|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, I suggest that you choose your words carefully and indicate that something is irrelevant to you instead of declaring it irrelevant to the whole discussion.
Seriously, it would be perfectly possible to make that point without coming across in such a rude and dismissive fashion, Ingo. You did it again in the last sentence of your most recent post.
[ 07. May 2015, 11:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I suggest that you choose your words carefully and indicate that something is irrelevant to you instead of declaring it irrelevant to the whole discussion.
Your original post explicitly addressed me, and what I was saying. You set that context, not me. Furthermore, once the inaccuracies of your comment have been clarified, what remains of it that is relevant to the "whole discussion" on this thread? What is the significance of historical opinions concerning human development held non-officially in the RCC, if they did not influence the general judgement of morality in the RC but merely modified specific canonical penalties? Why point to Aristotelian biology if its effect on RC policy was only ever skin-deep, and in fact now unchanged doctrine and changed canonical penalties are both directly compatible with modern biology?
Best I can tell, you wish for the Church to re-adpot Aristotelian biology, but use a modern style of philosophical analysis (which considers only "fully human" souls as worthy of protection) and then use that to create new space in the moral judgement about abortion (which has been unequivocal throughout Church history) for the accommodation of modern secular abortion practices.
But that's just ... silly.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh for goodness' sake, Ingo, you're guessing an entire worldview for me on the basis of one comment.
Kindly don't go about speculating my thoughts on abortion. I play my cards very close to my chest on that subject, precisely because I find it a difficult one. And also because as a gay man it's highly unlikely to be a practical issue for me and I don't think my opinion holds any great weight.
I've no idea whether what you say is "silly" is silly or not. I do know, though, that you've pulled it out of thin air rather than out of anything I actually said. Cut it out.
[ 07. May 2015, 12:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Cut it out.
Will do, if you stop hyperventilating at me.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Wow. Again.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting This is getting too personal in its focus on both sides. Please take personal arguments to Hell. And please don't accuse other posters of 'hyperventilating' that's straying into C3 territory.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This distinction between "moral doctrine" and "canonical penalty" should not be difficult for you as a lawyer. In secular terms, what I'm saying there is that the Church has been entirely consistent in condemning all abortion as (morally) gravely wrong, but has varied in what it has declared to be criminal (an offence punishable by Church law). There is of course a kind of evaluation implicit in elevating something that is wrong to the status of criminal.
I'd say there is a pretty major distinction between saying something is gravely sinful and saying something is murder.
I agree with Stetson here - if abortion is infanticide, there is basically no moral choice except to legislate against it, and one is quite justified in physically trying to stop abortion clinics from operating, just as one would probably be quite justified in burning down a pharmaceuticals factory that made life-saving drugs by murdering and processing babies.
If abortion is a grave sin, but a 'purity' issue analogous to pornography, gay sex or masturbation, it's not so obvious that the best way to combat it is via legislation.
[ 12. May 2015, 18:29: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
My own position, after years of wrestling with it, is thus:
So far as I can tell, abortion is indeed taking an innocent human life, and is therefore murder.
However, attempting to legally prevent that won't actually stop it from happening, but instead will make things catastrophically worse (back alleys, coat hangers, drinking bleach, throwing oneself down flights of stairs repeatedly to induce miscarriage, etc.).
What does seem to actually help is an array of things, including a better social safety net for mothers, childcare for working mothers, treating unexpectedly expectant mothers with kindness rather than with life-destroying social stigmas (and ditto the treatment of the children born out of wedlock), birth control options made readily available, and the like. Making adoption easier. Possibly even putting some of the vast amounts of money that go into the politics of trying to make abortion illegal into medical procedures and technology that actually would allow a fetus to grow outside the body earlier--or even, in some cases, to transplant the fetus into the womb of someone who wants to carry the baby to term and raise it. But even apart from speculative technology, those other methods have actually done a great deal to cut down on abortion already.
I don't think that harassing or screaming at people in front of clinics is helpful either. Nor big photos of aborted fetuses on signs. I don't think that will soften the hearts of those who are seeking abortion.
My understanding of the early Church's approach to such things, when unwanted infants were left in the woods to die of exposure, was to comb the woods periodically to rescue and raise them, not focus on making the laws punish the people who abandoned them. (Not to mention the level of authority, sometimes including life and death, that parents had over their children--see here, for example.)
And, as has been said often in recent times, a lot of the politics of the people who are the most vocally anti-abortion (not people on this thread--I mean politicians, etc.) seems to suggest that their care and concern ends the moment the child is actually born, being quite happy to cut social programs, school lunches for the poor, and the like.
[ 16. May 2015, 00:58: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Exactly. I do not understand why all churches are not handing out birth control like candy.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
We do.
No, wait, we haven't the money--but I do birth control teaching and counseling for soon-to-be-marrieds and also for confirmation students (that would be ages 12-13). We also give them concrete direction on what to do if it all goes South anyway and they're panicking.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?
Stop being self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own position, after years of wrestling with it, is thus:
So far as I can tell, abortion is indeed taking an innocent human life, and is therefore murder.
However, attempting to legally prevent that won't actually stop it from happening, but instead will make things catastrophically worse (back alleys, coat hangers, drinking bleach, throwing oneself down flights of stairs repeatedly to induce miscarriage, etc.)....
The problem with the murder argument is that abortion is rarely treated as murder. Anywhere. If someone is charged with a crime as a result of an abortion, it is usually a specific crime such as procuring an abortion, feticide, child destruction, fetal homicide, whatever, but rarely murder. Yes, I know about the nutjob in Philadelphia, and sometimes women who have had miscarriages have been charged with murder, but those are the exception, not the rule. Even in places where abortion is strictly illegal, the crime is still abortion, not murder. And let's face it, if it was murder, it would be murder in the first degree - premeditation, motive, accomplice, etc.
No one would ever say "We don't legislate against murder because people will always find some way to kill other people." We also aren't usually too concerned if someone kills themselves while in the process of trying to commit a murder. Again, if abortion is murder, we seem to treat it as a different sort of murder. If abortion is rarely treated as murder by most legal systems, then why? One possible reason is that women who choose to abort are somehow diminished in capacity, and so it isn't a rational decision. Another possibility is that abortion is self-defense. Or any other number of arguments. It still isn't usually treated as murder, even in places where it is strictly illegal.
Finally, there's the awesome video in which the Libertyville protesters are actually asked how women who commit murder - er, sorry, have abortions, should be punished. The best they can come up with is "we should pray for them" or "it's between her and God". Talk about soft on crime ...
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?
Stop being self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks?
Pro-choice has plenty of those as well. No matter one's choice, it is a nuanced issue.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?
Stop being self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks?
Pro-choice has plenty of those as well. No matter one's choice, it is a nuanced issue.
I wasn't asked how the pro-choice movement could have wider appeal. Your comment in that sense is irrelevant. This isn't a contest about who is more obnoxious. I took it to be a sincere question about how to improve the image of a movement, not a tit-for-tat. "Those guys are jerks too" is not an excuse for jerkish behavior, ESPECIALLY jerkish behavior by Christians. Two vices don't make a virtue.
Nuance? People screaming outside Planned Parenthood clinics are not nuanced, and bring grave discredit to the movement they are the most visible face of. When the public at large thinks of the pro-life movement, what comes to their mind? Screamers, "Christian" companies firing women who use birth control, women being charged with murder for having a miscarriage, and so on. That's your image, pro-lifers, like it or not. What are you doing to change it? I don't mean what are you doing that runs counter to that. I mean what are you doing, in the public eye, to CHANGE the image?
Every time some Muslim (to take one example) commits an act of violence, people howl "why don't moderate Muslims decry this violence?" Where are the pro-lifers decrying what is done in front of Planned Parenthood clinics? Decrying idiot politicians and thug business owners taking out their "conscience" on pregnant, or even just fertile, women?
Where are the voices of love for the women? Those voices need to be louder. Much louder. MUCH MUCH LOUDER. Loud enough to drown out the voices that speak oppression and hate. Only then will the pro-life movement have wider appeal.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
These people should be shilling birth control. Handing out condoms. Funding discounts for women to go to gynecologists. (Like say, Planned Parenthood!)
That they so often refuse to do this -- that they, for instance, picket Planned Parenthood facilities -- tells you that the fetus, the child, and indeed the welfare of the mother means little or nothing to them. What is the real focus of interest? By process of elimination, I fear I can guess. They want to control women having sex.
And that is why I am implacable against them. When I want someone's attention Down There, I will explicitly and clearly invite it. You do not get any say in it, until I do.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
mt,
The screaming nut jobs are not the Pro-life movement entire, just the part people like to point to. I don't buy that it is a rational person's responsibility to decry the crazies. People don't believe it, the media won't cover it and it is a more difficult concept to convey. Much easier to fit "abortion is murder" or "it's a woman's choice" on a sign than "We feel that all life is important. Between conception and birth, the cell union becomes a person. It is not a single point, but an arbitrary assessment. That said, we understand the need to assign that point and that the woman, as the realised person in the equation, has precedence. We would prefer to educate people to avoid conception rather than terminate pregnancy. We would see women recieve love and support regardless of their choice. But we would rather prevent the problem than fix it afterward"
And getting people to fund that message.
Honestly, though, I would not associate myself with either movement because of the rhetoric of the extremists.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... That they so often refuse to do this -- that they, for instance, picket Planned Parenthood facilities -- tells you that the fetus, the child, and indeed the welfare of the mother means little or nothing to them. What is the real focus of interest? By process of elimination, I fear I can guess. They want to control women having sex. ...
They also always ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood provides many health services, not just help planning parenthood. All their efforts to shut down Planned Parenthood are screaming very loudly that they really, really don't care if women die from cancer or can't get treatment for an STD as long as they can't have an abortion. They don't picket IVF facilities which create and destroy thousands of embryos every year or shame celebrities that have had children by IVF. (Remind me again ... how many "fetal reductions" did the Octomom have?) And of course, they almost unanimously oppose the Affordable Care Act, which covers contraception and preventive health care. How can the "pro-life" movement improve its appeal? How about being pro-ALL-life? Because it's pretty obvious that all they're really interested in now is good old-fashioned slut-shaming.
Oh, yeah, and one more thing: I dare, I double-dog dare anyone who says abortion is murder to walk up to a woman in your life (and there's probably more than one) who has had an abortion and call her a murderer to her face. I guarantee it will be much harder and much riskier than just typing "abortion is murder" on teh intrawebz or wielding a sign at a protest. But be brave -- after all, she's already killed once -- and let us know how it went.
ETA: lilBuddha, your last paragraph and your sig seem oddly juxtaposed
[ 16. May 2015, 16:05: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The prejudices surface, and they never fit other than in the imagination of the holder. Women can do what they like with their own bodies, so can men, they're responsible and accountable for what they do. When they harm someone else it's another matter. The baby inside them is someone else.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is this sort of thing that excites contempt:
Hypocrite
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Soror Magna,
I am not advocating neutrality. I am not neutral. However, saying one is pro choice or pro life, one is associated with the extremists of either group.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is this sort of thing that excites contempt:
Hypocrite
Their reporting of it, and your linking it, accentuates my point.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The prejudices surface, and they never fit other than in the imagination of the holder. Women can do what they like with their own bodies, so can men, they're responsible and accountable for what they do. When they harm someone else it's another matter. The baby inside them is someone else.
It's not a baby (baby by definition is a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.) it's a fetus and not everyone accepts that before viability it is "someone else." And even if you consider it a somebody, no one has the right to force another into involuntary servitude in the US anyway and so the point is moot since forced gestation akin to involuntary servitude.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Now I've heard it all.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't buy that it is a rational person's responsibility to decry the crazies.
Responsibility, Shmesponsibility. The question asked is how can the movement have wider appeal, not whose responsibility is it to do what. And there will not be wider appeal until the crazies are shouted down from within.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The problem with the murder argument is that abortion is rarely treated as murder.
That's not especially relevant to whether or not, metaphysically and not legally, it is, in fact, murder.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oh, yeah, and one more thing: I dare, I double-dog dare anyone who says abortion is murder to walk up to a woman in your life (and there's probably more than one) who has had an abortion and call her a murderer to her face.
I don't especially go out of my way to go up to people I know--and I have known quite a few people in this situation, actually--who were married, and then (not in an open relationship, but secretly) got into sexual relationships with other people before the marriage broke up--and call them adulterers to their face. Why should I? If they think what they did was wrong, then they're likely sorry for it, and my doing that won't help. If they think what they did was right, then my doing that still won't help. Ditto this.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Though to carry the parallel further here, as some can probably guess, most of the adulterers I'm thinking of are gay people who came out after they were married to someone of the opposite sex. And what might help the most to keep that from happening, without adultery and divorce--and what has helped the most to keep that from happening--is changing the culture so that people don't feel pressured to pretend to be straight and get married to someone of the opposite sex and so on in the first place. And thus my suggestions above for how best to reduce the number of abortions: A better social safety net, birth control, and so on, rather than more punitive laws.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Now I've heard it all.
Actually, the argument about forced gestation being akin to involuntary servitude goes back at least to 1971, and the dying violinist.
Though the general consensus seems to be that the argument is not quite the slam-dunk that Thomson and her allies want it to be, since if accepted, it raises a whole lotta questions about just when the state CAN impose obligations on someone.
Good essay, nonetheless. Thomson's talent for constructing thought-experiments is unparallelled.
[ 17. May 2015, 00:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
The privacy of one's body is generally considered sacrosanct by American courts. Adults can refuse medical procedures even when those procedures are needed to save another's life. Parents are not required to donate organs, or undergo any procedure without their consent, even when it is needed to save the life of their child. In fact, the courts have ruled in cases where fathers have refused life saving donations to their own children that the right to privacy and bodily autonomy trumps. Even the deceased cannot have their organs commandeered for another's benefit without either prior consent or consent of their next of kin. Respect for the individual is generally paramount under American jurisprudence principles.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Quite a contrast to here, where the Supreme Courts of the various states are asked from time to time to exercise their parens patriae jurisdiction, and give consent to medical procedures for those under 18, or otherwise unable to exercise their own will. The most common example used be to give the necessary consent for a blood transfusion for a child of Jehovah's Witness parents, but other examples spring up from time to time. While the hearing is in closed court, it is otherwise a proper hearing and those seeking the order are required to satisfy the judge that the procedure is clinically necessary; those objecting have the right to test the evidence. While the judgements are rendered anonymous, the usual procedure here for any case concerning children, they are published.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I specified adult because there the case is clearer. But even children are given consideration. There have been several cases where a child is a match for a sibling or close relative like a cousin for example but does not wish to donate bone marrow, etc and the court has upheld their decision to not undergo the procedure.This is made more fraught by the fact that the child was sometimes conceived for the purpose of providing biological material to an ailing sibling. As for minor children having the right to refuse life saving treatment for themselves (there was a high profile chemo case recently decided here) or a parent's right to deny them that treatment that's a different kettle of fish. While the law does step in when required and rule that a life saving treatment cannot be denied the child it does not require that the blood or organ be personally donated by the parents or any particular individual and does not obligate them in any way that would result in their being denied bodily integrity even if they are a perfect (or only) match. The blood or organ must come from a willing individual who consented to the donation.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The privacy of one's body is generally considered sacrosanct by American courts. Adults can refuse medical procedures even when those procedures are needed to save another's life. Parents are not required to donate organs, or undergo any procedure without their consent, even when it is needed to save the life of their child. In fact, the courts have ruled in cases where fathers have refused life saving donations to their own children that the right to privacy and bodily autonomy trumps. Even the deceased cannot have their organs commandeered for another's benefit without either prior consent or consent of their next of kin. Respect for the individual is generally paramount under American jurisprudence principles.
Good summary. As far as I can tell, this argument began to be used by some pro-life people, as it avoids the interminable arguments about what a person is, and the status of the foetus. But some seem to find it an implausible or distasteful argument. But maybe one cannot find a watertight case for abortion, since it's not purely a rational choice.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sorry, that should be pro-choice, just got up!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sorry that I misread your post to be referring to operations etc for children. While there is no requirement here that an adult donate an organ or blood for a child, there are general requirements that a parent maintain a child.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Now I've heard it all.
Actually, the argument about forced gestation being akin to involuntary servitude goes back at least to 1971, and the dying violinist.
Though the general consensus seems to be that the argument is not quite the slam-dunk that Thomson and her allies want it to be, since if accepted, it raises a whole lotta questions about just when the state CAN impose obligations on someone.
Good essay, nonetheless. Thomson's talent for constructing thought-experiments is unparallelled.
Thank you for showing me this. It horrifies me that anyone can compare the nurturing of a baby inside the womb which is formed from the woman's DNA and so a part of her, to that of a kidnapped woman being forced to keep someone unconnected to her alive for nine months.
The idea that she is justified in unplugging herself even though the stranger may die ignores the third party implication too, the one she calls upon to pull the plug.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... I don't especially go out of my way to go up to people I know--and I have known quite a few people in this situation, actually--who were married, and then (not in an open relationship, but secretly) got into sexual relationships with other people before the marriage broke up--and call them adulterers to their face. Why should I? If they think what they did was wrong, then they're likely sorry for it, and my doing that won't help. If they think what they did was right, then my doing that still won't help. Ditto this.
Adultery is an odd counter-example to choose. After all, in the Old Testament, causing a miscarriage results in a fine, but the punishment for adultery is death. So if adultery attracts a more severe punishment than abortion, and if abortion is murder, then logically adultery is a worse crime than murder. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion. Unless their normal response to a murder is "If they think what they did was wrong, then they're likely sorry for it, and my doing that won't help. If they think what they did was right, then my doing that still won't help."
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Sorry that I misread your post to be referring to operations etc for children. While there is no requirement here that an adult donate an organ or blood for a child, there are general requirements that a parent maintain a child.
No worries. It's a tough subject.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Raptor Eye, ask women who've been pregnant. Even when you want the child the foetus takes over, forces you to live your life differently for the 9 months of gestation and changes your body for ever.
The widespread allowed termination of pregnancy in the case of rape suggests a universal recognition that carrying an unwanted baby to term can be pretty traumatic.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As far as I can tell, this argument began to be used by some pro-life people, as it avoids the interminable arguments about what a person is, and the status of the foetus. But some seem to find it an implausible or distasteful argument. But maybe one cannot find a watertight case for abortion, since it's not purely a rational choice.
FWIW I am in favour of the legalisation of abortion, but find the Dying Violinist distinctly unconvincing.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It horrifies me that anyone can compare the nurturing of a baby inside the womb which is formed from the woman's DNA and so a part of her, to that of a kidnapped woman being forced to keep someone unconnected to her alive for nine months.
I don't see that the DNA bit is either here or there, unless you think it makes abortion more permissible. If abortion is wrong in the case of one's own child because one's own child is an entity with the right to life, then it's equally wrong in the case of a surrogate mother. If the DNA makes the child more part of the mother, then that backs up the argument that the baby isn't really of moral concern for its own sake.
Of course, the real problem with the Thomson argument is to ask whether it makes a difference if the person who wakes up with the violinist attached had previously had their life saved in the position of the violinist.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As far as I can tell, this argument began to be used by some pro-life people, as it avoids the interminable arguments about what a person is, and the status of the foetus. But some seem to find it an implausible or distasteful argument. But maybe one cannot find a watertight case for abortion, since it's not purely a rational choice.
FWIW I am in favour of the legalisation of abortion, but find the Dying Violinist distinctly unconvincing.
I suppose it's difficult to find an analogy with the same degree of physical intimacy. After all, one can make the same point in relation to donating blood or organs, I mean that the state does not compel you, even with your own child. But this is 'action at a distance'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Actually, the argument about forced gestation being akin to involuntary servitude goes back at least to 1971, and the dying violinist.
Thank you for showing me this. It horrifies me that anyone can compare the nurturing of a baby inside the womb which is formed from the woman's DNA and so a part of her, to that of a kidnapped woman being forced to keep someone unconnected to her alive for nine months.
It's fairly convincing and comprehensive against those arguments which arise from the idea of a fœtus having a right to life because it's a distinct individual owed protection by the state. In the case of a fœtus the argument seems to demand a set of "rights" that wouldn't be extended to any other individual in any other circumstance, like the right to inhabit someone else's body and hijack their metabolic processes. For anti-abortion arguments based on other premises the argument is less convincing, but it wasn't designed to address those arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The idea that she is justified in unplugging herself even though the stranger may die ignores the third party implication too, the one she calls upon to pull the plug.
Since we live in an era when a self-administered pharmaceutical abortion is not just a theoretical possibility, the necessity of a third party is not obvious.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Adultery is an odd counter-example to choose. After all, in the Old Testament, causing a miscarriage results in a fine, but the punishment for adultery is death. So if adultery attracts a more severe punishment than abortion, and if abortion is murder, then logically adultery is a worse crime than murder.
I wouldn't use the Old Testament here as a guideline, considering that this would also mean that blasphemy, breaking the sabbath, disobeying one's parents, and so on should be considered on the same level as adultery, i.e., capital crimes.
quote:
Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.
If abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, then the word is accurate.
quote:
Unless their normal response to a murder is "If they think what they did was wrong, then they're likely sorry for it, and my doing that won't help. If they think what they did was right, then my doing that still won't help."
If I believed the death penalty was in all cases morally wrong (I don't, though I think that here in the US it's got so many problems I'd like to see it stopped for now), then I would also believe that whoever pulled the switch (and/or the people who decided to put the criminal to death) was guilty of murder, but even if I would work to change the laws, I would not generally go up to them, and in some finger-pointing way, accuse them of murder, and for the same reason.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is a fallacious argument. Reproduction is in no way analogous to the dying violinist hijacker.
It is a complex issue whose solution isn't bullshit thought experiment or abdication of reality.
Deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancy and you reduce abortion which, frankly should be everyone's goal, regardless.
Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something which could be avoided is ridiculous.
ETA: addressed to Crœsos
[ 18. May 2015, 19:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.
If abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, then the word is accurate.
Except the anti-abortion movement is not terribly consistent with that position when it comes to criminal penalties for women who have abortions. It's hard to take someone seriously who claims both that abortion is murder, but also that it should carry a lighter sentence than jaywalking. It only really makes sense if you start with the assumption that women are moral incompetents and therefore shouldn't be held liable for their decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a fallacious argument. Reproduction is in no way analogous to the dying violinist hijacker.
It is a complex issue whose solution isn't bullshit thought experiment or abdication of reality.
Deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancy and you reduce abortion which, frankly should be everyone's goal, regardless.
And yet it isn't. As noted in the OP, no major anti-abortion group advocates in favor of contraception or better sex ed, including IngoB's supposedly feminist ones. It's an interesting question as to why this is so, given that there are plenty of individuals that both oppose legal abortion and advocate better contraception and sex ed.
Of course, unwanted pregnancies can only be reduced so far. Contraceptives fail. Rape happens. Sometimes there are pregnancies that would otherwise be very much wanted but have the disadvantage of leading to the mother's death if carried to term. A lot of smug finger wagging at how "ridiculous" women facing those situations are for resorting to medication or surgery seems both counterproductive and cruel.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something which could be avoided is ridiculous.
Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something that could have been avoided is the basis of many if not most medical practices. It's called remedy.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose it's difficult to find an analogy with the same degree of physical intimacy. After all, one can make the same point in relation to donating blood or organs, I mean that the state does not compel you, even with your own child. But this is 'action at a distance'.
The problem is that pregnancy isn't really analogous to anything other than gestation. Or possibly gravidity as well.
I am not (in general) convinced of the worth of moral intuitions sparked by a thought-experiment that is itself highly counterintuitive. This is true of trolley-cars as much as of dying violinists.
To be truly analogous to pregnancy, the dying violinist scenario would have to be so common that everyone in the world had been in the position of the dying violinist. In such a world, our moral intuitions would be, to put it mildly, somewhat different.
If you are a utilitarian consequentialist, then the only thing that matters is the consequence of your decisions, and questions about the difference between intervention and non-intervention, or about what is the natural course of events, or about who has moral agency, are all irrelevant. For everyone else, all those distinctions are relevant and they are all present in the difference between the dying violinist and a fetus.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be truly analogous to pregnancy, the dying violinist scenario would have to be so common that everyone in the world had been in the position of the dying violinist.
I'm not sure adding in the veil of ignorance necessarily improves the analogy. We don't usually insist that beneficiaries of state action also be contributors at some other point. To take a previously mentioned comparison, we usually don't legally require organ transplant recipients to register as potential organ donors prior to receiving their transplants. There may be some moral sense that perhaps they should do so, but that's a very far distance from using the coercive power of the state to require it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.
If abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, then the word is accurate.
Not necessarily. Most people who aren't pacifists think that being a soldier is a morally acceptable occupation. In which case, nothing stops a soldier from being an innocent human being. Certainly it would be murder to kill the soldier while the soldier was off duty and on leave. Given that killing a soldier in battle might well be deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being. But if it were done in battle it wouldn't be murder.
[ 18. May 2015, 21:31: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In the case of a fœtus the argument seems to demand a set of "rights" that wouldn't be extended to any other individual in any other circumstance, like the right to inhabit someone else's body and hijack their metabolic processes.
This reminds me somewhat of Erewhon:
quote:
They hold that the unborn are perpetually plaguing and tormenting the married of both sexes, fluttering about them incessantly, and giving them no peace either of mind or body until they have consented to take them under their protection. [...] The only thing of which they were quite sure was that it was the pestering of the unborn which caused them to be brought into this world, and that they would not have been here if they would have only let peaceable people alone.
It would be hard to disprove this position, and they might have a good case if they would only leave it as it stands. But this they will not do; they must have assurance doubly sure; they must have the written word of the child itself as soon as it is born, giving the parents indemnity from all responsibility on the score of its birth, and asserting its own pre-existence. They have therefore devised something which they call a birth formula—a document which varies in words according to the caution of parents, but is much the same practically in all cases; for it has been the business of the Erewhonian lawyers during many ages to exercise their skill in perfecting it and providing for every contingency.
These formulae are printed on common paper at a moderate cost for the poor; but the rich have them written on parchment and handsomely bound, so that the getting up of a person's birth formula is a test of his social position. They commence by setting forth, That whereas A. B. was a member of the kingdom of the unborn, where he was well provided for in every way, and had no cause of discontent, &c., &c., he did of his own wanton depravity and restlessness conceive a desire to enter into this present world; that thereon having taken the necessary steps as set forth in laws of the unborn kingdom, he did with malice aforethought set himself to plague and pester two unfortunate people who had never wronged him, and who were quite contented and happy until he conceived this base design against their peace; for which wrong he now humbly entreats their pardon.
He acknowledges that he is responsible for all physical blemishes and deficiencies which may render him answerable to the laws of his country; that his parents have nothing whatever to do with any of these things; and that they have a right to kill him at once if they be so minded, though he entreats them to show their marvellous goodness and clemency by sparing his life. If they will do this, he promises to be their most obedient and abject creature during his earlier years, and indeed all his life, unless they should see fit in their abundant generosity to remit some portion of his service hereafter. And so the formula continues, going sometimes into very minute details, according to the fancies of family lawyers, who will not make it any shorter than they can help.
The deed being thus prepared, on the third or fourth day after the birth of the child, or as they call it, the "final importunity," the friends gather together, and there is a feast held, where they are all very melancholy—as a general rule, I believe, quite truly so—and make presents to the father and mother of the child in order to console them for the injury which has just been done them by the unborn.
Samuel Butler was satirising infant baptism of course, but it is the sign of good satire that it can have multiple targets ...
(I know the above quotation is long but Erewhon was published in 1872. It is long out of copyright.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure adding in the veil of ignorance necessarily improves the analogy.
I'm not sure that chopping off the second half of the paragraph you are responding to necessarily improves the quality of your response.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
