blurred together. I enjoyed our conversation. There was something that you said that really stuck with me. I'll go get it...

ockraz said...

Here...
"You may personally be the exception to the rule, but PL doesn't argue the negative right not be killed. It asserts a
positive right to life. But strangely enough, that right is only accorded to the fetus."

Faye Valentine said...

Around the same time pregnancy charges by the month and requires organ loss. 9_9

Ann Morgan said...

Wonderful. I once had a pipe full of liquid ammonia blow up in my face. Someone who examined it told me I was the only person he ever heard of who survived having that happen, but since *I* survived and am just fine, I take it you'll have no objections to my putting ammonia gas into the bedrooms of your two children.


Or are you handwaving away the fact that simply because some (or one) person survives a particular experience and is just fine, that says nothing about whether others will or not.

Ann Morgan said...

Does diabetes qualify (loss of kidney function)? Teeth falling out? Prolapsed uterus? Death?


The fact that you went through pregnancy 'just fine' says absolutely nothing about whether others will, much less whether they should be required to take that risk, any more than the fact that I survived having a pipe full of liquid ammonia blow up in my face says anything about whether others can, or should be required to, experience the same thing.


I'm not impressed by your idiotic argument of generalizing from the single example, your lack of medical knowledge, or your smileys. How old are you? 16?

Ann Morgan said...

Neither pregnancy nor having a pipe full of ammonia is a cakewalk. The fact that you survived one, and I survived the other 'just fine' says absolutely nothing about what the effects will be on others, much less that they should be required to risk the effects of either against their will. Nobody should be forced to do either against their will. Not because of your or my sad feelies. Not for my or your 'very life'. Not for the embryo's 'very life'. Not for '9 short months'. Not for '9 short seconds'.

ockraz said...

Don't be an ass bag. I asked you to clarify because your comment was badly written and confusing.

"If you put an entity in a precarious situation" - modified quote originally from KB (I replaced person with entity.)**

You: "Such as eating meat?"

Really? You thought that was clear and my not following was feigning being obtuse?

Who in "eating meat" is putting whom in a precarious situation? It's not even a tiny bit obvious that you meant farm animals. Leading animals to slaughter is certain death. Once you're eating them they are dead. Nothing in that situation meets the definition of 'precarious.'

ockraz said...

"I find myself curious as to your contention that people like you assign 'moral value' to something, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the mind/brain" - I never said it has absolutely nothing to do with the mind/brain.

NOTE: I'm going to talk about 'mental activity' rather than minds or brains. What a mind is, is a question that's super complicated and should probably be avoided if at all possible given that we're already having trouble with human and person. Brains aren't important in and of themselves. They're only significant because they're the nexus of all our mental activity. I'm going to say, 'mental activity' rather than 'thoughts,' because it avoids type/token questions. Someone might say, "at that moment he had the same thought as his best friend," but their mental activity would still be unique even if you use 'thought' in sense that would allow for them to be the same.

OK. There are two broad views.

A) The first view says that humans are a type of thing, which is obviously true for human in the species sense. Humans are the type of thing that produce a special variety of mental activity. That mental activity is what gives them moral value, but it's they and not the activity which possess the value. All humans (in the species sense) are of this type and have moral value.

B) The other view is about what makes killing wrong. When a person is killed, it's not wrong based on what experience she's having at the time. You could kill someone instantly so that they were never aware it happened, but that doesn't make it less wrong to kill them. What makes killing wrong isn't based on past experiences either. It's wrong because you're robbing someone of a future which would have value for them. This is true for human persons, but it's also true for a normal fetus. It's true during the entire life of the human organism.

The biggest difference between A & B is that B poses no objection to euthanasia, which many PLers oppose. In fact, B comes from a bio-ethicist who advocates euthanasia as the most moral option in some circumstances. B itself doesn't go that far. You could take a B-type view and oppose euthanasia, but you'd have to import a reason from somewhere else.. A implicitly opposes euthanasia . You can certainly support euthanasia while holding A, but you have to import an argument that that trumps A's anti-euthanasia presupposition..

Both views are alike in that they identify 'you' with the organism that generates mental activity rather than viewing the mental activity as what defines you, with the organism being merely incidental. Another way to look at it is to say that these views (but especially A) see you and me as mental activity generators, as opposed to "mind" focused views which consider 'you' and 'me' to denote the mental activity and make the body/organism more like either a container or a medium for the activity .

ockraz said...

It occurs to me, that you didn't know what 'precarious' meant, and that that's actually what caused the whole problem. Just be less shitty next time.

ockraz said...

"if the mind is irrelevent to moral status... on what grounds exactly do you include my sister, but not the squirrel' - Are you suggesting squirrels have no mind? That's interesting. I'd say squirrels definitely do have a mind. How do you define mind so that squirrel lack them?

"You've claimed that the mind is irrelevant to moral status" - No. I said that I rejected the claim that having a functioning mind is necessary for moral status. I never said there was no relationship of any kind - just not the relationship you specified.

"moral status is somehow granted merely by being genetically similiar to oneself" - Genetics are unimportant in and of themselves..

Faye Valentine said...

Explain "a pipe full of ammonia", because if you're comparing healthy reproductive function with disease, not only are you being disingenuous, but you are completely missing the point.

thedoorisajar said...

There is no such thing as 'healthy' reproduction. It's never healthy:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/ant1050/Lectures/mfconflict-2x3.pdf

The results of this maternal/fetal conflict wear out a woman's body, eventually killing her:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/01/health/multiple-pregnancies-mother/

Faye Valentine said...

Sorry, but parents/default guardians have a responsibility to provide for offspring for however long those offspring happen to be in their care.

Faye Valentine said...

Accidental injury =/= normal, healthy reproductive function. Try again.

Faye Valentine said...

That's weird, because I thought Child Support Enforcement exists, and has the power to incarcerate men who refuse to provide for offspring.

thedoorisajar said...

Not through the literal use of their organs, no.

Parents cannot be forced to breathe for their children.

thedoorisajar said...

And women. Neither are required, however, to breathe, eat, and process wastes for their children.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

If you want me to take the position that only humans can be persons when we have about 180 billion galaxies in our observable distance most likely then not containing other civilizations out there just like our own can you argue why using philosophy?
So far, your movement is attempting to relay on the fact that our society comes into the debate using the word person still as a synonym for being a member of the human species which it obviously is not.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

''What a mind is, is a question that's super complicated and should probably be avoided if at all possible given that we're already having trouble with human and person''

Yeah we're having trouble with human and person because BOTH MOVEMENTS ARE COMING INTO THIS DEBATE USING THAT WORD STILL AS A SYNONYM FOR BEING A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

Any philosopher or those like myself who have been debating that word now for a full 3 years know that word is not a synonym at all.

Let's examine some Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) research. Multiple scientific disciplines are involved, from biologists studying the structure of the human brain, to engineers copying things learned ("biomimicry"). We have "neural nets", "multiprocessor systems", "expert systems", "natural language processing", "self-editing software", "genetic algorithms", "Turing Test contests", advances in miniaturization, and even systems that are *evolving* more and more intelligence.

ht..../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

ht......ww.iospress.nl/book/recent-advances-in-artificial-intelligence-research-and-development/

ht......ww.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial-intelligence/3234-rosette-wins-loebner-prize-2011.html

ht......ww.extremetech.com/extreme/105067-mit-creates-brain-chip

ht..../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law

ht..../rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/04/rspb.2012.0206.full

ht..../demesos.blogspot.com/2010/08/evolving-self-oragnizing-soccer-team.html

ht......ww.newscientist.com/article/mg20727723.700-artificial-life-forms-evolve-basic-intelligence.html

Researchers are very confident that it will be one day possible (and likely, because of continuing miniaturization progress, within 20 years) to build an electronic brain that has *greater* processing power than a human, in *every* respect. It will be a true A.I. that, just like the average adult human, will have Free Will and be able to understand ethics and experience emotions, and be able to "mentally put itself in the shoes of another". Its ancestry will guarantee that it will be rational; we could call it a "machine organism", not a biological organism.

So technically, Jenny from my Life as a teenage and Astro Boy and Bumblebee can each qualify as a person just like I did when I was born.
I recommend your movement go's and take a course in philosophy before running at the mouth.

Timothy Griffy said...

Two wrongs still don't make a right. And at least the men still get due process before their rights are abridged.

Timothy Griffy said...

So which view are you taking?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 1000   Newer› Newest»