Not counting the comments in this old thread over the last two days, I have written exactly zero on the subject of reproductive rights. In my life. Guess I just figured other people had it covered. What a spineless coward I’ve been. Time to get out there and knock some heads! As I’m an RR noob, please forgive me if I come out swinging on an argument that has only been definitively kiboshed about a zillion times, namely the whole “life begins at conception” thing.
I won’t rehash what’s gone on so far in the thread, but suffice it to say that my right hand has been busy, and thus All Your Uteri Are Belong To Us (“us” being me and my gametes).
In one corner: me and Antigone (who kindly reminded me as to the difference between a gamete and a zygote).
In the other corner: Neil, a biblical literalist who in the last week has not only blogged a response to Lisa’s nearly year-old post, but also noted how gay pride parades are God-mockery and helpfully pointed out that Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett just might now be in hell (pretty classy, Neil!); and Theobromophile, a regular at Neil’s site. Neil’s blog seems to get decent traffic, so we may get some other new visitors too, but what the heck, I’m in the mood to add a few more kleenex to the pile.
The fight: Can the “rights” of a single-celled organism trump the “rights” of a woman? (I’d like to point out the first set of scare quotes are mine, and the second set Neil’s.)
Taking off from the last current comment on Lisa’s thread, by Theobromophile:
The scientific fact is that gametes are not human beings the way that zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos are. There is no right to life of a gamete, no more than your dandruff has a right to life.
However, conception changes all of that. From the moment of fertilisation, the egg changes; it develops a hard outer shell to keep out other sperm; DNA from the parents’ gametes mixes; and cell division begins. (Scientists can examine two-celled blastocysts and determine where the head will be.) The result is a complete human being at the earliest stage of life.
There is a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty required to pretend that foetuses (or embryos) are not living human beings. While I fully understand why most anti-lifers do not acknowledge this point – as to do so would be to admit that some humans in our society have a right to life, but the smallest, most vulnerable, and unwanted ones do not – it is, nevertheless, antagonistic towards basic biology.
Theo, considering you would apparently gladly risk the life of a real woman with a lifetime of experiences just as deep as your own for the sake of a non-sentient single celled organism that happens to have a hard outer shell, you really oughtta reconsider who you want to call “anti-life” here.
Wanna argue with me about about late term abortions, sure, we’ll still disagree, but at least I’ll feel like we might be able to have something approaching a rational conversation. Arguing in favor of a single cell is pure kookiness. Now you can claim “INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY!111!!” all you want, but you’re not actually demonstrating exactly how I am supposedly being so. Let me instead show you your own.
You and Neil and others like you make the argument that because the scientific establishment classifies a certain parisitic single-celled organism as “human”, this somehow also proves, scientifically, your faith-based ethical belief that this non-sentient microscopic life form is morally equal to (or perhaps higher than) the life of the host human off of whom it is currently leeching. What we have here is a (yes) human single cell which has precisely as much awareness as a monkey zygote or a cat zygote or a mouse zygote or a gamete or an amoeba or a rice krispy. Your position seems to be that since a human zygote has a chance of growing into a self-aware homo sapiens at some much later date, it has already got some magic quality which makes its worth equal (or better) than the life of an adult woman who has it. But… why? Unfortunately, you guys are missing any kind of middle steps in your intended chain of logic.
This is intellectual dishonesty. Though I’ll give y’all the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re being just as intellectual dishonest with yourself as you are with me. I really can’t understand why anyone would hold your point of view, except with the theory that you are only getting so hot and bothered over this issue because believing this confers on you moral superiority and thus the right to control other people. Like, women.
Speaking of hot and bothered, here’s a challenge to Neil, Theobromophile, and to any other pro-zygote anti-woman’s “rights” lurkers out there. (Remember, that’s Neil’s scare quotes, not mine.)
Let me pose you a simple question. A variation on one I’ve read somewhere before, wish I could remember where. Anyway, please answer directly, as it may clarify a lot for all of us.
First, imagine that you are a heroic firefighter. (Who knows, maybe you really are one.)
You’re passing by a fertility clinic when you notice it’s burning down. Being the brave and plucky embryonic-rights crusader you are, you leap into the fray to save as many frozen embryos as you can. You’re just lumbering out of a burning lab, loaded down with a refrigerator full of potentially hundreds of frozen blastocysts, when you suddenly notice a child whimpering in the corner, trapped behind a fallen timber which you are sure that you, with your rock hard pecs, can easily move.
Now, you might be able to leave and then come back for which/whoever you left behind; but the fire’s raging pretty badly. You also might not. Do you…
(1) …drop the refrigerator to save the child, and take the chance that the blaze might destroy the hundreds of frozen blastocysts before you can return?
(2) …keep on going with the refrigerator, and take the chance that the fire might kill or maim the child before you can return?
Follow-up questions:
If you chose the child, why did you do so?
If you chose the refrigerator, does your answer change if you know that the refrigerator has only ten frozen blastocysts? Only one?
And finally, if you refuse to give a straight answer either way, what does this say about the strength of your convictions?
By the way, Antigone, that was pretty game of you to engage Neil on his home turf like you did.
I like the analogy, I think it highlights the fraudulence of the fertilized-egg-and-conscious-adult-equivalency position quite nicely.
Despite growing up in very conservative regions of the south, I’ve never met anyone who actually believed that an “unborn child” and a fully conscious human adult had an equivalent claim to being left alive.
I know this because I’ve never heard anyone advance the position that women who terminate pregnancies should be imprisoned or put to death* although that is the nearly universal prescription for adults who murder in cold blood.
* This is not to say they don’t exist. I’ve also never heard anyone advocate a flat earth, but I realize they are out there.
Thanks Jad, and by the way… hello. Nice to meet you. Aren’t you ever going to write here again (asked the kettle to the pot)?
I actually asked this question on an abortion debate message board years and years ago…the answers were fascinating; wish I had a link to that archive. I may see if I can hunt it down.
That’s a clever illustration that nonetheless fails.
Many people would choose to save their dog rather than a human baby if a building were on fire. Does that prove that dogs are more valuable than humans? No, just that personal preferences and perceptions influence behavior.
It says nothing about the innate value of the objects.
The fertizilized embryos in question are fertilized human embryos, aka human beings.
This article addresses the topic as well — http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/12/a-dilemma-that-doesnt-prove-anything.html .
Keep trying!
I see you are still at it with the ad homs (“biblical literalist”). I get that from liberal Christians as well, so I’m used to it. They also prefer that to actually discussing what the Bible means in context.
If you are ever interested in serious discussions and not just petty name calling, feel free to visit my blog. Several thoughtful atheists, including Theobromophile, make for interesting discussions. I just don’t waste time with those arguing from their Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites who obviously aren’t interested in following the facts where they lead.
As usual, the anti-religious bigots bring up religion. I would be glad to talk about God if you like, but I typically leave Jesus out when talking with atheists about abortion. He provided all the ammunition I need to annihilate pro-legalized abortion reasoning without even opening the Bible.
Re. zygotes: I’d give you bonus points if you’d remember to put “human” in front of zygote, embyro, fetus, etc. and quit dehumanizing them. I’d respect you more if you’d concede the scientific facts and just come out and say that you think that if human beings are small enough and in the “wrong” location then it is ok to kill them.
Now there’s a surprise (not) — you pose the question with a built in multiple fallacies. You “forget” to mention that the organism is a living human being (an extremely well established scientific fact, at least if you trust those pesky embyology textbooks). You trade off the “right” to have an innocent human being crushed and dismembered against the “right” to avoid consequences of sex.
And your post trots out the transparently bogus “parasite” argument. I don’t Theobromophile will mind me copying her excellent response to that nonsense here:
That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally). While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you
If that’s true, if the whole reason that abortion should be illegal is because the woman did something to cause a pregnancy, then why doesn’t that hold up as a legal argument after birth? There is no law anywhere that states that a parent MUST give their child an an organ or even a blood transfusion if they need it because people cannot be compelled to be life support machines for other people against their will. Would you change the law so that parents who don’t give organs to their children are guilty of murder? And if you did change the law, what would be the cut off age? 18? 21? Never because they are always going to be parents? Would a parent who didn’t have a matching blood type still be guilty?
It’s a slippery slope when you treat children as a punishment and consequence for women having sex,
We are never going to say that because that is NOT. WHAT. WE. BELIEVE. You accuse us of lying, of misrepresentation, of wanting to kill people, and not understanding science and then have the AUDACITY of saying WE’RE using ad homieum attacks? Projections: it is more than what runs a movie theater.
Others may continue on in this game, but I’m stopping. I’m not going to sit back and argue with someone who on his blog has called me (as a nice, feminist, bisexual, pro-choice person) someone who’s going to hell, who’s responsible for the downfall of civilization, and a murderer who’s lying about what I believe. If you want to know what I and others believe, fine. If you want to argue find points of biology and philosophy, fine. But I demand good faith, and I’m surely not getting it, and I’m not going to play without it.
Sperm are single-celled and human, too, so I don’t think the basic comparison is dishonest at all. Sperm, like zygotes, have different DNA than their host and, like zygotes, are aiming towards becoming separate persons, unless they’re interrupted. Sperm, like zygotes, have more of a claim to human rights than women in the wingnut imagination, which is why they don’t like contraception any more than abortion.
I would like to point out that, as predicted, Neil refused to answer the question.
This sort of deception tactic is par for the course with the anti-choice set. Another fun one to poke them with is why, if it’s a baby, they don’t hold funerals for tampons (possible “babies” on them, since the majority of fertilized eggs never attach) or miscarriages. If they acknowledge the question—rare enough—then they’ll usually say that abortion or birth control is different because a woman actively chose it.
To which I say: exactly. A woman’s choice, and the right to have it, is what’s so offensive.
I’m not religious, Quin, nor do I disapprove of abortions that are done in order to save a woman’s life (or prevent severe health issues).
Have any other ad hominems? (There is a reason why Neil called me a “pro-choicer’s worst nightmare,” and it has to do with being utterly bulletproof in the anti-life ad hom department.)
I answered your question at Neil’s site.
So if men could get pregnant (which, apparently, happened a year ago), you would be against abortion? Just asking, because, in my world, the sex of the person who is doing the killing has no bearing on the justifications for murder.
No, Amanda. Sperm are not human; they are human sperm. That is fundamentally different from “human being.” Have you ever taken a biology class beyond high school, by the way?
Neil, as Amanda noticed, you’re trying to weasel out of answering the question.
“Many people” would rather save their dog than a human baby? Maybe. There’s also probably “many people” who would go around a burning building stabbing people in the heart under the assumption that they’re just going to die in the fire anyway. However, I’m not asking about any of those other weirdos. I’m asking about you.
Notice that my example doesn’t use a baby, but rather a healthy child; and that the blastocysts needing rescue are well refrigerated in a safe container. If it makes it easier, assume that it’s also a very cold night, and that there’s another clinic right next door where the blastocysts can be quickly stored. Assume that, being the well-connected embryo-rights superhero that you are, you have 500 willing ladies with free uteri waiting in the clinic next door right now, hoping for a rescue implant. In other words, I’m trying to make the dilemma as clear as possible. If you choose to save the refrigerator first, you feel a near 100% certainty that you can successfully preserve and even find homes for the hundreds of blastocysts inside.
Go on then– what’s your answer? The non-sentient clumps of cells? Or the sentient child, who is right at this very moment capable of feeling fear, relief, love, creativity, and all the rest? (And why don’t you hold funerals for tampons?)
I’m still waiting.
By the way, I am not particularly impressed by the article you’ve linked. If you care to make any of the author’s arguments yourself, I’ll answer them then. Suffice it to say I found none of them compelling. And you don’t self-identify as a biblical literalist? That’s fine, I won’t force that label on you. Please forgive me if recent posts like this one from last week, in which you argue for a literal interpretation of a passage in the bible, led me to an erroneous assumption. It’s true– your beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, that non-christians all go to eternal hell when they die, and that the bible should be taken literally at least from time to time– these don’t actually settle the matter of whether or not a human zygote has rights. But they sure do signal to people who don’t share these extreme views that maybe they should do a quick reality check before agreeing with any other opinions you might want to share with us.
I’m happy also to rescind the words “faith-based” as I used them above, if any of you embryo-rights folks are able to fill in the gaps between “science classifies human zygotes as ‘human’ to avoid confusion with zygotes of other species” and “therefore human one-celled zygotes have equal rights with adult human women”, without resorting to faith in something ineffable. Perhaps atheist embryo-rights activist Theobromophile could explain.
Neil:
Theo:
Question: So then why doesn’t putting the word “human” in front of “sperm” humanize the sperm, like it does with “zygote”, “embryo”, and “fetus”?
Answer: it’s a trick question. Putting the word “human” in front of any of these words does not, in fact, humanize any of them. There’s two kinds of meanings to “human”, and Neil and Theo are confusing them. One is the scientific classification word “human”, which we all agree to use so as to distinguish human sperm from, say, manatee sperm.
The other kind refers to human beings as self-aware beings. That magic part, whether or not you believe in a soul, that brings us all to value a child over a blade of grass. You guys keep on protesting, “Science proves that HUMANITY [as per the second meaning] begins with a fertilized egg, because they name it a HUMAN [as per the first meaning] fertilized egg!”
Theo, feel free to repost your response again here and I’ll reply to it in more detail. In the meantime, I’ll just say that you’re trying to let yourself off the hook by claiming that because the blastocysts aren’t obviously “viable”, whereas the child is, you’d choose the child.
Two things I want to make clear about the thought experiment:
1. Assume the blastocysts are, on the whole, viable, as per the clarification I gave Neil above. As the firefighter, you know in your heart of hearts that you would successfully be able to bring most of them into a circumstance where they could someday develop into a fully adult human.
2. I was very careful to word the situation so that you are already rescuing the blastocysts when you see the child. Thus your somewhat puzzling boating example (A boater with a life preserver isn’t obliged to throw it to a drowning person they’re passing? What?) doesn’t apply here, because you are already in mid-rescue– and thus have already yourself created a situation where the blastocysts (which are fully fledged human beings, in your view) are dependent on you. If anything, your argument would appear to strengthen the case that there’s no need, then, to help the child.
So your objections don’t apply. The situation is stark: save one sentient human being, or hundreds of non-sentient “human beings” (as you insist they are). Which will it be?
P.S. Feel free to answer Red Queen’s reply to your analysis, too:
Oh, and Lisa, I forgot to say– if you do manage to dig up that old forum, I’d be interested in reading what they said!
So here we see that Theobromophile is functionally illiterate, or incredibly dishonest, or both. Good to know.
But for the record, I’m pretty sure that everyone here, when they say “woman’s right to choose,” means “the person who is pregnant’s right to choose.” The fact that of the trillion or so pregnancies in history, 999,999,999,999 were by women I think grants us permission to talk about pregnancies as only happening to women. Apologies to the one dude who bucked the trend, but I think it’s safe generalize right on over him, at least until enough men follow in his footsteps.
No, it doesn’t. There are a lot of humans who are not “self-aware,” but that does not justify their murder.
Also, if you’ve looked at the history of the civil rights movement (doubtful, as many liberals are fantastically ignorant about it), you would understand that a common justification for murder, repression, and other wrongs was the idea that the oppressed group lacks the intellectual capacity of their oppressors. We understand that it was horrible to do that to women, to blacks, to Jews, to gays, to the mentally retarded, and to anyone else who happened to be inconvenient, politically powerless, and a good target.
I’ve yet to hear a single reason for not adding the unborn to that list.
Intellectually honest and intelligent. Sorry, MH. (Also a woman, and a scientist, both of which piss off anti-lifers.) The issue was presented by Amanda Marcotte, a noted “feminist,” as a “feminist issue.” Ergo, it’s rational to point out that abortion, contrary to 40 years of propaganda, is not really a feminist issue at all.
Given that your site is down so much, Quin, we’ll have the conversation over at Neils. I will address this here, though: no, the blastocysts are not dependent upon you in the same philosophical definition that they are dependent upon a mother.
Furthermore, why argue blastocysts? By the time a woman can be certain of being pregnant, there is a beating heart. Why not argue what you are really arguing with abortion – pregnant women?
The much better thought experiment is whether I would choose to save a non-pregnant person or a pregnant women. The latter, every time.
The better question for YOU and other anti-lifers is if they would ignore the pregnant woman while carrying out the non-pregnant person. That would, after all, be the logical conclusion of the “foetuses are worthless” argument you have going on. If pregnant women can abort, then they shouldn’t be entitled to anything extra for being pregnant (from being saved in a fire to getting a seat on a train to, say, Medicaid).
Of course, you continually ignore anything that is detrimental to your thought experiment (and will ignore the new, improved one, supra, that does not have the fatal flaws of your own), such as the fact that human beings are often irrational, prejudicial creatures. If you’ve studied psychology at all, you would be aware that human beings act in ways that often have nothing to do with their rational value systems.
“The better question for YOU and other anti-lifers is if they would ignore the pregnant woman while carrying out the non-pregnant person. That would, after all, be the logical conclusion of the “foetuses are worthless” argument you have going on. If pregnant women can abort, then they shouldn’t be entitled to anything extra for being pregnant (from being saved in a fire to getting a seat on a train to, say, Medicaid).”
Wait…this is the sort of creepy slippery slope that goes along with “do you save the Noble Prize-winning scientist or the fast food worker in a fire?” Call me crazy, but my personal faith (Christian, if it helps) tells me that the value of a fully sentient, viable human life does not go up or down depending upon whether that person is more/less “valuable” to society or whether or not she happens to be pregnant. Saying that it is morally superior to save the pregnant woman leaves you with the position that it is death of one person is better than the death of two. And while that is certainly a consideration that many would take into account, using this sort of example to create an ethical position doesn’t support a universal regard for individual human life. Likewise, valuing the “life” of a fetus over the life of a mother does not create an ethic of regard for individual human life.
So if men could get pregnant (which, apparently, happened a year ago), you would be against abortion?
No, and what a stupid fucking thing to ask. Feminists aren’t man-haters, but you did expose certain stereotypes you need to have to justify your misogyny.
And sperm are human beings. They can live outside of a human body, and are actually therefore closer to the ideal of a separate human being than a zygote is.
Or, they’re human beings by every supposedly secular, “biological” argument anti-choicers make. Sperm have different DNA from their host. They don’t exist to keep the host alive, but to make a new being. That’s all you need to claim that zygotes are people, ergo sperm are people. And like I said, sperm have even more going for them in the game to be considered people. They’re able to live outside of a traditional person’s body, which zygotes can’t do. But this is all silly. Obviously anti-choicers think sperm deserve more rights than women, which is why they oppose contraception, which is anti-life, sperm life.
Not for long. Amanda, be honest about science. Sperm aren’t humans; zygotes and embryos and foetuses are. (Besides, if human life does not begin at conception, then when does it begin?)
By the way, I have no problem with contraception, which is the stance taken by the vast majority of pro-lifers. Where does that leave your little ad hominem attack?
Translated into English, that means “Concession speech by Amanda Marcotte.” IT’s not a stupid question; it’s a rather brilliant question that exposes the limits of the “abortion is a feminist issue” line of attack. You only call it “stupid” because you cannot, for the life of you, understand why people don’t like killing babies.
Seriously, if men could get pregnant, then, obviously, abortion wouldn’t be a “feminist” issue. Initially, by the way, the pro-life position was the feminist one; all of the suffragettes were pro-life and deplored what they termed to be “child murder.” (That was even before our fancy 4D ultrasounds were able to show us exactly what is in the womb.)
No, but you do hate women (or at least those who disagree with you), and you do hate unwanted members of the human race enough to justify their deaths as a moral good.
@theobromophile
“All the suffragettes were pro-life.” Really? REALLY? That’s a rather sweeping statement. You must have a cache of historical information unavailable to us silly women’s historians.
Amanda says your question is fucking stupid because it is. Feminism isn’t just for women, it’s for human dignity regardless of sex/gender. If me could get pregnant, the part of feminism where we lobby for maternity leave, access to affordable birth control, and prenatal care wouldn’t be necessary.
Feminism isn’t some zero game where male rights and privileges suddenly disappear when the same rights and privileges are afforded to women.
Sadly, saying it doesn’t make it so. Maybe you display these qualities in your private life, but you have yet to do so here.
Let me hasten to add ‘immature’ to the list of I-adjectives describing you. I notice a lot of anti-abortionists (and other assorted rightwingers) really get off on the notion that they are annoying to their opponents.. I don’t know why; someone should look into that.
I don’t know why you think it matters. A woman who would outlaw abortion is, like a man holding the same view, repugnant and vile. Gender doesn’t enter into it. Likewise for religious views.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Saying it doesn’t make it so.
What’s the female equivalent of “fapfapfapfap”? I’m sure it applies to Theo here.
A zygote can be (easily) turned into many people. They aren’t a “human being” in any sane sense of the phrase. With poking and prodding, it’s possible (not that it’s done to humans) to turn random cells from your body into new individuals, but the cells aren’t currently “human beings.”
I wonder if any post-birth anti-choice human celebrates his/her Conceptionday?
“Seriously, if men could get pregnant, then, obviously, abortion wouldn’t be a “feminist” issue.”
Well as long as the argument works in the fantasy world where men get pregnant. The reason reproductive rights is a feminist issue is because it touches so closely on women’s autonomy.
“If you’ve studied psychology at all, you would be aware that human beings act in ways that often have nothing to do with their rational value systems.”
So you concede that from an antichoice perspective it is irrational not to name all of one’s conceptions and have funerals for them when they don’t take? Humans may be irrational but just a little bit of consistency from passionate advocates would be nice.
First of all, it’s pro-life, unless, of course, you want to be called “pro-baby-killer.”
Second of all, no one has ever established why we should hold funerals for menstrual products. I know, for a fact, that I do not conceive every month, or any month, for that matter.
Addressing the “substance”: I know a woman who miscarried earlier this year. She was carrying twins; around five months, her water broke, and she delivered two beautiful, living babies. Those babies died on the operating table because they were not viable. She named them, has birth certificates for them, and held a memorial service. Under Roe and other S. Ct. jurisprudence, it is legal, in every state in this country, to kill those babies before they were born, because they are “not human.”
So is she a nutjob who held a funeral for dandruff, or is she a mother who lost her babies? Under the logic of every anti-lifer here, she is insane.
By your logic, any time a woman cries harder after a miscarriage than after a missed period is irrational. By your logic, any woman who cries after an abortion but not after using a condom is insane.
Thing is, the abortion argument is fundamentally different from the “but the zygotes die!!!111!” argument. Abortion is a deliberate act to end the life of a full human being. Whether or not that is right or wrong depends only upon whether or not that foetus is a member of the human race, not upon whether or not other members of that race die around the same age, naturally.
After all, as the Onion pointed out, mortality holds steady at 100%. Yet, we still don’t allow for murder. Go figure.
In sum: nice try on the thought experiment, but why go with that when we have the more relevant thought experiment before us: are women who cry over their miscarriages insane?
Nice concession speech, MH! Thank you for acknowledging that I won those rounds.
Abortion is a deliberate act to end the life of a full human being.
So, if the fetus is a tetragametic chimera, it’s a double homicide. But if the woman was carrying identical twins, it’s only one murder. Right? Genetic testing and womb inspections following every miscarriage would also be required with this plan. Will you pay for it? What about the cost of imprisoning 1/3 of American women (or more, since “a deliberate act” is much broader than getting an induced abortion). Do you plan to just strip women of their medical privacy rights entirely or treat it like child abuse, so that if the doctor even suspects that the woman could be pregnant the doctor must report it to the Uterine Victims Unit?
Or have you thought this through even a little bit beyond “Bitches gotta listen up because bitches don’t know shit about shit” *fapfapfap*? It’s a rhetorical question.
“Second of all, no one has ever established why we should hold funerals for menstrual products. I know, for a fact, that I do not conceive every month, or any month, for that matter.”
I am not talking about all menstrual products, just the ones that do result in conception. If zygotes are babies, it would be important enough to check every time.
“So is she a nutjob who held a funeral for dandruff, or is she a mother who lost her babies? Under the logic of every anti-lifer here, she is insane.”
You’ve missed the point, probably deliberately. I’m not suggesting people who mourn miscarriages are insane, I’m saying those who claim to believe that zygotes are people and don’t mourn EVERY zygote that didn’t implant (or at least lose sleep worrying about those they don’t know about) are being dishonest.
It’s really too bad your hallucinations can’t be shared; I’m sure they’re more interesting than the triteness of the real you.
Well, as long as it’s just you against the the world in here, Theo, I can understand your increasing defensiveness. Nonetheless, you’re becoming tiresome. Every time someone points out that you are making a claim with no evidence, you then thank your opponent for conceding your win, and change the subject.
As I’ve stated more than once now, I’m trying to engage you embryo-rights folks on the very narrow question of the single cell stage, because your insistence on clinging to even that point, from my perspective at least, betrays just how little you truly respect the rights of real humans to their own bodies. Theo, I am not interested in debating the morality of abortion at much later stages of pregnancy until such time as you actually answer the damn questions I put to you in the first place. In order to bring this thread back into the realm of something not torturous, I’m going to re-state the questions I already did, the ones around which this thread was written in the first place, in the hopes that this time you might actually give a decent answer.
Until you first answer the following questions clearly and in good faith, I will consider any attempts to widen the conversation to later stages of pregnancy as the evasions that they are.
Please realize that if you do this, you’re actually helping to spread your own message. This is your opportunity to teach me by properly explaining your reasoning. I truly don’t understand how your logic gets from Point A to Point B. Don’t simply patronize me by asserting educational superiority, or with snide tribal attacks on liberals or feminists, or by asking me a counter-question; take me by the hand and explain yourself properly, step by step. Doubts though I may have that you’ll actually do so, I promise to listen in good faith if you answer in good faith.
*********************************************************
(1) Please provide an unequivocal answer to the thought experiment that started this thread.
Remember to consider the blastocysts as viable. I see your recourse to psychology as an intentional equivocation. As you surely know, the point of the exercise is to pinpoint what choice you think is morally correct, not the choice you might make as a weak fallible human in the heat of the moment but regret in retrospect.
*********************************************************
(2) Please fill in the blank in the following logic.
If you feel any of these steps are somehow unfairly worded such that they don’t accurately represent your point of view, I am willing to accept proposed revisions, provided you give actual decent reasons for your objections.
I’m not sure I can be any fairer than that.
And based on your evident inability to argue in good faith, I’m not sure why I’m being this fair at all.
By the way, I’d just like to announce in advance that it was a nice concession speech you’re about to make.
No dishonesty here; just scientific illiteracy on the part of the Womyn’s Studies majors.
A zygote exists for four days. After that, and long before a woman knows she is pregnant, it is an embryo. How we treat zygotes is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the abortion debate; the question is about embryos and foetuses.
In other words, I have an actual reason to call your questions stupid, while you all just ignore mine because they ruin your arguments.
Shira,
While it’s obvious that all of you are completely confused about basic biology (see, above) and logic, yes, I have thought all of your little hypotheticals though. Sadly for you, abortion was once illegal in most states, and no one felt the need to do anything that you’ve suggested. Here’s the outline: we treat pregnancy exactly like we treat any other murder. We have homicide laws without feeling the need to put people under constant surveillance, invading their homes, shredding the Fourth Amendment, and examining every crib to ensure that the child who was sleeping there last night is still sleeping there tonight.
Yes, we have homicide laws… even though we only take a Census every ten years. We don’t even know how many people are in this country, but it’s still illegal to kill them. People die every day by the thousands from totally natural causes, and we still investigate foul play. Whoa! Maybe, under your “logic,” we should reconsider all that!
Well, we’ll just have to add “legal illiteracy” to the reasons why all of you are anti-life.
If you really believe that how we treat zygotes is utterly irrelevant to the abortion debate, then why do you persist so vehemently in defending their “rights”?
To answer that, why don’t you start by addressing my questions directly.
” zygote exists for four days. After that, and long before a woman knows she is pregnant, it is an embryo. How we treat zygotes is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the abortion debate; the question is about embryos and foetuses.”
I know the difference, but apparently Niel doesn’t. I assumed you felt the same way about zygotes as him. My mistake.
I am glad you approve of emergency contraception, most vocal antichoicers don’t. Also I respect your consistency in actually wanting to try 1/3 of women for murder*. Most on your side don’t seem to have the stomach for that and focus on the abortion provider. I admire that you take your position to its logical conclusion. I realize your statements could be interpreted as merely hypothetical, but I prefer to be more generous to you.
*there is not actually a foot note.
Actually I didn’t make a mistake. I didn’t need to rely on assumptions about your zygote-humanifying because I was talking about vocal antichoicers as a whole, who tend to go by conception and not implantation. You are confusing recognition of a tendency toward scientific illiteracy for scientific illiteracy itself.
“Not for long. Amanda, be honest about science. Sperm aren’t humans; zygotes and embryos and foetuses are. (Besides, if human life does not begin at conception, then when does it begin?)”
….
“A zygote exists for four days. After that, and long before a woman knows she is pregnant, it is an embryo. How we treat zygotes is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the abortion debate; the question is about embryos and foetuses.”
Ah, very slippery. My mistake was thinking you have integrity. You know very well that zygotes are part of the abortion debate, because your side opposes emergency contraception which prevents implantation but can’t kill an embryo. I would guess you are no exception given the first quote; you are just well-educated enough not to call it an abortion. Nice red herring.
Quin, I tried to find that old archived debate but I couldn’t.
I’m sorry!
Poor Amanda suffers from the common pro-abortion malady of not being able to complete a sentence. I’ll help her: “A woman’s choice to have an innocent human being crushed and dismembered, and the right to have it, is what’s so offensive.
Yep, that’s very offensive to me.
I’m not sure about “all” (I haven’t studie them all) but there was this Susan B. Anthony lady whose newspaper viewed women having abortions as a symptom of a lack of equality, not the proof of equality. She called abortion “child murder.”
“When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.”
“[Is the woman] guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! Thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”
Why should women have to be willing to kill their unborn children to prove they are equal to men?
And then there’s Planned Parenthood. Do you consider them a feminist organization? Here’s what they had to say about abortion in 1964 (before they discovered how profitable it was to sucker women into thinking that killing their unborn children was evidence of their equality with men):
See the original Planned Parenthood odd and sparkling commentary here — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/planned-parenthood-vs-planned-parenthood-2/ .
Oops — “odd” should be “ad.” Double typo.
Hi Neil! Lovely to see you. Hope Theo won’t feel like we’re just ganging up on her any more. I invite you, as well, to actually give a straight answer to my questions– you know, the ones I started this thread with– rather than sidestepping with more non-sequitur changes of subject.
Let’s keep this conversation on topic. Why do you defend a zygote with the same ferocity as you do a fetus in their third trimester?
If Susan B Anthony should be our real target, great, first concede that zygotes aren’t so important after all. Otherwise explain your position, without changing the subject.
As I said to Theo, give a good faith, step by step answer and I promise to really listen.
Why do you defend a zygote with the same ferocity as you do a fetus in their third trimester?
Or I suppose more to the point, even, use the actual dilemma that started this thread here too, and ask why you defend a zygote with the same ferocity as a perfectly healthy child.
How fair of you to accuse me of side-stepping but not the bloggers who brought up the issues I responded to. Oh, well.
I thought I’d been quite clear on that. A new human being is created at conception. That is a scientific fact, at least if you trust the science of embryology.
Many more here — http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony
But is the science really that surprising? Did people really think that two human beings could create a third “thing” that wasn’t a human being but became a human being at a future point in time? Doubtful.
So the science is clear: Abortion kills an innocent human being. Then the discussion turns to philosophy. Is it OK to kill innocent human beings for the reasons given for abortions? (i.e., other than to save the life of the mother.) Economic issues OK? Convenience? Boyfriend doesn’t want the baby? Parents embarrassed about the pregnancy? Why aren’t those reasons acceptable outside the womb?
Your issue of “ferocity” is irrelevant and just a transparent emotional game. I’d defend my child’s life with more ferocity than I’d defend, say, yours (nothing personal — I’d expect the same from you with your kids), but I would view you as having equal human worth and deserving of protection.
Since I answered your question, using scientific references and everything, how about explaining why the size of a human being determines the worth worth of the unborn(does she have less value than Shaq?). Or her level of development (OK to kill dumber kids?). Or her environment (does the location of the human being impact her worth?). Or her depencency (does an infant have less of a right to life than a teen, or a disabled person than someone who is not?).
Or perhaps you can enlighten me as to just what the good folks at Planned Parenthood learned — when they aren’t busy hiding statutory rape, of course (http://pugnaciousirishman.com/2009/06/30/epic-fail-planned-parenthood-shows-its-true-colors-again/) — that made them do a 180 on what abortion really does.
Hope you really listen as promised. If you can demonstrate to me with scientific arguments (that is, real science, not Amanda’s made-up kind) that abortion doesn’t kill a human being then I’ll quickly change my views.
Do I really have to explain the difference between these?
1. Not donating an organ to someone
2. Crushing someone’s skull and ripping their limbs off
Hi Neil. I’m going to seriously try to debate you in good faith here for a moment. I mean, I consider what I was doing before “good faith” as well, in that I was really trying to be intellectually honest, but that’s easy to be confused about because I was being so snarky, too. So, minus the snark for a moment. No cheap insults. I will attempt not to patronize. Will you join me?
I do not consider the other commenters as sidestepping my questions because they are not the ones to whom I directed the questions of this post. The fact that you were answering their questions, or raising new ones, without ever directly giving an answer to my challenge led me to view your answers as sidesteps. But let’s clear the air now.
I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t sufficiently clear– I had hoped you would answer the two questions I had re-stated with absolute clarity for Theo in this comment. I hope you will still do so, as you haven’t yet.
You’ve started to give a response to the second question, though. It was a repetition of the one you gave before, a fact for which I’m not blaming you for, as from your own perspective you think you’re being perfectly logical. To me, you aren’t. Let’s zone in on why I find your response so deeply unsatisfactory, and once you understand that, you can either point out precisely where I’m mistaken, or adjust your own answer.
First, I’ll repeat my original response to your original response:
So, for instance, I do not dispute anything that Dr. Moore wrote in your excerpt. I doubt that anyone here does. Nor, on cursory examination, do I dispute any of the science quotes as featured at the “Case Against Abortion” website which you linked.
From your perspective, the fact that a zygote is the very first stage of a “human being” automatically makes it something sacred.
From my perspective, what makes a human being sacred has nothing to do with whether it is biologically human, and everything to do with sentience, the capacity to feel, to think, to make choices and take actions as its own moral agent. If a bottle cap was sentient, I would value its life, too. As it stands, a mere zygote is not sentient. This is why I do not value a mere zygote any more than I would value a sperm or a drop of blood.
Before we go any further, can I ask: Does my point of view make sense to you? And do you agree that a mere zygote lacks sentience? And if so, then for what other reason do you disagree with my point of view?