I'm going to post my recent exchange at TGC blog:
November 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM
"This is because the reality of pregnancy implies impaired mobility, health risks every step of the way..."
Other issues to one side, you're ignoring the medical benefits of pregnancy. For instance:
November 2, 2012 at 10:33 AM
"Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good description of rape."
Now you're deliberately obscuring the difference between the rapist and the baby. Although the rapist may be analogous to the alien body-snatcher, her baby is not.
Scott, have you ever addressed the rape exception argument? I just looked up the Judith Jarvis Thomson's 'violinist' argument and that argument seems valid in the case of rape.
November 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM
No, the violinist argument is not valid in case of rape. The baby is not analogous to a rapist. To suggest that is morally depraved.
November 2, 2012 at 10:57 AM
It's a pity that JR is so unconcerned with how we behave towards helpless little babies.
November 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM
"I don't understand how to rationally argue that preventing a (literal) handful of cells from becoming a child at some future time is 'killing a human being.'"
i) To begin with , prolifers typically argue that the fertilized egg is already a human being, not a potential human being.
ii) If you're going to a take a purely physicalist, reductionist view of human beings, then an adult man or woman is just a collection of cells.
Gee, who coulda guessed.
October 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Steve,I think you are mixing ideas here and perhaps the trouble you are having is that you are confused regarding what this discussion is even about. Besides, my reply was to Lou, so please don't take your grievence toward JR out on me, thanks.I'll answer with this: "Should we have a cannibal exception to murder?" Yes, if it means that we otherwise will never be able to ban any homicides at all.
November 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM
You made yourself party to JR's argument. So your statement is fair game.
To say "yes" to the cannibal exception would mean you don't think we should outlaw cannibalistic homicide, given the extreme rarity of that phenomenon.
October 31, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Negative. A Genetic Fallacy is "a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit."By definition, you have actually demonstrated the genetic fallacy by your assertion.
November 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM
To the contrary, you are making the baby's right to life contingent on its source of origin. So that's a type of genetic fallacy.
November 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM
"Therefore, we still need proof in the form of sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of the proposition that abortion in the case of rape is murder."
You're disregarding the arguments which have already been provided. You have have no counterargument. So you respond with willful intransigence.
November 1, 2012 at 5:03 PM
"steve, are deliberately being dishonest or just feigning illiteracy so as not answer the question?"
Since that's not an honest question, there's nothing to answer.
"steve, there have been no arguments made as to why abortion in the case of rape is legally considered murder - zero. zip. zilch, given that we both agree that the unborn baby is a human being."
That's your bait-n-switch tactic. The question at issue is not the legal status quo, not whether abortion in case of rape is legally considered murder, but whether it *ought* to be. And I've given numerous reasons why that ought to be the case.
BTW, it's not my responsibility to persuade you, any more than it was Jeremiah's responsibility to persuade stiff-necked Israel.
"Maybe we better bid each other fair adieu and move on?"
Given your losing streak, that would be understandable.
October 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM
No, actually, Jeremy is specifically arguing against people who claim Numbers 5 is an indication of "God's attitude toward fetuses - that they don't have the kind of moral status adults have."Which is irrelevant to the discussion we are having about exceptions. In an argument For Exceptions, the moral status of the the unborn is not in question. That's why I stated that it is not entirely relevant. It didn't shed any additional information on the topic, per se, nor did it apply to any of the arguments being made.
November 1, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Of course it's relevant. JR cited Num 5 to justify induced abortions in case of rape. You seconded his appeal. So did Lou. As Jeremy points out, that's a fallacious inference.
October 31, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Hi Steve,Also, are you opposed to the morning after pill, which would prevent the pregnancy of a woman who was just raped?
November 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM
If the morning-after pill (actually, there's more than one) is an abortifacient, then I'd oppose it.
Whether the morning-after pill(s) is an abortifacient is a medical question that I will leave to medical professionals with a relevant field of specialization to judge.
Ethics doesn't determine the facts. Rather, ethics takes certain facts for granted (once they've been duly established), then evaluates their moral status.
November 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM
"But you still haven't made a formal argument for why you would legally call the rape exception 'murder' (malice aforethought)."
i) Murder doesn't require malice aforethought. That's a technical condition of 1st degree murder.
ii) Moreover, a murderer doesn't have to think the murder victim is human to be guilty of murder. Klansmen who lynch blacks might think blacks are subhuman. Nazis who exterminate Jews might think Jews are subhuman.
In that sense, you might say they lack criminal intent, for they don't intend to kill "humans," yet they are still guilty of murder. For their view of blacks and Jews as subhuman is both culpable and objectively mistaken.
November 1, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Hi Steve -You're not going to like this. You've tried to avoid this argument. But here it goes:If the government breaks into your house and surgically attaches a new born baby to your organs and then states that since the baby will die if unattached, therefore, by law, you are now required to keep the baby alive and attached for nine months at great health and financial cost to you personally. To do otherwise will kill the baby and you will then be guilty of committing felony murder.Is this really a legitimate use of civil law?I say, no way, absolutely not. I can't imagine that you would ever agree to such a thing.Remember: #1 - it's a baby.And #2 - such a requirement is rationally absurd!!
November 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Of course, that's just a variation on the Violinist hypothetical. Like Jarvis, you act as if a mother's baby is a perfect stranger who somehow became attached to her–like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
You disregard the fundamental fact that fathers and mothers have special parental responsibilities to their own children. The fact that you and other abortion proponents are chronically unable to appreciate that elementary and elemental obligation is morally deranged.
Moreover, basic parental duties are typically and rightly codified in law. Child neglect is a crime. So is child endangerment. Yet that pales compared to abortion.
November 1, 2012 at 9:24 PM
"I don't understand why this is viewed as a hypocritical stance. For instance, I can be against abortion personally because I believe it kills a human, but also think its unethical for the law to force a woman to risk her life and carry another person in her body for 9 months. I could think that the government has no right to force people to be life support for other people. It's a perfectly consistent argument to make...To make the case that the government should be able to force you to rent out your body for 9 months to keep someone else alive is a very difficult one to make (especially when it involves such risk and such vast implications), and I honestly barely see this point even being addressed which is interesting."
i) To begin with, you yourself are morally uncomfortable with abortion. That's why you resort to distancing euphemisms like "a woman to risk her life and carry another person in her body for 9 months."
Why do you avoid more accurate terms like "mother" and "her baby"?
ii) Moreover, except in case of rape, the "woman" isn't being "forced" to do anything. She knowingly engaged in a consensual activity that's specifically designed to produce that result.
For a woman, you have a very low opinion of women. Do you think women are so shortsighted and dominated by animal passions that they can't appreciate the easily foreseeable consequences of their voluntary actions?
iii) Oh, and at the risk of stating the obvious, Lily was once a baby in her mother's womb.
November 1, 2012 at 9:27 PM
"I'd be interested to know where the Pro-Lifers here stand on the death penalty."
Prolifers distinguish between protecting innocent life and punishing those who take innocent life. A pretty elementary distinction. Next question.
November 1, 2012 at 9:39 PM
“Exactly. Its horrible logic and reads as even worse once you simplify it. For instance did you know that between 50% and 75% of all embryos are actually disposed of practically immediately because of a woman's own body? To believe that all embryos are human beings is to believe than 50% of our population is unaccounted for and dies without anyone knowing of their existence.”
Exactly. Its horrible logic and reads as even worse once you simplify it. For instance, did you know that every year about 230,000 American woman get breast cancer because of a woman's own body? To believe that all breast cancer victims are human beings is to believe that millions of female human beings prematurely die from natural causes. Heck, why should we event treat them? Why not let nature take its course?
November 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM
“My ‘euphemisms’ shed light on the aspects of the debate that pro-lifers regularly ignore.”
To the contrary, your euphemisms deflect attention away from parental duties. That’s an aspect of the debate which abortionists regularly ignore.
“My wording is just as accurate…”
No, it’s deliberately vague, imprecise language that’s intended to shy away from loaded words like “mother” and “her baby” because the more specific language carries dutiful connotations.
“If I am pregnant, and I do not want to be pregnant. I am pregnant against my will.”
Why would a woman with access to contraception be pregnant against her will? Are you saying women are too dense to predict the easily avoidable consequences of their actions? Or are you saying woman have no control over their sexual impulses. They are just like animals in heat?
“If I do not want to carry it to term and the law states I have to, then yes I am being forced.”
If parents fail to feed their kids, resulting in malnutrition or starvation, the law can rightly punish them. Because some parents are evil, the law must motivate them to do their duty.
“Newsflash pregnant people who get abortions don't want to be pregnant!”
Newsflash: husbands who murder their wives don’t want to be married!
“Also I'm assuming you do not believe in exceptions for rape so your point is irrelevant.”
It’s relevant to your point because you are framing the issue in terms of consent.
For instance, if you voluntarily enter into a contract, then you can be “forced” to comply with the terms of the contract. If you change your mind after you sign the contract, tough luck.
“Very funny. Actually observing the obvious systems that exist around me I realize that women are not given universal, free access to birth control…”
“Free” because someone else is paying for it. Once again, why do you have such a low view of women that you think they shouldn’t pay for birth control? Do you think they shouldn’t pay for gasoline?
For that matter, if they are going to have sex with a man, why shouldn’t he pay for contraception?
Why do you think someone else ought to pay for your contraceptives? Why are you treating women like children who expect a parental figure to foot the bill for their lifestyle choices?
“…(which would decrease abortions by up to 70% according to many studies that actually happen to be coming out right now)…”
That’s a non sequitur.
“…are not taught comprehensive and informative sex education…”
You think women are too simple-minded to know where babies come from? Even women in primitive tribes are quite able to make a causal connection between sex and pregnancy.
“…and most importantly are not even in complete control of their own sex lives…”
You think women ought to be autonomous, but you’re also admitting that woman are emotionally dependent on men for sexual fulfillment.
“…due to the visceral and horrible effects of patriarchy.”
We’ve never had patriarchy. That’s just a feminist myth.
Traditionally, most cultures are hierarchical. You’ve had upper-class women as well as lower-class men. Although a man might be at the very top of the pyramid, lots of men were subject to women who were above them on the social scale.
And, of course, in our own culture, many women have power over many men. Why is “patriarchy” oppressive, but matriarchy is not?
“Ever asked a woman whether they've had sex to appease their husband, boyfriend, random boy, some expectation, or compromise etc. even though they really didn't want to?”
Why are women getting into sexual relationships if they don’t want sex? If that’s their attitude, why not get a pet dog or cat?
“I was. And I don't think the government had the right to force my mother to undergo the sacrifice and pain she did to have me.”
i) Of course, that doesn’t end at birth. Children are dependent on their parents for many years after birth. At what point do you think your mother or father doesn’t have the right to kill you?
ii) Or what happens if an adult woman become very sick and must depend on others to care for her until she recovers. Is it okay for them to just leave you by the side of the road to die?
November 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM
Keep in mind that most aborted babies are girls. Evidently, Lily thinks there are too many women in the world.
November 1, 2012 at 10:40 PM
“Nothing you have said to me addresses my main argument about the government forcing someone to be life support for another person.”
i) That’s why we need laws. Since some people are too evil to do the right thing on their own, they sometimes require a legal incentive. For instance, child abandonment is a crime, and rightly so.
ii) And, once again, you resort to euphemisms. We’re not talking about the relationship between “someone” and “another person.” Rather, we’re talking about the relationship between a father or mother and their own child.
Social obligations are concentric. We generally have greater obligations to family than strangers.
“Also I spend my entire life fighting for gender equality…”
You’ve wasted your life. You should spend the rest of your life on a worthy cause, like promoting the Christian faith.
“Many of the things that would decrease abortion rates significantly are things that TGC outright argues against. (and they are things that would decrease rates MORE than making it illegal) It is a hilarious tendency of hypocrisy on this issue that the pro-life movement can't seem to shake.”
So you’re argument is like the psychopath who screams: “Stop me before I kill again!”
“Now while people aborting fetus's because of their gender breaks my heart, I still do not think the government should be able to force a woman to undergo 9 months of pregnancy. This is because the reality of pregnancy implies impaired mobility, health risks every step of the way, a complete change in lifestyle, torture at the end, and oh yeah growing a person inside of you in a relationship that is scientifically parasitic (literally the biology term sorry).”
You’re a self-hating woman. You hate what it means to be a woman. You despise your nature. You loathe everything that’s distinctively feminine about you.
Men don’t feel this way about manhood. Why do you feel this way about womanhood? You’re committing psychological suicide.
“Btw, about 1/5 of all American's women are raped so theres that.”
Why should we lend any credence to that rubbery statistic?
November 2, 2012 at 12:15 AM
"I will reply to the rest of your comments later. I would just like to sit back and laugh hysterically at the fact that you just used the intersection of systematic oppression as a mode of trying to disprove systematic oppression."
I'm responding to you on your own terms, and highlighting your lopsided appeal by an obvious counterexample. But feel free to laugh at yourself.
"Please continue to ignore that pregnancy involves pregnancy."
You're refusing to take your own argument to its logical extreme. Your objection implicitly goes well beyond pregnancy. When you complain that pregnancy involves "a complete change in lifestyle," that's nothing compared to 18 years (give or take) of childrearing.
So if you think the disruption to your precious lifestyle caused by pregnancy justifies killing your child, then that rationale justifies killing your child as long as your child is dependent on you. Is "parasitic," in your charming characterization.
November 1, 2012 at 10:55 PM
My point is that if you believe that then why is there absolutely no effort to keep that from happening? The effort is literally non existent. People are trying to cure breast cancer.
November 2, 2012 at 12:05 AM
That's disingenuous. What makes you think that natural process is even preventable? And that's completely different from an induced abortion.
November 2, 2012 at 12:38 AM
"Ever asked a woman whether they've had sex to appease their husband, boyfriend, random boy, some expectation, or compromise etc. even though they really didn't want to?"
Why are you so resentful? If you think men and women are simply evolved primates, then what do you expect? Assuming that the male sex drive is different from the female sex drive, so what? That's how natural selection made us. It's futile to think you can change that. Our brute sexual instincts are hardwired.
November 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM
“In John 3, we see that Nicodemus was pro-life, inasmuch as he believed life begins in the womb. Nevertheless, Jesus reproved him--the teacher of Israel--for his lack of spiritual understanding. Life didn't begin in the womb, but with ‘water and the Spirit.’"
i) Of course, that’s blatantly equivocal. Jesus never denied that human life begins in the womb. Rather, he’s using physical birth as a metaphor for spiritual rebirth. It’s a figurative play on words, like the way he talks about “living water” in the next chapter.
ii) Spiritual rebirth presupposes physical birth. If you don’t exist, you can’t be regenerated.
“Worse, it becomes ‘for God so loved the womb,’ making our Heavenly Father out to be a fertility god like Baal, or any of a number of pagan fertility gods and goddesses that were worshipped throughout the Roman Empire during Christ's lifetime.”
i) What’s wrong with saying God loves the womb? According to the Bible, God designed the womb. God made the womb. God made women. God opens the womb.
ii) Megan herself began life in the womb. Her mother’s womb was Megan’s home for the first 9 months of her existence. She was nurtured and protected in her mother’s womb.
“Nor does it require pejoritive comparisons to slavery, eugenics or the Holocaust.”
Except for the awkward fact that gendercide is comparable to genocide.
“It certainly doesn't require men to make unchivalrous buffoons of themselves by calling women sluts, self-hating women, or making light of rape.”
i) No prolifer on this thread called women sluts. But since you bring it up, feminism treats women like sluts:
ii) Likewise, no prolifer on this thread is “making light of rape.”
iii) However, Megan reflects a typical feminist double standard, where women are free to make very derogatory remarks about men and masculinity, but men are supposed to treat feminists like china dolls who break easily.
iv) And, yes, feminism fosters misogyny. Ironic, isn’t it?
Look at how Megan demeans the womb. That’s feminist misogyny. Why would any self-respecting woman demean her own body? But that’s what feminism does to women. It makes women hate their bodies.
Or take Lily’s resentful, hostile view attitude towards normal heterosexual relations: “Ever asked a woman whether they've had sex to appease their husband, boyfriend, random boy, some expectation, or compromise etc. even though they really didn't want to?”
Or take her resentful, hostile attitude towards motherhood: “...able to force you to rent out your body for 9 months to keep someone else alive is…growing a person inside of you in a relationship that is scientifically parasitic.”
This is a woman who hates being a woman. She resents womanhood. She bitterly resents her sexual anatomy. She bitterly resents everything that’s unique to womanhood. She bitterly resents feminine virtues and masculine virtues.
That’s what feminism does to women. Feminism breeds misogyny.
“This is why I see the pro-life movement as a wolf in sheep's clothing: not only an attack on women…”
Sex-selective abortion is an attack on women. Feminist misogyny is an attack on women.
“This is why I'm pro-choice.”
No, that’s why you’re anti-woman. You’re an anti-woman woman–just as there are self-hating men (e.g. homosexual/transgender men).
November 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM
"Ever asked a woman whether they've had sex to appease their husband, boyfriend, random boy, some expectation, or compromise etc. even though they really didn't want to?"
Feminists resent Christian men. Feminists resent Christian marriage. Yet feminists also resent men who "objectify" women.
However, if you disdain Christian men with Christian values, if you disdain chivalry, then the kind of men you're left with are, predictably enough, men who objectify women. Men who simply use women and discard women. As Lydia McGrew has pointed out:
November 2, 2012 at 10:41 AM
"WOW.. this entire wall is dominated by men. And I know they mean well.. but they way they talk about rape and abortion has this real sense of disconnection to real women who have been raped and had to deal with unwanted pregnancy."
As your own comment illustrates, no one is preventing women from commenting on this thread. No one is preventing women from dominating this thread. If there are fewer female than male commenters, that's because fewer women choose to comment.
As far as the alleged "disconnect" goes, I bring the same detachment to men's issues.