A little more than a year ago, I wrote a post called “Letting the Bad Guys Name Things“, warning about an increasingly common tactic: name something bad after something uncontestably positive, and your opponents will be reticent to speak against it, even if they realize how badly named it is. For instance, pass a law removing freedoms from people, but call it “Freedom Something”, and everyone will stay silent, because nobody want to be seen as “anti-freedom”. A well-known example is the Patriot Act.
But this post is about another one: “pro-life”. It’s a misleading label, of course, since what they are really about is banning sex outside of marriage, for religious reasons. (Either that, or they haven’t really thought about it, and just go with what feels good: “we’re saving lives!”). Still, it’s a well-chosen one (in marketing terms). After all, who wants to be seen as “anti-life”? That sounds almost like a murderer, or something…
The “antidote” to this problem is to refuse to use their misleading terms, and, instead, call things what they really are. I could give many examples here about the Bush administration, the “war on terror”, the invasion of Iraq, the fact that abortion clinic bombers aren’t called “Christian terrorists”, and so on. But what this post is really about is a term the author of No More Hornets came up with: Pro-Forced Maternity.
I believe this term is infinitely more honest and accurate than “pro-life”. It’s describes what they really want, what they really are about. Not “life”, but control. To force others. And, so, I think we atheists / humanists / secularists ought to spread it. Refuse to use their misleading terms, and describe things as they really are.
So, please, if you agree with this, help spreading the word. Write / blog about this, start using “pro-forced maternity” in conversations, and correct others when they use the common, misleading term (much like the Patriot Act isn’t really about “patriotism”). If this ever reaches the mainstream media (which is perfectly possible), even if they try to “denounce” it as evil secularist propaganda, it could make a lot of people think about this for the first time, and see the “pro-lifers” pro-forced maternity people for what they really are: anti-life, and anti-individual freedom.
Related posts:
I’ve always referred to those so called pro-lifers as anti-choice, though I’m being generous. I don’t see how someone can refer to themselves as a pro-lifer while they are detonating bombs in abortion clinics that may or may not result in death of one or more completely formed human beings, who apparently in their warped little minds don’t deserve the same protections as a mass of cells that would not be viable without the supporting womb.
I will definitely start using that instead of pro-life. I’m glad I stopped in to read this. I may blog about it too.
Honjii> Great comment!
Anti-choice, anti-responsibility, anti-liberty are all good choices for that position…
To make the very same point, I often ask self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” if they eat. Of course they do, and so I point out that they kill in order to eat (even vegans must kill to eat) and thus cannot be “pro-life” Even the act of breathing kills microbes…
Pedro,
I know I am a minority here, but I do not think the argument entirely applies here. While I cannot disagree that there are some (perhaps many) people who support the ‘pro-life’ stance for the reasons you state, there are others who support it because they believe that life starts at conception. That is not an argument for this post, but for some the “choice” occurred when you have sex, and having an abortion is an avoidance of one of the consequences that choice.
So, to label it “anti-choice” or “pro-forced maternity” is just engaging in the same rhetoric that the pro-life people engage in. How about we try to describe things as they are and not try to reduce everything into a 2-second sound bite?
Just my two cents - which in this day of inflation is probably worth nothing.
Jim,
You take issue with the WHOLLY ACCURATE descriptions such as “anti-choice” and “pro-forced maternity” in defense of the “pro-life” label, but ironically do so with an appeal to accuracy… Don’t you see a problem with that?
“life” is not the issue, as my own post demonstrates conclusively. The issue is moral agency. As there is not one whit of evidence that a zygote could possibly be a moral agent, much less actualy IS a moral agent, to decree that no one else can be responsible for themselves because of some CHOICE to believe in that for which there is no evidence, is no different in kind from dictating that a particular religion must be observed. There is no evidence of the “god” but sheer stipulation (as is the basis for the “pro-life” rhetoric, and your own argument here, so we can simply stipulate whatever rules we wish.
Now, if that is not sufficient to demosntrate the weakness of the arguments, perhaps a consideration of accepting this as principle will suffice. Consider for a moment the chance that those who do not share your belief are the ones who get to stipulate the wholly arbitrary rules. Though no one is arguing for this position (contrary to the claims of the grossly inaccurately named “pro-life” folks) what if the stipulation were to be not that no one is responsible for their own bodies, but rather that they MUST terminate all pregnancies? Since this is certainly one of the potential outcomes of adopting your approach in principle, would you find this conclusion equally acceptable? If not, then would you drop the principle, or would you simply add another layer of stipulation that again relies upon your won belief?
TX,
Sorry. You and I disagree on what constitutes life, and as I said in my post, I did not think this is the place to argue that question. You are not infallible, and logic is only good as the premises you start with. My point is merely that there are some that feel that if life begins at conception, than the label “pro-life” is not wholly inaccurate.
Just so you know, I have no respect for you (oops, must be an ad hominem since I do not agree with an expert of logical discourse), so I have no intent of responding to anything else you say. Sorry, you just aren’t worth my time. See you in another couple months.
The only way that we can disagree on what constitutes life is if you are actually taking issue with the observation that I made that plants are living also, as are other animals.
BTW the allusion to my fallibility has no place in this or any discussion. Nothing I have said relies upon my being infallible, so this is at best a red herring. As for your mistaken assertions about logic, I can only recommend that you first become familiar with the most basic aspects of logic before you put yourself up as an expert who can dictate what should be the form which logic can take. Your claims remain false.
As for the grossly inaccurate “pro-life” term, I have already completely and soundly refuted the possibility that it could be a meaningful term, and you have not addressed the fact that those adopting the position are in fact ANTI-life, not “pro-life” and that does not even as of yet address the fact that the position necessitates that the life of the individual is without any value, while the “life” of a zygote is infinite in value. Recall that if one were truly pro-LIFE then ALL life would be equal in value, so that such an individual would never take the life of any other entity regardless of form. So no killing of cows to eat, no collecting of vegetables for the table, no breathing as this kills thousands of microbes. A more subtle consequence of a truly pro-LIFE position is that one would never interefere or seek to control the life of another, which obviously goes directly against the desires of the anti-choice camp. Those adopting this position actually simply choose to support ONE TYPE of life, in ONE SPECIFIC AND HIGHLY LIMITED situation, while disregarding all other life often to the point of advocating death (such as in the case where the mother could die from the birth, or being pro-death penalty as most anti-choice folks are).
Respond again or not, continue the personal attacks in lieu of reaonsed discussion, or decide to mature enough to carry on a civil discussion, obviously the choice is entirely your own. Regardless of your choice, the claims you have made (both on topic, and the personal attacks) remain without any hint of merit and clearly false.
BTW I do at least have the basic level of respect for you to refrain from your tactics. There is no harm in treating others as worthwhile beings, say along the lines you wish to extend to zygotes..
This practice of labeling other people are not worthy of basic respect, of recognizing their moral worth, merely because they disagree with you is the root of the current acts of aggression abroad, and stops all progress (intellectual, emotional, and spiritual) of the individuals choosing to adopt the practice.
Actually it’s just a zygote for a little while. Then it’s an embryo, then a fetus.
There’s an episode of House (an American TV show) where a pregnant woman is sick. She asks, “Is my baby going to survive?”
Dr. House says “Fetus.”
haha.
BTW, maybe we should move this discussion to the forum.
I choose to use the term zygote to drive home the point that 1. It is not a person. 2. that it is not a “baby” 3. and to counter the false correlation of the anti-choice folks that a “fetus” is a baby, and the only result from sex.
According to the claims of the anti-life anti-choice folks, a fertilized egg (of a human only of course..no other life counts for them, and not all human life just those they like) is identical to an adult or any other stage of developement. Clearly this is absurd, so we have to take back the language so that real issues can be honestly discussed.
Hi. I think that abortion should be prosecuted as murder, both mother and doctor.
“Pro-forced maternity” is not a label that applies to my position, since if I had my way only victims of rape would be forced to become mothers - And that would be the rapist’s fault. Since I’m also anti-rape, there is, logically, no possible situation in which the legislation of my position could force maternity on anybody, since it would try to prevent and punish both abortion and rape.
One of the things that makes rape so terrible is the possibility that the victim would have an unwanted child, that a child would grow up with a mother and father who don’t want them - and rapists should be prosecuted accordingly.
However, I agree that “pro-life” is a misnomer. I am not in favor of life in every case - For instance, I think that disease-causing organisms should be made extinct. I would prefer a term that signifies the political belief that individuals ought to have the right to life starting at the time of their conception.
Nobody thinks that a zygote is identical to a 40-year-old: But I think that both should have the right to life.
Let me clarify:
If all was legislated as I would have it, every situation in which a person is forced to bear a child would result in the prosecution of the guilty party - The rapist.
Hence, my position, which is commonly referred to as “pro-life”, can be accurately described as “anti-forced-maternity”, since it would criminalize forced maternity.
All pregnant women either chose to have sexual intercourse or didn’t. If they chose to have sex, then they won’t have been forced to bear a child. They chose it. If they didn’t choose to have sex, then it was rape.
Logismous Kathairountes,
Surely you jest!?!
[quote]I would prefer a term that signifies the political belief that individuals ought to have the right to life starting at the time of their conception.[/quote]
And herein we see one of the many problems: the assumption that in fact a fertilized cell IS identical to a 40 year old. You assume without one iota of evidence that a fertilized cell has all of the cognitive ability, the moral responsibility, and understanding necessary to be a moral agent (all of which are required for the sort of moral protection you demand). This of course makes the position purely circular, else completely arbitrary.
Why not extend that protection to entities which are infinitely closer in kind to the fertilized cell? Say other fertilized cells? Are all fertilized cells to be granted this carte blache overwhelming protection? Is “god” to be punished in the same manner in which you insist that all humans who are peacefully living their lives to be punished when miscarriages occur?
If mere fertilized cells are granted this infinite protection, then what about those entities which result from fertilized cells? Are all who eat meat to be equally punished as logically follows from your position? Are plants to be included, or do we arbitrarily exclude plants and non-human animals?
You see the pro-forced maternity position, including your own, cannot be logically salvaged for it always includes contradictory beliefs and claims, as well as being without basis in reality, that is to say that it is completely arbitrary.
Ah, I see. As you put it, to have the right to life, one must possess:
1) Cognitive ability
2) Moral responsibility
3) Understanding
Only once you possess these things are you a moral agent, and only when you possess these things do you have the right to life. So we ought to execute the mentally handicapped if it’s more convenient to us, according to you? They’re not moral agents, because they don’t have understanding, so they just can’t be given the moral protection afforded to you and me.
I do not agree with this. I think either you must have misstated your position, TXStorm, or I must have misunderstood it - Because as it appears to me, you advocate the execution of all who do not live up to certain standards of ‘understanding’, ‘moral responsibility’ and ‘cognitive ability’.
I think that many people do not have cognitive ability, moral responsibility, or understanding, and that those people nonetheless ought to have the right to life, politically.
You appear to have misunderstood a certain aspect of my position, and so I’ll spell it out to you logically:
1) Not all people are identical.
2) All people ought to be given the right to life.
3) Therefore, not all people who ought to be given the right to life are identical.
I’m saying that both a human zygote and a human 40-year-old should have the right to life, and this doesn’t mean I’m saying that they’re identical. I rest my position upon only one property similar between the two. Every other property could be different between them, but if both have this one property, then both should have the right to life. That property is: They are both human beings. My position is simple. Human beings should be given the right to life, politically, regardless of age.
Furthermore:
A miscarriage, if nobody intended to harm the baby, and the doctor and mother did all they could to save it (as is usually the case) cannot be construed as murder - Miscarriages are terrible misfortunes that result in death. Nobody should be punished for a terrible misfortune that they tried to prevent that happened to somebody else.
My position does not extend the right to life to animals and disease-causing organisms and plants. It merely wishes to include in the definition of ‘human being’ those who have not yet been born, and to give the right to life to all human beings. Therefore, as I mentioned previously, “pro-life” is a misnomer.
I have not yet mentioned why I think that a human fertilized egg should count as a human being - My efforts so far have been to clarify my position and assert that the term “pro-forced maternity” does not accurately describe this position.
You are employing the fallacy of false dichotomy. recognizing that a building is not a barn does not make the building a government agency (this is an analogy used to demonstrate the invalidity of the argument form you are employing). Recognizing that X is not a moral agent in no way necessitates that one must advocate killing X. To make this point even more cleraly, a rock is not a moral agent but it simply absurd to claim that knowing this fact means advocating killing the rock..
I spoke of moral agency, and the protections of morality. These are at least necessary conditions for moral agency as we can see through careful examination across time and culture. The fact is that we do not treat fertilized cells as though they are responsible for actions taken, therefore necessarily they are NOT moral agents any more than a tree or rock would be. Whether you agree with this or not is completely irrelvent to the nature of the universe. Believing that the world is flat will never make it cease being round..
[quote] You appear to have misunderstood a certain aspect of my position, and so I’ll spell it out to you logically:
1) Not all people are identical.
2) All people ought to be given the right to life.
3) Therefore, not all people who ought to be given the right to life are identical.[/quote]
No misunderstanding at all, though this aside you offer is peculiar as it in no way relates to the refutations offered. BTW your #2 is your conclusion, thus the argument is circular..
[quote] I’m saying that both a human zygote and a human 40-year-old should have the right to life, and this doesn’t mean I’m saying that they’re identical.[/quote]
In this context this is EXACTLY what you are saying. You are STIPULATING in the complete absence of any evidence, that both are moral agents granted the protections of morality.
So you stipulate that all and only “human beings” have the protections of morality… okay so what happens if we come across some other intelligent form of life? By your stipulated criteria they are denied moral agency and the protections of morality. Also an amusing consequence of this sort of stipulation of the scope of morality, you end up necessarily including corpses as moral agents, after all they are HUMAN corpses..
BTW how do you differentiate between humans and other primates given the near identity between the two? How are you defining “human being?”
As we have seen the term remains perfectly accurate..
Apparently I did misunderstand your position, as I thought. You do not advocate the execution of all who do not live up to certain standards of ‘understanding’, ‘moral responsibility’ and ‘cognitive ability’ - You simply deny them ‘moral protection’. They’re objects. But tell me, what do you think about the mentally handicapped, or people in comas? Do they have the right to life? They don’t seem to have ‘understanding’, or ‘moral responsibility’. What about people who suffer from mental disorders?
As I stated previously, I have not yet mentioned why I think that a human fertilized egg should count as a human being. I am not making an argument about what is a human being and what isn’t, or about what deserves ‘moral protection’. I am stating my position regarding these matters, without giving any argument for it, or offering any evidence for it, and making an argument about what that position should be called. If you could prove my position wrong, it would have no bearing at all on the argument I am making, which doesn’t have to do with the position, but with what the position should be called.
Thus, this: [quote post="265"]You appear to have misunderstood a certain aspect of my position, and so I’ll spell it out to you logically:
1) Not all people are identical.
2) All people ought to be given the right to life.
3) Therefore, not all people who ought to be given the right to life are identical.[/quote]
Cannot be a circular argument because it is not an argument. It is a statement of a position. #3 is a rewording of #1 and #2, intended to indicate that I think that not all those deserving of the right to life are identical.
My position should not be called “Pro-Forced Maternity”, because there is no situation in which I would fail to punish somebody who forced a woman to bear a child, since that person would be a rapist. Women who willingly had sexual intercourse were not forced to bear a child - They chose it. My position should not be called “Pro-Life”, because I am not in favor of the continued life of all currently living things.
Clearly you are either in denial or are missing the exceptionally clear fact that your claims are in fact arguments for the forced control over the actions of innocent moral agents, pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding of course.
I as a person or individual do not deny anyone moral protection, for you see I do not possess the power to decree what constitutes a moral agent any more than I am able to decree what objects will be affected by gravity. Instead I rely upon critical thought and observation.
Now, returning to the point so often made, and at least as often avoided by the pro-death, anti-human position (such as that which you advocate so ardently), you STIPULATE that all and only humans are moral agents, without one iota of connection to reality (aka evidence) as well as without any hint of sound argument supporting this assumption. I have raised a number of questions which have thus far been wholly ignored, so I would ask, do you intend to address these very real refutations and concerns?
[quote] If you could prove my position wrong, it would have no bearing at all on the argument I am making,[/quote]
I appreciate this rare and suprising admission that reality cannot even potentially or theoretically count against the beliefs you are advocating, including the murder of innocent moral agents. Nonetheless it demonstrates a clear difference in our objectives and approaches. Where I seek only truth and knowledge of the world in which we live, you are (as necessitated by this and other statements) more interested in forcing others to live (or more importantly be terminated) by your personal dictates and now admitted wholly false beliefs.
Your argument that anything possessing “humaness” has an absolute right to life (unless of course it is a woman who is pregnant, then the individual possesses no rights at all of course by your reasoning) is necessarily an argument regardless of this quite feeble attempt to dismiss all of the refutations by pretending that you are not offering an argument at all.
Clearly you demand in no uncertain terms that any and all women who happen to be pregnant (regardless of situation) must be FORCED to bear the child and punished to the extreme for any interference in this proclamation of moral worthlessness of the woman. This cannot be called anything but a pro-forced maternity no matter how much you attempt to employ clintoneque distraction techniques.
Care to address any of the issues raised or the refutations offered? Or are you merely trolling by simply spewing forth the same empty rhetoric?
BTW I get the slight and in this instance trivial distinction you are trying to draw, but as you are merely stipulating that terminating a pregnancy must be forbidden, you are indeed making yourself responsible for forcing materinity upon those women who wouuld otherwise make that choice. You might as well command that women who will have daughters who will engage in terminating an unwanted pregnancy (or who will suffer a miscarriage) must refrain from having those daughters, else they too are responsible for “murder” (sic) Literally anything goes from your stipulations.
Under the legislation I would enact, no person would be forced into maternity, since all people would have the option to practice abstinence, and since the denial of the option to practice abstinence (aka rape) would also be legislated against. Therefore, the term ‘pro-forced maternity’ is not accurate.
I believe that I have made my position sufficiently clear. Let the reader judge for himself its soundness.
I look forward, TXStorm, to a more successful conversation with you on another comment thread, hopefully one in which I will not be brought to the unpleasant situation of having to attribute to your contributions the same triviality (and failure to address the salient points of the argument) with which you seem to have regarded mine.
To mislabel your position as being not being exaxtly what it is, that being pro-forced maternity, would b akin to calling the individual who is shot in an alley a suicide victim because they chose to leave the house. You allow for no choices beyond those you personally deem to be acceptable, which of course is not how the world or morality works.
You can attribute the sound refutations to anything you desire for you see, what you think of me as a person is irrelevent to the facts or to sound reasoning. I have addressed ALL of the points of your argument, what you dishonestly claim is not addressing the salient points is known to the real world as wholly refuting the argument and claims you offer. But by all means do not take my word for it, simply compare the arguments against what constitutes a sound argument, and compare the claims to reality allowing reality not personal preference to determine truth.
You clearly want to simply ignore the fact that you explicitly state that you would force maternity upon rape victims, (as well as anyone else who finds themselves pregnant) who make no choice whatsoever under any possible conception (except that by your reasoning they are to blame for the rape because they did not choose to kill themselves prior to the rape), and so even if we were to pretend that your claims about other pregnancies did not necessarily result in the support of forced maternity, you cannot avoid the fact that you do seemingly proudly force this particular evil upon those who have already suffered a great evil.
If we apply your way of casting blame, we must toss out all causality and also actively engage in arbitrarily redefining situations to give only the slightest hint of a basis to support the redefining of words which you employ to give only the illusion of meaning to the claims. You stipulate that nothing can count against your claims all the while simply ignoring the sound refutations already offered. You might want to ask yourself why you would adopt this approach rather than to allow reality and reason to lead you to true conclusions.
Forget it - I’ve been following this site for a long-long time and TXStorm doesn’t have the capacity to see that there are events and situations in this world (and, I’m sure, in his own life) that logic cannot account for or explain.
Reality has a wonderful characteristic of being real..
Yes, what is real (i.e. Reality) is real. That doesn’t mean you know it when you see it. The people that used to kill others for thinking the Earth was round when everyone “knew” it was flat were just protecting reality also.
BTW, I didn’t mean my first comment as an insult, thought it does look an aweful lot like one now that I re-read it. I was simply trying to say that you seem over-reliant on logic. But, that’s just for my personal taste & I am really not important anyway ;>
Should you be able to kill your child during the first, say, 5 or 6 months of life. After all, it can’t fend for itself and will simply starve to death without assistance. It’s not an adult capable of preserving it’s own life so surely, it must not be a life yet.
Simply put, and I’m not saying I agree with them, but, if you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and noone has been able to prove otherwise, then EVERY abortion is anti-life and is murder. And, as the anti-thesis of abortion, they would be pro-life.
Again, not that I agree with them (or don’t), but if that is your belief it would be very defensible to stop an abortionist (assailant) from hurting an innocent victim (embryo, fetus, etc) just as stopping a rapist or murderer would be.
How about pro-”accept the responsibility for your actions” group. Then they could call the others anti-responsibility.
Seems wholely accurate to me
Yes I am “over” reliant upon reality to determine the nature of reality..
Get over it. I am not going to join in your denial of reality in the pretense of describing reality, so this line of anti-reaon will never succeed.
[quote post="265"]Get over it. I am not going to join in your denial of reality in the pretense of describing reality, so this line of anti-reaon will never succeed.[/quote]
Seriously, in order for that to make sense there would have to be a goal I was trying to succeed at. There simply isn’t one in relation to this site or to you.
Since you wrote that sentence it should be safe to assume that you believe there is a goal I am trying to accomplish. You are wrong - hence reality has once again eluded you.
I spoke nothing of gaols, rather I refered to your actual posts in which there is a strong line of anti-reason. I pointed out that anti-reason never reveals truth, therefore is ineffective. Nothing in this implies anything about a gaol, so your ad hominem simply fails to be accurate.
Trying I suspect in vain to take this away from your insult fest back to the point, as I pointed out previously this is NOT an issue of life. Were it an issue of life, then the pro-forced maternity folks would immeditately kill themselves in order to prevent the further taking of other life. It is about moral agency. What entities are protected by AND ACCOUNTABLE TO morality. If you just pick something out of a hat and stipulate that it is protected by and accountable to morality, in other words it is a moral agent, then so be it, but that no more makes the claim true than does calling a car a tree.
As for the responsibility for their actions, one would be hard pressed to find a group which is less for personal responsibility than the pro-forced maternity group. After all they are too busy forcing their personal religious beliefs on others, using the might of the government to impose their own personal will upon others, denying others the inherent worth that all moral agents have. They are not allowing others to be responsible for their choices, they are trying to dictate what choices others can make. Once a person is forced to do X, then necessarily they are not responsible for X. Seizing control of another alleviates all responsibility on the part of the person seized. So how about “religous totalititarians”
You seem to make the error of assuming that false belief somehow changes reality. I can believe that eskimoes are ten feet tall and shoot fire from their eyes, but that will never justify my going about killing eskimoes as some sort of threat. In this instance you simply assume that a fertilized cell is identical to an adult, that both are moral agents, and this assumption has not been shown to be true. Short of doing this the arguments never get off the ground.
[quote post="265"]You seem to make the error of assuming that false belief somehow changes reality.[/quote]
No, I don’t make that error. I believe that assuming a false belief to be within reality prevents people from understanding reality BUT does not prevent them from thinking they understand reality. Furthermore, any reason/understanding they have based on a false belief will also, most likely, be false.
[quote post="265"]In this instance you simply assume that a fertilized cell is identical to an adult, that both are moral agents, and this assumption has not been shown to be true.[/quote]
Nope, never assumed or implied that a fertilized cell is identical to an adult at all. And no, my not doing so does not affect my arguments in any way that I can see.
Also, lets be clear about this. We are all always exercising control over others. There are behaviors that are simply not acceptable, for example, killing eskimoes because you think they are ten feet tall and shoot fire from their eyes;> Because I value life, all life, I would defend the eskimo (the innocent), even to the extent of killing the attacker.
Would you say that killing the attacker makes me anti-life? Knowing that I would have not killed the attacker if he had ceased his attack, where does the responsibility for his death belong? With him? With me? With the eskimo for being to weak to protect himself?
My belief is simply this:
If I believe a thing to be living and I believe life to be valuable then, when I have the means to defend that thing from attack I, personally, am obligated to do so.
Any of you that don’t share this feeling of obligation should rest comfortably knowing that I will protect your life also.
So, the question, for me, is one of life even if you don’t understand it. For me, the existence or non-existence of God has no bearing on the issue of abortion. Life, all life, is valuable and worth protecting so, when does life begin? That is the question and I don’t have the answer either.
BTW,
Success is “The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted” i.e. a goal.
[quote post="265"]I spoke nothing of gaols, rather I refered to your actual posts in which there is a strong line of anti-reason. I pointed out that anti-reason never reveals truth, therefore is ineffective. Nothing in this implies anything about a gaol, so your ad hominem simply fails to be accurate. [/quote]
LOL!
So you simply deny all that has been presented without any hint of real response? You claim to value life, but the refutations to that have been presented in spades without once being addressed in any fashion. Care to address those now?
As for protecting life, you clearly dismiss actual living, as you decree that you will only “protect” life as long as they conform to your personal desires. You do not leave people alone to actually live their lives.
I would point out that you are categorically mistaken about the assertion that we all necessarily force others to live the lives we decree, in the manner in which you are doing. I have never and will never control the life of another and find the very notion appalling. That you embrace it so much as to pretend that everyone else is likewise embraceing totalitarianism, or slavery to others, speaks only of your own view and desired conclusion.
As I noted you (and all pro-forced maternity folks) do not value life at all, rather wish to force their own beliefs on others as a means to control them and nothing more. If you valued life, you would take your own to refrain from taking the life of others, including plants, animals, and various microbes. Simple mathematics… As you are typing I presume that you are alive, and since all human life necessitates the ending of other life, either you are NOT pro-life, else you are arbitrarily deciding what life counts to you (including dismissing all pregnant female life as without any worth whatsoever). No other options exist. Care to address this?
[quote post="265"]So you simply deny all that has been presented without any hint of real response? You claim to value life, but the refutations to that have been presented in spades without once being addressed in any fashion. Care to address those now?[/quote]
Nope, you are wrong. Plain and simple. No refutiations have been made to my love of life unless you have decided that I am against abortion, which I have never said. Don’t act like you know me.
[quote post="265"]I would point out that you are categorically mistaken about the assertion that we all
necessarily force others to live the lives we decree, in the manner in which you are doing. I have never and will never control the life of another and find the very notion appalling. That you embrace it so much as to pretend that everyone else is likewise embraceing totalitarianism, or slavery to others, speaks only of your own view and desired conclusion. [/quote]
If I or another attacks you or your loved ones will you not defend yourself or them? If you do then you are not allowing the attacker to be free as they choose and are deciding that your life, or that of a loved one, is more valuable. If you don’t well, your either a religious zealot (I doubt) a wimp or an idiot. If you do not recognize the difference between innocent life an violent life you are beyond help.
[quote post="265"]As I noted you (and all pro-forced maternity folks) do not value life at all, rather wish to force their own beliefs on others as a means to control them and nothing more. If you valued life, you would take your own to refrain from taking the life of others, including plants, animals, and various microbes. Simple mathematics… As you are typing I presume that you are alive, and since all human life necessitates the ending of other life, either you are NOT pro-life, else you are arbitrarily deciding what life counts to you (including dismissing all pregnant female life as without any worth whatsoever). No other options exist. Care to address this?[/quote]
Yes, I’ll address this. Let me start by saying that I thought you were intelligent, now I think I may have been mistaken.
Again, you attack me and apparently mistake that I am “pro-forced” maternity. You should not pretend to know me it makes you ignorant.
Plants? Come on. Check into the philosophy of Buddhism which abhors the killing of all life but points out that the human view of the life of plants is not the same as that of animals.
Microbes, animals? Yes I value them. Yes, I value them to different degrees and no, I don’t claim to be correct in the order of importance I have placed on them. I believe I am correct in my order of importance and noone has proven me wrong yet.
In my order innocent life is more important than violent life. Plain and simple. I might be wrong but, if I am, so is every society that has laws against violent crime, especially if the punishments could include the death of the attacker.
I value all life but realize that there is a natural order of precedence. You assertion to the contrary is simply stupid. I offer you this simple scientific test. Come attack another person, or an innocent animal, in front of me and see what happens.
“including dismissing all pregnant female life as without any worth whatsoever” Once again, you assume I am anti-abortion, stop making an ass of yourself with assumptions.
Arbitrary or not, every animal has a value proposition that decrees the order of importance of other life - if you wish to argue this do it with action not words. Show me that you do not value your life, or the life of your loved ones, above those of an attacker.
Oh, and for your attempts at logic and “simple mathematics”. — Fuck simple mathematics, this is life and death we are talking about, math can go to hell (any level it chooses).
Also,
If “simple mathematics” where in play, and you value life as you have indicated then…
If you were attacked by multiple attackers you would let them kill you?
Certainly you know this is not representative of reality.
I have no pretense nor need to know you, as we differ in approaches in that I do not comment upon you as a person, nor presume any omniscience on my part, rather I comment directly upon your own statements and the fact that they fail miserably to relate to reality.
Denying the refutations offered does not, and will not make them disappear.
Though you are arguing not merely an absurd strawman, you are also arguing false dichotomy when you offer this bit: [quote] If you don’t well, your either a religious zealot (I doubt) a wimp or an idiot. If you do not recognize the difference between innocent life an violent life you are beyond help.[/quote]
I am not the one claiming to value all and only “life” while killing millions of other life forms. I respect moral agency and morality instead. “Life” is merely tangential at best, being a necessary but not sufficient condition.
[quote]Yes, I’ll address this. Let me start by saying that I thought you were intelligent, now I think I may have been mistaken.[/quote]
Ad hominems such as this speak very loudly about your person and your argument..
I make no pretense to know you. I merely respond to the words you offer. For all I know you are lying with every word, but being a peaceful, intelligent, reasonable person I take your words at face value, as if you actually meant them, even though you argue against them with every other statement. You cannot honestly fault me for taking your claims at face value.
I am more than a bit familiar with buddhism, and this mistaken appeal to authority in no way supports your pretense of being “pro-life.”
Most societies actually embrace violence over peace, if you disagree perhaps you will enlighten us as to the societies which embrace anarchy.. Government is necessarily violence and coercion, therefore your argument relies at best upon many applications of part-whole fallacies inwhich you universalize from at best a small sample. Nested fallacies never make for sound arguments.
[quote] I value all life but realize that there is a natural order of precedence.[/quote]
Ah.. so life is valuable, until something or someone more powerful decides to end it.. okay, well that too defeats your conclusions just as well..
[quote] “including dismissing all pregnant female life as without any worth whatsoever” Once again, you assume I am anti-abortion, stop making an ass of yourself with assumptions.[/quote]
Your repeated use of adhominem in place of any evidence or argument aside, I can only take your claims at face value.. if you mean to say something else, then I can only suggest that you drop the assumption that either others deny the law of non-contradiction, or that they read your mind to determine which of the contrary assertions you mean at a given time.
[quote] Arbitrary or not, every animal has a value proposition that decrees the order of importance of other life - if you wish to argue this do it with action not words. Show me that you do not value your life, or the life of your loved ones, above those of an attacker.[/quote]
You continue to mistake me for you, in that you wish for me to argue YOUR strawman position, which has been repeatedly refuted. I value moral agency rather than stipulating which entities arbitrarily I will value. Drop your assumptions and read what has been written and this confusion on your part will disappear.
Lovely how you dismiss what is necessitated by your own claims by simply telling us all to ignore (the polite inference) logic, reason, reality, and mathematics..
Again you have merely demonstrated that in fact your position is FAR from being pro-life, but rather is simply some self-contradictory position which values various individuals variously (again completely arbitrarily) without any regard to moral worth, moral agency, or morality in general.
Do you care to address any of the points actually made?
oh and just so the none too subtle point is not missed, you claim to be againt violent life, and to value it above innocent life, but as has been pointed out repeatedly to no avial, you continue to choose to promote violence and violent life over innocent life by choosing to continue to aggressively attack and kill innocent life. That means that you are in fact BEING the very violent life you claim to condemn, and on top of this you are doing this not by responding to aggressors, but rather by viciously attacking purely innocent life and ending it without any regard for it. This is all by your own claims and by the fact that you continue to exist. Therefore by your own example, your claims are necessarily false.
[quote post="265"]you claim to be againt violent life, and to value it above innocent life, but as has been pointed out repeatedly to no avial, you continue to choose to promote violence and violent life over innocent life by choosing to continue to aggressively attack and kill innocent life.[/quote]
Where have you seen a single post indicating that I choose to “continue to aggressively attack and kill innocent life?” It doesn’t exist, I have not avoided any questions to this point and you have not pointed to any weaknesses in my points. You lie to protect your own fragile and terribly put together opinion. Why do you so cowardly choose to avoid answering my challenges?
[quote post="265"]and on top of this you are doing this not by responding to aggressors, but rather by viciously attacking purely innocent life and ending it without any regard for it. This is all by your own claims and by the fact that you continue to exist. Therefore by your own example, your claims are necessarily false.[/quote]
Where am I “viciously attacking purely innocent life and ending it without any regard for it?” Seriously, if I knew you in any real sense this would be considered slanderous. Stop hiding, come out into the light of reality, skip your false logic for the truth that, at a minimum, we all value some life over other life and stop demanding your concept of perfection in communication.
I guess it would be simple to prove me wrong. You would simply have to show where I had “viciously attacking purely innocent life and ending it without any regard for it.” You simply can’t do it. But, I guess you think that you can put everyone that disagrees with you in one box and be correct. Sorry, I don’t think so.
I am referring to the point I have been repeatedly raising in which I note that by living you are taking the life of a great many others. So far all you have done is dismiss other life as less worthy than your own, in exactly the same way that you dismiss the life of women, at least pregnant women, as less worthy than you achieving your own desire to dictate how they should live their life. The fact that you take life, regardless of arbitrary personal valuation you choose to put upon that life of others, stands as conclusive evidence that any claim of being “pro-life” is necessarily and irrefutably false.
The life you take for your own survival, as well as the lives you seek to domninate, are purely innocent. They offer up no aggression towards you or any other, yet you kill them anyway. This makes you the aggressor, as already explained, so if we take your claims at their meaning, your words stipulate that you do not value your life because you state that you value innocent life over violent life, but your actions scream that you value your own life, even or perhaps especially where you are choosing to act violently against innocent life, higher than that of the innocent life you are taking. Clearly there is a direct contradiction here which undermines the claims being made, and certainly stands as sufficient evident that the argument being used is invalid.
BTW the ad hominems continue to undermine your position, and speak very loudly if not well about your position and nature.
[quote post="265"]The life you take for your own survival, as well as the lives you seek to domninate, are purely innocent. They offer up no aggression towards you or any other, yet you kill them anyway. This makes you the aggressor,[/quote]
I think we now have a good example of a reductio ad absurdum argument. And absurd it is, TX.
Indeed, but that does not stop the grossly inappropriately labled “pro-life” movement from abusing the name. I realize that you are trying in vain to be clever, but trying to mock honesty and reason only reflects upon yourself. Rather than drop the absurd and clearly false label you insist on holding on to it while denying reality. Can you imagine anything more absurd?
TXStorm,
Sorry, I’ve been away for a few days helping disaster victims so I’ve been unable to answer your absurd assertions.
[quote post="265"]I am referring to the point I have been repeatedly raising in which I note that by living you are taking the life of a great many others. So far all you have done is dismiss other life as less worthy than your own, in exactly the same way that you dismiss the life of women, at least pregnant women, as less worthy than you achieving your own desire to dictate how they should live their life.[/quote]
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Once again, I’ve never claimed to want to dictate how women live. I’ve never declared myself to be anti-abortion. All I’ve said, and it’s quite simple to understand if you try, is this:
If it is a life it deserves protection. So, the question for me, is: When does life begin? If I knew the answer to that I would defend that life as completely as I would a child from a kidnapper, a woman from a rapist, and any human from a murderer or attacker.
[quote post="265"]The fact that you take life, regardless of arbitrary personal valuation you choose to put upon that life of others, stands as conclusive evidence that any claim of being “pro-life” is necessarily and irrefutably false.[/quote]
Every living thing seems to have developed a value hierarchy for living. Every living thing will kill some other living thing for its survival. Most living things will also fight to defend its life and the life of its loved ones (children). Your argument has no basis in reality outside of language.
[quote post="265"]The life you take for your own survival, as well as the lives you seek to domninate, are purely innocent. They offer up no aggression towards you or any other, yet you kill them anyway. This makes you the aggressor[/quote]
And, somehow in your twisted mind, it would be more “pro-life” to let myself die? If this is really what logic is, call me gleefully illogical.
You’ve now shown beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt that your concept of logic is completely justaposed to reality. Look around and you shall see that this is simply the way the world works. You are playing semantics and making it abundantly clear that you are as completely disconnected from reality as anyone ever has been.
I can stop now simply because you’ve shown yourself, through this insane line of argument, to anyone and everyone that is willing to read it. Check mate.
Sorry, I did not realize that TXStorm had been banned.
I do not want future readers to think that he choose not to respond because he was defeated or believes he is wrong. I wish to make it clear that I do not think he would have backed down yet and nobody should draw any conclusions from a lack of a response on his (or her, not sure) part.
No Way,
Please excuse me for jumping in here, please be assured that I post not in the defense of the former poster, but for the argument itself.
For the sake of the argument at hand I would like to just clear something up. It looks (to me) as though it would be perfectly acceptable for you to kill millions of living things that have done nothing wrong to you (I’m talking about micro organisms, as well as the plant and animal life a normal human takes daily for their own sake) but taking the life of a fetus or zygote is wrong simply because it is human.
Plenty of people think that way but it’s wrong (IMO) because it doesn’t make any logical sense. The reason being that it’s not human yet. It’s actually a part of that woman’s body, something she should be free to do or have done at her own will. Stopping her from having an abortion would be akin to stopping her from eating ice cream, getting a tattoo, or doing anything else with her body that she is free to do.
The “Potential human” argument doesn’t work either because lots of things are potential OTHER things, but we treat things as they are at this time. Florida is a potential island, but they drive cars, not boats.
A question that I foresee (I think you asked it before) is “When does a fetus become a human?” A good question too, because I’m not sure. However it’s quite clear that the moment someone becomes human is after they are born (maybe RIGHT when they are born?) but not before.
Kren,
As I’ve stated before, I’ve followed this site for a while. I have a lot of respect for your posting/discussion style and completely accept your post as not being in defense of the previous author. That said, here we go :>
[quote post="265"]Plenty of people think that way but it’s wrong (IMO) because it doesn’t make any logical sense. The reason being that it’s not human yet. It’s actually a part of that woman’s body, something she should be free to do or have done at her own will.[/quote]
From what you have posted above my line of reasoning would be correct if it was human, correct? I say that because you said that that the line of reasoning is incorrect because it wasn’t human yet.
Yes, it is your opinion, and I respect that. Now let me ask you this. If a baby (fetus, etc…) can be ripped from the body of a dying mother (at her request) at five months and live a happy and healthy life, was it human only at the second it was physically removed from the mother or even a millisecond before? If it had not been removed would it still have been human?
This is not an easy question. But, if it capable of living on it’s own I believe we have an obligation to protect it as I think it’s life (being human) as valuable as mine. Whether we have to nurish it or not is of no consequence. That is because, I think we would all agree, a baby should be defended from an abusive parent even though it could not survive on its own (i.e. we would have to nurish it).
[quote post="265"]However it’s quite clear that the moment someone becomes human is after they are born (maybe RIGHT when they are born?) but not before.[/quote]
I don’t see how this is clear. Baby’s have been removed from a mother via emergency operations much earlier than they would naturally be born and have lived happy and healthy human lives. If a thing could be removed from a mother at five months and live on it’s own why would it only become human after it was born four months later?
I’m not arguing that the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg there is life. There may be but I, for one, cannot show it to be so to an extent that I would interfere with another’s life.
However, I am saying that the moment we can prove it to be a sustainable life the “choices” phase should be considered over and the “consequences” phase should be considered to have started. Otherwise, what sustainable life deserves protection?
No Way,
[quote post="265"]If a baby (fetus, etc…) can be ripped from the body of a dying mother (at her request) at five months and live a happy and healthy life, was it human only at the second it was physically removed from the mother or even a millisecond before? If it had not been removed would it still have been human?[/quote]
That’s a good question, and I think this will be the point in which we’ll agree to disagree. I don’t know. Some people would figure that a life is moral, and deserves moral protection (human status) only when it can MAKE moral decisions. Others would say that even a fertilized egg is human, because it’s a human egg, and human sperm… it would eventually become human, and should be treated as if it already is one. Those are two extremes that I cannot argue the case for either way.
But to further sharpen my point, the fetus or whatever, that is ripped from a womans body would not be in any existence at all had it not been that mother who allowed it to live inside of her body… something which SHE alone should have total control over.
Now to side track for just a bit, the fetus that is ripped out ALSO wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the males sperm. BUT, it’s the nature of man to make and continue making millions of sperm throughout his life, and to surrender each and every sperm to the care of the woman he chooses to have sex with. Basically it is a gift from him to her and as long that sperm is in her body it is part of her body.
Back to the point, I’m sure I won’t be able to answer when or not someone is a human, but the mother definitely IS, and should be treated as such. Therefore, to stop her from having an abortion is to rip her of the freedom she has over her own body.
So the point in which one becomes human doesn’t actually really matter in the case of an abortion, that life IS a potential human, but solely dependent on the choices of the (already human) mother.
Kren,
I can respect that point, though I would disagree….
I believe the moment it can be removed and sustained the choice should be over…. it is a sustainable life that can be protected without endangering the life of the mother. Freedom (or the temporary loss of it), which I also highly value, is not as important to me as life.\
After all, neither I, nor anyone else, is completely free to do as they choose. This is especially true when my choices interfere with other sustainable life.
With that said, I don’t think we need to continue this discussion (but we can if you wish) because I think we are both reasonable people who are completely capable of taking the facts and opinions into consideration. Besides, I’m sure the argument will present itself again.
Sorry, one more point I forgot to make.
The mothers status as a human was never in question for me. I can only advocate protecting the “life” inside the mother if it is not a threat to the mother herself.
No Way,
[quote post="265"]With that said, I don’t think we need to continue this discussion (but we can if you wish) because I think we are both reasonable people who are completely capable of taking the facts and opinions into consideration. Besides, I’m sure the argument will present itself again.[/quote]
Sure, the discussion isn’t really going to go anywhere since we both have our points, but please allow me to make one more.
We both are reasonable people yes, but you’ve noted that I have made good points on this subject. Well since we are or are not talking about taking life, or freedom, shouldn’t you be 100% sure about everything involved before enstating a LAW which FORCES somebody to do something?
I understand your reasoning, and I don’t think it make someone a BAD human being. It’s quite altruistic to want to preserve life. You can think of it different ways too. It only takes a bit of thought, or the act of looking in the mirror and smiling to notice that a human is a predatory animal. Killing isn’t just something humans are familiar with, but something we our bodies are DESIGNED for. (Even non predatory animals kill… actually any living thing thrives from the death of other living things, microscopic or otherwise.)
A bit back on topic, killing a fetus causes only that fetus harm. Killing an adult causes much more harm, and they can’t be thought of as equal acts. If you wish to protect all POSSIBLE forms of human life… I understand, but good luck. Because that means saving every sperm.
You’ve stated that you wish it to be a law that once a woman is pregnant, she should be FORCED to have that child. At the same time I can make points against this and (Not to paint a rude picture here) you basically shake your head at any facts offered. This would mean that had you the power, you’d be enforcing laws that you yourself are unsure of.
Don’t you see the problem there?
Kren,
Yes, I think you should be sure before you force someone to do something. With that said, I think we can be certain fairly early on. Medical science can tell us when a “potential human baby” could be removed from a mother and live a healthy and productive life. Since medical science has that answer I think we should listen.
“You’ve stated that you wish it to be a law that once a woman is pregnant, she should be FORCED to have that child.”
I think you must have confused my posts with those of another. I have never said that at all. If it can be infered from something I have said then we are having a communications issue only. I’m more of a middle of the road kind of guy. I don’t think it needs to be banned completely (which, incidently has been attempted and proven ineffective anyway) but, I believe premature births and other incidents of early child-birth show that the “potential human baby” (I hope this phrase works to not muddy the waters) is capable of life outside of the mother before the normal 9 month period. I further believe that once it is capable of life outside the mother it deserves some protection, though I’m not sure what kind.
The main problem I see with my argument is that someone will ultimately take it to the extreme and say something like “a fertilized egg can be removed from the mother and transfered to another so it should be protected from second one”. I fully acknowledge that weakness in my position and understand my position to be a bit messy, much like real life is.
Also, I apologize if you feel that I “basically shake my head at any facts offered”. I don’t feel I have done that at all.
Sorry if I misquoted you, I must have been mistaken.
In which case I withdraw the ’shaking the head” comment as it only had to do with the prior misquote.
[quote post="265"]Hi. I think that abortion should be prosecuted as murder, both mother and doctor.[/quote]
See, yeah I did mistake that as your quote. My bad.
That was actually from Logismous Kathairountes.