posted
A total categorical exclusion does not give a right. It's not a "circumstance" that the child is in the womb. Every child this age is still in the womb.
Effectively, you're rationale states that "Children in the womb do not have the right to life except at their mother's whim."
posted
That's a inconsistency - "an unborn baby has a right to life except when it is inside its mother's womb." Then by definition, then an unborn baby does not have a right to life.
posted
No, the pro-life argument is that people have a right to life and an unborn baby is a person. There's nothing inconsistent about saying that right to life can be superceded in that case by the need to respect the mother's beliefs about personhood and her judgement of what is right.
It's like saying a prisoner on death row has a right to life. Well, they do! But that's because they are a person, not because they are a prisoner on death row - and the prisoner on death row circumstance might supercede that right.
posted
Then it goes back to the definition of "pro-life" - most people are for things that can be seen as good, but if you classify the mother's convenience over the baby's life, then life is not the highest value. Pro-life doesn't just mean "I value it" but "I value it more than the other things at stake."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, the pro-life argument is that people have a right to life and an unborn baby is a person.
No, the pro-life argument is that people have the right life, an unborn baby is a person, and that there are very few circumstances in which the this right to life may be superseded.
posted
Whereas the pro-choice argument usually involves the position that an unborn child is not a person.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But nothing is stopping one of those circumstances from being "whenever a baby is unborn in a mother's womb."
Pro-life does not mean "I value it more than the other things at stake" because, except for the most far extreme, pro-lifers usually agree that there are situations in which an abortion is okay. For instance, when the mother's health is in danger or when rape has occured, just to give two commonly accepted exceptions. Thus, you must be able to be pro-life without holding life above all other circumstances.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pro-life does not mean "I value it more than the other things at stake" because, except for the most far extreme, pro-lifers usually agree that there are situations in which an abortion is okay.
Xap, you are in fact citing grudgingly granted and not univerally-accepted exceptions as "proof" of your point, and thus miss the point entirely. It's like saying that pro-choicers aren't really for choice if they think that third-trimester abortions -- or post-birth slayings -- are too icky to permit.
There are limits to how far you can stretch the definition before it becomes meaningless. Someone who believes that a fetus has an inherent, inviolate right to life unless it's in its mother's womb, at which point it's okay for her to violate that right for any reason, is not by definition "pro-life," as the philosophy is understood. By the same token, someone who believes that a mother has the right to choose to abort her baby as long as the baby has not yet been conceived cannot be called "pro-choice" in any way that keeps the debate coherent.
quote:Xap, you are in fact citing grudgingly granted and not univerally-accepted exceptions as "proof" of your point, and thus miss the point entirely.
Tom, when the point is that Pro-life does not mean "I value it more than the other things at stake," then that does prove the point.
quote:Someone who believes that a fetus has an inherent, inviolate right to life unless it's in its mother's womb, at which point it's okay for her to violate that right for any reason, is not by definition "pro-life," as the philosophy is understood.
Why? Because you say so? Because a bunch of extreme pro-lifers say so? As I said, a bunch of Christian groups can claim Catholics or Mormans aren't Christians, but that does not make it so.
Just because the extremists are most vocal in the pro-life movement doesn't mean pro-life is defined by that extremism.
Pro means favoring, and life refers to the life of the fetus. Thus if you favor the rights regarding the life of the fetus you are pro-life. If extremist pro-lifers want a more exclusive term then they should call it anti-abortion, rather than a term that quite clearly invokes a more commonly accepted message.
posted
I would not say that the desire to strictly limit the reasons for and situations under which a mother can choose to legally abort her child is an extremist position in the pro-life movement.
The term "pro-life" was selected for the same reasons -- and is as accurate -- as the term "pro-choice." And if you don't want to discuss terms as they apply in reality, as opposed to what they might conceivably be parsed to mean, you may as well start a thread on "liberals" and "conservatives." *grin*
posted
It's certainly more extreme than the position that fetuses have a right to live but that we can't legally enforce that right against people who believe otherwise.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For instance, when the mother's health is in danger or when rape has occured, just to give two commonly accepted exceptions.
If an abortion occurs because the mother's life is in danger, then you haven't decided that something is more important than life. You've decided that one life is more important than another.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's certainly more extreme than the position that fetuses have a right to live but that we can't legally enforce that right against people who believe otherwise."
Which would be the mainstream pro-choice position, actually. It's identifiable by its poor and ultimately corrupt logic.
That we have no legal right or compelling social interest in preventing the murder of a baby while it is in the womb is perhaps the delineating factor here: if you believe that, you're pro-choice.
posted
No, Xap. It means that you're trying to play semantics in order to argue both sides of the issue simultaneously. You do that a lot, but it winds up being smoke and mirrors every time.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonsense. You're buying into a dichotomy that doesn't exist, which is the point here.
When two sides don't contradict, you can argue both points.
"Fetuses have a right to life" and "Mothers legally should have the option to kill their fetuses" don't necessarily contradict, if you believe there are things that supercede the right to life.
posted
Except that those AREN'T what's being argued.
The actual positions are "unborn babies are living people and should not be killed" and "women have the right to remove growths from their bodies." Attempts to find the middle ground have produced exceptions on both sides, but that doesn't mean that they're interchangeable or even necessarily compatible in worldview.
posted
It may not be what is being argued (if you're talking about the argument between the two extremes), but it is what pro-life and pro-choice mean.
The more extreme pro-life position includes the idea that "Mothers don't have the right to kill their fetuses" but that doesn't mean all pro-lifers do. As a pro-lifer myself, I don't agree with that statement. I think mothers should be legally allowed to do so, but it doesn't mean I'm not pro-life. I favor life - even the life of fetuses.
posted
No need for authority. I've already shown it through logic.
You know what "pro-" means don't you? I mean, if I said I was pro-Nader in this election, you'd know what I meant even if you'd never heard the term before, right? It means I favor Nader.
And you know what "life" means in connection with the fetus debate, right? It's the life of the fetus.
Thus pro-life means any position that favors the life of the fetus.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. No, see, that wasn't the question for anyone else. We all already knew that. Why is it your question?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was the question you were talking about Tom, whether you knew it or not (although I'm fairly sure you did.)
Remember, you began by saying:
quote:It seems to me that the defining characteristic of a "pro-lifer" is that the person in question believes both that the baby is a living human being and has an intrinsic right to live.
You were talking about the correct definition of pro-life.
(Note that your original statement is exactly what I've argued, but afterwards you altered it, restricting that definition even further, limiting the exceptions a true pro-lifer can allow for such an intrinsic right. My argument is simply that those additional restrictions are wrong, in the same way that saying "Only protestants are real Christians" is mistaken.)
quote:Actually, murder is always against the law. At common law, "murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse."
So it is incorrect to say, "Murder isn't always against the law." If the killing of another human being isn't against the law, then it isn't murder.
You can't have it both ways. If this is true, then abortion is not murder. Unless you don't believe that it is, in which case I'm misunderstanding your position.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe abortion should be classified as murder.
In other words, it's a wrongful killing that should be made illegal. I'm not always successful at keeping the words distinct, especially when I'm posting quickly, but I try to maintain the difference.
posted
Xap, we've argued that there is no meaning to the words "intrinsic right to live" if that life can be taken by the mother for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever.
Just as it would be meaningless to say people have the right to a fair criminal trial, unless they're charged with a criminal offense. The "unless" phrase has subsumed what is supposed to be the general rule.
So we don't need to reword Tom's original definition in order to think you're blowing smoke.
Note, that even with Tom's definition it's possible for someone who holds the views Dana attributed to Rabbit to be considered pro-life, since she has practical reasons for believing the best way to protect that right is to not make abortion illegal, and human rights concerns related to enforcement of the law, not to the principles of the law itself.
posted
I think Mike still has a point though. If murder is defined by only what is illegal, what reason could you give to claim it should be called murder? Just pointing out that it's legal should be enough to prove abortion is not murder, unless the definition of murder can include things that are not currently illegal.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, I very clearly addressed the distinction.
quote:I believe abortion should be classified as murder.
In other words, it's a wrongful killing that should be made illegal. I'm not always successful at keeping the words distinct, especially when I'm posting quickly, but I try to maintain the difference.
quote:Xap, we've argued that there is no meaning to the words "intrinsic right to live" if that life can be taken by the mother for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever.
Hold on. Nobody said life can be taken by the mother for any reason. I said you can be a pro-lifer and still believe life can be taken for a GOOD REASON.
In the case of abortion, many believe that the right to individual choice on matters of faith-based morality is a good reason - a reason equal to something like "because the person was a murderer" which many accept as a reason to break the right to life for adults.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:n the case of abortion, many believe that the right to individual choice on matters of faith-based morality is a good reason - a reason equal to something like "because the person was a murderer" which many accept as a reason to break the right to life for adults.
It's a distinction without a difference.
If ANY unborn child can be killed by the mother, then there is no meaningful right to life.
The "reason" you give is a reason to not make abortion illegal, not a reason to have an abortion in a particular case. The murderer reason is one which can be applied with particularity (if not with total accuracy). The abortion "reason" can be used to justify any abortion, any time.
quote:Xap, I very clearly addressed the distinction.
No but you missed part of the problem when you were doing so. The problem is that when saying that you think abortion "should" be considered murder, you'd have no reason to back that up, unless murder was defined in such a way other than what is illegal.
Or, in other words, if murder is simply killing against the law, the only thing that "should" be considered murder is what is already against the law, and the only things that shouldn't be is what isn't already against the law.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
You yourself said not all wrongful killings are illegal. I've provided lots of reasons, here and elsewhere, why I believe abortion should be moved from the "wrongful intentional killing which is not illegal" to the "wrongful intentional killing which is illegal" category.
And the second category IS murder. And the way something is moved from one category to the other is by PASSING A LAW. Which is what I'm advocating.
quote:It boils down to the same thing. You are saying she has the right to end that life for any reason, or that any reason she has is a good reason.
No... that would not be pro-life.
I am saying that WE outsiders have a good reason to legally allow her to have an abortion for any reason. That is different from saying it's ethically okay for her to have an abortion for any reason.
Consider, in comparison, homosexuality. I might think it is wrong to have homosexual sex, but also think I have a good reason to not make it illegal to have homosexual sex. This is not the same thing as saying anyone should have homosexual sex for any reason. It just means we have good reason not to arrest people who make the immoral decision.
posted
But you stated the freedom of belief was a reason to have an abortion, not a reason to allow abortion. Either that, or your analogy with the execution of murderers is right out the window because you're comparing apples and oranges.
posted
"You were talking about the correct definition of pro-life."
No. I was talking about the defining characteristics of a pro-lifer.
There is an important distinction. In the same way that we commonly agree that American "conservatives" are not necessarily conservative (as the word is strictly meant), a member of the pro-life movement is not necessarily accurately described by a strict parsing of the phrase "pro-life," especially since the name was chosen to score political points rather than to be dead-on accurate.
quote:But you stated the freedom of belief was a reason to have an abortion, not a reason to allow abortion. Either that, or your analogy with the execution of murderers is right out the window because you're comparing apples and oranges.
Freedom of a belief is a reason to ALLOW abortion, thus overruling our need to protect life in that matter. The murderer comparison was just about showing we sometimes do overrule the need to protect life, and that that doesn't make the right to life meaningless.
quote:If she has no right to do that, how is it unethical to prevent her from doing that?
Well let me ask you this: Do you think the government should ban you from doing everything unethical?
I believe in freedom of choice on many matters because, even though I think things are wrong, I recognize that I might be mistaken about that, and that other people might be mistaken too - and that I wouldn't want everyone trying to force their ethics on me by law.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe in freedom of choice on many matters because, even though I think things are wrong, I recognize that I might be mistaken about that, and that other people might be mistaken too - and that I wouldn't want everyone trying to force their ethics on me by law.
I agree with that sentiment to. Obviously, though, we both agree that some things should be prohibited. So this general principle isn't dispositive in the abortion issue.
I stand by my original statement on this matter - if Xap's use of pro-life is allowed, then I'm pro-choice as well as pro-life. Might be true, but it does make the words less useful, no?
quote: Well let me ask you this: Do you think the government should ban you from doing everything unethical?
Not necessarily. But if there is a good reason, the government can ban things that we have no right to do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"You were talking about the correct definition of pro-life."
No. I was talking about the defining characteristics of a pro-lifer.
The two are connected directly. For instance, I am a pro-lifer, yet I do not have those defining characteristics you talked about, so they aren't really defining of pro-lifers after all. The only way you can refute that is by saying I'm not a pro-lifer, and the only way you can do that is by saying my definition of a pro-lifer (which includes me) is wrong.
Let me add, also, that I have argued here before that conservative is a misused term, in the same way that pro-lifer is. In its political sense it should refer to a certain set of beliefs, but it is often given to people like Bush who hold onto very different beliefs. This means, I think, Bush is not really a conservative - not that the definitive characteristics of conservatives differ from the definition of a conservative.
I think it is important not to misuse words in a debate, even if it is a common misuse, because misusing words leads to rhetorical trickery. For instance, someone might say anyone who believes in conservative values should support Bush because he is conservative. This can be a trick, however, for people who are conservative in a different way than Bush is. They miss the subtle difference in the use of the term, switching from a definitional sense to a more common-lingo use.
It's often very difficult to see an issue clearly if the way the words are being used is mixed up or changing. The abortion issue is case-in-point. I believe far more people would be pro-choice if they realized that you could be pro-choice AND pro-life (and vice-versa too, to a lesser extent). But the rhetorical way the terms are used commonly (as opposed to how they should formally be used) hides that fact, and artificially alters positions. It is a trick used to make middle ground invisible, and the trick is only dissolved by defining the terms more accurately and more clearly.
In my mind words are only useful insofar as they are accurately pointing to the concepts they represent.
posted
Well Xap, is it safe to say you are not pro-legal-protection-of-unborn-children's-right-to-life?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's interesting to me is that I am, by Xap's argument, a Republican, because I'm a citizen of a republic. And he would presumably pretend to not understand the distinction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I submit that most self-identifying non-catholic pro-lifers (which you say you are) would deny that you are a pro-lifer simply because you are probably voting for Kerry. My mother is a strict one issue voter. She votes republican, not because she likes them but because of their position on this one issue without considering any of the damage they may have inflicted on this country in any other form.
AJ
(I talked to my mother last night about elections in general and made the mistake of saying that I was leaning towards Obama over Keyes. The thing is, my mother isn't actually a rabid pro-lifer. But it is the only thing she considers when voting, regardless of lives lost in Iraq.)
quote:What's interesting to me is that I am, by Xap's argument, a Republican, because I'm a citizen of a republic.
No, that would make you a republican - if republican meant someone who is a citizen of a republic, which it doesn't.
Republican, capital R, is a whole other use of the term (conveniently distinguished by the capital letter) which means something entirely different.
And of course I'm not saying a word can't have two or more uses. The orange you eat and the orange on a UVA T-shirt are not the same thing. A word having two different usages is very different from having one usage that is misunderstood.
quote:"In my mind words are only useful insofar as they are accurately pointing to the concepts they represent."
In my mind words are only useful insofar as you understand what they mean to your audience.
Well, both you and your audience need an accurate conception of what the word is really referring to. Otherwise its usefulness is weakened.
But both agreeing on a wrong definition is not effective. For instance, if two kids both believe a "teacher" is by definition female, and then one tells the other that his daddy could not be a teacher, it would not make him right. It would just make both of them confused for the same reason.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's like saying that pro-choicers aren't really for choice if they think that third-trimester abortions -- or post-birth slayings -- are too icky to permit.
