Wednesday, May 09, 2018

Roe v. Wade again

The argument in Roe v. Wade is that you cannot prove that the fetus has the same rights as those already born, and that moral reasoning leaves the question undecided. This was not only the majority opinion, it was explicitly not challenged in the dissent by Rehnquist, and was never argued by Roe opponents like Scalia. The argument in Roe was that we know a woman has a right to privacy, we don't know whether the fetus has as right to life, therefore the right we know takes precedence over the right that is open to reasonable doubt. Dissenters have only argued that the right to privacy is a made-up right and not really guaranteed in the Constitution, a position that I consider to be very implausible and, what is more, is not a real pro-life argument. Because the Court think there is a case beyond reasonable doubt that women have a right to privacy that extends to reproductive health issues such as birth control and abortion, opponents of abortion need to show beyond reasonable doubt that fetuses have the same right to life as babies. Maybe you think, say, the SLED argument does that, but if so, this would require a completely different, and to my mind, more intellectually honest legal strategy than the one that has been used by so-called pro-life justices from Rehnquist to Gorsuch.

133 comments:

Legion of Logic said...

The problem is you have millions of people who believe there is reasonable doubt about something that is actually extremely clear - a fetus is just as much a human as I am, just at a different stage of life. If you have that many people who are that distanced from reality, you can't reason with them. You have to muscle it through legally. And with roughly half of policy makers being in the camp of those distanced from reality, your strategies aren't going to be as simple as pointing out the obvious and expecting people to do what's right.

Joe Hinman said...

Henry Wade was a friend of the family. (I from Dallas). We had not seen him in years when the case went down. When I realized who Wade was I said?that guy? he argued before the supreme court?

One Brow said...

a fetus is just as much a human as I am, just at a different stage of life

Why does this give the fetus the right to co-opt part of a woman's body?

bmiller said...

The majority was arguing only that *legal precedent* was ambiguous (which it was), not that the unborn should or should not really be considered persons. Maybe that is what should have been argued, but it wasn't. The Dred Scott decision was similar in that respect.

This is an unfortunate line of reasoning since instead of erring on the side of preserving life (if it turns out they were wrong) they chose to err on the side of ending life (if it turns out they were wrong). In this respect, it was worse than Dred Scott.

From the beginning Christianity always condemned abortion as a grave sin. Too bad many *Christians* now don't think so.

Joe Hinman said...

From the beginning Christianity always condemned abortion as a grave sin. Too bad many *Christians* now don't think so.

you don't see any distinction between choice and pro abortion? if Not that;s a real short coming because that would be like not understanding the difference between murder a and justifiable homoerotic

bmiller said...

OK, that is the funniest (and embarrassing) typo I've seen in quite a while

bmiller said...

My auto-fill never came up with anything like that! Just saying.

One Brow said...

From the beginning Christianity always condemned abortion as a grave sin.

Yet, there is a Bible-sanctioned procedure for abortion.

bmiller said...

The Didache is one of the earliest extra-Biblical documents of what the first Christians believed and practiced. It was in the running for being included in the Bible. So it's an authentic look into the Christian beliefs passed on directly from the Apostles.

Here is what it says about abortion.

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).


You can click on the link for writings on the subject from other Early Church Fathers.

The question is Do you want to share in their faith?

Miguel Angel Cedeño Llauger said...

One Brow said...
"Why does this give the fetus the right to co-opt part of a woman's body?"

- The fetus does not have the right or the will to co-opt part of a woman's body, it does not even have an option, that is the error in this question.

- Because, without knowing it or understanding it, it is the only way it will live, a complete life for a time of dependence, the other option is never to live. It is easy, the concept of living, as the concepts of free will and soul. And in this case, for the unborn, is the only possible way and in the vast majority of cases the "mother" opened her legs without being forced.

- Abortion is murder, denying it does not lessen it but the arguments in favor of this action devalue the lives of those who are in a state of dependency towards others. Because the argument it ends up being: "It is totally dependent on me and i must maintain it, then i am its owner (legally or???) and I can end his life without negative consequences of any kind for me, not even a bad opinion or look directed at me"

- I do not just forgive premeditated death and premeditated murder, i'm not such a good person to do it and less to have the right to forgive on behalf of those affected.

Miguel Angel Cedeño Llauger said...

One Brow said...
"Yet, there is a Bible-sanctioned procedure for abortion."

- The order to murder everything that lives, related to the enemies of the israelites i assume, and the israelites could always respond with a NO, like many of their prophets, but as in many trials before and after they failed because they hated their enemies even more to the point of accepting orders of total extermination gladly.

Legion of Logic said...

Haha that autocorrect! I've only had one that was close to that bad, and it was only due to unfortunate context. Talking to a lady I had just started dating, and weather had ruined our original date plan so she invited me over to watch a movie but was worried I'd be bored, and my phone decided that I'd look much better if my "we'll have fun at your house" was changed to "we'll have fun at your mouth". She found it hilarious but I have rarely been that embarrassed.

Anyway.

Why does this give the fetus the right to co-opt part of a woman's body?

Why did the parents choose to engage in behavior that results in pregnancy? That would be like falling off a motorcycle and suing the highway department for the pavement giving you road rash.

If pregnancies happened spontaneously, then maybe "But I don't wanna" would be more than selfish whininess. They chose to partake of an activity that has known risks, and the "get out of jail free" card is the ending of a human life. That is disgusting.

bmiller said...

Auto-correct is the work of the Devil :-)

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller said...
Auto-correct is the work of the Devil :-)

yes! that is so fusebox! I've been amplified by that same cheese mix.

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger bmiller said...
The Didache is

Here is what it says about abortion.

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

Not scripture and it's amplifying upon scripture in ways the Bible does not speak. It's an interesting book but there's no way to trace it to real Apostolic authority. If there is do you accept wondering prophets? it does,

we don't have a secondary level for canonized literature,

Joe Hinman said...

Anyway.

Why does this give the fetus the right to co-opt part of a woman's body?

Did the egg asked to be fertilized? You want to create whole life then it has all the responsibility to behave properly in the womb?

Why did the parents choose to engage in behavior that results in pregnancy? That would be like falling off a motorcycle and suing the highway department for the pavement giving you road rash.

so prohibition on abortion is really about punishing women for being sexual right? At what point does it become a person? Taht's the whole issue

Legion of Logic said...

so prohibition on abortion is really about punishing women for being sexual right?

I said "parents" because the dad is the father and has equal responsibility to the life he helped create. I'm not a progressive, so I don't break things down into man/woman, white/not-white, etc. It's "parents" with me, a man and a woman, who each have an incentive to keep their pants zipped up outside of marriage - women to avoid pregnancy, men to avoid child support, among countless other reasons. And they each have a responsibility when they engage in behavior known to cause pregnancy.

Of course, since the woman is the one who bears the physical burden of pregnancy, one would think that, much as a person with a food allergy will pay special attention to the food they eat in order to avoid potential harm, women would take special care to avoid pregnancy if they aren't ready. Guess not, these days. Apparently sex is not only a virtue, but a need along with food, clothing, and shelter that must be met.

And it's an interesting thing to me that you equate "inability to kill an unborn human" with "punishment for being sexual". If I intentionally eat a Tide pod for fun, the resulting consequences are not "punishment" - they are the natural result of someone choosing to engage in behavior with a known, potentially risky, outcome. A pregnancy would only be a punishment if a woman was forcibly impregnated in order to punish her, but that's probably not very common. Certainly not common enough to call a prohibition on killing unborn human life a "punishment".

At what point do we know it is a "person"? Well, we know it's a unique human life from the start. It doesn't magically go from "undefined organism" to "human" at any point along its lifespan. So, at what point does it deserve the legal protection of personhood? Well, is it better to err on the side of life, or on the side of free sex outside of stable committed relationships? (At least 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with health of mother or offspring, and almost 90 percent of abortions are from unmarried women.)

The left as a general rule has chosen "free and limitless casual sex" over "life". How about you?

As an aside, since I know people are hormonal idiots and can't control themselves, I advocate passing out free birth control like it was a bunch of Skittles if that's what it takes to prevent abortions.

One Brow said...

I want to thank bmiller, Miguel Angel Cedeño Llauger, and Legion of Logic for continuing to confirm that unwanted pregnancies are the penalties women are supposed to pay for daring to have sex. It's always refreshing when patriarchy comes unvarnished.

For all three of you: your moral judgments are fine for you, but you still need to come with a better answer with why you can remove a woman's right than 'WHORE!'.

bmiller,

I am not responsible for the disagreement between the Pentateuch and the Didache on the appropriateness of abortion.

Miguel Angel Cedeño Llauger,

The bible-sanctioned abortion were done for an Israeli husband and wife, not some foreign enemies.

Legion of Logic,

Actually, it's more like if you fall off your motorcycle, you are allowed to remove the gravel from your leg, even if the highway department feels you should leave it there.

One Brow said...

Joe Hinman said...
Did the egg asked to be fertilized? You want to create whole life then it has all the responsibility to behave properly in the womb?

I agree it's evil to deliberately get pregnant and then an abortion, but most abortions are for unplanned pregnancies.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
If I intentionally eat a Tide pod for fun, the resulting consequences are not "punishment" - they are the natural result of someone choosing to engage in behavior with a known, potentially risky, outcome.

If you eat a Tide pod, are you giving up your right to seek medical treatment for the consequences>

Hugo Pelland said...

One Brow made great points but, to me, the most relevant one relate to this:
"...a fetus is just as much a human as I am, just at a different stage of life."
Isn't that both an extremely low bar for whar a human is and a completely unscientific view of biological reproduction? Or, using another quote: "At what point does it become a person?" which goes back to Victor's post and the difficult ambiguity of what life really is. Hence the idea of letting the woman choose. Freedom by default!

Finally, we must remember that something like 95% of abortions are done in the first trimester, which implies that the so-called human supposedly being murdered is, well, not much of a human yet.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

Not scripture and it's amplifying upon scripture in ways the Bible does not speak. It's an interesting book but there's no way to trace it to real Apostolic authority. If there is do you accept wondering prophets? it does,

It is an achronistic statement to say it is "amplifying upon scripture" since the canon of scripture was not ultimately defined until over 300 years later. Yet it does tell us that from the beginning, all Christians considered abortion a great sin (including the Reformers by the way).

You seem to be overly influenced by non-Christian philosophy.

According to your philosophy, would it have been justifiable homocide for Mary to abort her child?

Legion of Logic said...

want to thank bmiller, Miguel Angel Cedeño Llauger, and Legion of Logic for continuing to confirm that unwanted pregnancies are the penalties women are supposed to pay for daring to have sex. It's always refreshing when patriarchy comes unvarnished.

Do you enjoy having your views completely detached from reality? Patriarchy? That's literally insane. I explained to Joe precisely what my motivations were, and the progressive delusion of "patriarchy" isn't one of them.

Much more likely, like leftists often do, you want to treat women like helpless non-agents who can't make responsible decisions. I don't know if that qualifies as Darth Patriarchy behavior, but it is very demeaning to women.


Actually, it's more like if you fall off your motorcycle, you are allowed to remove the gravel from your leg, even if the highway department feels you should leave it there.

I'm endlessly amazed at how low leftists will stoop in their characterizations of unborn humans. Gravel.


If you eat a Tide pod, are you giving up your right to seek medical treatment for the consequences

Less than ten percent of abortions would meet this analogy.

Legion of Logic said...

Isn't that both an extremely low bar for whar a human is and a completely unscientific view of biological reproduction?

I would say no to both.


the difficult ambiguity of what life really is

I have yet to see a credible case made that this "difficult ambiguity" actually exists.

Hugo Pelland said...

We understand exactly how reproduction works; that's the scientific part that has to be denied for the pro-life arguments, because it becomes impossible to draw a line between what is a human life and not.

In other words, the idea that an abortion is akin to murder implies that there is a human life being terminated, someone is getting murdered. Therefore, the question is what human lives are we talking about exactly? The answer, without a proper understanding of reproduction, can be anything from conception to heartbeat to breathing to ... whatever you want, but the point remains that this can all be seen as a "human life". These views denies the known progression in complexity that we know of, and how it should help use make decisions based those facts.

And for the more extreme kind of pro-lifers amongst us, I would say that the spermatozoon and the egg are not each a 'human life' but someone, together, they are... It's absurd. As if the sudden new combination of DNA molecules created something truly special. It's not, it's just that, a bunch of meaningless cells. And if your God did create them, he gets rid of 1/5 of them already anyway, so why do you care more than God about these molecules?

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
so prohibition on abortion is really about punishing women for being sexual right?

I said "parents" because the dad is the father and has equal responsibility to the life he helped create. I'm not a progressive, so I don't break things down into man/woman, white/not-white, etc. It's "parents" with me, a man and a woman, who each have an incentive to keep their pants zipped up outside of marriage - women to avoid pregnancy, men to avoid child support, among countless other reasons. And they each have a responsibility when they engage in behavior known to cause pregnancy.

that doesn't change it, you can give men responsibility and still want to punish women for sex,

Of course, since the woman is the one who bears the physical burden of pregnancy, one would think that, much as a person with a food allergy will pay special attention to the food they eat in order to avoid potential harm, women would take special care to avoid pregnancy if they aren't ready. Guess not, these days. Apparently sex is not only a virtue, but a need along with food, clothing, and shelter that must be met.


what should it be: something to punish?

And it's an interesting thing to me that you equate "inability to kill an unborn human" with "punishment for being sexual". If I intentionally eat a Tide pod for fun, the resulting consequences are not "punishment" -


It has to do with what you said which you now conveniently ignore. Here;s the exchangeL

Blogger Joe Hinman said...
Anyway.

you:Why does this give the fetus the right to co-opt part of a woman's body?

Me:Did the egg asked to be fertilized? You want to create whole life then it has all the responsibility to behave properly in the womb?

You:Why did the parents choose to engage in behavior that results in pregnancy? That would be like falling off a motorcycle and suing the highway department for the pavement giving you road rash.

at that point it looks like you are saying the people must be made to suffer the consequences of their sexual behavior and is the major rationale for not allowing abortion,

they are the natural result of someone choosing to engage in behavior with a known, potentially risky, outcome. A pregnancy would only be a punishment if a woman was forcibly impregnated in order to punish her, but that's probably not very common. Certainly not common enough to call a prohibition on killing unborn human life a "punishment".

looks like a yes to me, it/s just a vailed way of saying they must be punished,

Joe Hinman said...

comments to LL part 2

At what point do we know it is a "person"? Well, we know it's a unique human life from the start.

what start? consummation? cell hooking up to the wall? why would it be a person before it has consciousness?


It doesn't magically go from "undefined organism" to "human" at any point along its lifespan.

how do you know that? If being human is defined by consciousness then not having would be not being human,


So, at what point does it deserve the legal protection of personhood? Well, is it better to err on the side of life, or on the side of free sex outside of stable committed relationships?


just obviously and clearly an admission that the point is punishing sex,


(At least 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with health of mother or offspring, and almost 90 percent of abortions are from unmarried women.)

so what? why is that the only valid reason to allow it?

The left as a general rule has chosen "free and limitless casual sex" over "life". How about you?


and you feel we must stop that right? so its not about saving life it's about punishing sex, where does the bible ever say it's our calling to punish people or to force their behavior to conform with our view? I am not asking where does it say sex is sinful out side of the proper marital parameters, I am saying where does it give us the jo of doing something to control it?

As an aside, since I know people are hormonal idiots and can't control themselves, I advocate passing out free birth control like it was a bunch of Skittles if that's what it takes to prevent abortions.

that could be the first verse of the Prude anthem

Legion of Logic said...

The answer, without a proper understanding of reproduction, can be anything from conception to heartbeat to breathing to ... whatever you want, but the point remains that this can all be seen as a "human life".

Quite right, and in full accord with reproductive science knowledge.


These views denies the known progression in complexity that we know of, and how it should help use make decisions based those facts.

One could argue these facts (which destroy the pro-choice position on human life incidentally) should be considered as a matter of practical policy, but as a definition of human life? No need or reason to.


As if the sudden new combination of DNA molecules created something truly special.

A genetically unique organism, certainly. Said organism being a new human. One might not agree that a human is special, of course.


It's not, it's just that, a bunch of meaningless cells.

Just like every biological entity, including you and me. "Meaning" is subjective.


Legion of Logic said...

Joe,

that doesn't change it, you can give men responsibility and still want to punish women for sex

True, but I don't want to "punish women".


what should it be: something to punish?

You seem to have latched onto a theme that has no bearing on anything I have said or believe. Responsibility for one's decisions is not punishment by any rational standard.


at that point it looks like you are saying the people must be made to suffer the consequences of their sexual behavior

So you do not believe that people should be held responsible for their own free choices?


looks like a yes to me, it/s just a vailed way of saying they must be punished,

If I actually thought that, you wouldn't have to use the typical "what he MEANS is..." tactic that leftists love to use in order to accuse conservatives of non-existent bigotry. I would flat-out say it if I thought it - I'm not shy.


why would it be a person before it has consciousness

It's a human organism. "Person" is a legal term.


If being human is defined by consciousness

An unproven premise.


just obviously and clearly an admission that the point is punishing sex

Except it wasn't even remotely that. Acknowledging the harm of a behavior is not the same as advocating punishment for it.

and you feel we must stop that right? so its not about saving life it's about punishing sex, where does the bible ever say it's our calling to punish people or to force their behavior to conform with our view? I am not asking where does it say sex is sinful out side of the proper marital parameters, I am saying where does it give us the jo of doing something to control it?

You have completely misunderstood my position. I'll explain later today. "Punishing sex" is not even remotely part of the equation, so if you are using that line, ypu can safely know you're wrong.


that could be the first verse of the Prude anthem

Odd thing for a Christian to say.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Do you enjoy having your views completely detached from reality? Patriarchy? That's literally insane. I explained to Joe precisely what my motivations were, and the progressive delusion of "patriarchy" isn't one of them.

To my understanding, research indicates that we often the worst judges of our own intentions. We continually invent motivations to explain our actions. So, when I tell you that, as someone outside you, your statements resemble standard bread-and-butter patriarchy, it's not an insult nor insanity. It's a reflection on how we were all raised.

Much more likely, like leftists often do, you want to treat women like helpless non-agents who can't make responsible decisions. I don't know if that qualifies as Darth Patriarchy behavior, but it is very demeaning to women.

Some think an abortion is occasionally a responsible decision.

I'm endlessly amazed at how low leftists will stoop in their characterizations of unborn humans. Gravel.

Gravel is more demeaning than road rash?

If you eat a Tide pod, are you giving up your right to seek medical treatment for the consequences

Less than ten percent of abortions would meet this analogy.


I may have missed the point of your analogy. My apologies.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

It seems you forgot to answer this question:
According to your philosophy, would it have been justifiable homocide for Mary to abort her child?

I know how Legion would answer as well as Hugo and OneBrow. I can't see any difference between your position and that of the atheists. Hmmmm.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller,
It's a silly question you're asking Joe. If I assume that the story of Mary is 100% true, it would be wrong for her to abort a child she knows would be special, but only because she's told that. On the other hand, do you think it would be acceptable for Mary to be forced to carry on with a pregnancy she didn't want?

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,
Yes, meaning is subjective. That's the point!
Your position implies that you see meaning in something which we understand so well as to make it absurd to see meaning in it. You cannot draw a clear line between a new random sequence of DNA and a fully developed human being. It's a grey area that goes from completely meaningless sack of DNA, nothing more than road gravel, to a fully developed baby that would survive outside the womb. As the pregnancy progresses, it becomes harder and harder to make the call, the subjective call, as to whether the abortion is killing something that is actually a human life or not. But your view is more emotional than that; any stage of that complex development is labelled as a human life, which is why I said it's a low bar. Or it's just part of it? I am not sure... because you say that this new unique set of DNA is a human life? Again, what a low bar, what an unscientific view. That's just emotional attachment to a "what if" case.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

It's a silly question you're asking Joe.

First, it certainly is not a silly question to ask of a professing Christian. So please let Joe answer for himself.

Second, your own philosophical position resembles scientism, the dumb cousin of the long defunct Logical Positivism. A position that Joe has argued against in the past.

Third, your claim is that there is no "child" to be "special", only meaningless cells. Special meaningless cells makes no sense.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
I know how Legion would answer as well as Hugo and OneBrow. I can't see any difference between your position and that of the atheists. Hmmmm.

How would I answer that?

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller,

First, you said, as One Brow just quoted, that you know how we would answer. Clearly, you didn't know, that was the main point here.

Second, calling a position dumb and using labels to make it sound dumb is not a good critique of the position.

Third, the first few cells are meaningless, but the full grown baby is meaningful. Somewhere in between, there is a transition, and my position is that it's ambiguous as to where exactly we should draw that line. Does that make sense?

In other words, you're attacking strawmen, and only attacking strawmen, while being unable to defend your position with any rational arguments, just emotional appeal to something that may or may not be a valuable human life and/or may or may have the potential to become one.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

You inserted yourself in a discussion between 2 professing Christians.
You said it was a silly question and you gave your reasons. I disagreed and gave you my reasons. Now you're asserting that you *really* meant that I don't know how *you* would answer. If you expect me to engage seriously with you you'll have to demonstrate you're an honest interlocutor. It's not looking good.

Second, calling a position dumb and using labels to make it sound dumb is not a good critique of the position

Joe has done excellent critiques of scientism. If you think it's not dumb, then tell us why rather than complaining about our conclusions.

Third, the first few cells are meaningless.... Does that make sense?

Look, I understand your general position although I disagree with it. But here is my point. If Mary was a consistent follower of your philosophy there would be no moral reason for her not to abort the "meaningless cells", right? There is nothing special about meaningless. That is the inconsistency I see in your previous response.

In other words, you're attacking strawmen, and only attacking strawmen, while being unable to defend your position with any rational arguments, just emotional appeal to something that may or may not be a valuable human life and/or may or may have the potential to become one.

Let me see. You changed the subject of the first item, you merely complained about the way I described scientism in the second item, and I explained my reasoning regarding the third item so you could better understand it. Then you end up making 3 wild accusations that seem to be more relevant to your responses than mine. It's hard to take you seriously.

Since you're not a Christian you may not understand the logic behind my question. I think Joe does.

All orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ is a single person with 2 natures, true God and true man. Although man was formed in the image of God, Jesus Christ took on the form of a man, including a sacrificial death, for the salvation of all mankind. A Christian that can accept a philosophy that logically entails the morality of the abortion of the Savior seems to be conflicted to me (to put it mildly).

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller, you showed that you don't understand my position, and that you are not interested.
Fair enough.

bmiller said...

Right. I understand that you don't want to engage seriously. Like before.
Fair enough.

Hugo Pelland said...

Exactly, you got that right. No point in engaging seriously with someone who is just looking for a fight by writing strawmen and not-so-subtle insults by calling a position dumb.

bmiller said...

Please do me a favor and read what the straw man fallacy really is. I don't think you know what it means.

Hugo Pelland said...

Just another not-so-subtle insult...
But you know, you might be right. Not that I don't know what a strawman fallacy isx but maybe it wasn't exactly a strawman.

You said "I know how Legion would answer as well as Hugo and OneBrow" even though you didn't know, as you had not asked, and you were wrong.

How do you call that? Failed mind reading? Not questioning your own assumption? Honest mistake?

bmiller said...

If that is what you were referring to as the straw-man argument then yes, it would have been been more apt to claim "failed mind reading" or "wrong assumption" however you would want to phrase it. Certainly not a straw-man.

But I think if you were logically consistent in your reasoning regarding your defense of abortion it would be easy to predict. It's OK to abort meaningless cells. Before Christ was a "full grown baby" He was meaningless cells. Therefore it would be OK to abort Christ.

Then again, maybe me assuming you wished to be logically consistent was an error on my part.

bmiller said...

I realize that this post may be somewhat out of place, but I want to post it for a several reasons.

1) Someone implied that it is not a Christian's duty to impose Christian values on people wrt to sexual conduct.
2) Some time back there was a post regarding interest in SciFi writers....Robert Heinlein in particular.
3) I have a relative that wrote Sword and Sorcery books.
4) There has been a recent book published by Moira Greyland, daughter of famed science fiction author Marion Zimmer Bradley.

I realize that a website titled "lifesitenews" may immediately repel some folks, but I think the interview with Moira Greyland gives a unique perspective on the items listed above, especially the consequences of "doing your own thing".

For your information.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow: So, when I tell you that, as someone outside you, your statements resemble standard bread-and-butter patriarchy, it's not an insult nor insanity. It's a reflection on how we were all raised.

You are welcome to demonstrate your assertion with evidence or example, but otherwise I have no reason to suspect THE PATRIARCHY has anything to do with me on even the dimmest subconscious level.


Some think an abortion is occasionally a responsible decision.

Some are wrong. The responsible decision is to avoid behavior that results in consequences one isn't ready to handle. Goes for everyone, regarding any behavior.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo,

Yes, meaning is subjective. That's the point!

Your position implies that you see meaning in something which we understand so well as to make it absurd to see meaning in it.

You do see the blatant contradiction in your position, correct? You claim giving meaning to something is subjective, but then are so convinced that one shouldn't give meaning to that thing that you criticize others for giving it meaning. You can't have both.

Besides, my giving it meaning is precisely because of my understanding of when human life begins, which according to every biological fact published, is with the first cell of the new human organism. The only way that cell ISN'T the beginning of a new human life is if you can demonstrate it isn't alive (it is) or it isn't human (it is) or that it's not different than parts of the mother's body (it is).


You cannot draw a clear line between a new random sequence of DNA and a fully developed human being.

I can draw an unbroken line from me right now all the way to the first cell of my body, which is when my biological existence began. That would be no problem whatsoever.



It's a grey area that goes from completely meaningless sack of DNA

So someone desperately wanting kids should find no happiness in a long-awaited positive pregnancy test? Interesting.


nothing more than road gravel

From an NPR article: "During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide."

Looks like "the unborn are nothing more than road gravel" can be thrown into the mix.


to a fully developed baby that would survive outside the womb

Ah, so whether someone is a living human isn't a fact of biology, but rather the level of technology available to keep premature births from resulting in death? Humans magically appear a lot earlier in advanced countries than they do in third-world nations, I guess. Must be a genetic difference.

As the pregnancy progresses, it becomes harder and harder to make the call, the subjective call, as to whether the abortion is killing something that is actually a human life or not.

Yes, the left does seem confused. I'm unaware of a single biological fact that says an unborn human life isn't a human life because it's unborn.


Again, what a low bar, what an unscientific view. That's just emotional attachment to a "what if" case.

An organism is alive according to biology. The zygote is the beginning of a new organism according to biology. Being conceived by human parents, the zygote is human according to biology. The zygote is a genetically unique organism separate from the mother according to biology. The zygote is a human life according to biology.

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

Looks like science is still 100 percent on my side.

Legion of Logic said...

The Lozier Institute is pro-life, but I'd be curious for a rebuttal of the author's points.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller, you said:
"Then again, maybe me assuming you wished to be logically consistent was an error on my part."
and that just made me laugh. Seriously, can't you not write passive-aggressive insults? Are you like that off the Internet? I mean, don't answer that, it would be useless, but it's just hilarious... hopefully just an Internet thing. But I use my real full name so I try to act exactly like I would IRL. It's better practice imho.

In any case, good points. But I still don't think it'sa contradiction; if I were to take the Mary story literally, I would argue it was immoral of her to abort that specific pregnancy. She was told the baby would save the world! (Or whatever it actually was; I forgot the details, my bad)

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,

Looks like my point wasn't clear because what you said has very little to do with it. Let me try another way, by claiming that the pro-life positin is using a false equivocation.

The argument is that:
- Killing a human life is wrong, it's murder
- A fetus is a human life.
- Abortion kill fetuses.
- Therefore abortion is killing a meaning life, it's wrong, it's murder.

The problem is that 'human life' doesn't mean the same, at all, on each line.

If you agree, then your position is not that abortion kills a human life, it's something else. And I don't know what we disagree on exactly.

If you disagree, then your position implies that 2 random human cells who happen to join each other is instantly a human life, on the same footing as grown living human beings. And that's what we truly disagree on.

Which is it? I am honestly not sure and both warrant more explanations as to why you think so. I think it's the latter because of your latest comments, but I would like to know to be sure.

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller said...
@Joe,

It seems you forgot to answer this question:
According to your philosophy, would it have been justifiable homocide for Mary to abort her child?

No pro choice/pro abortion person says abortion is homicide of any kind

I know how Legion would answer as well as Hugo and OneBrow. I can't see any difference between your position and that of the atheists. Hmmmm.

what you really mean to say is you have not paid attention when I explained my position.I argued that RU486 is the real answer because it doesn't kill the fetus, Not if suede concretely. An atheist would not care about being sure it doesn't kill the fetus,

the basis of my support for choice is the assumption that the woman must make the choice not the man so it is her responsibility and thus her right. I have also stipulated that I hope she would not choose the abortion an atheist would not need to worry about any of that. I have also pointed out that the fetus can't be a person prior to consciousnesses and consciousness emerges at a point we can't pin down it can't be killing a person because personhood depends upon consciousness,until some point after mid trimester,

guilt by association is the weapon of bigots and cowards,

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
But I think if you were logically consistent in your reasoning regarding your defense of abortion it would be easy to predict. It's OK to abort meaningless cells. Before Christ was a "full grown baby" He was meaningless cells. Therefore it would be OK to abort Christ.

Then again, maybe me assuming you wished to be logically consistent was an error on my part.


You have a habit of calling other people dishonest when they don't conform to your stereotypes; it's rude, condescending, and ignorant. Your understanding of logic is ill-informed and shallow. Logic is the process of reasoning from premises to a conclusion; if you change a premise, the conclusion can be vastly different.

In the case of your question are Mary aborting Jesus, one of the implied premises is that we are speaking about God being implanted in Mary. These are not "meaningless cells" in your hypothetical, they are a supposed physical manifestation of the Almighty. Since Mary agreed to the implantation, the conclusion is naturally different.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
I realize that a website titled "lifesitenews" may immediately repel some folks, but I think the interview with Moira Greyland gives a unique perspective on the items listed above, especially the consequences of "doing your own thing".

There nothing unique about it. It's standard gay-bashing wrapped up in a biography. Greyland's calling the police on her father was commendable, claiming that all gay men were raped by older men when they were children is ignorant and bigoted. Saying father-son material is the most common type of gay pornography is both a lie and evil.

Still, as a Christian, perhaps you feel it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter to Greyland that what she is saying is ignorant, bigoted, a lie, or evil. After all, she can't be trusted to use her own moral standards, and this is what God demands of her, right? Should it matter to her? Does it matter to you?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
You are welcome to demonstrate your assertion with evidence or example, but otherwise I have no reason to suspect THE PATRIARCHY has anything to do with me on even the dimmest subconscious level.

Riiight. You grew up in a world where 99% of the literature, family teachings, mass media, etc. taught patriarchal stereotypes as the ideal, and it had no effect on you. Who are you trying to kid?

Some are wrong. The responsible decision is to avoid behavior that results in consequences one isn't ready to handle. Goes for everyone, regarding any behavior.

Having an abortion is one way of handling the consequence of pregnancy. It's not my preferred way, but that goes for a lot of other behaviors people engage in.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
The Lozier Institute is pro-life, but I'd be curious for a rebuttal of the author's points.

Outside of some confusion about how long the period of being a zygote lasts (by the time cell differentiation happens, the zygote has transformed into a blastocyst).

Twinning typically occurs in the blastocyst stage. That that mean a zygote is actually two people? (Note: a rhetorical question, designed to show that there is no simple equivalence).

bmiller said...

@Joe,

No pro choice/pro abortion person says abortion is homicide of any kind

You said this:
you don't see any distinction between choice and pro abortion? if Not that;s a real short coming because that would be like not understanding the difference between murder a and justifiable homoerotic

From this, I took it that you were saying that abortion wasn't murder but rather justifiable homocide. What should I have thought?

I have paid attention to your abortion postition and I disagree along with all Christian churches in history up until the 60's. Legion has been addressing the arbitrariness of using some sort of undefinable consciousnessness as a test whether a human can be killed or not, so no need for me to repeat his points.

I have asked you repeatedly, given your position, if you considered it immoral for Mary to have aborted her pregnancy. I mean at the point of Jesus's development when he was not yet "conscious" according to your definition....RU486 or not. You haven't answered.

Name calling is merely a diversion.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

"Then again, maybe me assuming you wished to be logically consistent was an error on my part."
and that just made me laugh. Seriously, can't you not write passive-aggressive insults?


Post Modernists don't care to be logically consistent, so I'm glad to hear that you aren't one. It's hard for me to tell where you're coming from.

But I still don't think it'sa contradiction; if I were to take the Mary story literally, I would argue it was immoral of her to abort that specific pregnancy. She was told the baby would save the world! (Or whatever it actually was; I forgot the details, my bad)

Let me remind you of what you wrote earlier:
On the other hand, do you think it would be acceptable for Mary to be forced to carry on with a pregnancy she didn't want?

So yesterday it would have been wrong to judge Mary immoral if she decided for an abortion, but today, it would be right to judge Mary immoral for deciding on an abortion.

Joe Hinman said...

From this, I took it that you were saying that abortion wasn't murder but rather justifiable homocide. What should I have thought?

Sorry Bmiller good point,I forgot that I drew that analogy,

I have paid attention to your abortion postition and I disagree along with all Christian churches in history up until the 60's. Legion has been addressing the arbitrariness of using some sort of undefinable consciousnessness as a test whether a human can be killed or not, so no need for me to repeat his points.

In 2015 I was in a coma. but in my mind I was living a life that consisted of dreams but I took it for real life. For that reason I don't accept pulling the plug on anyone. That's a different issue fro at what poi t to human s begin having the property of consciousness?

I have asked you repeatedly, given your position, if you considered it immoral for Mary to have aborted her pregnancy.

sorry I thought you were being rhetorical.That depends upon when she wants it and why. the first week after conception she takes RU486 prevents fertilization,there is no abortion. Or second trimester good chance it;snot a conscious being yet and she wants it to prevent raising it in extreme proverb and she doesn't believe the angel this is not murder, it may be sin but it's hers sin,doubt, that is her sin and her decision,

nowhere doe Jesus command us to force people to make the right decision,




I mean at the point of Jesus's development when he was not yet "conscious" according to your definition....RU486 or not. You haven't answered.

Name calling is merely a diversion.

guit by association is name calling by implication (you said " I can't see any difference between your position and that of the atheists. Hmmmm." that's just calling me anatheist

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said:
"It's hard for me to tell where you're coming from."
Yet, you prefered to assume you do know... strange, but I'm glad you see that we do agree on some things.

"So yesterday it would have been wrong to judge Mary immoral if she decided for an abortion, but today, it would be right to judge Mary immoral for deciding on an abortion."

Consent matters, do you agree?
Because if it does, it's not a contradiction:
- It's always immoral to force a woman to continue a pregnancy
- It may be wrong, in some cases, for the woman to choose an abortion.

Judging the decision the woman makes is not the same as forcing a decision on the woman.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

I said your position was the same as the atheists, not that you were an atheist.
But thanks for finally answering. You are consistent. But your consistent stance leads to the conclusion that it would have been moral for Mary to abort the Savior. I'll pray for you.

For Christians to consider:

Luke 1:36
36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechari′ah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be[e] a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” 46 And Mary said,


“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

56 And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home.
57 Now the time came for Elizabeth to be delivered, and she gave birth to a son.



Let's examine the timeline and events in this story.
First, we know that Elizabeth was in her 6th month when Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel.
Mary stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months and it appears that Mary left shortly before the birth of John. Since a pregnancy takes 9 months Mary had to have gone immediately to visit Elizabeth after the Annunciation to leave right before John's birth (confirmed in verse 39 and verse 56).

When she arrived she was already pregnant, so she had to have conceived Jesus sometime between the Annunciation and the time she arrived at Elizabeth's house, probably within a week. When she arrived, both Elizabeth and John recognized they were in the presence of their Savior (the Second Person of the Trinity). Mary confirms what has been done (verses 47-49).

Legion of Logic said...

Joe: In 2015 I was in a coma. but in my mind I was living a life that consisted of dreams but I took it for real life.

Easy for me to say since it wasn't me who suffered the trauma, but I find this remarkably fascinating.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow: Riiight. You grew up in a world where 99% of the literature, family teachings, mass media, etc. taught patriarchal stereotypes as the ideal, and it had no effect on you. Who are you trying to kid?

And this is a prime example of why I find it so hard to take progressives seriously. You don't know how old I am, you don't know what I read, you don't know what my family taught me, you don't know what media I watched. You have no idea what my views are on women.

You assert THE PATRIARCHY without identifying and defining it, without demonstrating what it teaches relevant to anything I have said, or the harm implicit or explicit in these alleged teachings, and you present no evidence that any of THE PATRIARCHY's evil teachings impacted me in the slightest - or that if they did, I didn't (like you presumably) shed them. Yet you presume to judge me based on your political philosophy. And even if you claim that you aren't accusing me of THE PATRIARCHY, but rather "resembling" them, you did not even identify that much. It's all assertions.

On another blog I ran into a progressive nutjob who called me a "rape apologist" and said that one day I would be a rapist, if I wasn't already. The rationale? Because I said that women should take steps to protect themselves from being in situations where rapists can strike easily. His "interpretation" of my desire for women to not be raped was that I was "blaming the victim" by wanting women to have the knowledge and tools to protect themselves. I believed, according to him, that "if they get raped, they had it coming" because I dared to advocate women take preventative measures, rather than only screaming at men to "not rape".

While it's nowhere even remotely as egregious as that fruitcake, I'm finding similar behavior from progressives here. Rather than actually taking me at face value - which is what I am presenting - I'm having my statements "interpreted" and spun around, presumably to fit within a progressive worldview's framework. I have nothing to do with the way progressives think, and I want nothing to do with it. At best, I find it confusing and detrimental to properly relating to others. So if you are going to find THE PATRIARCHY in anything I say, then show it. Otherwise, I call BS.


That that mean a zygote is actually two people?

No, it would mean the zygote was the first cell of two human lives, because twins resulted.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

- It's always immoral to force a woman to continue a pregnancy

I've never heard of anyone forcing perpetual pregnancy on a woman. Since you apparently know of some cases, I'm curious. Did the devils tie the woman down? Did they drug her? How long did they keep the pregnancy going after 9 months? Did they keep the baby inside her after it died? Or did it keep growing until she exploded?

But maybe you had trouble with auto-correct. Here let me help:
- It's always immoral to prevent a woman from killing the little human being growing inside her
- It may be wrong, in some cases, for the woman to kill the little human being growing inside her.


There. Now we have your position in factual language that is accurate not only in content but accurately reflects the motivation of the actors involved.

The motivation of those opposing abortion is not to force someone to "continue a pregnancy" but to prevent a human being from being killed. Now, don't you think it's ironic that you accused me previously of using straw-man arguments when it's the rhetoric from those supporting abortion that use them?

Now, my position is that it is indeed moral to prevent men or women from killing innocent little human beings and in fact is immoral to do nothing. Also, it is always immoral for either men or women to intentionally kill innocent little human beings.

Are you now going to accuse me of forcing innocent little humans to live when for all we know they may want to die?

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller, what you said, including yet another passive-aggressive insult, isn't related to what I wrote... so I'll ask again:

Consent matters, do you agree?

Because if it does, it's not a contradiction:

- It's always immoral to force a woman to continue a pregnancy (her body, her choice, no?)

- It may be wrong, (in my opinion) in some cases, for the woman to choose an abortion. (It's always immoral in your opinion because whatever is inside a woman is a cute little baby)

Judging the decision the woman makes is not the same as forcing a decision on the woman. Don't you see the difference? Even if you disagree... why can't you acknowledge it's consistent?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
And this is a prime example of why I find it so hard to take progressives seriously. You don't know how old I am, you don't know what I read, you don't know what my family taught me, you don't know what media I watched. You have no idea what my views are on women.

I know that you view the right of a fetus to stay in a woman's uterus as being superior to the right of the woman to decide what happens to her own body, so that's a decent clue as to your view on women.

or that if they did, I didn't (like you presumably) shed them.

How would a person shed their upbringing? What you experience as a child is always with you. You can try to recognize and change your habits, but it will still be there. I was born in to a sexist world and steeped in sexism my whole life. How could that not affect me?

Yet you presume to judge me based on your political philosophy.

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

Because I said that women should take steps to protect themselves from being in situations where rapists can strike easily.

Do you understand why that comment comes across as unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf? This is another clue about your view on women (and men). You leave these clues all over the place.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Hugo: It's always immoral to force a woman to continue a pregnancy

I've never heard of anyone forcing perpetual pregnancy on a woman.


Why did you add "perpetual" to his statement? Do you consider that an example of honest argumentation?

Legion of Logic said...

I know that you view the right of a fetus to stay in a woman's uterus as being superior to the right of the woman to decide what happens to her own body, so that's a decent clue as to your view on women.

You should try ridding yourself of progressivism, it might help you experience reality and stop embarrassing yourself so much. You make two very typical errors that many progressives make based on their ideology - you ignore that abortion ends a life, so it isn't simply "the woman's body", and you make an idiotic assumption that simply because I recognize that human life doesn't begin at birth, that somehow this means I have a dim view of women. That's just stupid, plain and simple.


How would a person shed their upbringing?

How do life-long Christians become atheists? How did I get involved in political debate when my parents were virtually a-political? People change all the time.


How could that not affect me?

A better question would be, in what manner specifically did it affect you? More assertions without details.


Do you understand why that comment comes across as unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf?

No, because it's none of those things. The relevant question is, how could anyone possibly object to someone advocating that people take steps to positively impact their own safety, and the only answers are either that person wants to take advantage of people who aren't safety conscious, or that person is a progressive.

For example, it is not "unrealistic, insensitive, or tone-deaf" to tell women they could be endangering themselves if they get passed-out drunk at a party where they don't know a lot of the people, thus they should avoid that situation (particularly since there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to doing so in the first place). This was one of the things I advocated that women keep in mind - it's not a nice world, and someone who wants to take advantage of a helpless woman will not be deterred by a sign on the wall that says "Men: Don't Rape!". But no, you think I'm being "unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf" by believing that women should take reasonable steps - such as not getting passed-out drunk at a party with a bunch of strangers - to protect themselves.

I think this conversation reveals a lot more of how little you think of women than it does anything about me. It's pretty sickening how little you care for their safety and then turn around and accuse others of leaving imaginary "clues" about their negative views on women when they advocate reasonable measures that women can empower themselves with for protection.

It's a compliment to be insulted by a progressive, if this is how little they think of those they claim to champion.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said... (part 1)
You should try ridding yourself of progressivism, it might help you experience reality and stop embarrassing yourself so much.

Considering what you have posted here, I find progressive thoughts much less embarrassing.

You make two very typical errors that many progressives make based on their ideology - you ignore that abortion ends a life,

Seeing that I have agreed in previous discussion with you that embryos are human life, who is being blinded by their views here?

so it isn't simply "the woman's body",

I am still waiting to hear an attempt from argument by you as to why a fetus' right to live supersedes a woman's right to decide who is connected to her body, that goes beyond 'she had sex'.

and you make an idiotic assumption that simply because I recognize that human life doesn't begin at birth, that somehow this means I have a dim view of women. That's just stupid, plain and simple.

I agree that saying 'human life doesn't begin at birth' equates to 'a dim view of women' would be stupid. I would not be surprised if you consider yourself to have an elevated view of women, to have deep respect for their ability to bring life into the world.

Since I have not based any discussion on the notion of when human life begins, and in particular, have agree with you that a zygote is human life, it seems odd that you would pull out this particular line. It's almost as if you are arguing against what you think is some stereotypical progressive position, and not experiencing the reality of our actual discussion. Would you find that embarrassing?

How do life-long Christians become atheists? How did I get involved in political debate when my parents were virtually a-political? People change all the time.

Simple, surface-level, cognitive-heavy stuff. I'm discussing the stuff that bypasses our rational brain, things we absorbed not like lessons at school, but as stereotypes and similar cognitive shortcuts. We get them jokes, passing comments, books, movies, words chosen as insults, etc. The stuff we really believe, and use the cognitive-heavy stuff to justify, or refute.

A better question would be, in what manner specifically did it affect you?

Indeed, a very good question. That's why implicit bias is a rich field of study. Do I follow the common pattern of interrupting women, or make more of an effort to listen to them? Do I value woman less highly when they have the same accomplishments? Do I try to steer them into less technical professions? All effects that have been studied extensively, and are found in many, many people who say they respect women.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said... (part 2)
Do you understand why that comment comes across as unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf?

No, because it's none of those things.


If you won't take even a moment to consider why someone might find those comments unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf, then your protests that you are not properly understood are difficult to take seriously.

The relevant question is, how could anyone possibly object to someone advocating that people take steps to positively impact their own safety, and the only answers are either that person wants to take advantage of people who aren't safety conscious, or that person is a progressive.

I find it difficult to believe that you honestly think progressives don't take measures to ensure their own personal safety, or don't want others to do the same. Surely you can do better than that.

For example, it is not "unrealistic, insensitive, or tone-deaf" to tell women they could be endangering themselves if they get passed-out drunk at a party where they don't know a lot of the people, thus they should avoid that situation (particularly since there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to doing so in the first place). This was one of the things I advocated that women keep in mind - it's not a nice world, and someone who wants to take advantage of a helpless woman will not be deterred by a sign on the wall that says "Men: Don't Rape!".

I agree that it should not be a sign on the wall. It should be the other men and women at the party.

People who are new to drinking don't always know what their limit is. If they are sitting down, even moderately experienced people may not realize how drunk they are, especially if there are a lot of distractions.

Let's say your house was burglarized, and my response was that you made it too nice-looking. If you had left the paint peeling, taped over a broken window, and left the bushes uncut, the burglar would have assumed you likely didn't have anything valuable, and moved on to another house that was a better target. Do you find that realistic, sensitive, context-appropriate advice?

But no, you think I'm being "unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf" by believing that women should take reasonable steps - such as not getting passed-out drunk at a party with a bunch of strangers - to protect themselves.

What percentage of rapes do you think occur in these situations? What if they were not strangers; does this advice still apply?

I think this conversation reveals a lot more of how little you think of women than it does anything about me. It's pretty sickening how little you care for their safety and then turn around and accuse others of leaving imaginary "clues" about their negative views on women when they advocate reasonable measures that women can empower themselves with for protection.

Since you seem to feel you understand progressives, what do you think my response is to this point?

It's a compliment to be insulted by a progressive, if this is how little they think of those they claim to champion.

Have I insulted you? What was the insult?

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

I disagree that I did not address what you wrote. Below I will explain.

But first, let me state clearly that I was not attempting to be passive-agressive, but was openly mocking the purposely deceitful statement about using force. I'm not saying that you originated that idea, but I think you are being fooled by it.

Second, let me remind you that you rudely inserted yourself into a discussion I was having with Joe by characterizing my question as "silly". In addition to making the number of false accusations I pointed out in previous posts, in this very post, you mocked my position as "because whatever is inside a woman is a cute little baby". So please stop complaining about my about *how* I reply. It's rather hypocritical.

Judging the decision the woman makes is not the same as forcing a decision on the woman. Don't you see the difference? Even if you disagree... why can't you acknowledge it's consistent?

The problem is that you have still not told me what you mean by "force a woman to continue a pregnancy" or "forcing a decision on the woman". It sounds like nonsense. How do you think that *I* could possibly force a woman to continue a pregnancy?

Hugo Pelland said...

"How do you think that *I* could possibly force a woman to continue a pregnancy?"

By supporting making abortions illegal. Not you personally, but that's what the thread is about... "Roe v. Wade again"

Hugo Pelland said...

"let me remind you that you rudely inserted yourself into a discussion"

You called me out by name and was wrong. I corrected you.

Legion of Logic said...

Considering what you have posted here, I find progressive thoughts much less embarrassing.

Why do you find the truth embarrassing? Are progressive delusions really that comforting?


Seeing that I have agreed in previous discussion with you that embryos are human life, who is being blinded by their views here?

Very well, I retract that part.



I am still waiting to hear an attempt from argument by you as to why a fetus' right to live supersedes a woman's right to decide who is connected to her body, that goes beyond 'she had sex'.


If you agree that human life has value, and that being unborn does not invalidate being human, then it should follow that unborn human life has value. I'm assuming you agree so far?

If the assumption is true, then let's look at the most common instance of abortion - an unmarried woman for non-medical reasons. Here, we have someone choosing to engage in behavior that carries a known and avoidable risk - everyone knows where babies come from. They choose to engage in this behavior, knowing the risk, and then pregnancy results. She gets an abortion.

Now then, remember up above where I assume you agree that unborn human life has value? My problem with this abortion isn't that WOMEN SHOULDN'T HAVE SEX!!!!, or any of that garbage, but rather that Participants A and B created Participant C with their conscious decisions, yet it is Participant C that dies. I find that horribly unjust.


Would you find that embarrassing?

Of course not. Everyone makes mistakes, and I retracted those statements of mine accusing you of not agreeing about the humanity of the unborn. It would only be embarrassing if it was pointed out to me that I was misinterpreting or misrepresenting someone, and I doubled down and did not correct myself. That would be embarrassing.

Indeed, a very good question.

I was asking how you, specifically, were influenced by it. None of the general examples you provided applied to me, incidentally. Even the one about interrupting doesn't apply - I am a very poor conversationalist due to having the next thing to a stutter, and I have a hard time speaking as fast as I think so I forget what I was saying a lot, so I tend to just listen to anyone I'm talking to.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow,

If you won't take even a moment to consider why someone might find those comments unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf

Why don't you explain how they are?

I find it difficult to believe that you honestly think progressives don't take measures to ensure their own personal safety, or don't want others to do the same.

Only progressives object to the idea that women take measures to protect themselves, so what precisely am I expected to think?

Do you find that realistic, sensitive, context-appropriate advice?

Your burglary example appears to be a play on the "She shouldn't have worn that" excuse, and I agree that this is a ridiculous thing to say when a rape occurs. I never said that, though, and never would.

A better example would be, if I left the door and windows wide open, and left a sign on the mailbox saying "Gone, will be back in the morning". Does this make the very possible resulting burglary my fault? Of course not, it's the fault of the burglar alone. Are there steps I could have taken, or dangerous activities with no positive outcomes that I could have avoided, that would have lessened my chances of being burglarized? Absolutely. The steps I advocate are no different than "lock your door when you aren't home". Reasonable, common sense measures.

What percentage of rapes do you think occur in these situations?

I don't know. It was an example from another conversation I was involved in, and the subject in that context was more specific than rape in general.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

"How do you think that *I* could possibly force a woman to continue a pregnancy?"

By supporting making abortions illegal. Not you personally, but that's what the thread is about... "Roe v. Wade again"


Legislation making abortion illegal only attempts to prevent humans from killing other humans, they do not force people into taking any action whatsoever. Laws against theft do not force people to be honest, they merely attempt to prevent them from taking other people's money.

"let me remind you that you rudely inserted yourself into a discussion"

You called me out by name and was wrong. I corrected you.


Really? How did *you* know I was wrong when I never mentioned what I took to be your position? How could you correct a thought that I never divulged? Mind reading?

bmiller said...

I have to admit that it is both very sad and extremely amusing that on the one hand I found a Christian that supports aborting Christ and on the other hand 2 atheists that would condemn it.

Hugo Pelland said...

"Really? How did *you* know I was wrong when I never mentioned what I took to be your position? How could you correct a thought that I never divulged? Mind reading?"

You said you knew what my answer was. You were wrong... failed mind reading on your part. That's all.

Hugo Pelland said...

"I have to admit that it is both very sad and extremely amusing that on the one hand I found a Christian that supports aborting Christ and on the other hand 2 atheists that would condemn it."

It's interesting to get multiple points of view. That's why I interact with people of diverging opinions. I guess you prefer to troll and look for confirmation from people who think like you? Why?

Hugo Pelland said...

"Legislation making abortion illegal only attempts to prevent humans from killing other humans, they do not force people into taking any action whatsoever."

There are 2 things here.
. Humans killing humans is not what an abortion is. It's the termination, the abortion, of the pregnancy. Do you know how we call an abortion at the 38th week of pregnancy? A c-section. And the human baby lives. What you are referring to is the morality of 'when' the abortion takes place and what the consequences are.
. If a woman says she wants to terminate her pregnancy but she is denied the procedure because someone else thinks it's immoral, regardless of when/how/why, she is, by definitin, forced to continue the pregnancy. I get that it's not making her do something in the way you out it. Sure. But it's still forcing her into a choice that is not her own. Again, regardless of whether you think she's doing something morally wrong.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

You said you knew what my answer was. You were wrong... failed mind reading on your part. That's all.

True, I stated I knew what your answer would be but I never stated what that was when you interjected did I? Yet you claimed "You called me out by name and was wrong. I corrected you." in response to me pointing that out, right Hugo? Be honest.

It's interesting to get multiple points of view. That's why I interact with people of diverging opinions.

I'm amused, because those atheists who have argued it is moral for a woman to abort what they consider meaningless cells, or cells the equivalent to cancer and indeed objectively believe Jesus was no different than any other human at that point of development suddenly claim this set of cells *is* somehow objectively different, special and should be preserved. They have been claiming their stance based on logic and *science*, but you cannot derive from science that this set of human cells is any more special than another set. I have my suspicions why they replied the way they did.

I guess you prefer to troll and look for confirmation from people who think like you? Why?

Wow, more mind reading. You really aren't very good at it.

One Brow said...

Why do you find the truth embarrassing? Are progressive delusions really that comforting?

If I wanted to invest in comfortable delusions, I would still be a Christian (that should match the smugness of your sentence).

I work hard to divest myself of delusions. Completely delusion-free thinking is probably neither progressive nor conservative, as reality rarely fits so neatly into suh categories.

Now then, remember up above where I assume you agree that unborn human life has value? My problem with this abortion isn't that WOMEN SHOULDN'T HAVE SEX!!!!, or any of that garbage, but rather that Participants A and B created Participant C with their conscious decisions, yet it is Participant C that dies. I find that horribly unjust.

I agree it is unjust. It is also unjust to force the woman to carry the fetus against her will. Faced with two distinct, unjust options, why does fetus' right to live supersedes a woman's right to decide who is connected to her body. Why do you choose the second, unjust option as the only option?

I was asking how you, specifically, were influenced by it. None of the general examples you provided applied to me, incidentally. Even the one about interrupting doesn't apply - I am a very poor conversationalist due to having the next thing to a stutter, and I have a hard time speaking as fast as I think so I forget what I was saying a lot, so I tend to just listen to anyone I'm talking to.

Given that you don't interrupt anyone, I fully acknowledge that you would not interrupt women. I'm not going to try to lay a specific behavior at your feet; even if I were correct, it would just be a guess (however likely true), and you would disbelieve it (backfire effect).

However, this line of thinking is the result of years of scientific study on how the brain actually works, and how culture interacts with the brains behavior. If you have no cognitive shortcuts, nor internalize any cultural baggage, nor have automatic reactions based on quick assessments, nor engage in justification and rationalization to support prior judgments, then you are a unicorn, unique among humans with a vastly superior brain, and you should offer yourself for scientific study.

More likely, you are very much like everyone else. When thet how gender affect value from reading a resume, most of the participants would have denied making different valuations based on gender, yet that was the result. Most teachers deny steering female students away from tech jobs, yet the women still feel steered. That's the nature of implicit bias; we do it without intent to harm. We do it when we are not paying close attention.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
If you won't take even a moment to consider why someone might find those comments unrealistic, insensitive, and tone-deaf

Why don't you explain how they are?


It is unrealistic because the reason for going to the party in the first place is to relax, enjoy the company of new people, and engage in the atmosphere, while you are telling these women to avoid taking advantage of a relaxant, beware the company of new people, and to not engage in the atmosphere. It's insensitive because you are telling the women that they are responsible for making sure men don't behave badly. It's tone-deaf because the discussion is probably not about how women can keep themselves safe, but about how to get men and women to buy into the notion that they can step up when they see something wrong, like a man taking a woman who has nearly/completely passed out into a bedroom, and your interjection (however well-intentioned) is more likely seen to be de-railing that conversation rather than helping it along.

Only progressives object to the idea that women take measures to protect themselves, so what precisely am I expected to think?

That's not the part they object to.

Your burglary example appears to be a play on the "She shouldn't have worn that" excuse, and I agree that this is a ridiculous thing to say when a rape occurs. I never said that, though, and never would.

That's a very narrow interrpretation of the metaphor. However, we can work with yours.

A better example would be, if I left the door and windows wide open, and left a sign on the mailbox saying "Gone, will be back in the morning". Does this make the very possible resulting burglary my fault? Of course not, it's the fault of the burglar alone. Are there steps I could have taken, or dangerous activities with no positive outcomes that I could have avoided, that would have lessened my chances of being burglarized? Absolutely. The steps I advocate are no different than "lock your door when you aren't home". Reasonable, common sense measures.

When your neighbors see the burglar enter your house, should they assume the open windows and doors are an invitation to be burglarized, or would you want them to call the police? If the neighbors did not call the police, because you didnt take enough caution to protect your home, would you feel they were being reasonable people with a valid point of view? After you had been buglarized, if you had heard "next time lock your doors", would that response be realistic, sensitive, context-appropriate advice?

I don't know. It was an example from another conversation I was involved in, and the subject in that context was more specific than rape in general.

Fair enough.

I am curious if you have a response to either of these:

I think this conversation reveals a lot more of how little you think of women than it does anything about me. It's pretty sickening how little you care for their safety and then turn around and accuse others of leaving imaginary "clues" about their negative views on women when they advocate reasonable measures that women can empower themselves with for protection.

Since you seem to feel you understand progressives, what do you think my response is to this point?

It's a compliment to be insulted by a progressive, if this is how little they think of those they claim to champion.

Have I insulted you? What was the insult?

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

There are 2 things here.
. Humans killing humans is not what an abortion is. It's the termination, the abortion, of the pregnancy. Do you know how we call an abortion at the 38th week of pregnancy? A c-section. And the human baby lives. What you are referring to is the morality of 'when' the abortion takes place and what the consequences are.


Thank you for writing at least one snark-free post. I'd rather have a dispassionate discussion.

Let me examine what you wrote piece by piece.

I used the phrase "Humans killing humans" to describe the motivation for abortion laws, which I believe is in fact an accurate description of that motivation. I understand you disagree with that is what is really happening and I will discuss that a little later, but you haven't made it clear if you agree about the motivation or not. To be clear, I'm asserting that those advocating outlawing abortion are motivated to prevent humans from killing other humans rather than being motivated to force women to remain pregnant. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Hugo Pelland said...

"I'm asserting that those advocating outlawing abortion are motivated to prevent humans from killing other humans rather than being motivated to force women to remain pregnant. Do you agree? If not, why not?"
Yes, in exactly the same sense that those advocating outlawing guns are motivated to prevent humans from killing other humans rather than being motivated to force people to give away their guns.
Or, in other words, even though I do agree that this is the intention; I don't think it can be simplified like that.
In any case, I would be curious to know what was coming after that, should I just say 'yes' because that's the short answer.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Thanks for the answer. My point was that that particular rhetorical phrase was crafted and market tested to achieve a particular result. To rally the activists on one side of the issue. It is analagous to pro-lifers calling abortion proponents "baby killers". Who could possibly be for killing babies, right? But abortion proponents don't think they are killing babies so it is wrong to attribute that motivation to them.

Neither false characterization of motives has a place in a critical discussion of the matter. If we can't get past that, then all we can do is call each other names.

It's the termination, the abortion, of the pregnancy. Do you know how we call an abortion at the 38th week of pregnancy? A c-section. And the human baby lives.

The goal of a c-section is the live birth of the womb's occupant. The goal of an abortion is the death of the womb's occupant. A c-section is considered a failure if the occupant dies, while that is considered a successful abortion. People have been sued for botching an abortion with the result being a live birth. So I disagree.

Do you have an interest in the history of how abortion had been historically universally condemned in the West and now not so much? Or are you satisfied not knowing how abortion advocates changed minds?

Hugo Pelland said...

"The goal of a c-section is the live birth of the womb's occupant. The goal of an abortion is the death of the womb's occupant."
These are the goals, yes, but that's not my point. What I mean is that the abortion itself is just the termination of the pregnancy. That termination leads to consequences that we may or may not find acceptable, but it's a slightly different question.

That's why my position is that abortion should always be legal, in literally every scenario, because it's up to the woman to decide what to do with her body. That's the simple part. However, I don't think it's morally acceptable for a pregnant woman to purposely choose to hurt a fetus that might be able to survive outside of the womb, like in the case of the article you linked to. Thankfully, 95% (if I recall correctly) of abortions don't relate to that issue at all as they are performed way earlier than that. Moreover, the more the pregnancy progresses, the more we enter a grey zone where it becomes less and less acceptable, in my opinion, to terminate the pregnancy. But again, there are cases that are harder to assess than others.

In other words, right after conception, this is like the 'white' zone; do whatever you want. Then, after maybe the 25th week, it's the 'black' zone; the baby can live outside the womb so health specialists have a duty to save that baby. The mother's decision to abort, even if it's her right, is immoral in my opinion, and I would be fine with considering the criminal implications of hurting a human life like that. The real complicated issue, in my opinion, is what to do when we're in the 'grey' zone between the 2 extremes. Unfortunately, I see nothing from the pro-life side to help deal with that grey zone.

Morevoer:
"A c-section is considered a failure if the occupant dies..."
Not quite. The c-section itself is successful if the mother doesn't die. What happens to the baby is part of a different process.
"... while that is considered a successful abortion. People have been sued for botching an abortion with the result being a live birth."
Again, not quite. And the article you linked to supports that point. People were horrified by the treatment of the baby after the natural birth that happened, not by the abortion as it did not even take place.

"Do you have an interest in the history of how abortion had been historically universally condemned in the West and now not so much?"
No.
"Or are you satisfied not knowing how abortion advocates changed minds?"
I don't really care about how they changed their mind; I care about the reasoning behind specific positions. It doesn't matter what someone believed before they adopted a position. I want to know whether that position is correct. More precisely, I engage in this conversation here because I want to know whether my position is correct and how it can be refined, improved or completely changed should new facts come to light.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow,

Why do you choose the second, unjust option as the only option?

Because the parents freely chose to engage in the behavior that resulted in the creation (and in abortion, subsequent death) of the third party. There is no responsibility here on the part of the unborn, yet they are the ones who die.

On the flip side, I do not find it "unjust" that someone not be able to end another life because they don't like the consequences of their own behavior. If you want your bodily autonomy intact, don't engage in behavior that compromises it.

And since I know people are too stupid to keep their pants on for their own benefit, that's why I advocate birth control be everywhere. Crop dusters should fly overhead raining birth control pills if that's what it takes to prevent abortions from ever being considered ever again absent a health crisis. Heck, make vasectomies free, I don't care. Just stop abortions.

Me: I was asking how you, specifically, were influenced by it.

You still have not explained how you were affected by THE PATRIARCHY. Are you able to answer?

One Brow: t is unrealistic because the reason for going to the party in the first place is to relax, enjoy the company of new people, and engage in the atmosphere, while you are telling these women to avoid taking advantage of a relaxant, beware the company of new people, and to not engage in the atmosphere.

I've never been foolish enough to get drunk, as there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to doing so. I don't buy the whole "social cohesion" excuse for it - if you can't enjoy yourself without alcohol, you have bad friends or you yourself have a problem. Under no circumstances should anyone, men or women, be encouraged to drink alcohol for fun. The harm caused by alcohol is incalculable.

Besides, if you're drinking so much that you pass out, regardless of whether you know your limits or not, and people are letting you do that, then you are not only putting yourself in all sorts of danger, but you are surrounded by people who do not care for your wellbeing, or have also compromised themselves to the point they are unable to reason. This is simply not a good situation under any circumstances.

I know mine is not a popular opinion, since I'm apparently in the tiny minority of people who have never been drunk. But I've seen nothing to indicate I should try it, and plenty of direct observation of drunk people that no one else should try it, either.

It's insensitive because you are telling the women that they are responsible for making sure men don't behave badly.

Not at all. I'm telling women there are steps they can take to ensure that bad men can't take advantage of them. Bad men search for the easiest victims.

It's tone-deaf because...

I didn't understand your point here.

When your neighbors see the burglar enter your house, should they assume the open windows and doors are an invitation to be burglarized, or would you want them to call the police?

Call the police.

If the neighbors did not call the police, because you didnt take enough caution to protect your home, would you feel they were being reasonable people with a valid point of view?

No.

After you had been buglarized, if you had heard "next time lock your doors", would that response be realistic, sensitive, context-appropriate advice?

Truth is neither sensitive nor insensitive. Absolutely if I was told to lock my doors, that would be good advice. Note that either way, the burglar is at fault and should be punished for burglary regardless of my behavior, but there are very simple steps I can take to not open myself up to easy victimization - and these steps are not "burglary apologetics" or "victim blaming".

Legion of Logic said...

Since you seem to feel you understand progressives, what do you think my response is to this point?

I don't tend to respond to things that are not profitable to do so, but I'll explain. Since you could lie even if I got it right, what's the point of answering? Plus it was a response to the "clues" comment, when in fact I left no such clues. There can't be clues to something that doesn't exist. You've been utterly wrong about where I am coming from and how I feel, yet you keep doubling down.

Have I insulted you? What was the insult?

False and maligning accusations are insults. Let's see.

I want to thank bmiller, Miguel Angel Cedeño Llauger, and Legion of Logic for continuing to confirm that unwanted pregnancies are the penalties women are supposed to pay for daring to have sex. It's always refreshing when patriarchy comes unvarnished.

For all three of you: your moral judgments are fine for you, but you still need to come with a better answer with why you can remove a woman's right than 'WHORE!'.


That there's an insult. Of course, you attempted a sliver of damage control with:

So, when I tell you that, as someone outside you, your statements resemble standard bread-and-butter patriarchy, it's not an insult nor insanity.

You did not say it resembled patriarchy - you said it was unvarnished patriarchy. You falsely accused me of patriarchy (which is a harmful, oppressive thing), despite the lack of evidence, and false negative accusations are in fact insults.

Here's another reference to the above insult:

I know that you view the right of a fetus to stay in a woman's uterus as being superior to the right of the woman to decide what happens to her own body, so that's a decent clue as to your view on women.

If there was a "clue" in it, it was about how highly I view the right to life, and how I believe in personal responsibility. Those standards don't change between men and women.

And again:

This is another clue about your view on women (and men). You leave these clues all over the place.

Total BS.

Now then, do you believe that falsely accusing someone of, say, racism, is an insult? If yes, you'll understand how you were insulting with your false accusations toward me. If no, you don't know what an insult is.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

These 2 statements:
That's why my position is that abortion should always be legal, in literally every scenario, because it's up to the woman to decide what to do with her body.

The mother's decision to abort, even if it's her right, is immoral in my opinion, and I would be fine with considering the criminal implications of hurting a human life like that.

How can something "always be legal, in literally every scenario" yet you "would be fine with considering the criminal implications of hurting a human life like that."?

Hugo Pelland said...

It's a bit like driving. You're allowed to drive wherever you want, whenever you want. If you kill someone, there might be consequences depending on the context, especially if it can be shown.

But more importantly, that's a grey area when it comes to abortions and I was just pointing out how I think it's immoral to abort a pregnancy that's clearly killing a baby, and that it might be justified to bring criminal charges in some limited cases. Though, I would personally err on the side of not blaming the woman, by default.

Anyway, again, my point is that it's super simple at conception, and it gets progressively more and more complicated as the pregnancy progresses in my opinion.

What's wrong with that in your opinion?

Hugo Pelland said...

(...especially if it can be shown you were drunk or intended to hurt someone.)

bmiller said...

What's wrong with that in your opinion?

Because the second statement contradicts the first.
"should always be legal, in literally every scenario" excludes any exceptions.
Then you provide an exception.

Your further explanation seems to imply there may be exceptions. This doesn't clear it up, unless you modify the first statement to allow exceptions. Did you mean "in most scenarios" instead of "literally every scenario"?

That would make sense to me.

Hugo Pelland said...

It's a tiny detail you're picking on, and one where I explicitly said it's a grey area, so I'm not sure how I could be crystal clear when my point is that it isn't crystal clear in some cases...

What I see as clear though is that I believe abortions should always be legal, no exception. The grey area cases are where I think it's morally difficult to decide and how I would judge the woman's choice harshly, but it should still be legal.

So, if you want a black-or-white answer: always legal, no exception, no consequences.

bmiller said...

It's a tiny detail you're picking on

It's not really a tiny detail to someone trying to understand your position. It was rather confusing. Not any more.

So would you amend your prior statement to something like this?

" and I would not be fine with considering the criminal implications of hurting a human life like that. "

Or would you word it differently?

Regardless, in what cases do you think we should pass laws to restrict people's behavior and why?

Hugo Pelland said...

"
So would you amend your prior statement to something like this?

" and I would not be fine with considering the criminal implications of hurting a human life like that. "
"

No. I'm open to the implications of hurting a 25th week old fetus for example.

And it is a detail yes, because such situation doesn't happen that much. Outlawing abortions past the 20th week for instance is way more acceptable, even if I disagree, than outlawing it completely.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Because the parents freely chose to engage in the behavior that resulted in the creation (and in abortion, subsequent death) of the third party. There is no responsibility here on the part of the unborn, yet they are the ones who die.

On the flip side, I do not find it "unjust" that someone not be able to end another life because they don't like the consequences of their own behavior. If you want your bodily autonomy intact, don't engage in behavior that compromises it.


So, having sex obligates you to human that doesn't exist at the time you have sex. Thenk you for the dialogue on that topic.

And since I know people are too stupid to keep their pants on for their own benefit, that's why I advocate birth control be everywhere. Crop dusters should fly overhead raining birth control pills if that's what it takes to prevent abortions from ever being considered ever again absent a health crisis. Heck, make vasectomies free, I don't care. Just stop abortions.

I agree here 95% or more.

You still have not explained how you were affected by THE PATRIARCHY. Are you able to answer?

I'm sorry for being unclear. I have attempted to answer it by referencing implicit bias. Are you familiar with the concept of implicit bias, and do you understand why it is an answer to your question?

I've never been foolish enough to get drunk, as there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to doing so.

I have never been drunk either, as I never saw the point. However, whether you believe that alcohol enhances social cohesion is valid or not, it is still the reason many drink, and unrealistic to epect them to abandon it.

It's insensitive because you are telling the women that they are responsible for making sure men don't behave badly.

Not at all. I'm telling women there are steps they can take to ensure that bad men can't take advantage of them. Bad men search for the easiest victims.


Do you think that these women are not already aware of this fact, that this is some new pice of information for them? Do you understand why stating something this obvious, that also puts the burden on the woman, can come across as reinfocing the societal context that women are to blame when they are raped?

It's tone-deaf because...

I didn't understand your point here.


That's unfortunate. It means you are missing the point of the whole discussion, and don't even realize it. You interpreted a discussion about culture change as safety discussion.

Call the police.

No.


Why? Do you want them to help you, as opposed to letting you suffer for your own misjudgments? Do you think that sort of behavior should be encouraged?

Truth is neither sensitive nor insensitive. Absolutely if I was told to lock my doors, that would be good advice.

That's a great way to dodge the real question. It's true that sensitivity is a question of manner, place, and time, as we both know, yet you pretend it applied to "truth" instead. Why was that?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Since you could lie even if I got it right, what's the point of answering?

I have nothing to gain by lying, so why would I bother?

Plus it was a response to the "clues" comment, when in fact I left no such clues.

Most clues are not deliberately left behind. We reveal ourselves in what we say and do not say, in manners unbeknowst to us, all the time.

There can't be clues to something that doesn't exist. You've been utterly wrong about where I am coming from and how I feel, yet you keep doubling down.

Implicit bias has very little to do where you are consciously coming from, and nothing at all to do with how you feel about conscious issues.

That there's an insult.

I will acknowledge it a mockery and hyperbole. However, to this time, I haven't seen other reasoning than "they had sex", and that is standard patriarchy.

You did not say it resembled patriarchy - you said it was unvarnished patriarchy. You falsely accused me of patriarchy (which is a harmful, oppressive thing), despite the lack of evidence, and false negative accusations are in fact insults.

Patriarchy resembles patriarchy. Yes, it is a harmful, oppresive thing. One can have well-intentioned, yet harmful and oppressive goals.

If there was a "clue" in it, it was about how highly I view the right to life, and how I believe in personal responsibility. Those standards don't change between men and women.

Sure, you believe in personal responsibility so much that, unlike any other activity, a woman can forfeit the right bodily integrity simply by having sex. We don't even force people on death row to, for example, donate organs, but the ladies who had sex, they lose that right.

Total BS.

Sorry, but no.

Now then, do you believe that falsely accusing someone of, say, racism, is an insult? If yes, you'll understand how you were insulting with your false accusations toward me. If no, you don't know what an insult is.

Do you know the difference between racism and racial animus?

I think this conversation reveals a lot more of how little you think of women than it does anything about me. It's pretty sickening how little you care for their safety and then turn around and accuse others of leaving imaginary "clues" about their negative views on women when they advocate reasonable measures that women can empower themselves with for protection.

I would say your position is based on a cultural norm that thinks very little of men, and holds women responsible for making sure they don't have the opportunity to misbehave.

Is that what you predicted?

Legion of Logic said...

So, having sex obligates you to human that doesn't exist at the time you have sex. Thenk you for the dialogue on that topic.

I have no idea what this means, but I suspect you're wrong anyway.

Are you familiar with the concept of implicit bias, and do you understand why it is an answer to your question?

I am unfamiliar with why you can't simply say "I was affected by once believing that [blank]", or "I used to [blank] without even realizing it." Your answers are generalized, not specific to you.

I have never been drunk either, as I never saw the point. However, whether you believe that alcohol enhances social cohesion is valid or not, it is still the reason many drink, and unrealistic to epect them to abandon it.

Sadly, you are right. People aren't willing to consider their best interests over having "fun". Then again, culture glamorizes that behavior, which isn't a good thing.

Do you think that these women are not already aware of this fact, that this is some new pice of information for them?

People will always engage in risky behavior, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should not hammer home the point that it is, in fact, risky behavior. Maybe one or two people will stop to think about it and avoid putting themselves in a dangerous place.

Do you understand why stating something this obvious, that also puts the burden on the woman, can come across as reinfocing the societal context that women are to blame when they are raped?

I don't believe that taking steps to advance one's own safety is a "burden". But let me ask you this. Is telling a child to look both ways before crossing the street "distracted driving apologetics"? Does this piece of sensible cautionary advice reinforce a societal context that pedestrians are to blame when a driver is looking at his cell phone and hits the pedestrian?

You interpreted a discussion about culture change as safety discussion.

And as I pointed out above, this "culture change" seems to demonize "be careful". That is not a healthy culture change. Rather heartless, in fact.

Do you want them to help you, as opposed to letting you suffer for your own misjudgments?

I would want my neighbors to help and for either them or the police to chastise me for how needlessly risky my behavior was, so I could avoid that behavior in the future. I would not want them to call the police and then no one ever tell me it happened, as this would lead to no corrective action on my part.

It's true that sensitivity is a question of manner, place, and time, as we both know, yet you pretend it applied to "truth" instead. Why was that?

Hurt feelings don't invalidate good advice.

Legion of Logic said...

We reveal ourselves in what we say and do not say, in manners unbeknowst to us, all the time.

We also misinterpret things all the time.

Implicit bias has very little to do where you are consciously coming from, and nothing at all to do with how you feel about conscious issues.

Indeed, which is why I suspect you are having such difficulty understanding me, based upon your prior beliefs.

I haven't seen other reasoning than "they had sex", and that is standard patriarchy.

So patriarchy is the only system that values human life? Interesting.

Patriarchy resembles patriarchy.

Then what I have said resembles neither.

Sure, you believe in personal responsibility so much that, unlike any other activity, a woman can forfeit the right bodily integrity simply by having sex. We don't even force people on death row to, for example, donate organs, but the ladies who had sex, they lose that right.

Third life involved. Not as simple as you are trying to make it. If, indeed, the true debate is "life vs autonomy", then demonstrate that the nine months of pregnancy is worse than the death of the unborn. In other words, show that it is a larger crime to not assist in the killing of the unborn so the woman can avoid having a baby, than it is to kill that life.

All snide remarks aside, explain to me the overwhelming imperative in this situation that bodily autonomy be maintained. Because I have yet to see anyone, ever, attempt this beyond asserting it. Maybe you'll offer a new perspective I haven't considered.

Do you know the difference between racism and racial animus?

The two are often used interchangeably.

I would say your position is based on a cultural norm that thinks very little of men, and holds women responsible for making sure they don't have the opportunity to misbehave.

Your implicit bias has led you far astray.

Is that what you predicted?

I don't recall making a prediction. Your answers continue to surprise me.

Hugo Pelland said...

Regarding that specifically:
"...explain to me the overwhelming imperative in this situation that bodily autonomy be maintained. Because I have yet to see anyone, ever, attempt this beyond asserting it. Maybe you'll offer a new perspective I haven't considered."

What you seem to 'not' consider, Legion, is the notion that we know how reproduction works.

Really, it's that simple. The thread is "Roe V Wade again" yet the pro-life position completely ignores what we know about cells, DNA, development, etc... it's always about "killing a human being" with no regards to what it really means when getting rid of a bunch of cells that are not developed much, yet.

And, you chose to reply to that instead of your other comments on so-called "attacks on whiteness". Goes to show where your priorities are. Too bad...

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

"...explain to me the overwhelming imperative in this situation that bodily autonomy be maintained. Because I have yet to see anyone, ever, attempt this beyond asserting it. Maybe you'll offer a new perspective I haven't considered."

What you seem to 'not' consider, Legion, is the notion that we know how reproduction works.

Really, it's that simple. The thread is "Roe V Wade again" yet the pro-life position completely ignores what we know about cells, DNA, development, etc... it's always about "killing a human being" with no regards to what it really means when getting rid of a bunch of cells that are not developed much, yet.


It seems that you are engaging Legion at a similar point to where our discussion was heading so, since I share his observation, I'll respond.

He asked for an explanation for why some people hold to the doctrine of the supremacy of bodily autonomy.™
You've told me abortion should be legal under all circumstances because of this doctrine.

But your response completely ignored his challenge. You've proved his point. You've shown you merely assume it without even an attempt at a rational defense.

Are you trying to divert the discussion by hurling insults and begging a completely different question?

Hugo Pelland said...

What point do I assume exactly?
That a 1-day old embryo is just that, an embryo?
Or what other stage?
You can't state anything specific...

Hugo Pelland said...

What insults by the way!?

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo,

What you seem to 'not' consider, Legion, is the notion that we know how reproduction works.

My entire position is based on knowing how reproduction works, so I'm not certain how you come to that conclusion.

The difference between us is that you are picking an arbitrary point at which an organism becomes a human life, or perhaps even picking an arbitrary point at which "a clump of cells" becomes qualified to be called an organism, which isn't science.

I am going by the biological definitions of what it means to be alive, what it means to be an organism, and what it means to be a human. Both the me at this moment and the me as a zygote meet all three criteria.

And, you chose to reply to that instead of your other comments on so-called "attacks on whiteness". Goes to show where your priorities are. Too bad...

The racist behavior I have seen is dependent upon my circumstances, my media sources, chance, etc. I never claimed that only leftists are racists or that they are factually more often racists than people on the right (or if I did, I wildly misspoke). I am merely talking about my own experience, and it seems that every day there are more and more leftwing nutjobs talking about the problem of whiteness. Statistically insignificant? Probably. But still more than I see from the right. I'm sure if I switched to HuffPo for media that the ratio would switch.

Basically, I do not for one second believe that the Republican party is a party of overt racism. I believe racists exist on both sides. Regarding the left, there seem to be many who have an issue with equating disagreement with bigotry, which is nonsense, but again that's possibly because the media I consume loves to highlight leftists behaving badly.

I also believe the current progressive strategy toward race is directly counter to the dream of MLK. There are colleges who post "microagressions" that include "color-blindness", as in not caring about a person's skin color. Not caring about skin color is racist? I find that view ludicrous.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

What point do I assume exactly?

That the bodily autonomy of the mother is a supreme right.

That a 1-day old embryo is just that, an embryo?
Or what other stage?
You can't state anything specific...


These all refer to the offspring, not to bodily autonomy which was the subject of Legion's quote you selected. It seems you ignored the subject because you already assumed there was nothing to contest....proving his point.

The fact that you say" what we know about cells, DNA, development,.... etc" is a textbook example of begging the question against your opponents. The argument is exactly about what the organism is after the moment of conception. You're merely repeating a contested assertion.

What insults by the way!?

What you seem to 'not' consider, Legion, is the notion that we know how reproduction works.

Translation: Legion I know how reproduction works. You don't or are ingoring it.

Really, it's that simple. The thread is "Roe V Wade again" yet the pro-life position completely ignores what we know about cells, DNA, development, etc...

Translation: Everyone on the pro-life side, including you bmiller, doesn't just "seem to 'not' consider" how reproduction works, but "completely ignores what we know...etc"

Those statements are the equivalent of someone from the pro-life side saying that all abortion advocates are ignoring the moral considerations of their position. It's untrue as Legion points out and it's just as insulting as me saying you are morally ignorant.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,

You said: "My entire position is based on knowing how reproduction works, so I'm not certain how you come to that conclusion. The difference between us is that you are picking an arbitrary point at which an organism becomes a human life..."

No, I don't draw a line actually. I mentioned a few times that it's a grey area.

"I am going by the biological definitions of what it means to be alive, what it means to be an organism, and what it means to be a human. Both the me at this moment and the me as a zygote meet all three criteria."

But we cannot draw a clear line between all of these things. That's why I see it as ignoring what we know about reproduction because there is not mystery at any step, but also not clear line between when the first cell becomes an embryo that becomes a zygote that becomes a fetus that becomes a baby, a human life. The term 'alive' is also not even that clear in biology; are viruses alive?

That's why I see your position as relying on an equivocation fallacy:
- Killing a human life is wrong, it's murder
- A fetus is a human life.
- Abortion kill fetuses.
- Therefore abortion is killing a meaning life, it's wrong, it's murder.

The problem is that 'human life' doesn't mean the same, at all, on each line.

If you agree, then your position is not that abortion kills a human life, it's something else. And I don't know what we disagree on exactly.

If you disagree, then your position implies that 2 random human cells who happen to join each other is instantly a human life, on the same footing as grown living human beings. And that's what we truly disagree on.

Which is it? I am honestly not sure and both warrant more explanations as to why you think so. I think it's the latter because of your latest comments, but I would like to know to be sure.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said:
"That the bodily autonomy of the mother is a supreme right."
Supreme? Well, it's a right yes, we all have these same rights. There is no assumption as to what right wins when two of them come in conflicts. That's again why I don't think we can draw a clear line between when the mother's right to her bodily autonomy stops and the right to live of the human baby starts. I just don't see a 1-day old embryo has having that right to life.

"Translation: Legion I know how reproduction works. You don't or are ingoring it.
[...]
Translation: Everyone on the pro-life side, including you bmiller, doesn't just "seem to 'not' consider" how reproduction works, but "completely ignores what we know...etc""

These 2 are the same point. The arguments presented by you and Legion not only ignore complexities of human reproduction, yes, but they also ignore the understanding of that same process. That's the cause of the equivocation fallacy in my opinion. Your position is simplistic. If you think that's an insult, you are too attached to the argument I am afraid...

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Supreme? Well, it's a right yes, we all have these same rights. There is no assumption as to what right wins when two of them come in conflicts. That's again why I don't think we can draw a clear line between when the mother's right to her bodily autonomy stops and the right to live of the human baby starts. I just don't see a 1-day old embryo has having that right to life.

You've claimed that this right supercedes the right of the human baby to live under all circumstances regardless of the stage of development. So it is irrelevant to only discuss a 1-day old embryo and ignore the case of a full term baby when you advocate unrestricted killing of both. Your position *does* entail that the mother's bodily autonomy wins under all conditions. You *have* drawn "a clear line between when the mother's right to her bodily autonomy stops and the right to live of the human baby starts." It's after the baby has completely exited the birth canal.

This is the most extreme abortion position available. The supreme right of bodily autonomy over the right to life of the post conception, pre-birth individual under any and all circumstances.

The arguments presented by you and Legion not only ignore complexities of human reproduction, yes, but they also ignore the understanding of that same process. That's the cause of the equivocation fallacy in my opinion.

I've read Legion's posts and yours. He claims he's basing his arguments on biological definitions of alive, organism and human. Are you claiming he's wrong about those definitions? In that case it should be easy to refute him. Just provide links to authoritative biology sources that show he is wrong. Otherwise you are making baseless assertions.

Regarding the syllogism. The way you stated it makes it formal fallacy since the conclusion contains the phrase "killing a meaning life" which has no connection to the premises.

- Killing a human life is wrong, it's murder
- A fetus is a human life.
- Abortion kill fetuses.
- Therefore abortion is killing a meaning life, it's wrong, it's murder.

To avoid that fallacy it should read:
Therefore abortion is killing a human life, it's wrong, it's murder.

Your complaint should be, then, that you think the second premise is invalid, not that there is some sort of equivocation going on here.

Your position is simplistic. If you think that's an insult, you are too attached to the argument I am afraid...

I don't recall presenting any arguments to you wrt to that particular topic so I don't know how you could conclude that my position ignores things or is simplistic. What argument are you referring to specifically? Don't you think it's insulting to tell someone their position is simplistic when they haven't given you their argument?

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said:

" I don't recall presenting any arguments to you wrt to that particular topic so I don't know how you could conclude that my position ignores things or is simplistic. What argument are you referring to specifically? Don't you think it's insulting to tell someone their position is simplistic when they haven't given you their argument? "
True, good points. But that one comment I am replying to is filled with implied arguments and definitions that you accept as true. Hence, it is exactly the same as presenting arguments or, at the very least, it’s presenting positions that you may or may not try to defend.

"You've claimed that this right supercedes the right of the human baby to live under all circumstances regardless of the stage of development. "
Not regardless of the stage of development, because I don’t consider a 1-day old embryo to be a baby nor a human life with rights.
That’s your first implied argument: there is always a ‘human baby’ involved in an abortion.

"So it is irrelevant to only discuss a 1-day old embryo and ignore the case of a full term baby when you advocate unrestricted killing of both."
Advocating the killing of full term baby? That’s… weird.
But it does show your second implied argument: a 1-day old embryo is something that we can “kill”, presumably in the exact same sense that we can murder a human being, and not in the same sense as killing a virus.

"You *have* drawn "a clear line between when the mother's right to her bodily autonomy stops and the right to live of the human baby starts." It's after the baby has completely exited the birth canal."
No I don’t think that. If a woman is having a complicated pregnancy and it’s in the best interest of the fetus that a c-section should be performed, say at week 35, I don’t think the mother’s right to choose a natural birth should be more important. That’s just 1 example but it shows that you are indeed oversimplifying.

"He claims he's basing his arguments on biological definitions of alive, organism and human. Are you claiming he's wrong about those definitions?"
No he’s not wrong on the definitions. He’s wrong on the equivocation of the meaning, value, and rights of the biological entities involved in the pregnancy.

"Regarding the syllogism. The way you stated it makes it formal fallacy since the conclusion contains the phrase "killing a meaning life" which has no connection to the premises."
That was a typo because I wrote from my phone and copy/pasted that typo…

So the syllogism is indeed:
- Killing a human life is wrong, it's murder
- A fetus is a human life.
- Abortion kill fetuses.
- Therefore abortion is killing a human life, it's wrong, it's murder.

"Your complaint should be, then, that you think the second premise is invalid, not that there is some sort of equivocation going on here."
That’s exactly what my complaint is, yes. The second premise is wrong in stating that a fetus is a human life in the same sense as what we see in the first premise. It is specifically a case of equivocation fallacy because the premise, on its own, is not totally wrong. We can say that a fetus is a human life, or a living human thing, or a thing made of human cells. We can also say that about an embryo, or a zygote, etc… but when we talk about murder, it’s not quite the same.

Hugo Pelland said...

"This is the most extreme abortion position available. The supreme right of bodily autonomy over the right to life of the post conception, pre-birth individual under any and all circumstances."
I don’t think it’s as extreme as you’re trying to portray it given that I think the woman should be allowed to choose what to do with her body at any time, yes, but the more advanced the pregnancy the more difficult it is to determine whether the fetus has any rights to life, and we should work on saving that fetus if it’s possible. So even though, legally, I don’t think there should be a line, I hope doctors and other health specialists do their job in explaining clearly what the woman is about to do to a fetus that could live outside the womb. Again, it’s not all black-and-white as you try to put it.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

But that one comment I am replying to is filled with implied arguments and definitions that you accept as true. Hence, it is exactly the same as presenting arguments or, at the very least, it’s presenting positions that you may or may not try to defend

I am pretty sure you don't know how I would ground my argument. In fact, I think you would have a difficult time understanding it. I say this because of the way you present your own arguments. I've been asking questions to see how deeply we would have to go philosophically to reach common ground. I would have to ask a lot more before we got there.

"You've claimed that this right supercedes the right of the human baby to live under all circumstances regardless of the stage of development. "
Not regardless of the stage of development, because I don’t consider a 1-day old embryo to be a baby nor a human life with rights.
That’s your first implied argument: there is always a ‘human baby’ involved in an abortion.


If you think that you missed the point. I am only examining your argument and observing that whatever you wish to call the occupant of the womb at any time, this supreme right wins. I'm not making a judgement or argument, only a factual observation.

Advocating the killing of full term baby? That’s… weird.
But it does show your second implied argument: a 1-day old embryo is something that we can “kill”, presumably in the exact same sense that we can murder a human being, and not in the same sense as killing a virus.


I am not implying anything. I'm observing that you make no distinction wrt the supreme right we're discussing.

"You *have* drawn "a clear line between when the mother's right to her bodily autonomy stops and the right to live of the human baby starts." It's after the baby has completely exited the birth canal."
No I don’t think that. If a woman is having a complicated pregnancy and it’s in the best interest of the fetus that a c-section should be performed, say at week 35, I don’t think the mother’s right to choose a natural birth should be more important. That’s just 1 example but it shows that you are indeed oversimplifying.


Are you really quibbling that you'll allow that a woman should not kill her newborn if it was delivered c-section? You're very generous. Then I amend my statement to "It's after the baby has completely left the vicinity of the woman's body."

No he’s not wrong on the definitions. He’s wrong on the equivocation of the meaning, value, and rights of the biological entities involved in the pregnancy.

You've made that assertion yes. What are your reasons for making that assertion. Merely saying that you think there are 3 zones of development is just your opinion unless you can give compelling reasons for why you are right.

That’s exactly what my complaint is, yes. The second premise is wrong in stating that a fetus is a human life in the same sense as what we see in the first premise. It is specifically a case of equivocation fallacy because the premise, on its own, is not totally wrong. We can say that a fetus is a human life, or a living human thing, or a thing made of human cells. We can also say that about an embryo, or a zygote, etc… but when we talk about murder, it’s not quite the same.

Then your complaint is most likely with the first premise. Because if you accept that killing a human life is murder, then the rest follows. You'll have to explain and justify your different classifications of human life into OK to kill and not OK to kill.

I don’t think it’s as extreme as you’re trying to portray it

I'm just observing that "always legal, no exception, no consequences." is the most extreme position possible legally. I'm not misrepresenting it.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said:

"I am pretty sure you don't know how I would ground my argument. In fact, I think you would have a difficult time understanding it. I say this because of the way you present your own arguments. I've been asking questions to see how deeply we would have to go philosophically to reach common ground. I would have to ask a lot more before we got there."

That is hilarious. I think you are mistaking the little effort I put in this discussion with an inability to understand or express my positions better. This is just a blog, you realize that, right? I wrote something like half of my posts here while sitting on the toilet; that's how grand and important this is, just so you know.

"...whatever you wish to call the occupant of the womb at any time, this supreme right wins. I'm not making a judgement or argument, only a factual observation."

Calling an embryo and 'occupant' is a value judgement actually, and because we clearly disagree on that definition, it's also a judgement of my position. Nothing wrong with judging; we just disagree. But it's weird that you pretend that you are merely observing and questioning...

"Are you really quibbling that you'll allow that a woman should not kill her newborn if it was delivered c-section? You're very generous. Then I amend my statement to "It's after the baby has completely left the vicinity of the woman's body.""

No, you misunderstood that part. It's the other way around. It was an example of a case where the woman should not have control over her body, in my opinion.

"Merely saying that you think there are 3 zones of development is just your opinion unless you can give compelling reasons for why you are right."

There are not 3 distinct zones of development, and it's a weird way to put it but yes, it's my opinion; that's what we are talking about... different views, different opinions. It is my opinion that defining a 'human life' as anything that is 'alive', has 'human' cells and is an organism is a really low bar for that a human life is. In the context of abortion, it is used to avoid discussing what personhood is, or what consciousness is, as Joe mentioned for example.

And I keep saying that it's anti-scientific because it obfuscate the fact that there is a continuous chemical and biological process happening with the cells from both parent. It's DNA fetishism as I have half-jokingly said before. The embryo is just some new random combination of genes.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

That is hilarious. I think you are mistaking the little effort I put in this discussion with an inability to understand or express my positions better. This is just a blog, you realize that, right? I wrote something like half of my posts here while sitting on the toilet; that's how grand and important this is, just so you know.

OK, I guess you are telling me you have some secret powers of rational thought you choose to keep hidden (perhaps defecating weakens them). I remain dubious.

For instance:
Calling an embryo and 'occupant' is a value judgement actually, and because we clearly disagree on that definition, it's also a judgement of my position.

I used the word occupant in the sense that a material object occupies space precisely to keep the object under discussion as generic as possible. A rock could be the occupant of a particular space for instance.

And:
No, you misunderstood that part. It's the other way around. It was an example of a case where the woman should not have control over her body, in my opinion.

Then if you consider it illegal for her to kill the occupant under this circumstance it is a contradiction. Otherwise it is irrelevant to the topic.

It is my opinion that defining a 'human life' as anything that is 'alive', has 'human' cells and is an organism is a really low bar for that a human life is.

Which literally no one does, so is irrelvant.

In the context of abortion, it is used to avoid discussing what personhood is, or what consciousness is, as Joe mentioned for example.

Which again is irrelevant since you hold legal the Supreme Right of Bodily Autonomy regardless of "personhood" or "consciousness" considerations of the womb's occupant.

And I keep saying that it's anti-scientific because it obfuscate the fact that there is a continuous chemical and biological process happening with the cells from both parent.

You must have written this while defecating again because it doesn't make sense.

The embryo is just some new random combination of genes.

And this pretty much confirms that you don't know what you're talking about.

bmiller said...

Clarification.

"Which literally no one does, so is irrelvant."

The definition as stated would have included a man-eating tiger.

Hugo Pelland said...

The embryo is just some new random combination of genes.

"And this pretty much confirms that you don't know what you're talking about."

That's the main thing I'm talking about. The main reason why it's a false equivocation to label the embryo a 'human life' that can be murdered. So you're not addressing my position and never did, even if you claimed that that's all you're doing...

This confirms you're not really listening, just like when you say that I draw a line, right after I say we cannot draw a line.

Finally:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/occupant
1) a person, family, group, or organization that lives in, occupies, or has quarters or space in or on something:
the occupant of a taxicab; the occupants of the building.
2) a tenant of a house, estate, office, etc.; resident.
If you meant something else, that is not necessarily a person, you needed to use another word or clarify what you meant. But I think it was simply your bias showing.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

If you meant something else, that is not necessarily a person, you needed to use another word or clarify what you meant. But I think it was simply your bias showing.

I just *did* clarify what I meant. I thought it was more descriptive than 'entity' but I have no particular preference.

The embryo is just some new random combination of genes.

This is simply a false statement. There is a very sophisticated process involved in sexual reproduction with a specific process that combines the genetic material in a specific way. Random genetic combinations produce disorders if not spontaneous abortion.

So you're not addressing my position and never did, even if you claimed that that's all you're doing...

I've been trying to find out what exactly your position is, but your answers are incoherent and/or contradictory. It doesn't help me to understand your position when I show you where I can't make sense of what you're saying and you simply ignore me.

It looks to me that you contradict yourself and apparently consider this a rational thing to do. Is that the case?

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes, obviously, I love to contradict myself; it's completely rational.

Joke aside, we simply disagree on what the sexual reproduction process entails then. It's a fantastic piece of chemical machinery, sure, but I see it as just that, some complex chemical reaction. There is also randomness in that half the gene from each parent is selected and that's what makes each new embryo unique, along with the unusual copying error.

Plus, since you mentioned spontaneous abortions, that's actually another point that support my view that embryos are not worth sweating over as around 1/5 gets discarded naturally anyway.

Divergent opinions, yes, contradictions, I don't see where.

bmiller said...

Divergent opinions, yes, contradictions, I don't see where.

Yes, you've told me that you consider contradictions a little detail and you apparently aren't into details so....

Plus, since you mentioned spontaneous abortions, that's actually another point that support my view that embryos are not worth sweating over as around 1/5 gets discarded naturally anyway.

It's funny that you consider this a good argument. Let me take your same argument and make a slight change.
100% of people die so it's OK to kill one.

But I give you credit. It's one of the rare times you've even tried to make an argument rather than just stating an opinion.

Hugo Pelland said...

- I am into details, when they matter...

- The 1/5 ratio is relevant as a counter-argument to the opinion that killing an embryo is like killing a baby. The 20% natural death rate is tiny compared to the 0.6% of infant mortality rate. On its own, true, it's not a meaningful stat, but it's one more point supporting the idea that there is no 'human life' to talk about yet, it's 'human' cells, it's 'alive', but it's not the same as a human with rights. That comes into play later, and it's difficult to know when exactly, in my opinion.

- Thanks for giving me credit; your approval means the world to me!

bmiller said...

I guess you don't see why it's a bad argument wrt the question of morality.

The 1/5 ratio is relevant as a counter-argument to the opinion that killing an embryo is like killing a baby. The 20% natural death rate is tiny compared to the 0.6% of infant mortality rate.

All people naturally die. 100%. That does not make it a good argument that we can kill people does it? Or people in third world countries die sooner than people in first world countries. So that means we can kill them? How about ill people? They have a higher death rate too. Can we kill them?

It's a really bad argument for the morality of an action even if we don't talk about lives at stake. For instance people lose money all the time. So it's OK to take it from them?

Now I'd like you to make an actual argument why the "right to bodily integrity" legally allows the killing of a human baby inside the womb as you've stated as your position.

Hugo Pelland said...

You're right, it's not a good argument as to whether a human should be killed or not, but remember that the point of contention here is whether we can call the embryo a human, with rights; the 1/5 ratio is a point in support of the view that it's not. And it's more like a 'bonus' point because I don't think it would matter if 99% of embryos survived. At least it wouldn't change my mind...

My position is not that we should 'legally allows the killing of a human baby inside the womb'; my point is that it's not a human baby that is being killed. It's something else; something alive, yes, something human, yes, but not something that has human rights. Not yet. It has the potential to, which is the strongest argument against that position, but I don't agree that the fact that this embryo has potential grants it rights.

bmiller said...

; the 1/5 ratio is a point in support of the view that it's not. And it's more like a 'bonus' point because I don't think it would matter if 99% of embryos survived

Then the 100% death rate of people should give you extra bonus points to kill your neighbor if a 20% death rate means an entity is not human.

The death rates of plants, animals or humans is irrelevant to the question if it's moral to kill them or not.

My position is not that we should 'legally allows the killing of a human baby inside the womb'; my point is that it's not a human baby that is being killed.

39 weeks. It's not an embryo. I could survive outside. Yet you support it's legal killing. Just asking you to support your position. Are you really saying that it's not a human being deserving of the right to live?

Hugo Pelland said...

- No you are seeing the 1/5 ratio the wrong way. The point is that 1/5 of the embryos won't reach the stage, past that grey zone, where they are definitely do have the same rights as all human beings. In your example, the 100% death rate applies to people who already have these rights, so it's not equivalent. I.e., one is about going from no-rights to having rights, 4/5 of embryos do, while the other is about stripping away rights from people because 100% of them will die one day. Apples and oranges.
- The rate is relevant as a confirmation that these embryos are not people with rights. If we start with the belief that they have rights, of course it doesn't work. If we start with the belief that they do have rights, it just makes it more obvious that they are not worth savings. But on its own, it's not an argument in favor of not giving them rights. It's neither sufficient nor necessary.
- No I don't support the killing of 39 weeks babies. That is way passed the grey zone during which I don't know whether it's fine to have an abortion and whether we should save the mother first, or the baby first, for example. These are really tough situations that I don't have strong opinions on. But a less than 3-month old fetus, ya, do whatever you want; that thing is meaningless. I know it's emotionally repulsive to some, but that's how I see it. Sorry to hurt your feelings if you feel that way...

bmiller said...

- The rate is relevant as a confirmation that these embryos are not people with rights.

Yeah. Your argument is still not an argument.

You assume they aren't people with rights regardless of their death rates. So it's irrelevant to you.
If I assume they are people with rights I would just say some groups of people with rights die at a higher rate than other groups of people with rights. So it's irrelevant me.

- No I don't support the killing of 39 weeks babies. That is way passed the grey zone during which I don't know whether it's fine to have an abortion

You said before that you supported it's legal killing by abortion. Her body, her choice.
Details details.

But a less than 3-month old fetus, ya, do whatever you want; that thing is meaningless. I know it's emotionally repulsive to some, but that's how I see it. Sorry to hurt your feelings if you feel that way...

Hey, there's plenty of people who hold unreasonable opinions they haven't thought through and can't defend. Don't feel special.

Hugo Pelland said...

Ya I did not make much of an argument, that's true. It's more an explanation as to what my opinion is and why. It's basically in line with the post in that you cannot prove that the fetus has the same rights as those already born, and that moral reasoning leaves the question undecided.

Your also right that the death rates is not super relevant. But I do think it shows a contradiction of the pro-life side. The spermatozoon and the egg are not each a 'human life' but someone, together, they are... It's absurd. As if the sudden new combination of DNA molecules created something truly special. It's not, it's just that, a bunch of meaningless cells. And if your God did create them, he gets rid of 1/5 of them already anyway, so why do you care more than God about these molecules?

No, again, I don't support the legal killing of a 39-weeks baby. At that time, the only thing the woman can get to stop the pregnancy is a c-section. And the human baby lives. What we disagree on, I believe, is the morality of 'when' the abortion takes place and what the consequences are. These consequences depend on what is being killed as the result of the abortion. I think that at least 95% of abortions are not killing a human being; only something that has the potential of becoming one. For the rest, that 5% of abortions that happen late enough to be in that ‘grey zone’ I keep talking about, well, I don’t know, it’s not simple and I thus err on the side of letting the woman and her health specialists decide. The details become extremely important in such cases.

There are indeed plenty of people who hold unreasonable opinions they haven't thought through and can't defend. That’s why some of them like to hang out on blogs written and followed by people they mostly agree with. It’s rewarding to get a pat on the back I supposed. I wouldn’t be surprised if most people are like that; they prefer to reinforce their beliefs rather than question them or learn something new. Don't feel special.

bmiller said...

But I do think it shows a contradiction of the pro-life side. The spermatozoon and the egg are not each a 'human life' but someone, together, they are... It's absurd. As if the sudden new combination of DNA molecules created something truly special. It's not, it's just that, a bunch of meaningless cells. And if your God did create them, he gets rid of 1/5 of them already anyway, so why do you care more than God about these molecules?

Haha! You're an atheist right? You yourself are just a bunch of meaningless cells then so why should you care about anyone.
100% of atheists die and I care about them and wish them, including you, not to go to hell.

I think that at least 95% of abortions are not killing a human being; only something that has the potential of becoming one.

But of course you have no reasoned principles for making that determination. Might as well say humans don't have rights till they can spell bmiller and are fair game till then. Small children can be annoying you know.

There are indeed plenty of people who hold unreasonable opinions they haven't thought through and can't defend. That’s why some of them like to hang out on blogs written and followed by people they mostly agree with.

Yes and others go to the sites they don't agree with just to tell the people there they are wrong without explaining why. Trolls I think they're called.

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes, I am an Atheist, but no, I don’t think humans are meaningless cells. We create meaning for each others. Life is precious because that’s all we have afaik; no reason to believe in some other existence beyond this world. What you see as a waiting room is my paradise Clip & Translation

Thanks for caring about me not going to Hell. If I knew this place existed, I would do whatever I can to avoid getting anyone there too!

Regarding having no reasoned principles for making the determination that embryos are not significant, I think I have been pretty clear so far. It’s all about proving that the fetus has the same rights as those already born, but that moral reasoning leaves the question undecided. Again, I think Victor’s post did a good job with that simple reasoning.

Yes, also agreed that there are trolls out there. It’s unfortunate… I come here to learn and bounce ideas off of people who I know disagree with me. It’s very interesting and it made me adjust many of my positions over the year. I can’t say that I was convinced to change much though but it’s part of the process.

Insults happen too obviously. There are people who just cannot write any post without one in them, be it explicitly or implicitly. I try to avoid them myself but, given that entertainment is also a secondary reason to read/write on blogs like this one, it is amusing to reply to some of these insults sometimes. So please, do continue if that makes you feel good. It's amusing for sure.

bmiller said...

You're certainly welcome to think you are something other than meaningless cells if it makes you feel better. It's not possible to make something (meaning) from nothing (meaninglessness) but you don't seem to be bothered.

Again, I think Victor’s post did a good job with that simple reasoning.

If you mean the OP, it was about Roe v Wade which is specifically about the US Constitution and a particular Supreme Court case. I'm pretty sure it will be overturned...maybe soon. As you should know, European countries have much more restrictive ideas about abortion so the US will probably end up more like Poland-like laws.
However, he has a newer post on abortion that discusses a philosophical argument against the pro-life side and a rebuttal.

I come here to learn and bounce ideas off of people who I know disagree with me.

We've had 2 discussions. You come here to tell people off, that is all. You are not interested in an honest exchange of ideas as far as I can tell. You're pretty much an old scold which is a sad state to be in for such a young man. My advice is to spend more time offline with your wife and experience and learn from life. Because...

I try to avoid them myself

you apparently are way too invested in scolding all those people to notice what you are becoming (are?).

Hugo Pelland said...

Again, this is you trying to psychoanalyze what is just a casual conversation on a blog comment thread. You both complain about no argument being presented and filled comments with stuff that has nothing to do with the topic; just some melo-dramatic critique of, in these few onew, of my character. Meanwhile, I was merely mirroring the style I see, and bouncing off genuine ideas, though very quickly expressed because you don't seem like putting any effort either. You seem to be taking this way more seriously and make it personal. It's not.

If it annoys you, or makes you upset, you can always just ignore.

You know that, right?

bmiller said...

Dude, calm down.

You have so much crammed in there I can't make much sense of that latest rant.

I understand that you don't much like my observation of your behavior on this blog, but you were the one that brought it up. I just offered my observations.

I'm actually having a good time. I would just ignore you if I was bored.

Hugo Pelland said...

Huh? I was telling YOU to calm down... good to know we agree.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
So, having sex obligates you to human that doesn't exist at the time you have sex. Thenk you for the dialogue on that topic.

I have no idea what this means, but I suspect you're wrong anyway.


Having sex obligates you to the fetus. The fetus did not exist at the time you had sex. Having sex obligates you to a human that did not yet exist. Seems simple enough.

I am unfamiliar with why you can't simply say "I was affected by once believing that [blank]", or "I used to [blank] without even realizing it." Your answers are generalized, not specific to you.

Examples of what I used to believe, or do, that were taught to me by the patriarchal nature of our culture? Sure. I used to ask out women multiple times, even when they were clearly disinterested the first time. I would privately date women I was emabarrassed to be seen publically with. I thought of sex as something women did for men, not for themselves. I could go on for quite some time with similar examples.

Now, just out of curiosity, how does that actually impact the discussion of implicit bias for you? If you never once engaged any of those three behaviors, does that mean you never bought into patriarchal notions? Does that somehow relieve of the humanness of inventing motivations to explain actions and judgments?

Sadly, you are right. People aren't willing to consider their best interests over having "fun". Then again, culture glamorizes that behavior, which isn't a good thing.

Unrealistic. Check.

People will always engage in risky behavior, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should not hammer home the point that it is, in fact, risky behavior. Maybe one or two people will stop to think about it and avoid putting themselves in a dangerous place.

Do you think the correct time to point it out is in the middle of a discussion on the internet where no one is actually talking about going to a party on that particular night? Is that the time when your warning will have some sort of significant impact? Do you get that giving a useless-at-the-time warning comes across as derailing the conversation rather than enhancing it?

Do you understand why stating something this obvious, that also puts the burden on the woman, can come across as reinfocing the societal context that women are to blame when they are raped?

I don't believe that taking steps to advance one's own safety is a "burden".

Saying it is the woman's job to not be raped puts the burden on the the woman.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
But let me ask you this. Is telling a child to look both ways before crossing the street "distracted driving apologetics"? Does this piece of sensible cautionary advice reinforce a societal context that pedestrians are to blame when a driver is looking at his cell phone and hits the pedestrian?

Unless the pedestrian is crossing the street illegally, I am unaware of any societal context that blames the pedestrian for the driver's illegal behavior. A few years ago, while I was stopped at a red light, a driver rear-ended me at roughtly 40 mph. No one asked me if I was under the influence, why I was on that street, or what I was doing wrong when the other driver hit me.

Also, rapists are not merely careless or unattentive drivers. Rape is intentional.

You interpreted a discussion about culture change as safety discussion.

And as I pointed out above, this "culture change" seems to demonize "be careful". That is not a healthy culture change. Rather heartless, in fact.


It's too bad you got your feelings hurt, but you were derailing the conversation, and therefore seen as impeding what you would otherwise probably think is a good change. I'm sure you agree that when one sees someone about to take advantage of a nearly unconscious person, one should speak up about it how it is wrong. There is no need to derail that conversation with saying what the unconscious person should have done differently.

I would not want them to call the police and then no one ever tell me it happened, as this would lead to no corrective action on my part.

You think you might be burglarized and not know it happened?

Hurt feelings don't invalidate good advice.

Is good advice more likely to be appreciated when delivered in a sensitive manner?

We also misinterpret things all the time.

We do, especially about ourselves.

Indeed, which is why I suspect you are having such difficulty understanding me, based upon your prior beliefs.

You are welcome to explain yourself in more detail. You might even surprise me.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
So patriarchy is the only system that values human life? Interesting.

How delightfully snide amd misleading.

Then what I have said resembles neither.

Patriarchy calls for controlling women's sexual freedom (among other things), and some of the methods it uses are forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will and making women responsible for preventing sexual (mis)behavior by men. Whether you see it or not, your positions are patriarchal.

Third life involved. Not as simple as you are trying to make it. If, indeed, the true debate is "life vs autonomy", then demonstrate that the nine months of pregnancy is worse than the death of the unborn. In other words, show that it is a larger crime to not assist in the killing of the unborn so the woman can avoid having a baby, than it is to kill that life.

Why would you use a weasel-word phrase like "not assist in the killing of the unborn"? Who is asking you to assist? All I am asking is "do not forbid".

As for "life vs autonomy", we answer that in favor of autonomy in multiple ways legally. The right to autonomy is built into the right to life.

All snide remarks aside, explain to me the overwhelming imperative in this situation that bodily autonomy be maintained. Because I have yet to see anyone, ever, attempt this beyond asserting it. Maybe you'll offer a new perspective I haven't considered.

Your decision to keep a gun in your house is a decision to exercise autonomy at the risk of life. The decision to allow households generally to keep firearms is one that grants autonomy and costs lives every year. The right against unreasonable searches, self-incrimination, etc., is a choice of autonomy over the ability to convict criminals, even murderers. Choosing autonomy at the cost of lives is an everyday choice we allow people, and I am unclear why I need to present an overwhelming imperative for this particular case.

The two are often used interchangeably.

They often feel the same to the victim, but they are different. Racism requires no racial animus, and people with racial animus are often in no position to exert racism.

I would say your position is based on a cultural norm that thinks very little of men, and holds women responsible for making sure they don't have the opportunity to misbehave.

Your implicit bias has led you far astray.


In what way? How does your position differ in effect (as opposed to justification) from what I just stated?