Read this and tell me if you agree or disagree. Yes, I know I've been posting a fair amount of articles lately, but because this is an important subject for me and other people, I want to know what the rational behind your beliefs is. I tend to be against abortion, and not just for biological reasons.
Oh yeah, here's another one if you're interested.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm afraid I'm pro-life and still disagree with the article almost entirely.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Whether I agree or disagree, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article which is new for the sake of the hatrack debate.
It takes, pretty much as a given, that "human life" begins at fertilization. The logic the author uses for this claim is weak at best. Then it uses this definition of human life to argue against the pro-choice arguments.
But the vast majority of pro-choice proponents don't accept the definition of "human life" or "human being" that the author does, so pretty much the entire article is rendered meaningless.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm afraid I'm pro-life and still disagree with the article almost entirely.
Same here.
Well, it's not that I disagree, but I certainly don't agree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists — not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.
I think the question "What is a human being" is largely a metaphysical question.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
On a brief scan of the first par of the first article, I've made most of the same arguments here already and get the same yawning responses you're getting here.
If the empirical definition of human life is, indeed, a contested thing, I don't get why we don't err on the side of safety... but as everyone says, we've been over this pretty thoroughly here before.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I am pro-life but both sources, especially the first, make pretty weak arguments. They both give irrelevant biology lessons (irrelevant in that they define terms, but in no way settle the question of when life begins), and then both go on to assert that they have demonstrated that life begins at conception. They have demonstrated no such thing!
Nevertheless, I think a somewhat scientific approach is the right tack for pro-lifers to take. I see a lot of billboards with pictures of the Virgin Mary or Jesus with pro-life messages, and I think they demonstrate a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge of how to change people's minds. They don't address the important question, they just make religious statements which pro-choicers clearly already disagree with. Whom, exactly, are they trying to convince? Themselves?
I think talking about developmental milestones in the life of the fetus is a more useful line to pursue, because they can hope to persuade some people that life begins before the fetus exits the womb--or, at least, that this possibility should be factored into the debate. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I think the question "What is a human being" is largely a metaphysical question.
I teeter on the brink of agreeing . . .
quote:If the empirical definition of human life is, indeed, a contested thing, I don't get why we don't err on the side of safety...
I completely agree.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
The question of whether or not a fetus is a "human life" or "human being" is pretty much irrelevant to my views on abortion, so I'm afraid my opinion of the article is mostly bewilderment at what they're trying to accomplish.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Nevertheless, I think a somewhat scientific approach is the right tack for pro-lifers to take. I see a lot of billboards with pictures of the Virgin Mary or Jesus with pro-life messages, and I think they demonstrate a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge of how to change people's minds. They don't address the important question, they just make religious statements which pro-choicers clearly already disagree with. Whom, exactly, are they trying to convince? Themselves?
You seem to be assuming that religious messages will never convince a Pro-Choicer. Do you really think this?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yes.
(Perhaps not for the reasons you think, though.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I think they demonstrate a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge of how to change people's minds.
Let me ammend this to "a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of their opponents in this debate."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why do you think that somebody who is Pro-Choice could never be convinced by a religious argument?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Son of a gun. I lost my post.
Dang I hate it when that happens.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Lost posts are never as good when I try to rewrite them. It's like a spell in D&D or something. I had it in me to say the thing once, and then it's gone. *sigh* Usually, I don't bother to retype it, but since it was in reply to a question specifically asked of me, and since I think it's an important point, I'll try again.
First (and of less import) because the people you're arguing against are aware of the stances of the various Christian denominations. And they are unmoved by them. Is there a major denomination that doesn't oppose abortion? Do you really believe that people don't know that organized Christianity opposes it? Pro-choicers clearly either are not Christian, or disagree with their churches' viewpoints on this one. Either way, they are unmoved by these arguments.
More importantly, though, arguing in religous terms gives pro-choicers an unbelievably effective weapon that I believe has done more to keep abortion legal than any single other thing. It allows them to claim that the issue here is one of separation of church and state. Judges, the media, legislators (including John Kerry), and thousands of people have all bought into this line of reasoning, that abortion may or may not be a sin, but the government should not interfere because it's a personal (i.e., religious) issue.
This is not a church and state issue! Why do Christians oppose abortion? Is there a lot written about abortion in the bible? I know the bible proscribes against killing human beings, except in specific circumstances, but then, so does virtually every ethical system. And so does the law of our country. I think it's necessary, then, to turn the question away from whether or not God disapproves of abortion, and to whether or not it is the killing of a human being.
[ December 06, 2005, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I think it's necessary, then, to turn the question away from whether or not God disapproves of abortion, and to whether or not it is murder.
Accusing anyone who has ever had an abortion of murder is not conducive to having a productive [added: or civil] discussion.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Point taken.
Perhaps murder is an overloaded word? Would calling it "killing" be better? "Manslaughter"?
I don't think I can get completely away from any similarly loaded word, though. I mean, if I think the fetus is alive, what non-charged word is there for ending a human life? Not using any of those words cedes the rhetorical ground to those who believe the fetus is not alive, neh?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Abortion" seems to work as a term. But I don't object to any of those.
I mean, if I think the fetus is alive, what non-charged word is there for ending a human life?
Alive does not necessarily equal human, which is kinda the whole argument, neh?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Why don't you just focus on the closely related (but not quite so loaded) question of whether a fetus is entitled to legal protection?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is there a major denomination that doesn't oppose abortion?
I think that there are quite a few denominations that have no stance on abortion, but I'm not sure.
So you are saying that religious arguments won't work only because everybody has already heard all possible religious arguments?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Why don't you just focus on the closely related (but not quite so loaded) question of whether a fetus is entitled to legal protection?
Because to make any headway I have to explain why I believe it would be entitled to legal protection, and that is explicitly tied up in my belief that a fetus is a human life before the moment it is born.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No. That's not what I said. I said a) your opponents don't care about religious arguments, and 2) using religious arguments allows your opponents to claim that this is purely a religious question.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK, let's focus on
quote:a) your opponents don't care about religious arguments
Is this because you believe that all pro-choice people are not religious enough to be influence by religious arguments?
edit: Icky, I hope that it's clear that I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from, and not just trying to trap you in a corner or dig a pit for you
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm pro-choice and obviously disagree with the article.
Actually, no. I don't disagree. Mostly, I just have no opinion whatsoever on those particular aspects of abortion.
Although I do find it somewhat unsettling that arguing that humanity begins at conception could be used to argue against birth control and the morning after pill.
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Religion in the argument introduces the concept of the soul, which cannot be measured and can therefore be said to enter the fetus at any point including conception.
Without the concept of the soul, the decision of when a fetus gains human legal rights can be made based on stages of fetal development such as brainwave patterns or fetal viability.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Some of them are not religious enough. (Some of them, of course, are not religious at all.) Some of them are religious, but believe their churches to be mistaken. And some of them are religious and believe this themselves, but have bought into the idea that they should not be imposing their religion on other people with the force of law.
Which brings me to what I've been trying to emphasize, which is that, more important than whether or not you can convince Christians with this logic is the ammunition you give to your opponents in this debate.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Accusing anyone who has ever had an abortion of murder is not conducive to having a productive [added: or civil] discussion.
I apologize. I did not explicitly do this, but I have removed the word "murder" from my post nonetheless.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So you are saying that anybody who could be swayed by a religious argument already has?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*sigh*
I don't know what kind of trap you're trying to get me to walk into Porter.
I think this is not a religious question. I think it's a legal and ethical one. And a pragmatic one. I don't think I want to rehash the same point over and over again.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am *not* trying to get you to walk into a trap.
I'm just trying to understand how you can believe that nobody can be influenced by religious arguments concerning abortion.
It seems clear to me that many people have been influenced by those arguments, and that people are influenced by them.
I think we must be miscommunicating if you think I'm trying to dig a pit for you. I'll just let it drop right now if you don't want to discuss this.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Is this because you believe that all pro-choice people are not religious enough to be influence by religious arguments?
I think that people who are not religious are unlikely to be swayed by religious arguments then and there. If they do change their mind, they will probably not come to God through abortion issues, but to abortion issues through God.
Those who are religious have probably already faced this very issue both personally and publically numerous times and has come to a delicate understanding with themselves and their God over the issue.
In that case, I think further using someone's religion to guilt or frighten them (even if you're doing it politely) into changing their mind is not exactly the most pleasant thing in the world to do.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, let me just say that perhaps some (or many) people can be swayed by religious arguments, but that it is clear to me that many many more people--including Christians--are influenced away from the pro-life camp by the religious arguments of Christians.
I felt like it was a rhetorical trap because it felt like you were trying to get me to commit to an absolute statement when my point was really in another direction.
'kay?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK.
I neither agree nor disagree with you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think, though, that most people who are influenced by religious arguments on this issue are influenced by the teachings of their own religion, (or perhaps official statments of a religion/religious figure that they respect) rather than a billboard with a picture of Jesus.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That I agree with.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Me too. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If it wasn't clear, I also agree with dkw statement. People can be swayed if they already belong to that particular set of other beliefs.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
After a somewhat lengthy discussion, we now have four people in a row agreeing to a single statement. Is this some kind of record? Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Another problem with the religious argument is that you can argue that the Bible is actually not against abortion. For example Exodus 21:22 can be read that punishment for harming a fetus is similar to that for harming property (a fine). Where harm to the mother is an eye for an eye, etc.
Or people ask questions such as, "Why are you chosing to follow the Bible in this case, and not the verses about kashrut?"
If "religion" is the main argument offered, and someone can find enough scripture to induce doubt in whether it holds, then there is no argument left.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm just trying to understand how you can believe that nobody can be influenced by religious arguments concerning abortion.
It seems clear to me that many people have been influenced by those arguments, and that people are influenced by them.
See, I don't think that the people who are influenced by them are people who'd take another position if NOT for them. But maybe my opinion is biased due to the fact that my own pro-life stance is completely unrelated to my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and therefore I don't think one has to be contingent upon the other for any reason.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Minerva: check out this article for an explication of Exodus 21. It doesn't support abortion; on the contrary.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
What Tom said: I oppose abortion, and I don't find the article useful. (It lists opinions as "myths," and it spends a lot of work picking apart what "embryo" means. It doesn't matter. If abortion is right/wrong among English speakers, it's also right/wrong if we switch to some language that uses different terms.)
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
That website seems to be down.
All I am saying that there are many readings of the verse, and there are certainly those that support abortion. You may disagree with those readings, but there are certainly those who could say, "I read the Bible (perhaps even better than many who quote scripture without having read it). I thought/prayed about Exodus 21. And I think it supports abortion. Therefore, the Bible is at the very best ambiguous about its support of abortion. Therefore, even though I believe in the Bible, I am not against abortion."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Another problem with the religious argument is that you can argue that the Bible is actually not against abortion. ...
If "religion" is the main argument offered, and someone can find enough scripture to induce doubt in whether it holds, then there is no argument left.
It's easy if you believe the word of God is still being revealed and written today Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Of course, that would probably not apply to the majority of religious groups out there, but I had to throw that in
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It applies to a pretty significant percentage of this group here.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
What a charming example of coupling the word "science" with a liberal sprinkling of italics for emphasis and standing back with a smile and saying "ta da". It's another paper that's unable to say anything that the source material does not. You'd be better off signing out a relevant textbook.
Just because you say "scientifically" before any of your debunks doesn't mean you've actually said anything of merit.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Scientifically speaking, Bob the Lawyer has a good point.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Ta da!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
>.<
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote: It's easy if you believe the word of God is still being revealed and written today
Sure, but then you'd have to believe that parts of the Five Books of Moses are false. Which sorta makes it not matter what you think of Exodus.
Anyway, my point is that there is scripture that could plausibly be interpreted as pro-choice. If one makes a monolithic statement that, "The Bible says X." then only one counterexample is needed to disprove it. And in this case, there are several plausible counter-examples.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
The first article is the worst example of misusing 'science' I have ever seen. Most of the 'facts' are specious to say the least, others are blatantly wrong. I do not support abortion in general, but I think it would be difficult to support that belief solely by looking at biological facts.
Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
Alright, a few more questions
For pro-lifers - WHY do you take this stance? At what point do you think an embryo should legally be considered a human being? Do you have any information that would support your belief?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the point at which an embryo should be considered a human being entitled to legal protections is thoroughly arbitrary, but should probably be tied to things like brain activity and the possibility of independent life outside the womb. It's for this reason that I'm reluctantly okay with abortion in the first trimester, since there's absolutely no possibility that the fetus is self-aware or engaging in conscious thought prior to that time. I'm not a big fan of using the semi-arbitrary guideline of "three months good, four months bad," but I also recognize that any legal yardstick of that sort will be inexact -- and also recognize that the social cost of no available abortions is probably larger than the social cost of a number of aborted babies who never even had the opportunity to realize they existed.
Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
TomDavidson - You may be right, but what's the deal with being "reluctantly" okay with it? Does anyone think there's a possability that human life begins at conception?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I believe the fetus is a living human at conception, sure. I don't think it's a sentient being at conception, and I'm more concerned about killing sentient beings than I am about "human life."
After all, you can make the argument that cancer cells are "human life."
People who believe that a unique soul becomes permanently attached to a body at conception obviously have a good reason to worry about this, but I can't imagine why anyone else would.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:People who believe that a unique soul becomes permanently attached to a body at conception obviously have a good reason to worry about this, but I can't imagine why anyone else would.
There are also some who don't necessarily believe this, but think that there's a possibility that it does. These people would also have good reason to worry about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, yes. I'm not sure the distinction is really all THAT relevant, but I'll concede it anyway. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it's somewhat relevant, because it describes me, I think.
-o-
quote:For pro-lifers - WHY do you take this stance? At what point do you think an embryo should legally be considered a human being? Do you have any information that would support your belief?
I kind of "slide it back," mentally, if I can make that make sense.
I think pretty clearly fetuses are as roughly sentient as infants at some point before they are born. That is, there is evidence that at some late stage in the game, the fetus is aware, and is certainly viable. I start from the position that a fetus viable to live outside of the womb is a human life, entitled to all the legal protections that implies.
(As an admitted "I believe I'm right" non-statement, I will interject here the comment that in my opinion, anyone who can't grant at least this much is not being reasonable. Sorry if that offends. I don't know if I can express this view non-offensively, but I believe there is value in expressing it.)
Based on this, then, the question in my mind is not "Does sentient human life begin before birth?" but--rather obviously--"How long before birth does sentient human life begin?" Having satisfied myself that a fetus is entitled to legal protection before birth, the only issue then is when this starts. Now, we can't set a specific date at which setience begins. We also don't really have a clear working definition of what intelligent human life is--to couch the question religiously, at what time the soul enters the body. Given our muddled understanding and lack of information, it only seems reasonable to me to err on the side of prudence.
I'm not positive that the fetus always counts as a human life. But it's possible that it does--and I'm certain that eventually it does. Terminating a human life--particularly one powerless to make choices--is much more morally wrong to me than the cost of prohibiting abortion. I think the fetus's rights trump the mother's rights.
The farther along the fetus gets, the less flexible I am in my beliefs. I suspect that a fertilized egg doesn't have a "soul"--though I'm certainly not anything like certain on the issue--and so I would be willing to compromise--only on the belief that a partial victory is better than total defeat--with extremely early abortions or something like the morning after pill. (Even saying that makes me feel vaguely monstruous.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think it's somewhat relevant, because it describes me, I think. [Smile]
Same here.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
It describes me, too. Good post, Icarus. I agree with Icarus, with one clarification:
quote: I think the fetus's rights trump the mother's rights.
I think the fetus's right to live trumps the mother's rights, except in cases where the mother's right to live is threatened. She has to be able to defend her own life and health, even against a baby in her own womb.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:At what point do you think an embryo should legally be considered a human being? Do you have any information that would support your belief?
I believe the burden of proof rests with you. Can you say for certain at what point human life starts? Even taking into account brain wave activity and such, how can anyone say for certain that life begins at this point? Until you can say this, I believe you should err on the side of caution.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I think the fetus's right to live trumps the mother's rights, except in cases where the mother's right to live is threatened. She has to be able to defend her own life and health, even against a baby in her own womb.
I find this reasonable.
My own feelings are definitely affected by my Catholic upbringing; I make a distinction between actively killing the fetus and passively allowing it to die. I know some people would argue that the distinction is a meaningless one. *shrug*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Aren't we slipping into the whole "Drawing a line in a continuum" here? When does an acorn become an oak tree? etc. etc.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Actually I've migrated more pro-choice over the years, exactly because I can't stand the "christian" arguments any longer.
I know I'm not fully a biological scientist, but my own "line" is related to cellular differentiation in the embryo. If cells can still be knocked off to form an identical twin, it's not at "human" stage yet.
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Aren't we slipping into the whole "Drawing a line in a continuum" here? When does an acorn become an oak tree? etc. etc.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)