Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[ElectricFetus]

Is this you still failing at devil's advocate?

Not at all, actually I succeeded perfectly considering the next thing you did was justify why a fetus is not a person. Mind you I know I can justify and have so far why a fetus is not a person in my own words with my own arguments, I just wanted you to do the same.

I mean of course they don't hate women. They just don't think women are intelligent or responsible enough to be able to make that decision. That isn't misogynistic, is it.

Well I'm sure some of them are misogynistic, I just think it unfair to demonize them all as hating women, just as it would be for them to call you a Nazi. I think real progress could be made if pro-lifers and pro-choicers could debate about the fundamental question of the personhood of the fetus, not rape, or misogyny or genocide, all that only turns the debate into a shit flinging fest. I think we would have the upperhand though considering most developed, secular nations courts have go through in a rational, unemotional manner the question of fetus personhood and sided with us. I think if we calmly and neutrally present why a fetus is not a person the otherside would eventually be reduce to name calling, not us.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Murder is a legal term, not a moral one.
If it was illegal to kill an unborn baby/fetus, then it would be murder whichever name you gave to it.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. If it was illegal to kill an unborn baby/fetus, then it would be murder whichever name you gave to it.

The law is noted for its complex terminology. It was illegal to kill a fetus in utero for many years, although an exception was granted to save the life of the mother, an exception that was not mandatory, e.g., in Catholic hospitals. And it was not called "murder," it was called simply "abortion."

Western civilization makes a distinction between the born and the unborn. Most other cultures do the same, but not all.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Murder is a legal term, not a moral one.
If it was illegal to kill an unborn baby/fetus, then it would be murder whichever name you gave to it.

The term murder is used to indicate any death that the pro life movement opposes. It is not a legal term in that sense. The meaning of words are derived from usage more often than the dictionary. .

 

[RussellCrawford]

The law is noted for its complex terminology. It was illegal to kill a fetus in utero for many years, although an exception was granted to save the life of the mother, an exception that was not mandatory, e.g., in Catholic hospitals. And it was not called "murder," it was called simply "abortion."

Western civilization makes a distinction between the born and the unborn. Most other cultures do the same, but not all.

Currently being pro life means that a person kills one to save another. Perhaps in the future the movement will be called Pro Death Justified.

 

[Randwolf]

Life at conception personhood was conceded at the outset.

Hmmm. OK, let's take this reasoning of equal protection under the law with all associated Constitutional rights, privileges and responsibilities to its logical conclusion on the flip side.

Does this mean that foeti can now be prosecuted for battery, extortion and criminal coercion of the mother? Why not?

Well, says the pro-lifer, "That's patently absurd! How ridiculous. How can a foetus be held responsible for the consequences of its existence? What, do you think it's a complete person capable of mens rea and willful actions or something? Errrmmm, wait..."

Uh huh. Right. You're spot on with "personhood only as it relates to the circumstances of abortion".


On the bright side, pregnant women will be able to drive in the HOV lane 24/7...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Currently being pro life means that a person kills one to save another. Perhaps in the future the movement will be called Pro Death Justified.

You have spammed this opinion all over this website. As far as I know, you have not yet explained why you believe that refusal to perform an abortion will, except in rather rare and unusual circumstances, result in the death of another person.

This is supposed to be a place of science and scholarship, where consistency is valued. If you responded to this question on another thread, then you should repeat that response on your other threads, for the sake of that consistency, as well as the obvious need to prevent confusion.

So, once again, I ask you politely to please explain why the anti-abortion movement should be reviled for yet another reason, namely, because you insist that every abortion foregone results in approximately one already-born person's life being forfeit.

YOU HAVE NOT MADE THIS CASE. Therefore you must CEASE repeating it as though the issue is settled and everyone on this side of the argument agrees with you.

This type of argument is not going to help settle the abortion controversy, and in fact is more likely to increase disrespect for the pro-abortion movement. If you want to participate in our discussions, then please follow the basic rules of science and scholarship. So far, I have not observered this.

Fraggle Rocker
Moderator
Linguistics
Arts & Culture

 

[billvon]

Regardless of what your beliefs are, if you are to force the birth of the fetus you must allow a born baby to die.

We "forced the birth of a fetus" two and a half years ago. We did not have to allow a born baby to die. Neither did anyone else. So again, your argument fails.

So what is your point.

That you are typical of extremists on both sides of the debate. You come up with a new unsupportable claim (like "abortion is murder" or "babies scream in pain when they are aborted" or "the birth of the fetus causes a born baby to die") and then try to support it - but just end up digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. You won't abandon your silly claim because you fear that will be akin to admitting you are wrong, and that is something that extremists never, ever do.

The result? People like you just add to the noise surrounding an issue that's being debated by more reasonable people.

 

[billvon]

The medical profession has a medical Latin word for everything.
The words are more precise, and less emotive, than their day-to-day counterparts, but no more valid.
When a pregnant woman is startled by an energetic kick, and is asked what is the matter,
she say's "It's the baby". She does not say "It's the fetus".
Seems to me that the only time a non-medical person calls it a fetus is when they want to kill it.

Our OB-GYN is very careful to call it "your pregnancy" rather than "your baby" up until about 14 weeks. Not because she is for or against abortion, but because finding out that "your baby is going to die" is a lot harder for an expectant mother to take than hearing "your pregnancy is not going to be successful."

 

[RussellCrawford]

You have spammed this opinion all over this website. As far as I know, you have not yet explained why you believe that refusal to perform an abortion will, except in rather rare and unusual circumstances, result in the death of another person.

I will follow your directive.

---------I would be interested in how you think a refusal to perform an abortion has anything to do with the issue.-------

One would expect that a moderator would read and understand a point before making a ruling.

I have answered your questions and you have not responded nor asked for clarification. If you are still confused as to what is being said, just let me know. If you could provide specific questions, that would help.

Perhaps this analogy will help you understand:

"The burning baby example"

Assume there is a building filled with millions of babies and millions of zygotes/embryos/fetuses all equally packed in easy to carry blankets etc. such that each one is equally accessible to be saved from any potential fire. Lets say you enter the building and discover that there is a raging fire that will consume the building in a matter of minutes and kill all the babies and zytgotes/embryos/fetuses. You determine that you have only enough time to save as many lives as you can with one trip outside. Which do you choose to save, the zygotes/embryos/fetuses or the babies? I would choose to save the babies, why, because the probability of continued life if I save zygotes is 30 percent. So if I save a baby that is alive, I am saving a child that has a high likelihood of living and if I save a zygote I am saving a life with a low chance of living.

Now lets complete the analogy:
The building is equal to the earth -- the babies are equal to babies, children and adults -- the zygotes, embryos, and fetuses remain what they are --your trip into the building is equal to your years of life on earth and the fire is equal to all causes of death on earth.

Now the earth is filled with 7 billion zygotes, embryos and fetuses along with babies, children and adults that are dying from all known causes. They will die if you don't in your lifetime save them for some period of time. You have a choice, you can save as many as possible from any of the groups. Any you don't save will die. So which do you save? I save the babies because the zygotes have only a 30 percent chance (due to natural abortion) of life even if saved by me. The embryos have a 85 percent chance of life once natural abortion is factored in, and the fetuses have about a 90/99 percent chance of living just prior to birth. So I do not choose to save any of the unborn, because they are all risky choices. I do however want to save as many of the babies, children and adults as I can because they are already alive. And it doesn't matter if some or sick, because some of the unborn may be sick as well.

Which would you save?

Does that help you out?
If you are still confused let me know.

 

[RussellCrawford]

You attempted to construct a straw man fallacy and a series of ad hominem fallacies, nice try!!!! --you failed---

[We "forced the birth of a fetus" two and a half years ago..

If you force the birth of someone else's fetus then you caused the death of a born person. If you gave birth to your own fetus, you didn't force birth.

We did not have to allow a born baby to die. Neither did anyone else. So again, your argument fails.

If you forced the birth of someone else's fetus you did in fact allow a born baby to die. The argument holds because you had a choice, you could have saved a born baby but you choose to let it die and force the birth of a fetus. If you think this is false, explain yourself.

That you are typical of extremists on both sides of the debate.

The extremist are those who allow born babies to die. I save life by speaking the facts. The facts are really very clear even if you delete the killing of babies. It is just as valid to say you choose to save fetuses and not babies. Even if you don't kill them you don't save them. You hold the fetus in greater esteem than a baby.

You come up with a new unsupportable claim (like "abortion is murder" or "babies scream in pain when they are aborted" or "the birth of the fetus causes a born baby to die")

I haven't come up with any unsupportable claim. I have stated scientific law as it occurs in nature. As a result I am saving life.

and then try to support it - but just end up digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

You don't even know what I am talking about, so how would you know if I am digging myself deeper.

You won't abandon your silly claim because you fear that will be akin to admitting you are wrong, and that is something that extremists never, ever do.

I can't abandon anything because it is scientific law and theory. It is fact. You may not like it or be able to understand it but that is your problem. If you do want to learn, I will help.

The result? People like you just add to the noise surrounding an issue that's being debated by more reasonable people.

The result is that you have not learned what I am talking about. If you had you would support the scientific laws. Instead you have chosen to offer ad hominem comments and not address the issue.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You attempted to construct a straw man fallacy and a series of ad hominem fallacies, nice try!!!! --you failed---

Be nice. Try to remain above your debate oppo/eerr "partner" in civility, it will reduce the rate at which these threads need to be closed, locked temporary, people (including your self) need to be ban, etc, etc.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Can you please let me know how you think I have said this : " refusal to perform an abortion will, except in rather rare and unusual circumstances, result in the death of another person" ---or where it is relevant to the conversation.

Could you please let me know if you understood the "baby in a fire" analogy.

 

[billvon]

If you force the birth of someone else's fetus then you caused the death of a born person.

I did force the birth of that fetus in another person (although not via legislation.) Who had to die?

If you gave birth to your own fetus, you didn't force birth.

Being male I did not do that.

But keep digging.

 

[RussellCrawford]

I did force the birth of that fetus in another person (although not via legislation.) Who had to die?.

it depends on the circumstances, where did you force the abortion and who's fetus did you force to be born?

 

[billvon]

it depends on the circumstances, where did you force the abortion and who's fetus did you force to be born?

I "forced' our son to be born. I have never forced an abortion.

So who had to die?

 

[RussellCrawford]

I "forced' our son to be born.?

Then you didn't force a birth, you convinced your partner.

I have never forced an abortion.?

Good.

So who had to die?

No one, if you convinced your partner, no one died. You had no duty to save the life of another.


Now if you had forced a girl you don't know or if you had spent time in front of a clinic attempting to force birth, then you would have given up the opportunity to save one of these people http://www.poverty.com and they would have died. Your choice at the clinic is to save an baby or the let it die and save a fetus instead. If you saved the fetus the baby died. I will post the "baby in a fire" analogy in the next few days and you can read it if you are still confused as to how you choose to let babies die.

 

[billvon]

Then you didn't force a birth, you convinced your partner.

Ah, so someone checks the person's intent before going out and choosing to let babies die?

Keep digging that hole, Russell.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Ah, so someone checks the person's intent before going out and choosing to let babies die?

Keep digging that hole, Russell.

No, no one checks anything, the born baby still dies, it is just that you are not responsible.

You are welcome to continue to play "Gotcha" with yourself, but I will not participate.

I am sorry you continue to fail, perhaps you should read first, you know, before you post.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@Russell
I'm not sure if I've got your argument right.
Are you saying that if one baby/fetus is brought into the world, despite its mother wanting an abortion, that another must die?

If I have got it right, could you explain your reasoning more fully?