Here is an example of a pro-abortionist on the verge of an apoplectic fit against the possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed:
Human knowledge and technology have reached the point where the womb has become a sort of Pandora's Box. Whereas in the past, societies could gloss over the seemingly impossible details of the beginnings of human life and accompanying rights because it was all a mystery or an act of God, that's no longer an option for modern society.The "life begins at conception" position is really the ultimate slippery slope. If we're going to afford full rights to a single cell, then we're going to have to:
- Establish some kind of monthly monitoring system of all womb-bearing humans to know when a new human enters the picture. This would be incredibly invasive. To the point where I doubt even the staunchest, most misogynistic supporter would be thrilled to have a government official probe his wife's vagina every month.
- Every natural, self-aborted pregnancy (something like 70-90% of all conceptions) would trigger an investigation and likely charges of involuntary manslaughter against the woman.
- It would open any women found to be pregnant up to criminal charges on the basis of any unhealthy behavior on her part that could potentially elevate the risk for miscarriage.
- The logical outcomes of making zygotes US citizens is either Handmaid's dystopia or the sterilization of all humans and the move to artificial wombs and test tube babies.
The alternative is education, contraception, and rights begin at birth.
Response:
- I don't know how certain it is that Roe will be overturned even if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Perhaps more realistically is Roe will stand, but it will be defanged so it's toothless. Or perhaps there will be more mixed results.
- The whole "Handmaid's dystopia" is overwrought. I strongly doubt abortion is going to be eliminated across the nation if Roe is overturned or gutted. Rather, even if Roe is overturned or gutted, won't the debate over abortion be thrown back to the states? Each state will have to decide for themselves rather than the debate occurring at the national level - which, quite apart from the abortion debate, I would think is a good thing for American democracy in general (federalism). Presumably a liberal state like California will still allow abortions.
- He states:
Human knowledge and technology have reached the point where the womb has become a sort of Pandora's Box. Whereas in the past, societies could gloss over the seemingly impossible details of the beginnings of human life and accompanying rights because it was all a mystery or an act of God, that's no longer an option for modern society.
I don't understand his use of the metaphor of the womb being a "Pandora's Box" today in contrast to "it was all a mystery or an act of God" in the past. Regardless, the fact is current medical and scientific knowledge (e.g. embryology) and technology (e.g. ultrasound) helps us better understand and appreciate what's inside the womb. We have better (not worse) evidence for what the embryo or fetus truly is. In my view, modern medical science significantly improves, not worsens, the pro-life argument that the embryo and certainly fetus is a human person. It's not like we have to rely on "quickening" as in bygone days in order to tell when a woman is pregnant.
- He states:
If we're going to afford full rights to a single cell
The zygote is the "single cell" that is initially formed when sperm and ovum unite. Most pro-lifers argue the zygote is the baby in its earliest stage of development.
However, not all "single cells" are identical or equivalent to one another. We know the zygote is no mere "single cell" like a skin cell that's sloughed off, a dead cell shed from the surface of the skin. We know the zygote isn't a "single cell" like a mature red blood cell that has no cell nucleus. We know the zygote is not a "single cell" like a neuron whose main task is to receive, process, and transmit electrochemical signals.
Instead, we know the zygote is an independent organism from its mother. The zygote possesses its own distinct DNA separate from all the other cells in the mother's body. The zygote is able to send and receive its own hormonal and other biochemical signals. There are a lot more examples, but these should suffice for the time being.
Previous posts I've made might also be helpful. For example, see here and here.
- He states:
The "life begins at conception" position is really the ultimate slippery slope.
If it's true "life begins at conception" (which is what pro-lifers argue), then how is that a "slippery slope" argument? If life truly begins at conception, then the zygote is a baby, which makes the zygote developing into an embryo likewise a baby, then the fetus a baby too. That's not a "slippery slope" argument. Rather, that's the normal developmental process of a baby.
- He states:
Establish some kind of monthly monitoring system of all womb-bearing humans to know when a new human enters the picture. This would be incredibly invasive. To the point where I doubt even the staunchest, most misogynistic supporter would be thrilled to have a government official probe his wife's vagina every month.
Maybe he's letting his The Handmaid's Tale-induced fears carry him away into paranoia or something, I don't know.
First off, if Roe is overturned or defanged, then how does it follow that the "government" is going to start requiring or mandating this kind of "monitoring" in order to "know when a new human enters the picture"?
Just on a practical note, does he really think the "government" is able and willing to "monitor" "all womb-bearing humans" (i.e. all women who haven't had a hysterectomy)? Because that would include women who may be virgins, women who may not be able to become pregnant due to their immaturity or maturity (e.g. pre-menopausal, post-menopausal), women who may be using birth control, etc.
Wouldn't it be better to just let women do what they've been doing? Like has he ever heard of an over-the-counter pregnancy test for women who suspect they're pregnant? Anyone can buy those for pretty cheap at a local drug store.
Second, we will still have pro-abortion states.
Third, his use of "incredibly invasive" and "a government official probe his wife's vagina every month" is absurd. It illustrates his sheer ignorance. There are (a) home pregnancy tests for women to tell them if they're pregnant. These aren't invasive and don't require anyone else present except the woman herself. That's probably the most widely available kind of test used.
There are (b) blood tests as well as (c) urine tests that doctors and nurses can use too. The most "invasive" these tests get is a needle is stuck into your arm. No one needs disrobe in front of anyone. There are even female nurses and doctors if the woman prefers.
There are (d) ultrasound scans. Ultrasound uses a probe, but it's certainly not "invasive". The ultrasound "probe" simply glides over the mother's belly (you know, where the baby is located). It doesn't go anywhere near her "vagina".
There are "invasive" procedures, i.e., amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. However, these are saved for pregnancies with significant concerns, which are rarer, not your average or normal pregnancy. Even still, amniocentesis doesn't not "invade" the "vagina" but the mother's abdomen.
It's really only CVS that's both "invasive" and can be performed via a woman's "vagina", though CVS can also be performed via a woman's abdomen, depending on the situation. However, in situations that necessitate CVS, I don't think any physician is going to be creepily or lecherously looking at a woman like he suggests.
- He states:
natural, self-aborted pregnancy (something like 70-90% of all conceptions).
Where's the source for this claim?
In contrast, this post looks at the medical evidence and concludes:
What is the incidence of spontaneous abortions or miscarriages? Estimates range from 8-20% of all clinically recognized pregnancies under 20 weeks and 13-26% if we include unrecognized pregnancies.
- He states:
It would open any women found to be pregnant up to criminal charges on the basis of any unhealthy behavior on her part that could potentially elevate the risk for miscarriage.
At best, this claim piggybacks on the previous controversial claim. Where's the evidence to back up this current claim?
Instead, it seems like he's just fear-mongering now.
- He states:
The logical outcomes of making zygotes US citizens is either Handmaid's dystopia or the sterilization of all humans and the move to artificial wombs and test tube babies.
Speaking of committing a slippery slope fallacy, his comment is a fairly decent example!
Perhaps he's been watching too many science fiction dystopias. He's certainly letting his imagination get carried away here. I mean, "the sterilization of all humans", seriously? As if that's plausible if Roe is overturned or defanged.
- He states:
The alternative is education, contraception, and rights begin at birth.
I hope I've provided some "education" in contrast to his frightful ignorance.
Not all pro-lifers are necessarily against "contraception". It depends what kind of contraception we're talking about. Of course, if it's an abortifacient, then pro-lifers would be against it.
So "rights begin at birth", not earlier. Not in the womb. Not even if the baby is 8 months, 3 weeks, and 6 days old, and about to be born within a day or two. Got it:
No comments:
Post a Comment