« At Obama's Rise, Praise King's Movement--and Bury It | Leonce Gaiter's Blog | The White Right to Call Me "Nigger" »
Note to O'Reilly: Women Deserve Protections--Fetuses Don't
It's been difficult to watch fetal rights trump women's rights in the abortion debate. Back in the day, there were chants of "my body, my choice." Now, we argue at which month the fetus has the right to destroy a woman's health, sanity, family, and even her life, thereby accepting the right-wing frame that the fetus is an entity somehow divorced from and equal to the woman who carries it.
Bill O'Reilly preened when asking Joan Walsh if late term fetuses deserve any form of legal protection. He preened because he dared her to provide the rational answer in this age of faux sentiment and thoughtless self-righteousness--be they of the Oprah or O'Reilly schools.
It's time to call the bluff and take back this debate. The answer is a resounding "NO."
Women deserve legal protection, and as long as a fetus is part of a woman's body, it has protections through her. No outside person has the right to harm the fetus any more than he/she has the right to harm the woman. No entity has the right to deny her the fruits of what's inside her body any more than they have the right to deny her the use of her liver. What O'Reilly and his ilk want is to protect the fetus from the woman who carries it, when in fact, the woman is the only qualified arbiter of what is best for her and her body in the context of life and loved ones in which they exist.
I utterly reject the argument that fetus' are especial because they will be born and thus transform into infants. I will not argue about a fetus' future state. Its current nature as a fetus means that it lives inside the body of an existing human being. That independent living being's needs and trump those of what lives inside its body and the disposition of what lives inside its body is in that being's sole discretion. Period.
The argument that fetuses may live to become infants and therefore deserve protection is also ad absurdum. A cell can be cloned and can grow into an infant. Should the pulling out of hair be outlawed? As science matures, artificial means of keeping cells and cell groups alive will doubtless evolve. What amount to petrie dish blobs will be "viable" outside the womb--with enough help. This is the ultimate argument of anti-abortion crusaders. They desperately want to outlaw abortion and even contraception. To to them, a la Monty Python, "every sperm is sacred." A woman is simply the subservient, relatively insignificant vessel for something more valuable than she--a fetus. It's rights trump hers.
Barack Obama said that he rejected the pro-choice argument that there was no societal moral question involved in abortion. He was right on the substance; he was wrong on the particulars. It is grossly immoral for a society to so devalue a segment of its population that it reserves the right to force them under law to use their own bodies in ways that are harmful to themselves.
The abortion debate needs to be brought home to the rights of women--not the rights of fetuses. Let's face it: To the anti-abortion crowd, it has been all along. They have simply couched it in the cuddly swaddling clothes of romantic infancy to win the point: "Who do you want to protect," they ask? "this sweet, cooing child, or this selfish bitch who refuses to do what my God says is her biological duty?"
As long as a fetus remains a fetus, it gains the same rights and protections as the woman who carries it. The fate of what exists inside a woman's body... that is hers alone to decide. You may think abortion is wrong. I think it's wrong to raise your child as a Nazi. What harm can a woman who has an abortion do you? At best it harms your delicate sensibilities in the abstract. A child raised as a neo-Nazi will grow up with the will and perhaps the means to do a great many people a lot of physical and emotional harm. If I don't have the right to stop people from raising their children as they see fit--regardless of the potentially negative impact on my life and wellbeing--you don't have the right to stop a woman from doing what she thinks best for her life and loved ones, especially since the only possible damage is to your delicate sensibilities. We're both offended. On both counts: Tough shit. Man up. It's none of your fucking business.
The woman's rights/pro-choice crowd needs to stop accepting the right-wing frame for this debate. When asked if fetuses deserve rights, the answer is: Women deserve rights--including protection from people who would force them to use their bodies in ways they know to be harmful to their wellbeing, their loved ones, and their lives.
Advertisement
Word.
Highly recommended post - I agree with you 100%.
June 19, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leonce - Before I comment specifically on your argument, let me state my own position on abortion in the interests of full disclosure.
I believe abortions should be legal without restrictions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, and still legal under compelling circumstances even in late pregnancy.
That said, I believe your argument is flawed in a moral sense, but in addition, is a losing argument in the struggle for public support.
The anti-abortion argument can be capsulized in a single word, "baby", as in "abortion is murder because it kills unborn babies." This argument resonates with the public because each of us carries in our mind an image of what a baby is like - a smilling, cooing, crying, adorable little person with clear wants, needs, and a demonstrable level of conscious awareness (even though the level is below that of older children and adults).
I would suggest that the public would reject the deliberate killing of any creature with those attributes - attributes we sometimes sum up into the concept of "personhood". We abhor the killing of persons because of what it means to be a person. I, like most of the public, agree with that sentiment.
Notice that this has nothing to do with whether a "person" is within or outside of a mother's body, but rather whether what is inside is in fact a person, or instead a biological entity deserving some concern and protection but not the protection a person deserves. It also has little to do (morally) with the level of dependence, and in fact, a newborn is pretty helpless and dependent even outside of the womb.
Most of us have not conceptualized these distinctions, but we arrive at them instinctively. We don't wish to kill any living organism, but our greatest reluctance applies to a creature with the kind of conscious awareness, dreams, expectations, and capacity for joy or sorrow that we term personhood.
In my view, any argument that ignores that element of public sentiment is doomed to fail.
June 19, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point and acknowledge it. However, any argument and accepts public sentiment without challenge is also doomed to fail. My goal is to challenge the sentiments of which you speak. No fun, I realize, but, I believe, necessary.
June 20, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't wish to kill any living organism, but our greatest reluctance applies to a creature with the kind of conscious awareness, dreams, expectations, and capacity for joy or sorrow that we term personhood.
Are you saying that a fetus has the conscious awareness that can dream of what it wants to do when it grows up?
June 20, 2009 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You passion is leading you to be far too certain of you beliefs. You speak in the kinds of absolute terms that are disturbing when emanating from either side of this debate. Your whole argument is predicated on your belief that a fetus is not a human being. The truth is, however, that you do not know that, and neither does anyone else. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.
If I examine your position the first question I would ask you is, exactly at what point does a fetus go from being merely an extension of a woman's body, an odd parasitic appendage, to being a human being? Is seems that you believe that moment to be at birth? If so, why? Why does existing the birth canal transform the fetus from a 7 pound lump of cells into a 7 pound human being?
If, on the other hand, someone was to argue that a fetus became human sometime prior to birth, I would ask them, when was that time, exactly? After the second trimester? The first? When, exactly? This is why Joe Biden talked about the trimester compromise that has become a part of our pluralistic society. As a Catholic, Biden says he accepts that a human life beings at conception, yet he respects that honest people have a basis to feel differently. The only morally consistent belief, IMHO, is that a new human is created at conception. At the moment it receives a full set of human chromosomes from mother and father. That is what distinguishes it from hail cells, or a tumor. Who knows whether this view is right or not, but it does seem internally consistent and not self-contorted.
As for myself, I don't feel sure when a fetus becomes a human, although, it makes no sense to me that it only occurs at the moment of birth. If, for example, a woman is scheduled to deliver by caesarean on the 1st of the month, that fetus would obviously be a human that day. If the doctor had to delay the procedure, however, and could not deliver the baby until the next day, the 2nd, then your 'humanity at birth' view would dictate that the same baby, who would have been 'human' on the 1st is, now, not human on the 1st. What's magical about traversing the birth canal that confers ones humanity? At what instant along the was humanity bestowed?
I do not buy your argument that the mere fact of the fetus being attached to a woman's body renders it not human. Perhaps, this will be a poor analogy, but what about Siamese twins? They are attached to each other's body. Does that render them not human? Yes, that situation is more codependent than dependent, but it's not the fetus' fault it is being gestated dependently in a womb, and not independently in some test tube. Yes, this is a question of the fetus' rights as a human being, and NO ONE can say authoritatively that it is not a human being before birth, and, arguably, back at it's conception.
Again, I do not feel certain about exactly when a human life begins. I only know that it occurs somewhere between conception and birth. I write this comment because it disturbs me how passionately certain you seem to feel. Absolute certainty, IMHO, has no place on either side of this debate.
June 19, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, for the many small typos I now see in my comment above.
June 19, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point is that calling a fetus a baby is just lying.
The law, nature, and custom, recognize stages of development. One can make a gray-scale spectrum of independence, for instance.
Can X survive on its own in the wild?
... in society, but otherwise on its own?
As a dependent of a parent or guardian in the tax sense?
Can X feed itself?
If X develops a disease, can it be isolated from society until cured or death?
Is X held to be responsible for its conduct?
Can X even engage in conduct?
Can X compete for survival?
Can X survive without forced medical intervention?
While normal birth is a handy line-in-the-sand because the physiological connection is broken then, it's hardly an absolute.
If anything, Siamese twins would be an exception to prove the rule.
There's of course the linked issue of when life ends... or should be allowed to end.
June 19, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Eds, good point.
June 19, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
thx, Lis.
June 19, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think the point is that calling a fetus a baby is just lying."
Says who? By what authority is that made a lie?
June 19, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No particular authority, but I'm saying that is how I read the OP's point in that one regard. If the OP corrects me, we'll take it from there.
You can play Humpty Dumpty and call a fetus a virtual corpse, if you want to play word games. You can pretend that the potential is actual, and vice versa, but if you want to use language honestly and to communicate with the bulk of people in common terms, it's only metaphorical or excessively rhetorical to call a normal 20-year old a big baby.
A normal actual fetus has the potential under normal circumstances to develop into an actual normal baby.
Really, it's not rocket science. It intellectual honesty, something often lacking in the rhetoric of zealots out to promote a cause.
June 20, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
" It intellectual honesty, something often lacking in the rhetoric of zealots out to promote a cause."
Finally, you come to the issue at hand, and the point of my first comment. Intellectual honesty demand that one acknowledge their lack of knowledge on this question. Anyone claiming absolute surety one way or the other is taking a zealous position likely based on their own arbitrary standards or, as you wrote, to promote a cause. Too often in this debate I see both sides beginning from the conclusion they desire to see, and then assembling their evidence and making their arguments to support that desired conclusion.
As I had indicated before, the only position which seems consistently logical and unarbitrary, is the position that life begins at conception. All other positions are easily shown to be arbirtary, but that doesn't mean that another view is not correct.
June 20, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you argue your position zealously, are you being hypocritical, intellectually dishonest so to speak? I think there is room for passion and open-mindedness together, but one does see some highly partisan passion which is dogmatic, and some dogmatic dispassion too.
There is an important difference between arguing from a position, and committing the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
"the only position which seems consistently logical and unarbitrary, is the position that life begins at conception. "
What seems so may not be so, as to foolish consistency, logicalness, and arbitraryness. But as I have tried to point out twice already, even if there is some truth to "life begins at conception", it's not sufficient reason to call abortion "murder" nor to call a fetus a child.
Substituting imagination for reality is highly problematic, to put it mildly.
June 20, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem isn't whether there's room for passion, it's whether there's also room for fallibility. For potential error in our beliefs. This is the same problem posed by religious zealots, or any other kind of fanatic. It's the denial of ambiguity where it clearly exists. The problem is the arrogance of absolutism.
June 20, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As mentioned in the comments above, I think the argument is lost when we begin to debate the beginning of life. I don't care if it watches TV and is writing its dissertation: If it's living inside your body, your interests trump its.
June 20, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't the beginning of life, but where to draw a line as to how to treat whatever life or non-life, politically/legally.
It doesn't even matter if all life is sacred. That life is sacred doesn't mean that one cannot take a life, biology is a food chain. It doesn't even rule out the death penalty, so it can hardly be used to dictate anything except respect in this context.
June 20, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The myelination of central nervous system nerve fibers capable of mediating the simple perception of pain begins in the second trimester, at which point the fetus is acquiring attributes that certainly distinguish it from a mere collection of cells but not from most vertebrate animals. Cerebral and related develomental processes necessary for awareness and higher functions that include hopes, wishes, disappointments, and other functions that operate at levels beyond those of our prehuman ancestors begins in the third trimester. Unfortunately, the process is so gradual that no single third trimester point can be identified as an unequivocal dividing line - hence, a generally perceived imperative to make third trimester abortions a matter of necessity rather than convenience, where the definition of "necessity" will remain a matter of some disagreement.
June 19, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
New10: You state:
"Your whole argument is predicated on your belief that a fetus is not a human being."
It is not. My whole argument is predicated on the fact that whatever it is, whatever you want to call it, it exists inside a living, breathing person's body. That is the basis of my argument. Whether you choose to call it a human or not is utterly immaterial. I am not arguing the beginning of "humanity" or "life." I am arguing the primacy of the living, breathing individual whom I can see and to whom I can speak over that of the fetus that she carries inside her. I am arguing that the human body is sacrosanct against all intrusion.
June 20, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am arguing that the human body is sacrosanct against all intrusion. "
This is the understatement of the day, coming from someone who writes a whole post about a right to intrude into a body.
June 20, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, I'm really at a loss to understand your perspective on this. You say it doesn't matter whether a fetus is a human. You say that what matters is that it is dependent on it's mother (which is natures plan, not the fetus', by the way), and that is why is doesn't have the same right to life as does any other human being. Such a position is ethically baffling to me .
So, you say it doesn't matter whether a fetus is human or not, then let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that it is human. I ask you, do you believe it would matter if a fetus was somehow attached outside its mother? If not, how is that different than with Siamese twins? Each twin is attached to the other. Does it matter whether we view one twin as being inside or outside the other? I don't see how. Does one or the other of the twins not have human rights, and therefore can arbitrarily have it's life ended by the other?
You would be on far less shaky moral ground if you had held the position that a fetus is not a human being. As your position stands, it seems wholly arbitrary and I'm twice as disturbed by it as I was before.
June 20, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the man said, it's not helpful to start with a discussion of when life begins, because as you said, no one really knows.
However, we are sure that a fetus still attached and in the womb of a woman cannot exist without her. Once outside the womb and if viable, anyone can care for the child and the child will survive independently of the birth mother. And that is the moral of this tale and the certainty behind it.
June 20, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you leave out here are the stakes. If a fetus is a human life, then aborting it would, in fact, be the murder of a child. The stakes couldn't be higher. On the other hand, the stakes are rarely that high (although, they can be) for the mother. It is wrong to dismiss the legitimate concerns of those who suspect that a fetus is a human being and that abortion is, therefore, murder simply on the basis that we can never know. That is why this issue vexes many of so.
June 20, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again the lie: "If a fetus is a human life, then aborting it would, in fact, be the murder of a child. "
A fetus is not a child, human life or not. A human fetus is a potential person, not an actual person. It is therefore a potential child not an actual child.
Just as what is legal illegal re kids is different from what is legal or illegal re adults, so too re fetus law. Pretending that there are no relevant distinctions is simply a lie.
June 20, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds,
I'm still waiting for you, or anyone else on this thread, to tell me the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being. Was it at conception? one week later? Five months? Eight months and twenty-nine days? It had to happen at some point. When, exactly was that?
Then, after you give me your opinion on the movement a human being exists, provide me a non-arbitrary explanation for why a human being didn't exist ten seconds before that moment, or ten seconds after, for that matter. Do that, before tossing around sanctimonious declarations of who's opinion is a lie.
June 20, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, eds, you say that a fetus not a child, but only a potential child and, therefore, not human. By extension of your logic, a child is not an adult, but only a potential adult and, therefore, also not human. You can see that it's nonsense to state with certainty that the various stages of human development are what define whether one is human or not. Such a definition suffers the same problem as all the rest. It is arbitrary. Not only are your pronouncements sanctimonious, your supporting argument amounts to sophistry.
June 21, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newton -
I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns. I too believe that everyone has a right to life. However, that right to life does not include the right to the continued use of another's body in order to continue that life.
We would not dream of hooking up a person whose only chance of existence was dependent upon the body of someone else to keep him/her alive, especially from a lawful standpoint.
If Einstein were dying and needed the continued use of your kidneys through a direct attachment, do you want the law to decide that you have to be attached to Einstein so he can live? Einstein has the right to life, but does that mean he also has the right to your body/kidneys? Because Einstein is somehow more important than you, or should you and Al at least be on equal footing there and you allowed to have a choice in the matter?
That's what I'm sayin'.
June 20, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The needs of the fetus are only temporary.
The fetus' had no role in it's own conception. There are only two people with a role and one of them is the mother. She has a huge responsibility to the innocent fetus for that reason. Setting aside the double difficult issues of rape and incest. I would have no responsibility to Einstein because I had no role in either his conception or his kidney predicament.
Let me ask you a question. If you were responsible for Einstein having failing kidneys, maybe, you accidentally poisoned him and damaged his kidneys in the process, would you now have a moral responsibility to give him use of your kidneys? You see, I don't agree that fetus bears any responsibility for it's predicament. The predicament was created by the mother and/or the father. Don't they have some moral obligation here, assuming the fetus is a human being?
This beings me back to my original point, which
is that no one can authoritatively say that a fetus is not a human being, or that it is one. All declarations about exactly when a fetus becomes human are arbitrary, aren't they? I find certitude, either way, disturbing on such a morally vexing question.
June 20, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you miss the point, Newton. I don't think Einstein willingly had kidney failure any more than I think a woman who wants an abortion willingly intended to get pregnant. Say what you will, but they are both acts of nature that involve life and death.
"Innocent" fetus means what? Isn't Einstein innocent also because he didn't do anything do wrong to have his kidneys fail? Organs tend to do that when people get older, but Einstein can be said to be innocent of wanting them to go awry or making them fail. In the same manner, women get pregnant. Not willingly, not intentionally, but as an act of nature that went wrong, just like Einstein's kidneys.
You've bought into the whole baby thing, rather than it's a case of nature screwing up naturally. Trust me, I've been there. There is no human life like what you think is going on in the womb.
June 20, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get the last word, seashell.
June 21, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You leaped from being "alive" (as are bacteria and viruses,) to being human.
Perhaps you could explain why you are using there terms interchangeably?
June 20, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Leonce said, hair cells are alive but that doesn't make them a human being. On that, I agree with him. So, let's bracket the two extremes of existence we're talking about. Let's go back to a point where we all can probably agree that a human being does not yet exist. An ovum and a sperm cell. Now, let's go forward to a point when we all can agree that a human being exists. After live birth. At one extreme, not human, and at the other extreme, human.
At what moment did what was not human suddenly become human? That's the vexing question. Aren't all declaration about the moment humanity was conferred to the fetus purely arbitrary? The only consistently logical and non-arbitrary position I've heard is one that says humanity begins at conception. When a full set of chromosomes combine.
Please understand, Bwak, I'm not arguing that any particular view is correct or incorrect. I don't know. I'm arguing against those who say they do know. Who claim they are correct. Whatever their view is.
June 20, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as a mother, I do happen to know.
I promise I won't try to learn you about testicular cancer, if you promise not to pretend there is some arbitrary moment of motherhood.
As a mother I know perfectly well when and what that is. I don't pretend to know better about things outside my experience. I don't understand why others think it's OK to pretend they do on this subject.
June 20, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I will add here, that it is totally unacceptable to me to have a bunch of ignorant men making that decision for me. They can't know. That's called nature.
Can women make decisions concerning Men's reproductive issues, exclusively?
Not exactly. Nor do they.
So why is this a judgement a man feels qualified to make? It baffles me.
I guess it's really about control, isn't it?
June 20, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Bwak. I respect both your blogging and your being a mother, but you force me to point out that being a mother doesn't provide you with any special divine knowledge of when another life begins. If you feel sure that it does, then please, do enlighten me.
Bwak wrote: "And I will add here, that it is totally unacceptable to me to have a bunch of ignorant men making that decision for me."
You see, Bwak, that's the problem with discussing this issue. Passions and self-sure attitudes, on either side, lead to absolutist conclusions without absolute evidence. I've not once said anything about making decisions about a woman's body. I've only pointed out the truth, which is that someone has yet to authoritatively define when a human life begins. We are only left with our arbitrarily formed beliefs and feelings.
To anyone who claims that they absolutely know for sure I ask, please provide an non-arbitrary definition of that moment? Until then, doesn't a reasonable possibility remain that a fetus is a human being? I can't prove that it is, and I'm still waiting for someone to prove that it isn't. Two things do seem clear. At some point a sperm and an ovum joined to begin a human being, and a human being unarguably exists by the moment of birth. The time in between is the mystery.
June 21, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leonce - Here's a recent poll that says the majority of America is pro-life.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5053.html
So why are you making the pro-life crowd out as if they are some "right-wing" fringe? The pro-life crowd is more than just Bill O'Reilly.
June 19, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there was a deep discussion on this survey just a few weeks ago.
June 19, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the details of the poll:
About as many Americans now say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). Another 53 percent of Americans say abortions should be legal, but only under certain circumstances.
Gallup does not define those circumstances, but other polling data shows a majority of Americans oppose the lion's share of abortions, with a majority wanting abortions illegal except in cases such as saving the life of the mother, and rape or incest -- which, combined, constitute less than 2-3 percent of all abortions.
Supplementing those other poll results, an expended Gallup question in its new survey found 50 percent of Americans want abortions illegal or illegal in most cases, while just 37 percent want abortions legal in all or most cases. The rest were unsure.
The results came in Gallup's new Values and Beliefs survey, but the pro-life majority also showed up in Gallup's daily tracking poll on a number of political issues.
There, the self-identifying question showed a 50-43 percentage point majority.
The reason for the new pro-life majority, Gallup indicates, is because Republicans are becoming more pro-life.
The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves pro-life rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.
Republicans now take a 70-26 percentage point pro-life view whereas Democrats support abortion 61-33 percent, with the numbers staying roughly the same over the last five to ten years.
June 19, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I missed it. Either way, even if the survey was still slightly in favor of pro-life, it would signify that the split between pro-life and pro-choice is close to even. It is unfair to imply as this original post does, that the pro-life group's spokesperson is Bill O'Reilly. It is also unfair to use the term "right-wing" to generalize those people who are pro-life. The original post is trying to describe the pro-life crowd as a fringe group, when nothing could be further from the truth.
June 19, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The faces of the pro-life "crowd" are manifestly lunatic fringe elements of society.
If you look at "should abortion be legal in at least some cases" there is extremely strong support for abortion. There is no "slightly favor" in reality, only in dogma, in this matter.
June 19, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
*takes Eds hand and shakes it*
I'm with Eds.
June 19, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can paint any one face (ie O'Reilly) as lunatic, but does that mean the general pro-life group lunatic?
So when the question is phrased as in "some" cases which can mean just a handful, you want that to mean the general rule? "Some" would imply that there's always exceptions to the rule. Like asking someone, in "some cases" should the death penalty not apply? Of course some people will say yes. There's nothing wrong with that.
But again, I'm not talking about the "faces" - the original poster implied that the entire pro-life movement is "right wing" which is nonsense.
June 19, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who do you unjustly paint as the "faces" of the pro-life crowd?
June 19, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking from South Bend, there are a heck of a lot more than one face that can be painted as a lunatic. They set up shop here in May and spread their lunacy all about the place.
June 20, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
True but even those who are a "heck of a lot more than one" are a small slice of the people who are pro-life and can't be characterized as representative of the entire pro-life portion of the population
June 20, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to have your hand for a moment! :-)
MCB is simply practicing his usual tired sophistry of omission and distortion. At first I tried to work with him, take it seriously, but it became clear that he won't or can't take correction openly.
MCB to Lis: "So when the question is phrased as in "some" cases which can mean just a handful, you want that to mean the general rule?"
You can tell when the rhetoric becomes incoherent that the water is too deep.
MCB: "And who do you unjustly paint as the "faces" of the pro-life crowd?"
'unjustly' - Now why would someone use that term that way in a good-faith discussion, unless they were hiding from justice and the truth? Also note that MCB doesn't share his views on the public faces of the movement, he doesn't even offer the obvious Tiller killer as a gesture.
MCB: "the original poster implied"
Typical bad-faith comment, given without specific reference to text which allegedly implied whatever, and not relevant to the subthread.
June 19, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Eds, and I might add that the guy who killed Tiller should have come into play here in this post, but didn't.
I dunno, Bill....you tell me. You tell me.
June 20, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
June 20, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a deep breath, mcb. Here is what was written. The emphasis is mine:
In other words, it's the right-wing talking points that need work vs calling anti-abortionists right-wing.
June 20, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The tone of the article is that people who are pro-life are part of some lunatic fringe. That couldn't be further from the truth. The tone was directed at a lot more people than just one Fox commentator
June 20, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that O'Reilly is a lunatic and on the fringe. However, what he asked Joan Walsh, about what form of legal protection a fetus should have, is one of the arguments that comes from the anti-abortion crowd. Even a lunatic on the fringe can ask a mainstream anti-abortion question.
You're getting carried away by a red herring and something that has nothing to do with the issue itself.
June 20, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
More like a sucker fish, then a herring.
June 20, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really, but at least O'Reilly does not represent the majority of Americans that are pro-life
June 20, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In at least one sense he does in at least some matters. It's then up to you to establish factually that he represents something relevant and opposite in a neutralizing way, or that he's such a minor face/represntative that other (specified, and why) faces are the dominant faces of that majority.
We know he's not an elected representative, so let's try to keep it real...
June 20, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight; when you lose an argument, you simply choose to ignore reality? Sounds about like the entire liberal platform.
June 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, you nasty little boy. Scrubbing your bio page won't help your case because there is a screen-shot of it before you went on your cleaning spree. Get lost and leave me alone or I share it with the Cafe management. Got it?
June 20, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter what my bio page says, we're on a completely anonymous forum. What does matter is the content of ideas and facts, which I have proven time and again that my ideas are supported by the facts. Choosing to ignore this is choosing to ignore reality.
June 20, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, it's so funny how people so often accuse others of the things they, themselves, are guilty of.
You have presented no facts.
Furthermore, your avatar is sexist and offensive. Do something about it if you want to play with civilized people. Just sayin'.
June 20, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks SS. I was pretty sure we had in cmn a clone of a couple of commenters we entertained here last winter.
June 20, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeedy. He has now taken up stalking to add to his list of offenses, which were already offensive enough. Ick. His user name is apparently "crymorenoob". You can see here for more on that lame expression.
I'm thinking he should just be exterminated.
June 20, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the best comments on abortion, ever. I deeply thank you.
June 20, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
As long as the pro-choice proponents base their case on the argument that a woman has a right to do as she chooses with her own body, they are guaranteed to lose the debate in the court of public opinion. The public doesn't buy that argument and never will. The pro-life position is that once a woman is pregnant, there is no longer one life involved but two. That claim wins out every time.
The reason is simply that the claim is valid, and those who approach the topic without an entrenched mindset understand that instinctively and immediately.
The irony is that the pro-choice side has a far better argument, in terms of both morality and resonance with public opinion. That argument resides in the uncontestable reality that fetal development does not result in anything resembling a "baby" until the later stages of pregnancy. Earlier, the embryo is a collection of cells, and subsequently a very primitive organism with attributes resembling those of lower vertebrates and invertebrates, but none of the attributes of conscious awareness, emotional development, and cognition that make human personhood more precious than the lives of other creatures.
Most of us value all life, but most of us, including the American middle, distinguish between the value of life in general and the more precious quality of being a person. That argument is a winner, and is the reason why most Americans favor a right to abortion at least in some cases, but are wary of granting too much latitude toward late term abortions.
June 20, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred - I don't think your argument is that different, it appears to be only a matter of degree (hence late term, etc).
A far better argument, in my opinion, is the one based on the simple fact that the abortion issue only arises in cases where the pregancy is unwanted.
I believe it is the context of an unwanted pregnancy that drives the public support for some forms of abortion.
But of course the pro-choice crowd would have a hard time facing this and an even harder time accepting it - because they packaged their original argument on a wilfull choice to dispense with one life in favor of another.
June 20, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo: "A far better argument, in my opinion, is the one based on the simple fact that the abortion issue only arises in cases where the pregancy is unwanted."
Sarah Silverman recently weighed in on the abortion debate:
"I wanted to get an abortion, but my boyfriend and I have had trouble conceiving."
June 20, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if she also thinks that Obama wouldn't object to one of his daughter becoming a slutty flight attendant while objecting to her being punished with a baby.
But the reason that pro-life folk have a better argument that everyone instinctively knows that life starts at conception and then goes through stages, which include birth, childhood, adulthood (including legal adulthood), etc, until death.
If the difference between you and Leonce is that you like flexible definitions while he wants a blanket freedom to abort, then that difference is really small.
June 20, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But the reason that pro-life folk have a better argument [is] that everyone instinctively knows that life starts at conception and then goes through stages, which include birth, childhood, adulthood (including legal adulthood), etc, until death."
How does that premise make for a "better argument"?
June 20, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am, frankly, stunned by this post.
I happen to support abortion in certain circumstances, but I find it amazing how this post is weaving a theory of utter nonsense.
Poor Leonce has been pained to watch the debate between the rights of fetus and the rights of women; and he's resoundingly on the side of women.
To stop this once and for all, Leonce found a very creative way to frame the argument: by pretending there are two equal parties to the debate, the women and the fetsus's hell-bent on destroying their health, sanity and life.
The Fetus Conspiracy to Trump Women.
But Leonce ignores the fact that a fetus CANNOT exist without a physical act in which a woman participates. The sheer fact of the fetus's existence (excepting of course any non-consentual sex) is a result of a woman's free choice. No fetus can ever trump women's rights (unless a woman first creates a fetus).
I don't know what Leonce thinks about hate crimes or animal rights. But without a doubt, Leonce would accord more rights to and would defend a beaten dog and a mother who decided to create a fetus only to change her mind - rather than defend a fetus. A woman who drowns her cat in a toilet should face more severe consequences than a woman who aborts a human fetus she willing created, according to Leonce. On a scale, fetus is really as low as you can go.
And the reason for that is that Leonce believes that a fetus is a bit like any other organ while inside a mother's body. ("The current nature of a fetus...").
This is a great argument! Leonce thinks that by reducing a fetus to a clump of molecules he can change the conversation.
But by this logic, a tumor or a mass of fecal matter in the colon becomes roughly equivalent to how Leonce thinks about a fetus. The only difference between the two is the fact that fetus is alive - but Leonce doesn't want to get into that discussion. Let's stick to biology and civil rights, he thinks, to win this thing.
But if you extend Leonce's line of creative thinking to its logical conclusion, you are inevitably stuck with the amazing fact that this clump of molecules magically becomes a human person with full legal rights through an act of labor.
One could argue that this transformation is nothing but a change in the form of nourishment and care; a progression from one biological state to another - and that the only difference between the fetus and a human is the terminology to reflect the biological stage of development.
And maybe that's why a crime victim's pregnancy is an additional compounding factor in criminal law.
But not for Leonce.
The trouble with the arguments advanced by what was once undoutedly a very malignant clump of molecules in a body of an obviously generous and patient woman is rather clear: they make no sense.
You cannot win a debate by insisting that white is really black. You get stuck and trapped and exposed. And right now, you're stuck in the rights to life debate and you're digging your own hole deeper and deeper, instead of getting out.
June 20, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Lalo. You descended right into the ultimate place Leonce said you would:
Congratulations.
June 20, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, not at all. I'm not advocating to outlaw abortion. I just think that Leonce (and many liberals) is using completely the wrong argument, which leads him to deny the obvious.
June 20, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo said:
It can't come as a shock to you (but what do I know?) that women do not just decide to get pregnant so they can then go have an abortion. Nor do they usually "willingly" get pregnant if having a baby is not in their future plans. To say that a woman "willingly" gets pregnant just because she had consensual sex, is to deny all realty and basically confirm Leonce's charge: women are insignificant in the face of the all holy sperm and are viewed as mere vessels for the more important fetus.
Truly, for a worthy discussion, you will have to face some of your own deep rooted biases first.
June 20, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is a virus. Stupid argument.
As for life beginning at conception, maybe so. Personhood? No. I have been pregnant and have a child, and can tell you precisely when she became a person.
People other than mothers can not, which is a fact others like to conveniently ignore.
June 20, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
First time I've seen Lalo go from the somewhat logical to the purely emotional.
June 20, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I promise not to pretend to be an expert on testicular cancer if Lalo drops the pretense of "knowing" when personhood begins.
June 20, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if he knowingly and willingly went out and got testicular cancer? I just want to be sure on the brackets that surround the word "expert".
On the other hand, a woman who has been pregnant can certainly be called knowledgeable on the personhood subject.
June 20, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh, well yes, that is the point.
I think people who haven't carried a child to term, or even not carried a child to term, can be competent judges. I did not carry a child to term, and the loss was quite keen. Probably akin to losing a limb, or perhaps a kidney. But to see it through to actual birth, well shit happens. That is what my gramma would call common sense, which is apparently, rather uncommon. Just as an aside, my own extensive reading of the Bible tends to back up my feelings on the subject. I often tell Bible thumpers to google, "breath of life" and "quickening"
Not far off, methinks.
But I felt it. So, I know. I feel like apologizing for that sometimes, but, the fact is: I know.
I felt the entity in me become a person. I don't think peoples that haven't felt that should be judging when a human becomes human.
June 20, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry about your loss, bwak. Truly. It took me awhile to even be able to reply!
Of course you knew. Just as I was well aware that I was not murdering "innocent" life and knew that for sure, so you knew when there was. I can't believe this is considered a mystery, because it isn't. Yet to hear men tell it, there is doubt about when life starts. F&&k that. They can doubt all they want, we know. But we don't get the right of being responsible for our bodies for our efforts or knowledge. Again, F&&k that. We have been totally lied to by the politicians on this issue and it's really hitting home right now with me.
There were 1.21 million abortions performed in the US in 2005. If just one quarter of these women thought they were murderers, there would be a high rate of suicide, mental effects and other not positive results from that number. And, yet, no matter how hard they tried to find the mental illness associated with abortions, they just can't do it. And it seems like we'd notice that many stark raving mad women without a study.
I'm pissed.
June 21, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't even know why I'm weighing in...we've covered this ground about a gazillion times.
My vote in a perfect world? At quickening. The moment the mother feels life inside her. In the world we live in, once the fetus becomes viable outside the womb...
I am very much in favor of a woman's right to choose, but the idea of yanking a viable fetus from a mother's womb and killing it gives me the creeps. I would hope that by the time the fetus could live outside of the womb the mother should have had the chance to decide against carrying the child to term. I suppose there are rare exceptions, but even if the mother's life is in danger, couldn't the baby just be delivered early? Why does it HAVE to die?
If we just did away w/ late term abortion, I think many more people would be on board with choice.
Just MHO...no certainty involved.
June 20, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops, forgot to hit reply to Stilli. Comment below is for you!
June 21, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, although for reasons unknown, it's hard to get actual information on the subject of why women have late term abortions, my understanding is that it's usually because of gross abnormalities with the fetus. One woman on the website Heartbreaking Choices found that even with a heart condition that would require a transplant and Downs, she would not be allowed to just let the child die peacefully after the birth. The hospital would do surgeries anyway, with or without her consent. So she had to terminate, even though she did not want to. There is a whole section of "Kansas" stories in there that would break your heart. Not once did any of them mention meeting women there having an abortion for convenience. Not once. And it appears that they did things in groups, so they would have known.
In 2007, Florida had one induced abortion that took place after 24 weeks. The cause was fetal abnormality. Population wise, Florida is the 4th largest state. One in 2007 after 24 weeks.
Do we really know any women that would all of a sudden in their 7th, 8th, 9th months say, "Ooops, it's inconvenient to do this now. I want to abort?" I don't know this mythical woman, don't know anyone that does know that person and am inclined to believe that she is nothing more than an urban legend dreamed up by politicians.
The one story I read on the Heartbreaking site where the mother's life was in danger, it turned out that the fetus wouldn't make it either. So they could both go, or not.
The rhetoric that we hear is in NO way associated with women's lives or their realities or anything else real. I think it's just more lies, Stilli. I really do.
June 21, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
One hell of a cogent argument. Rights of the fetus through the mother.
I am really blown away by this. It is so simple and yet so basic.
Great Post.
June 21, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink