The central prolife argument is that abortion is homicide--that the differences between fetuses and those already born are not substantial enough to justify treating those born and those unborn differently with respect to protecting their lives. With those already born, you may be greatly burdened by allowing someone to live, but you still can't kill them expect under special circumstances.
If you believe in the right to abortion, that is the argument you have to come to terms with, first and foremost. Arguments about whether, for example, women get depressed who choose abortion, or whether abortion leads to a higher instance of breast cancer, are secondary.
12 comments:
"If you believe in the right to abortion, that is the argument you have to come to terms with"
Way too simplistic, Victor. I personally believe there is no "right" to an abortion, but I also have (twice) taken an oath to defend the Constitution. The protestations of bmiller and others aside, there is no "scientific" proof that the fetus is a human being. It is a matter of Faith, and the US Constitution does not allow for any religious faith to impose its views on the populace as a whole.
Some may not like this, but until we amend the Constitution to allow for the establishment of a state religion, there is no place for any law based solely on religious grounds.
Now perhaps bmiller and his ilk would care to tell me how I can ethically violate my sworn oath, which I took "so help me God". Others may feel such oaths are of little consequence, but I hold otherwise. I am honor bound to defend our Constitution for as long as I breathe.
Do I want the Mormons to dictate what I can and cannot do? (I like coffee too much for that.) Would I like Sharia Law to become the law of the land? (I like gin too much for that.) Do I want the Protestants to say I can no longer pray the Rosary? (At least that's easily done in secret.) We are better off with no state religion. The reason why America is so much more "religious" than secular Europe is because we have so far maintained a wall of separation between church and state. It's in our founding documents, and any attempt to change this will signal the death of America as we know it. Look at my ancestral homeland Poland. As long as the Catholic Church was the voice of opposition to Communist tyranny, it was the faith of 99% of Poles. But now that it is essentially a state religion, a horrifying percentage of Poles are leaving the Church. They would have been better off to remain a Soviet satellite.
It is the height of irony that the so-called religious right, which claims to be oh so patriotic, is the very force most likely to destroy our country.
Starhopper,
Please stop. You don't know what you're talking about and you look foolish. You don't understand your oath and you don't understand high school biology. Please stop for the sake of your own dignity. At the very least stop invoking me in your rants.
If you believe in the right to abortion, that is the argument you have to come to terms with, first and foremost.
It's not first and foremost, it's the only argument as far as pro-lifers are concerned. If the unborn are part of the woman's body, a glob of unformed cells, an invading organism, etc, there would be no pro-life arguments at all. There may be arguments about safe ways of removing the growth, what medications to use and so on, but that's because there is no human being that is being killed.
The protestations of bmiller and others aside, there is no "scientific" proof that the fetus is a human being. It is a matter of Faith
Yes, your position is a matter of faith. And not just faith, but the sort of "faith" that anti-theists accuse Christians of using - belief without evidence.
I laid out an entirely secular argument, using nothing except information found in biology sources and logical consequences of that information, and you dismissed it as religious. Despite there not being even a hint of the religious in my position. You can argue my logic was flawed, you can argue the information I pulled from the biology sources was wrong, but no one who actually read my argument would think it was religious.
No government policy is determined by The Science. What policymakers do (hopefully) is they look at the data provided by science and are informed by it in crafting effective legislation or regulation. A policy that utilizes scientific findings will be more effective than one that is not, but none of them are scientific by your standards. So it's an odd accusation you bring to bear against this one side of this one issue.
Now, in this area of the debate there are indeed two aspects that are not science-based that touch upon what you and I have discussed. The first is my belief that human lives have value. That is not a scientific position, because science can't determine such a thing. My belief that each human life has value, and my distaste at the necessity of having to end certain dangerous lives in order to protect others, are certainly influenced by being a Christian. No question that Christianity is a motivator, but then being motivated by Christianity is hardly a violation of any constitutional principle.
The other issue is something you just brought up - "there is no "scientific" proof that the fetus is a human being".
I never once said "human being", because what is a human being? Is it a legal person? Is it a biological entity that has to have reached a certain arbitrary point of development? What is a human being in an objective sense so that all can determine what is and is not a human being using the same definition and criteria? What is the precise moment a human organism becomes a human being, so that we know when not to chop it up and vacuum it out of the womb? This is what the people who vigorously defend the legality of abortion so often fall back on, the murky definitions that make it impossible to determine anything. Something as critical as the answer to "Does abortion end a human life?" should not be intentionally distorted to serve a political end.
What I said was that a human life biologically begins with the conception of its first cell, the moment when something that is genetically distinct from the mother and father comes into being. I laid out the reasons I think so. In other threads I have pointed out that such a position is the only way to ensure that, whatever arbitrary point a human being magically pops into existence, protecting the biological life of the developing "mystery thing" in the womb is the only way to ensure human lives aren't getting thrown into the incinerator out back.
Feel free to point out how my position here is a violation of constitutional principle, but please keep it to what I actually said.
It is the height of irony that the so-called religious right, which claims to be oh so patriotic, is the very force most likely to destroy our country.
Don't worry, the left will make it hate speech against women to speak out against killing the unborn before the right can somehow be the sole force responsible for two sides despising each other and everything the other stands for.
The central prolife argument is that abortion is homicide--that the differences between fetuses and those already born are not substantial enough to justify treating those born and those unborn differently with respect to protecting their lives.
Let's look at the pro-choice side for a moment.
We have two competing interests for the most part - the life of the unborn vs the bodily autonomy of the mother. Peripheral issues don't matter for this exercise.
What are the principles that govern the pro-choice side, and is there a moment during the pregnancy in which the pro-choice principles are overridden by the pro-life principles?
If there is such a moment, how do we know when a given unborn life has reached that moment? What is the change that occurs that the principles reverse in importance?
And if there is not such a moment, then what is the problem with killing a baby who is about to be delivered?
This is how I think the abortion supporters here would respond:
What are the principles that govern the pro-choice side, and is there a moment during the pregnancy in which the pro-choice principles are overridden by the pro-life principles?
The woman's decision is paramount. There is no point in a pregnancy where pro-life considerations come in....unless the woman thinks it does. There is no fact of the matter other than this.
If there is such a moment, how do we know when a given unborn life has reached that moment? What is the change that occurs that the principles reverse in importance?
There is no change in the unborn that will ever reach that moment. If the mother thinks it's a human worthy of life, it is. If not, it is not.
bmiller,
If all you have are insults and ad nominems, that shows you have nothing to say and no argument to present. And just who are you to tell me to "shut up"? Is that what you wish for everyone who disagrees with you? This isn't your blog. You are a guest here, and an ill-mannered one at that.
Starhopper,
I told you that I thought you looked foolish and suggested you stop for the sake of your own dignity. If you want to continue to look foolish go ahead.
I think it's foolish to claim that biologists are not practicing "science" so their opinion amounts to a preference of one band over another but that climate scientists are practicing "science" and therefore anyone who challeges what they say is a "science denier" . I think it's foolish to claim that secular arguments against abortion amount to establishing a state religion. And it actually is arguing ad hominem (as opposed to ad nominem 🙂) to attempt to accuse your opponent of some disqualifying motive.
All one has to do to discover that there are people making secular pro-life arguments is to google "secular pro-life" and the first link is secularprolife.org.
Click on "Stances" and you'll find pretty much the same arguments Kevin and I have been making which completely avoid religious argumentation.
Here are 2 articles from atheists on the site:
This pro-life atheist realizes that he could have been a victim and blames irresponsible men for pressuring women to get abortions.
Another pro-life atheist cites science and Christopher Hitchens for his position while demonstrating that there is no necessary connection between religious beliefs and being anti-abortion.
I doubt this is news to anyone who's seriously considered the pros and cons of abortion, but for those who haven't heard the good news, you cannot claim ignorance any longer.
Victor often posts links to various pro-life and pro-choice articles to stimulate discussion.
His own position for being pro-choice is vaguely the "personhood" argument.
This article presents 4 types of this argument: Speciesism, Gradualism, Threshold Arguments, and Functionalism and discusses them. Are there any others?
bmiller,
This is how I think the abortion supporters here would respond:
I told you that I thought you looked foolish and suggested you stop for the sake of your own dignity. If you want to continue to look foolish go ahead.
Physician, heal thyself.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I can't think of anything that I've ever posted here that looks at all foolish or is undignified.
And by the way, I never said that biologists were not practicing science. I did say that it was possible for scientists to have opinions and make statements that are not scientifically based.
Whole 'nother barrel of apples.
Starhopper,
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I can't think of anything that I've ever posted here that looks at all foolish or is undignified.
That's what friends are for. To help you see how other people see you. You're welcome ;-)
Your dodge regarding your selective citing of scientists is further confirmation of BLOT. Consequentialists will tell the truth when it suits their ends and obfuscate when the truth gets in the way of their ends. It's a feature of leftism, not a bug.
Post a Comment