Sunday, September 23, 2018

What price pro-life

 I think it is a mistake to make the acid-test of whether someone values life whether we are willing to put people who provide abortions in jail, when there are so many other things that can be done that we don't do to have a child-friendly society. When Roe v. Wade came out in 1973, women could be fired if they carried their babies to term. Employers didn't have to give them unpaid time off to have their babies, and when this was outlawed under Bill Clinton, the very party that is supposedly pro-life, or at least most of their Senators, voted no on the Family and Medical Leave Act. If we want women to have their babies and not abort them shouldn't we want to make sure they have health insurance? Yet the Trump administration cut the CHIP program. If we don't want to see abortions, aren't we going to see more babies born in difficult economic circumstances? Are we willing to pay higher taxes to see to it that these children don't starve? Are we doing enough to show people that life with a disability can be worth living, so that mothers who face the prospect of bearing a child with a disability will be more inclined to have that baby rather than abort it? And yet the party of life has been working on a law that undercuts the Americans with Disabilities Act, and conservatives in Texas want to eliminate all mention of Helen Keller from the American history books. If we want to stop abortions, do we really have to accept arguments that deny that a woman has a right to privacy in her medical decisions, because the legal arguments against Roe are all about rejecting and limiting the right of privacy, and not at all about a fetus's right to life. (If you think the route to getting rid of abortions is through conservative justices, that is what their argument is for overturning Roe. They never argue that the fetus has a provable right to life. Ever.)

I'm pretty sympathetic to pro-life. I don't think the pro-life position is provable to all reasonable persons, but I would never want to be party to an abortion myself. But pro-life seems to include a package deal which includes the Republican agenda. If have been told that I have to accept a President whose behavior harms the country in more ways than I can count, all because, by golly, he'll put people on the Supreme Court who will save all of those fetuses, all the while trying to take health insurance away from millions of people, including those very fetuses once they are born. If he shot five people to death on Fifth Avenue, some people would say "Yes, but at least he's pro-life."

74 comments:

bmiller said...

I used to think you asked these types of questions because you wanted to provoke thoughtful discussions. Not anymore.

Nick said...

Dr. Reppert, you should be ashamed of yourself. This post is why I now read Dr. Bill Vallicella's blog Maverick Philosopher much more frequently.

Victor Reppert said...

I write these types of things in an attempt to understand what I think about these issues, and why. I am glad people on both sides of the abortion issue think that abortion is a clear and simple issue. Sometimes I think I am the only person in the world who finds the whole issue extremely vexing.

Nick said...

It may be vexing, Doctor, but I think it undeniable that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, Constitutionally speaking anyway. I know someone who had an abortion after being raped, and I never questioned her on it. Still, the Democrats seem to be totally unconcerned that abortion in any circumstance may be taking a human life, so I'd rather vote Republican.

bmiller said...

The problem I have is that this post has such a mismash of polemic unexamined assertions there is no way it will produce anything close to light, but only heat.

Perhaps you find it vexing because you are conflating secondary considerations with primary ones.

For instance, the primary issue shouldn't be whether a person gets insurance or not, but whether to kill him or not. Once a person is dead it doesn't matter if he has "affordable healthcare".

All of that is secondary. If you can convince pro-lifers that it is OK to kill a "fetus" then you can be free to discuss how to protect the living. Why is this so vexing?

John Moore said...

Why don't you guys answer Victor's questions? It doesn't matter whether it's primary or secondary - just answer the question. Personally, I think Victor's post here is very thought-provoking. And yes, abortion is a vexing issue for people who really care about families and children in addition to fetuses.

Joe Hinman said...


http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/09/does-religion-make-one-happy-is-that.html


Discussion of research on religion and happiness, much research suggests correlation between religious activity and happiness. I take on an atheist who disputes this but also indicate a better measure of veracity is not happiness per se but transformative experience.

Joe Hinman said...

the right to life. movement is anti life. It's opposed to the Lebenswelt. It prefers the womb to the life-world.I think people who are born and run around in the world have more priority than those who are un born. That does not mean I am for killing the unborn it does mean I don;t accept writing off all other social issues as sacrificed to stop abortion.

bmiller said...

@John,

This screed boils down to "sure my party kills babies, but your's would let them starve." There is nothing honest or reasonable to deal with here.

I'm pretty sympathetic to pro-life. I don't think the pro-life position is provable to all reasonable persons, but I would never want to be party to an abortion myself.

A reasonable person would give reasons for their position. The screed doesn't provide any.

One Brow said...

Nick said...
I know someone who had an abortion after being raped, and I never questioned her on it.

It's nice you only want to punish women who are not raped.

Still, the Democrats seem to be totally unconcerned that abortion in any circumstance may be taking a human life, so I'd rather vote Republican.

As long as Republicans feel good about enslaving women to the needs of the unborn, I'll vote Democratic.

I'm sure Dr. Vallicella is a better fit your tastes.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
For instance, the primary issue shouldn't be whether a person gets insurance or not, but whether to kill him or not. Once a person is dead it doesn't matter if he has "affordable healthcare".

The primary issue is whether the life of the fetus is so important that it is acceptable to force a woman into bondage to that fetus against her will; a determination we make about no other person in society.

All of that is secondary. If you can convince pro-lifers that it is OK to kill a "fetus" then you can be free to discuss how to protect the living. Why is this so vexing?

What's vexing is the refusal to recognize the power of the carrot, in the haste to use the stick.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow: It's nice you only want to punish women who are not raped.


Still embarrassing yourself with unfounded accusations of sexism, I see. I'm assuming Nick is also a racist in your mind.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger bmiller said...
@John,

This screed boils down to "sure my party kills babies, but your's would let them starve." There is nothing honest or reasonable to deal with here.

I'm pretty sympathetic to pro-life. I don't think the pro-life position is provable to all reasonable persons, but I would never want to be party to an abortion myself.

A reasonable person would give reasons for their position. The screed doesn't provide any.

September 24, 2018 5:22 AM


when we argued pro choice here you gays weren't even in the room.you had no concept of the options or arguments i made. the assumption babies:is just propagandist., there are no babies involved they are not babies, speak in actuate sentences instead of , propaganda.

you need to cross reference this with the the thread on Christian apologetic.

Legion of Logic said...

John said we should answer Victor's questions, and that's fair.

If we want women to have their babies and not abort them shouldn't we want to make sure they have health insurance?

Not having health insurance is not an excuse to kill a human life wrought through easily avoidable choices. That said, so long as we have a culture that glorifies promiscuity, and where the left is increasingly wanting women to literally boast of their abortions, and where so many women are apparently susceptible to this abomination of a message and action, then yes it would probably be a good idea to have affordable health insurance for everyone. Though the health insurance argument has far more going for it than simply this one topic.

If we don't want to see abortions, aren't we going to see more babies born in difficult economic circumstances?

I was born in difficult economic circumstances. Thankfully my parents didn't kill me as part of a "private medical decision" to help their budget.

Are we willing to pay higher taxes to see to it that these children don't starve?

A better allocation of the taxes we do pay would be a better choice. Uncle Sam doesn't have a functioning budget.

Are we doing enough to show people that life with a disability can be worth living, so that mothers who face the prospect of bearing a child with a disability will be more inclined to have that baby rather than abort it?

I only hear from leftists that such lives are not worth saving, particularly with Down's Syndrome. Police your own.

If we want to stop abortions, do we really have to accept arguments that deny that a woman has a right to privacy in her medical decisions

When a second life is involved, it is no longer private and no longer analogous to getting a haircut or having a gallbladder removed. It's ending a second life.

Joe Hinman said...

Still, the Democrats seem to be totally unconcerned that abortion in any circumstance may be taking a human life, so I'd rather vote Republican.


RTLM has produced the assumption that the court never rueld, it;s not the law o the land a bunch of evil people are killing babies and the court hasn;t ruled on it,they are wartime to get a Republican majority they got 50 years ago,

you don;t need to put fetus in scare quote they are fetuses,they are not babies, babies are born. before birth they are fetus

Legion of Logic said...

there are no babies involved they are not babies

The frailty of this argument lies in the arbitrary nature of words we use to identify and describe different stages of development. We have an elderly person. Twenty years earlier he was middle aged. Twenty years earlier he was a young adult. Fifteen years before that he was a teenager. Before that he was a child, then a toddler, then a baby. When he was as yet unborn he was called a fetus. Earlier than that he was an embryo, then a zygote. Before that, he didn't exist at all.

Note that in every stage, we are speaking of the exact same organism. Pick something to identify the organism (X), and we find that as an elder, it's X. Middle aged, it's X. Young adult, X. Teenager, X. Child, X. Toddler, X. Baby, X. Fetus, X. Embryo, X. Zygote, X. It's always the exact same living creature. The divisions we use, like baby vs toddler, are based upon either age or a particular stage of development. Babies cry and poop everywhere, toddlers are walking around and learning to speak and say "No" to everything. No one would say a baby is less human than a toddler, or that one the baby magically becomes a toddler, because the only difference is stage of development.

Pro life people do not stop using that same commonsense standard simply because of the location in question. The earliest stages of development in every human life occur in the womb, but that does not invalidate the human life. People who say "with child" to describe pregnancy are only wrong in the stage of development the English language describes. In the essence of what they are meaning, they are exactly right. It's a young human life.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
One Brow: It's nice you only want to punish women who are not raped.


Still embarrassing yourself with unfounded accusations of sexism, I see. I'm assuming Nick is also a racist in your mind.


You're still using the "don't say a mean word" defense, rather than addressing the substance. A fetus who is the product of rape is just as much a human life, and just as innocent, as one who is the product of consensual sex, so why treat them differently, if not rooted in the behavior of the mother?

Is focusing on a word I did not use, rather than addressing the principle I did, an example of the logic you have named yourself after?

bmiller said...

Pro life people do not stop using that same commonsense standard simply because of the location in question. The earliest stages of development in every human life occur in the womb, but that does not invalidate the human life.

This is uncontroversial in the medical field and has been since the early 1800's.

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).”11 Even authors who philosophically lean towards not attributing the same value to human life at the one-cell stage as they do to later stages of development admit that “As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”12

It's not "vexing" at all. It's settled science.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow: You're still using the "don't say a mean word" defense, rather than addressing the substance.

If there was substance to address by referring to it as a desire to "punish women", I would do so. There isn't, so I can't.

When you gain enough clarity on the issue that you realize "punishing women" has absolutely nothing to do with anything, then we can talk. Given your inability to do so when you accused me of that same nonsense, I have little hope, but sometimes people do have breakthroughs.

There's no point discussing the difference between the one percent, at most, of abortions due to rape and the 99 percent, at least, of those that are not, until you figure this out. Let me know when this occurs.

Legion of Logic said...

bmiller: It's not "vexing" at all. It's settled science.

But it sure is inconvenient to the "woman's body" narrative, so facts must be denied to maintain the conclusion. Otherwise leftists have to simply admit that, in their opinion, the unborn have no worth. Easier to deny they are human than to admit such a thing.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
If there was substance to address by referring to it as a desire to "punish women", I would do so. There isn't, so I can't.

You could offer an alternative explanation of why the life of fetus becomes less worth saving when the sperm source has raped the egg source. I won't hold my breath.

When you gain enough clarity on the issue that you realize "punishing women" has absolutely nothing to do with anything, then we can talk.

Then what does it have to do with?

Of course, this started with me questioning Nick's position (on abortion being allowed when the woman was raped), which perhaps you don't share. If so, perhaps you will call out Nick, as well. Again, not holding my breath.

I will certainly grant that anyone who is opposed to all abortions in all non-life-threatening circumstances is not out to punish the woman for having sex, and that her enslavement to the needs of the fetus may indeed be an unfortunate by-product. On what that means overall for weighing the needs of one individual against another, applying this standard to non-pregnancy situations has other implications that most find distasteful. You may be the exception.

Given your inability to do so when you accused me of that same nonsense, I have little hope, but sometimes people do have breakthroughs.

You seem to be confusing "accused" and "characterized".

One Brow said...

But it sure is inconvenient to the "woman's body" narrative, so facts must be denied to maintain the conclusion. Otherwise leftists have to simply admit that, in their opinion, the unborn have no worth. Easier to deny they are human than to admit such a thing.

I actually agree here. Pro-choice activists do diminish the humanness of the fetus to make their positions more palatable to themselves. On the opposite side, anti-abortion activists diminish the nature of enforced servitude to make their positions more palatable. It's a very human thing to do.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow,

Let me know when you figure out that wanting to "punish women" has nothing to do with it. Your question about the difference in the "sperm source" has a simple (not easy, but simple) answer, but it's not worth talking about that when you have such ridiculous caricatures of others' motivations twisting your beliefs.

Let me know. Not holding my breath, either.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Let me know when you figure out that wanting to "punish women" has nothing to do with it. Your question about the difference in the "sperm source" has a simple (not easy, but simple) answer, but it's not worth talking about that when you have such ridiculous caricatures of others' motivations twisting your beliefs.

Let me know. Not holding my breath, either.


Legion of Logic, you are of course free to make any demands you wish before explaining your position. I am free to take the consequences of your position as one of the reasons for it. Absent evidence, what is the visible (to me) difference between my characterization and the reality?

I asked you honestly to make a serious distinction. You may or may not have an argument that is novel to me and sound. Hopefully, it's something better than a woman giving consent to a being that does not yet exist, and therefore it becomes acceptable to legally enforce her inability to withdraw consent.

Legion of Logic said...

Last time I explained it to you and you rejected it, so I know precisely the "arguments" I will have to wade through that cloud the entire issue. I have no interest in explaining how valuing life is not "punishing women", which sadly and surprisingly is not self-evident to some.

So until I see that you have a better grasp on the pro-life position, it's not worth the time. You seem to like caricatures of positions you disagree with, so attribute whatever you want to my reasons for not continuing without progress on your part. But the truth has been presented to you, and that's all I can or will do.

One Brow said...

. I have no interest in explaining how valuing life is not "punishing women", which sadly and surprisingly is not self-evident to some.

Actually, the part I don't remember hearing is "why the life of fetus becomes less worth saving when the sperm source has raped the egg source", which I could have sworn you said you had an explanation for.

As for my grasp of the position, I will be happy to grant the distinction between the rationalization (what we tell ourselves we are trying to do) and the effect. I have no reason to doubt that you sincerely believe you are only valuing life. I said nothing that would indicate you have any other belief.

Sure, the result of the belief is sexist, but that's not because you intend sexism. Yes, it fosters involuntary servitude (temporary slavery), but that's not because you intend to enslave women. I understand that these are merely unfortunate side effects of your deep commitment to every innocent, unknowing, unaware, unborn person (expect those created by rape, apparently, who seem to be not innocent enough to deserve protection).

Still, I recognize that, as you insist on a civilized discussion and I am much to mean to have such a discussion with, you must decline.

Dave Duffy said...

Dr. Victor Reppert, your understanding of pro-life as a political movement is wrong. You're a man who wants to seek the truth. I suggest you take an afternoon and visit a Pregnancy Care Center, talk to the director, and find out what they are doing to promote life, to work with both the father and the mother, the health services they offer, and all they do is without government funding. Everything they do is an effort to build families and everything they receive is from the willing sacrifice of people. These sacrifices are not political, but heartfelt pro-life.

My own Mrs. Duffy worked for years at our local high school as a "Mentor Mom" to help young teen mothers help raise their children. This was while she had one, two, and then three children of her own. Mrs Duffy is not very political and very pro-life and would rather help a single mother than see a dead child. Your characterization of the goodness of being pro-life is warped by politics and says nothing about those who sacrifice something of themselves to a righteous cause.

Legion of Logic said...

One Brow: Sure, the result of the belief is sexist, but that's not because you intend sexism.

Maybe this line is the disconnect between what you've been saying and what I've been reading. I do not believe something is sexist simply because it disproportionally affects one sex or the other. Without intent, conscious or not, bigotry (of which sexism is a form) does not exist.

If I want to write a play or movie about the life of, say, Rosa Parks, it is neither racist or sexist of me to only allow black women to audition, because the simple fact is that Rosa Parks was a black woman. Similarly, to protect life at all stages, it will by necessity impact primarily women, as biological reality is such that women carry the child. I didn't make it that way.

You describe it as "involuntary servitude". I do not, any more than I would call child neglect an expression of freedom.

Why would I make an exception for rape? Two reasons. One, an imperfect world rarely fits a perfect answer, so if one percent of abortions are ignored because of the trauma of rape, that still leaves the 99 percent of the unborn that could potentially be saved without nearly the controversy. I will take that as a start until society could figure out not to kill for convenience, but the simple fact is that society will not tolerate such a thing. The culture itself has to change, to value life, before anything remotely resembling the ideal could ever exist.

And two, I believe in personal responsibility. A man or woman who does not want to be a parent should avoid doing that which causes children, simple as that. And protecting the life that results is not punishing a woman for having sex, any more than my legal inability to kill a bad neighbor who makes me lose sleep or raises my blood pressure (health risks) is not punishment for me moving into my house. Bad neighbors are a known risk, pregnancy is a known risk. Neither is worthy of death.

In the case of rape, the choice is removed from the woman, so again...ugly world with no good answer. At least in such abortions, the innocent dying doesn't suffer. That's about the best that can be said of it.

Is that a violation of my own value of life? Yep, probably so. But I have a value that unfortunately clashes sometimes, and that's the reduction of suffering. And the suffering of a woman pregnant through rape is not mine to quantify.

Nick said...

"I'm sure Dr. Vallicella is a better fit your tastes." Yes, he actually takes Christian values seriously, and realizes the consequence of voting for a party that rejects reason.

Nick said...

“In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs.” – Christopher Hitchens https://www.humancoalition.org/graphics/the-reality-of-abortion-according-to-christopher-hitchens/

Joe Hinman said...

Note that in every stage, we are speaking of the exact same organism. Pick something to identify the organism (X),

denies is hypocrisy, You call it a baby exactly to work up emotionalism because you want to emphasize cute little babikins is being murdered by evil selfish sex crazed woman;


what did George Orwell say about political speech speech?


"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_orwell_141761"

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller said...
Pro life people do not stop using that same commonsense standard simply because of the location in question. The earliest stages of development in every human life occur in the womb, but that does not invalidate the human life.

This is uncontroversial in the medical field and has been since the early 1800's.

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).”11 Even authors who philosophically lean towards not attributing the same value to human life at the one-cell stage as they do to later stages of development admit that “As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”12

(1) all abortion controversy is ended with rU486 why are you not willing to advocate it? Instead RTLM calls it "liquid abortion"which it is not,

(2) It is life fertilized bit so are finger nails.when does it become a person? If we don't know that then you can;t say a person is being killed.


(3) my position is not to justify abortion but to support the woman's right to do the choosing

bmiller said...

This is sooo ironic.

Joe Hinman said...

Nick said...
“In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs.” – Christopher Hitchens https://www.humancoalition.org/graphics/the-reality-of-abortion-according-to-christopher-hitchens/


the operative words there are "developing." If the brain is not at a certain level the heart and bones and all that is meaningless; we don't know where that level is, RU486 would prevent the process from starting.the egg would not hook up to the cell wall. Notingis killed, no abortion. Negation,

Nick said...

Joe Hinman is a liar for evil.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Maybe this line is the disconnect between what you've been saying and what I've been reading. I do not believe something is sexist simply because it disproportionally affects one sex or the other. Without intent, conscious or not, bigotry (of which sexism is a form) does not exist.

When progressive talk about sexism, they are not talking about bigotry, they are talking about bias and the power structure. Bias does not require intent, and uneven power perpetuates itself (and even accelerates) with no intent at all.

If I want to write a play or movie about the life of, say, Rosa Parks, it is neither racist or sexist of me to only allow black women to audition, because the simple fact is that Rosa Parks was a black woman. Similarly, to protect life at all stages, it will by necessity impact primarily women, as biological reality is such that women carry the child. I didn't make it that way.

However (as I am sure we have discussed before), you do need to grant the unborn a right to make use of the woman's body, a right which you would give to any other human over any other human.

You describe it as "involuntary servitude". I do not, any more than I would call child neglect an expression of freedom.

You want me to respect and understand your position, so you will accord me the same, correct? Even if you would not use the term, you do see why both the terms "involuntary" and "servitude" apply to a woman forced to carry a fetus against her will? You acknowledge there is no fundamental error in the term, even if you prefer not to use it?

Why would I make an exception for rape? Two reasons. One, an imperfect world rarely fits a perfect answer, so if one percent of abortions are ignored because of the trauma of rape, that still leaves the 99 percent of the unborn that could potentially be saved without nearly the controversy. I will take that as a start until society could figure out not to kill for convenience, but the simple fact is that society will not tolerate such a thing. The culture itself has to change, to value life, before anything remotely resembling the ideal could ever exist.

When these one percent are "ignored", what does that mean for the women? They are doing something illegal if they have an abortion, but won't be prosecuted?

And two, I believe in personal responsibility. A man or woman who does not want to be a parent should avoid doing that which causes children, simple as that. And protecting the life that results is not punishing a woman for having sex, any more than my legal inability to kill a bad neighbor who makes me lose sleep or raises my blood pressure (health risks) is not punishment for me moving into my house. Bad neighbors are a known risk, pregnancy is a known risk. Neither is worthy of death.

When the laws force you to live in house, even when the neighbor starts pulling blood out of your veins, and does not allow you to so much as lock your door to them, then your analogy will be apt.

Is that a violation of my own value of life? Yep, probably so. But I have a value that unfortunately clashes sometimes, and that's the reduction of suffering. And the suffering of a woman pregnant through rape is not mine to quantify.

However, the suffering of a woman pregnant through consensual sex is yours to quantify?

One Brow said...

Nick said...
Yes, he actually takes Christian values seriously, and realizes the consequence of voting for a party that rejects reason.

Yes, he takes his Christian values so seriously, that he happily slanders people and propagates lies about the dead in order to carry on the cause. Sounds right up your alley. I'd make a crack about Christian values, but that would unfairly tar people like Legion of Logic, Dr. Reppert, and others on this sites of both parties, who do take such values seriously.

One Brow said...

Nick said...
Joe Hinman is a liar for evil.

That's a maverick philosopher for you!

Joe Hinman said...

Nick = Illion?

Joe Hinman said...

Nick said...
Joe Hinman is a liar for evil.

what did I lie about Illion> put up or shut up. I can out document you on any point you know that

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger bmiller said...
This is sooo ironic.

????????

bmiller said...

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).”11 Even authors who philosophically lean towards not attributing the same value to human life at the one-cell stage as they do to later stages of development admit that “As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”12

(1) all abortion controversy is ended with rU486 why are you not willing to advocate it? Instead RTLM calls it "liquid abortion"which it is not,

Per the linked article, an individual human life begins at conception. This is not controversial. RU486 kills an individual human life. To say otherwise is denial of science.

(2) It is life fertilized bit so are finger nails.when does it become a person? If we don't know that then you can;t say a person is being killed.

If you think fingernails have the inherent ability for language then you'd have a point. If you think they do, then please show me a talking fingernail.

Now regarding personhood. You have to interact with the famous SLED Test. The L stands for "level of development".

"Level of development: The unborn is also less developed than a born human being. How does this fact, though, disqualify the unborn from personhood? A four year-old girl can’t bear children because her reproductive system is less developed than a fourteen year-old girl. That doesn’t disqualify her from personhood. She is still as equally valuable as a child-bearing teen. The unborn is also less developed than the four year-old. Therefore, we can’t disqualify her from personhood for the same reason we can’t disqualify the four year-old. Both are merely less developed than older human beings."

Pretty much what Legion said.

Now the argument that we can kill humans because we don't know when they "become a person" and so it's OK to kill them is specious for a number of reasons.
1) Personhood is an ill defined term.
2) It begs the question that personhood can be separated from being a human. Where does "personhood" come from if the new being doesn't already possess it like the inherent ability for language?
3) It is a reckless to attempt to kill something if you cannot determine that you are not going to kill a person. As this hunter found out.

(3) my position is not to justify abortion but to support the woman's right to do the choosing

You have to justify abortion to establish that a woman has the right. Otherwise there would be no justification.

bmiller said...

what did George Orwell say about political speech speech?

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_orwell_141761"


What is ironic is that the culture of death proponents take a description of a human being's stage of development and claim that each stage is actually a completely different entity. What is sooo ironic about applying this quote to the culture of life proponents position is that only one side has designed to make murder respectable and it's not people who oppose killing.

Looks like projection to me.

bmiller said...

It seems no matter how old fingernails get they never start talking. :-)

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said:
"an individual human life begins at conception"

That's why I call it DNA fetishism. As if the only thing that mattered is a unique combination of DNA. Sure, scientifically accurate, but meaninglessness.

Plus, in general, Roe V Wade or the pro-choice position, is first and foremost about the WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. You can judge them for choosing one way or another, but putting laws preventing then to have options is anti-choice, not "pro" life.

The pro-life position actually increases death of meaningful human beings, harms society with unwanted pregnancies, doesn't even really reduce abortions as most are natural already, prevents other potentisl humand from being born later, and violates a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE what to do with her own body.

There are lots of complicated details as to how and when it should happen, morally, but it's never a reason to impose a choice on someone else.

Hugo Pelland said...

(Pardon the many typos...)

bmiller said...

I stand corrected.

I found the talking fingernail! HTML 😂

bmiller said...

"an individual human life begins at conception"

That's why I call it DNA fetishism.


That's what I call science denial. You've provided no counter arguments to this fact.

You have attempted to change the topic in one case and fallaciously appealed to the consequences the other. No rational argument for me to respond to here.

Joe Hinman said...

1) all abortion controversy is ended with rU486 why are you not willing to advocate it? Instead RTLM calls it "liquid abortion"which it is not,

Per the linked article, an individual human life begins at conception. This is not controversial. RU486 kills an individual human life. To say otherwise is denial of science.

You don't understand what it does,all language that talks about it killing is merely creating a misconception by not voicing a distinction between prevention and termagant.

Now I admit it can be used to kill if taken at the wrong time. Solution: don't take it at the wrong time

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said:
"You have attempted to change the topic"
No, the topic IS about choice, first, not about the definition of what a human being is.

It's exactly like guns... are you in favor of people owning a gun no matter what they may do with it? If yes, does that imply that whatever they do with it is acceptable?

Very similar here. I think it's always, in every single instance, up to the woman to decide what to do with her body. If you want to argue that she is killing some human being, that she should be charged with murder, you need to explain why it is akin to murdering a full grown human being.

"No rational argument for me to respond to here."
None on your side actually. It's not rational to claim that a few cells is the same as a human being. It's not rational to claim that something that has a beating hearth is a human being worth saving. It's just emotional. There is no logic.

Joe Hinman said...



NPR
"Morning after Pills Donn't causeabortion"
February 21, 20135:04 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say


"Scientists did know the drug worked primarily by preventing ovulation. It stops an egg from being released from a woman's ovary and thus prevents any chance of fertilization and pregnancy. But they also thought the drug might make it more difficult for a fertilized egg to implant in a woman's uterus.

Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood.

"We know that about half of fertilized eggs never stick around. They just pass out of the woman's body," she says. "An abortifacient is something that interrupts an established pregnancy."

But people like Rudd worry that even if what the drugs do is not technically abortion, it's still objectionable if it happens after fertilization."

Caveots

This article distinguishes between RU486 and these of "morning after" drugs spoken of in the article. But I think this statement includes both.

so tae the other pills not 486, the same principle

Joe Hinman said...

the classic misstate is tat the RTL will say RU486 will kill a "baby" by making it's heart stop beating. By the time it has a heart is way after the time to take the pill, The drug is supposed to prevent egg from hooking up to cell wall. No heart, no egg has a heart, get it? they are all talking about taking it at the wrong time they don't admit that because they deceptive.


rTLM = lying vicious Violet thugs.

bmiller said...

Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood.

George Orwell from the great beyond here, using bmiller's account.

See how someone can phrase an act that is intended to kill an innocent living human being (which is the definition of murder) in a way that makes it sound like that's not what it is.

bmiller said...

No, the topic IS about choice, first, not about the definition of what a human being is.

Not the topic I'm discussing. Address someone else if you don't want to discuss something else.

bmiller said...

Correction: Address someone else if you want to discuss something else.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller,
Nice way to avoid supporting your emotional defense of your anti-choice position.
Plus, the original post was about Roe V Wade. Why are you commenting here then?
I guess it's up to other to ignore your irrelevant comments then; that's fair I suppose. But when you write something silly and get call for it, you can't whine that you are on topic and others are not, when you are the one who decided to go on what you consider to be a tangent...

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Still no substance to support your position wrt human life I see. At least Joe is trying.

Hugo Pelland said...

@bmiller,

A) Roe V Wade is NOT about a position on what a human life is, or isn't. You're off topic.

B) But, I do agree it's important, and have discussed it before. That's where you get emotional and cannot discuss it rationally. As seen here:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2018/05/roe-v-wade-again.html
" 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."

C) You're just trolling; trying to find 'gotcha' things to say. But it's entertaining at least, and a good way to extract actual point within a lot of non-sense. Thanks for the exercice.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

If you think I'm off topic, then just stop addressing me. Others apparently don't agree with you.

Yes, I remember you sharing your that opinion with me, but now as then you fail in philosophical argumentation and fact. For instance:

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.

You've been provided the link that shows I agree with the scientific consensus and you apparently don't. I'm not emotional about citing science. How odd you would accuse me of that.

I'm interested in a rational discussion, but when people start calling me a troll or a "violet thug" I reserve to the right to mock them. I don't even like violet btw.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger bmiller said...
Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood.

George Orwell from the great beyond here, using bmiller's account.

See how someone can phrase an act that is intended to kill an innocent living human being (which is the definition of murder) in a way that makes it sound like that's not what it is.

Sloppy theatrical rhetoric. "that;s what it is." No it's not what it is you can't demonstrate any reason why it would be, all you can't do is use flare words and act offended, hysterical and fended,

(1) Take the drug at the right time it's not killing any thing, how is it murder?

(20) TO BE MURDER YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE FETUS ALREDAY HAS A FUNCTIONING BRAIN HOW DOES AN EGG THAT HAS NOT BEEN FERTILIZED HAVE A FUNCTIONING BRAIN?

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger bmiller said...
No, the topic IS about choice, first, not about the definition of what a human being is.

Not the topic I'm discussing. Address someone else if you don't want to discuss something else.

you are trying to worm out because you lost the argument, ru486 removes your chance to punish women, so you have to move it back to the territory of murdering something,if you really cared about life it looks like you would be happy that now there's a way to save all those babbies,

Joe Hinman said...

b
"I'm interested in a rational discussion, but when people start calling me a troll or a "violet thug" I reserve to the right to mock them. I don't even like violet btw."

hey b your evidence says the fertilized egg is human life, but if the woman takes ru486 in the first few seeks it prevents fertilization,so it's not killing human life,''if you find this is a true interpretation what excuse do you have to to further organize the right wing on the abortion issue?

Joe Hinman said...

miller
"I'm interested in a rational discussion, but when people start calling me a troll or a "violet thug" I reserve to the right to mock them. I don't even like violet btw."

hey b your evidence says the fertilized egg is human life, but if the woman takes ru486 in the first few weeks it prevents fertilization,so it's not killing human life.If you find this is a true interpretation what excuse do you have to to further organize the right wing on the abortion issue?

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Per the linked article, an individual human life begins at conception. This is not controversial. RU486 kills an individual human life. To say otherwise is denial of science.

You should get the science, and basic facts, correct before you accuse others. RU486 does not kill anything. Rather, it only prevents implantation. The embryo goes straight through the uterus to a very early "birth", to live or die on it's own merits.

Now, you are free to make the argument that the woman if morally required to let a completely separate person hook itself up to her. Good luck making that convincing.

bmiller said...

Joe,

You are fact challenged:

Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, to bring about an abortion. RU-486 brings about an abortion.

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)". It brings about an abortion because it has the intention of killing the conceived human being.

(20) TO BE MURDER YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE FETUS ALREDAY HAS A FUNCTIONING BRAIN HOW DOES AN EGG THAT HAS NOT BEEN FERTILIZED HAVE A FUNCTIONING BRAIN?

Oooooo. He typed in all CAPS. That's a very persuasive philosophical argument. Not.
The sentence isn't even coherent. Do you not know the difference between an egg and a fetus?

Victor Reppert said...

I have a strong inclination toward these two positions.

1) Abortion is murder.
2) Abortion should be legal.

Which means I think murder should be legal in many cases, that although very wrong, the remedy for it should be moral rather than legal. That is because the personhood of the fetus is not provable beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the status of abortionists as murderers is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the standard for convicting someone of murder in America.

bmiller said...

By this logic, then when the law is changed to define a person as being present at the moment of conception, it will be beyond a reasonable doubt and abortionists will be beyond a reasonable doubt murderers.

Do you think legal statutes change the ontological status of anything? If the law was changed that it's OK to kill particular minorities would that be OK with you?

bmiller said...

Additionally, if you think "personhood" should be the standard:

The reasonable doubt standard was put in place as a protection against the punishment of the possibly innocent. By this standard, in the case of the unborn, where there is reason to believe that they do indeed possess personhood, they should be not be harmed. It is the duty of those who wish to do the harm to prove conclusively that they do not possess personhood.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said...

"You've been provided the link that shows I agree with the scientific consensus and you apparently don't. I'm not emotional about citing science. "
No, you don't agree with the scientific consensus because this is not even a scientific question. Science cannot determine what a 'person' is. You are equivocating 2 different things; the definition of a living thing of human origin and a living person. Science is silent on the latter; it's purely a social construct.

A simple example can prove the point: a human body born without a functioning brain. Science can and do have certain parameters to help us determine whether the brain is still working. That's why we have definitions of 'brain deaths' that are then used to decide what we, as a society, should or shouldn't do about the body, which may or may not be considered a 'person' anymore. It can happen to a body that used to be 'someone' or to a body that was just born this way. Yet, such biological entity definitely fits the definition of 'human life' and there are indeed people who refuse to let of such body, for emotional reasons, because they perceive it as a 'person'.

bmiller said...

Hugo,

No, you don't agree with the scientific consensus because this is not even a scientific question.

This is your own quote that you just provided:

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.

You claimed that I was being emotional because I labeled the human being as existing from the moment of conception on. That is simply the scientific definition, no emotion involved. Do you dispute the scientific definition? If so tell me why.

Please don't accuse me of equivocation when that is just what you did when you just now when you did not use the term in your quote.

I've already made arguments wrt the personhood argument in the post of September 25, 2018 8:22 AM.

Joe Hinman said...

(20) TO BE MURDER YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE FETUS ALREDAY HAS A FUNCTIONING BRAIN HOW DOES AN EGG THAT HAS NOT BEEN FERTILIZED HAVE A FUNCTIONING BRAIN?

Oooooo. He typed in all CAPS. That's a very persuasive philosophical argument. Not.
The sentence isn't even coherent. Do you not know the difference between an egg and a fetus?

That's all you can do isn't it? i just proved you wrong, you can only attack my spelling something about my typing, you don't even try to answer my logic,you can;t.

Joe Hinman said...

ou are fact challenged:

Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used in combination with misoprostol, to bring about an abortion. RU-486 brings about an abortion.

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)". It brings about an abortion because it has the intention of killing the conceived human being.


Remember I already said the RTlM had dubbed it this way (abortion pill) because they don't want to lose their organizing tool. They want aborigine to continue so they can use it to organize fundamentalists. You are merely reciting RTL literature as though it;s an objective factual account it is not,

Remember I said it maters when you take it? If the woman takes it in the first few weeks it prevents the egg hooking up and getting fertilized,if you take months latter it will kill the fetus,don't do it take it at the era;y juncture issue is soloed. But yoyu don;t want it solved do you?

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller

You claimed that I was being emotional because I labeled the human being as existing from the moment of conception on. That is simply the scientific definition, no emotion involved. Do you dispute the scientific definition? If so tell me why.

No it is no,t it's BS.No scientific definition says a fertilized egg is a human being, Scientific writers distinguish between human life and a human being, you are not into that distinction you don;t understand it,

I once to a very fundie church ,there was young doctor there he was sincere about his faith,I noticed he was always kind of holding back when this topic was discussed Once I concreted him and asked him it's scientific fact right he said no it;s not proven no one knows when it becomes ;a person that is a philosophical issue, I said why don;t you tell the, he said they don;t care, they don;t really want scientific proof of anything,

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said...

"This is your own quote that you just provided:

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.

You claimed that I was being emotional because I labeled the human being as existing from the moment of conception on. That is simply the scientific definition, no emotion involved. Do you dispute the scientific definition? If so tell me why.

Please don't accuse me of equivocation when that is just what you did when you just now when you did not use the term in your quote.
"

Great, seriously, thank you for pointing that out. I did discuss contradicting things: science being relevant and science not being relevant. It's a good occasion to correct a mistake.

What did I write in that quote?

I was replying to you (and others) saying that this new unique set of DNA is a human life, right at conception. So, is it? Scientifically first. Yes, it is a human life in the sense that it's both human and living. So in that quote, my own quote, I was talking about the science process, about how much we know about it. Then, I offered an opinion: it's unscientific to deny the fact that a couple of cells are not the same as an embryo, which is not the same as a fetus, which is not the same as a fully grown yet unborn baby, etc... Clearly, I was referring to what we know about human development, about what science tells us.

Ok, so what's the second meaning, why does it sound like a contradiction? The second part was about science is not relevant. Yet I also said, just now, that it is. So what's happening?

The second meaning is about the definition of a person, and whether killing something should be considered murder. If the thing being killed is a human person, then yes, it's murder. If the thing being killed is not a human person, then no, it's not murder. Can science help us answer that question? Yes and no, it's not simple. So I did oversimplify for sure when I said more recently that it's not about science at all. Because of our knowledge of how humans develop, from conception to birth, we can form an informed position. So yes, it matters.

But why is it an equivocation fallacy? And why do you not want me to point that out? Well, because that's the main crux of the argument here. (Btw, still not the first point of the Roe V Wade debate as expressed elsewhere.) You're arguing that at conception we already have a 'human life'. But at the same time, there is a very different version of such 'human life' when it comes to fully formed humans with consciousness and bodily independence. So how can we put the 2 on the same footing? That's what I see as an equivocation error... the 2 are not the same at all, yet they are used interchangeably to accuse women of killing human lives.

In short, there's something I read in these many comments, about how some folks wouldn't want to be on the pro-choice because it's hard to defend, or that the pro-life position is so much simpler. I agree! It is so much simpler to be pro-life. There's almost no thinking to do... and that's why it's such an irrational and unscientific position. It uses a correct scientific definition, sure, but extrapolated to the much more complicated concept of personhood. But the pro-life position also denies science by pretending that there is some sort of special-ness to the new embryo formed by 2 sexual cells (DNA fetishm...) even though we understand so well the process that it's laughable to see these things as anything special. Again, it's so much simpler, because there is no need to think further about what will happen after the initial combination.

Sorry, this one was too long...